DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 21 April 2026.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
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 .
Response to Remarks
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive for the following reasons. The Applicant’s remarks pertaining to the fluid path sequence are not found persuasive since they remarks are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language (i.e. the arrangement of components pertaining to the fluid path sequence is not claimed). It is further noted that the Applicant admits the spatial arrangement of Liu discloses the filtering structure is provided between the impeller and the water outlet. The arguments pertaining to Hayes are not found persuasive since the Office did not rely on the Hayes reference for the aforementioned claim limitation(s).
The original rejection is included in this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
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.
Claims 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US 20240141667), hereafter referred to as Liu, in view of Hayes et al (US 10364905).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu discloses the following:
An electric robot (100), comprising:
a housing (110);
an impeller (107);
a suction motor (see [0052]); and
a filtering structure (104);
wherein the housing (110) is provided with a water inlet (108) and a water outlet (151);
the impeller (107) is provided in the housing (110); and the impeller (107) is provided between the water inlet (108) and the water outlet (151);
the suction motor (see [0052]) is provided in the housing (110); the suction motor (see [0052]) comprises a motor main body and a motor shaft provided on the motor main body;
the impeller is connected to the motor shaft (see [0052]);
the suction motor (see [0052]) is configured to drive the impeller (107) to rotate around an axis of the motor shaft through the motor shaft to generate suction; and a rotational speed of the motor shaft of the suction motor (see [0052]) is adjustable (see [0062]); and
the filtering structure (104) is provided in the housing (110); and the filtering structure (104) is provided between the impeller (107) and the water outlet (151).
Liu does not explicitly disclose the following:
the impeller is sleevedly provided on the motor shaft;
However Hayes teaches the following:
the impeller (156) is sleevedly provided on the motor shaft (as shown in FIG. 11)(It is noted, while the verbiage in Col. 39, lines 50-67 label the shaft as an impeller shaft, FIG. 11 shows the impeller is sleevedly on the shaft which passes through the grommet into the motor chamber 152, thus the disclosed shaft is interpreted to be a motor shaft.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the generic motor and impeller connection disclosed by Liu, with the detailed motor to impeller connection disclosed by Hayes, with the reasonable expectation of providing a sealed connection, via the grommet and O-ring, between the impeller and the motor, and thereby creating a fluid-tight seal therebetween (see for example Col. 39, lines 50-67 and Col. 43, lines 20-26).
Regarding Claim 2, Liu as modified by Hayes discloses the following:
The electric robot (100) of claim 1, further comprising:
an accommodating box (152; FIG. 11 of Hayes in combination with the impeller cavity of Liu);
wherein the accommodating box (152; FIG. 11 of Hayes in combination with the impeller cavity of Liu) is provided in the housing (110); the accommodating box (152; FIG. 11 of Hayes in combination with the impeller cavity of Liu) comprises a motor cavity (space within 152 of Hayes) and an impeller cavity (space surrounding impeller between the filters; FIG. 2) spaced from each other; the motor main body is provided in the motor cavity (space within 152 of Hayes); the impeller (107) is provided in the impeller cavity (space surrounding impeller between the filters; FIG. 2); the motor shaft (as shown in FIG. 11) is configured to partially extend into the impeller cavity (space surrounding impeller between the filters; FIG. 2) to be connected to the impeller (156 of Hayes); and a first end of the impeller cavity (space surrounding impeller between the filters; FIG. 2) is connected to the water inlet (108), and a second end of the impeller cavity (space surrounding impeller between the filters; FIG. 2) is connected to the filtering structure (104).
Regarding Claim 3, Liu as modified by Hayes discloses the following:
The electric robot (100) of claim 2,
Hayes continues to teach the following:
wherein an outer periphery of the motor shaft (seen in FIG. 11) is sleevedly provided with a sealing member (grommet 158 in combination with 0-ring 274; FIG. 11); and the sealing member is provided between the motor cavity (space within 152 of Hayes) and the impeller cavity (space surrounding impeller between the filters; FIG. 2 of Liu) to realize sealing between the motor cavity (space within 152 of Hayes) and the impeller cavity (space surrounding impeller between the filters; FIG. 2 of Liu).
Regarding Claim 4, Liu as modified by Hayes discloses the following:
The electric robot (100) of claim 2,
Liu continues to teach the following:
wherein the filtering structure (104) comprises a frame (as seen in FIG. 2) and a filter screen (it is noted, if the filter boxes did not have filter screens they would not function as filtering the water, see [0053]) disposed at an outer periphery of the frame; and
the frame and the filter screen are correspondingly provided with a flow port (filter chamber, see [0053]); and the impeller cavity (space surrounding impeller between the filters called mounting chamber, see [0053]; FIG. 2) is connected to an interior of the frame through the flow port.
