DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, corresponding to claims 1-14 in the reply filed on February 4th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
Applicant argues that:
Method Claims 15 and 18 expressly depend from Apparatus Claim 13 and recite operational steps that are the direct functional implementation of the claimed structural elements (e.g., the docking unit, detection unit, and controller). Thus, the method claims merely define the intended use of the claimed apparatus.
Further, the claimed methods cannot be practiced without the specific modular docking structure defined in the apparatus claims, and the apparatus is specifically designed to perform the claimed operational logic. Accordingly, the two groups represent a single inventive concept rather than independent or distinct inventions.
Still further, the Examiner's references to unrelated uses such as vacuuming or painting do not establish distinctness. The claimed methods are not general robot movement processes but are narrowly directed to module replacement logic based on filter flow rate and disinfectant level detection, which is inherently tied to the claimed hardware configuration.
Finally, the Applicant notes that a search of the apparatus claims necessarily encompasses the same structural and functional features recited in the method claims. Therefore, no serious burden exists that would justify restriction.
The Examiner would respectfully respond that:
Method claims 15 & 18 are independent. Referencing back to claim 13 in said method claims 15 & 18 is merely a short hand way of writing independent method claims without having to physically recite all the limitations of apparatus claim 13 (and the limitations from which claim 13 depend). Further, as the Applicant is aware, apparatus claims and method claims are examined in a completely different manner; wherein The Manual of Patent Examining Procedures specifically states that, "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114 II). Applicant plainly stated that the method claims merely define the intended use of the apparatus claim. However, as noted above, that is not what imparts patentability on apparatus claims. As such, prior art that comprises all the necessary structural components of the apparatus claim will meet said claim while simultaneously NOT meeting the limitations of the method claims. Still further, as noted in the restriction requirement, the apparatus claims are separately classified in entirely different CPC Sections than the method claims (B25J 5/007 versus A61L 9/14); and as plainly stated in said restriction requirement, the inventions are distinct if the apparatus as claimed can be used in another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(e)), wherein the apparatus could be easily utilized in a method of vacuuming a floor, or spraying a paint or coating onto desired surfaces.
Because of all of this, said apparatus and method claims are distinctly different, wherein a prior art apparatus meeting the claimed apparatus may not meet the method claims; and a serious search burden would exist if the restriction were not required. However, and most importantly, the method claims will be rejoined with the apparatus claims if the apparatus claims are found allowable provided that said method claims incorporate the limitations of the allowable apparatus claims, which is the case as currently constituted.
Nonetheless, the requirement is still deemed proper and is made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0050937).
Song discloses an air cleaning and disinfection robot (Figure 1) comprising:
A driving unit (40) configured to move autonomously in a target space (paragraphs 34-37, 46 and 47);
A plurality of air conditioning modules (11-14) configured to manage air quality in the target space (paragraphs 14, 41 & 54; as a vacuum cleaning module and/or a sterilizing module is capable of conditioning air as well as a surface) and detachably provided on the driving unit (paragraphs 54 & 59-62);
A station (20) on which the plurality of air conditioning modules (11-14) are mounted (Figure 1);
A docking unit (43/57) configured to couple and separate the driving unit (40) and each of the air conditioning modules (11-14) to and from each other (paragraph 35); and
A detection unit (49/50) configured to detect an operation environment of the target space (paragraphs 42, 46, 51-53, 57 and 58), as the detection unit detects the control modules (11-14) which are in the environment and perform operations therein;
Wherein the driving unit selectively couples to and moves with any one of the plurality of air conditioning modules based on information obtained by the detection unit (paragraphs 54 & 59-66).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0050937) in view of Giarritta (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0142422).
Song is relied upon as set forth above. Song does not appear to disclose that the station includes the main frame, mounting spaces, mounting frame, and detachable spaces as set forth in claim 2. Giarritta discloses a cleaning and disinfection robot that includes a driving unit (2), cleaning modules (14/16/17) and a station on which the modules are mounted (Figure 3); wherein the driving unit selectively couples to and moves with said cleaning modules (paragraphs 65-87; Figures 1-15, 28 & 29). The reference continues to disclose that the station includes a main frame (5) forming a body (Figures 1-3), a plurality of mounting spaces (space holding cleaning modules 14/16/17; Figures 3 & 28) formed inside the main frame (5) to receive the plurality of air conditioning modules (Figure 3), a mounting frame (i.e., shelving) configured to support each of the air conditioning modules in each of the mounting spaces (Figure 3), and a plurality of detachable spaces (i.e., open backing of shelving holding cleaning modules and lower space portal [9] as well as space for head changing unit [15]) each formed at lower sides of the plurality of mounting spaces to allow the driving unit to enter as shown in Figures 1-5, 28 and 29 (paragraphs 11-48). Such a configuration allows said modules to be stored in a vertical orientation that decreases needed floor space while continuing to allow for the cleaning modules to be interchanged onto the driving unit (paragraphs 11-47; Figures 1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the station configuration of Giarritta in the robot of Song in order to allow said modules to be stored in a vertical orientation that decreases needed floor space while continuing to allow for said cleaning modules to be interchanged onto the driving unit as exemplified by Giarritta.
Thus, claim 2 is not patentable over Song in view of Giarritta.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN JOYNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799