Regarding Claim 5, Liu as modified by Hayes discloses the following:
The electric robot (100) of claim 1,
Hayes continues to teach the following:
wherein the suction motor (not shown in the figures, see Col. 39, lines 55-60) is provided between the water inlet (108) and the impeller (107).
Regarding Claim 6, Liu as modified by Hayes discloses the following:
The electric robot (100) of claim 1, further comprising:
Liu continues to teach the following:
a first travelling motor (see [0043 and 47]);
a first track wheel (FIG. 2);
a second track wheel (FIG. 2);
wherein the first travelling motor is in transmission connection with the first track wheel; and the first track wheel is in transmission connection with the second track wheel (see [0047]); and
the first travelling motor is provided in the housing (110); the first track wheel; the first travelling motor is configured to drive the first track wheel to rotate (see [0047]); and
the first travelling motor is configured to perform forward and reverse rotation (see [0045]).
Liu does not teach the following:
the disclosed embodiment of Liu does not teach the second travelling motor is configured to drive the second track wheel to rotate; and the second travelling motor is configured to perform forward and reverse rotation.
However Liu also teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to provide a robot with independently controlled tracks comprising:
a first travelling motor (see [0043]);
a first track wheel (see [0043]);
a second travelling motor (see [0043]); and
a second track wheel (see [0043]);
the first travelling motor and the second travelling motor are provided in the housing (see [0043]); the first track wheel and the second track wheel are provided on opposite sides of the housing (see [0043]), respectively; the first travelling motor is configured to drive the first track wheel to rotate; the second travelling motor is configured to drive the second track wheel to rotate; and each of the first travelling motor and the second travelling motor is configured to perform forward and reverse rotation (see [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the single motor arrangement as disclosed by paragraph [0047] of Liu, to form a double motor arrangement disclosed by paragraph [0043] of Liu, with the reasonable expectation of independently moving and controlling the tracks (see [0043] of Liu). It is noted, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this instance duplicating the motor to control the second track and roller produces the expected result of individual control, disclosed in [0043] of Liu. The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the single motor arrangement of Liu with the double motor arrangement of Liu yields the predictable result of controllably moving the robot (i.e. substituting one known means to move the robot tracks and brushes for another known means to move the robot tracks and brushes). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 7, Liu as modified by Hayes discloses the following:
The electric robot (100) of claim 6, further comprising:
Liu continues to teach the following:
a first roller brush (121); and
a second roller brush (121);
wherein the first roller brush (121) and the second roller brush (121) are provided at a front end of the housing (110); the first roller brush (121) is in transmission connection with the first travelling motor (see [0047]); the second roller brush (121) is in transmission connection with the second travelling motor; and the first roller brush (121) and the second roller brush (121) are configured to frictionally rotate relative to a to-be-cleaned surface to clean the to-be-cleaned surface (It is noted, the modification in claim 6 above results in the above limitations.)
Regarding Claim 8, Liu as modified by Hayes discloses the following:
The electric robot (100) of claim 6, further comprising:
Liu continues to teach the following:
a printed circuit board (PCB) control board (1000; for example see [0087-94]);
wherein the PCB control board is in transmission connection to the suction motor (not shown in the figures, see Col. 39, lines 55-60), the first travelling motor and the second travelling motor; the PCB control board is configured to control the suction motor (not shown in the figures, see Col. 39, lines 55-60), the first travelling motor and the second travelling motor to start and stop; the PCB control board is further configured to adjust the rotational speed of the motor shaft; and the PCB control board is also configured for performing switch between forward and reverse rotation of the first travelling motor and the second travelling motor (see [0043], [0057-71] and [0087-94]).
Regarding Claim 9, Liu as modified by Hayes discloses the following:
The electric robot (100) of claim 8, further comprising:
Liu continues to teach the following:
a sensor (gyroscope, see [0077]);
wherein the sensor is provided at an outer sidewall of the housing (110); the sensor is in transmission connection to the PCB control board; the sensor is configured to detect an angle change of the electric robot (100); the sensor is further configured for, upon detecting that an angle between the electric robot (100) and ground is greater than 30 degrees (it is noted, when the robot is cleaning pool walls the suction forces are used to maintain the robot on the wall and to change directions, and while the angle of the pool wall is not mentioned, the figures show a wall that appears to be 90 degrees, or at least an angle that is much greater than 30 degrees), sending a first signal to the PCB control board to increase the rotational speed of the motor shaft (see [0062, 75-77]); and
the sensor is further configured to determine whether the electric robot (100) touches an obstacle or a wall of a pool (see the last sentence of [0077]); and the sensor is configured to, upon detecting that the electric robot (100) touches the obstacle or the wall of the pool, send a second signal to the PCB control board to switch a rotation direction of the first travelling motor and the second travelling motor (see the last sentence of [0077]).
Regarding Claim 10, Liu as modified by Hayes discloses the following:
The electric robot (100) of claim 9,
Liu continues to teach the following:
wherein the sensor is a gyroscope (see [0077]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights