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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Throughout the specification the applicant uses the word “hosing” to describe a “housing”. It appears that this may be a typographical error that occurred during translation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a driving piece” and “a connecting piece” (corresponds to the structure that moves along the axial direction of the fixed shaft, includes the connecting block) in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “hosing” in the claims is used by the claim to mean “housing,” while the accepted meaning is “an act or instance of being taken advantage of or cheated” (www.dictionary.com). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. It appears that “hosing” may be a typographical error that occurred during translation and that “housing” is meant instead.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the fixing portion" and “the driving end” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Is the “fixing portion” the same structure as “the fixed portion” recited in claim 1 line 4?
Claim limitations “a driving piece” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure does not provide structure that performs the driving or the connecting function in the claim and there is no association between the structure and the function found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yao, CN 113729552.
Regarding claim 1, Yao discloses a roller brush (100) comprising: a roller brush housing provided with a cavity (33, Figure 3) and a through slot communicating with the cavity (25), wherein one end of the roller brush housing is a driving end (leftmost end of 33 as oriented in Figure 3), the driving end is connected to a driving piece (end structure of the leftmost end in Figure 3, not labeled), another end of the roller brush housing is movably connected to a fixed portion (rightmost end of 33, see Figures; fixed portion includes 1), and the fixed portion is provided with a fixed shaft extending towards the cavity (fixed shaft is 1, see Figure 3); and a cutting assembly comprising a connecting piece (23, 24) and a blade provided in the cavity (31), wherein the blade is provided in the through slot and is movably connected to the roller brush housing (see English translation, “each movable cutter 31…is correspondingly clamped in a slot 25”), and the connecting piece is movably connected to the fixed shaft (Figure 11) and is connected to the blade (Figure 10), and the driving end is configured to drive the roller brush housing to rotate to drive the blade and the connecting piece to rotate, so that the connecting piece moves along the fixed shaft to drive the blade to move along an axial direction of the fixed shaft relative to the roller brush housing, so as to cut hair entangled in the roller brush housing (see English translation). Regarding claim 5, a connecting block is provided outside the connecting piece (block includes walls that form 25, Figure 4), the blade is provided with a notch (unlabeled, adjacent 311 best shown in Figure 3), and at least part of the connecting block is limited in the notch to enable the connecting piece to move along the fixed shaft and drive the blade to move along the axial direction of the fixed shaft (part of connecting block that form walls of slot 25, these are limited to the unlabeled notch in the blade, see English translation and particularly Figures 3-4 and 9-10). Regarding claim 6, the connecting piece is provided with a through hole (hole formed by 23 and 24, where 231 and 241 is located, see Figures 3 and 5-6 and English translation), a closed spiral slot is formed around the through hole (231, 241), the fixed shaft is provided with a protruding block (11, 111; Figure 11), the fixed shaft passes through and is provided in the through hole, and the protruding block is limited in the closed spiral slot (see English translation and Figure 4). Regarding claim 7, wherein the connecting piece is provided with a sliding block (walls surrounding 25), the roller brush housing is provided with a sliding slot (unlabeled slot where walls of 25 are located, best shown in Figure 10), the sliding slot is provided in the cavity (Figure 10), and the sliding block is limited in the sliding slot (Figure 10). Regarding claim 8, the fixed portion comprises a fixed block (11, 111; Figure 11) and the fixed shaft, the fixed block is detachably connected to the fixed shaft (Figure 11, capable of being detached), and the roller brush housing is provided with an opening and a bearing cavity communicating with the cavity (Figure 3, bearing cavity at rightmost end that receives the unlabeled bearing that is connected at the rightmost end of 1), a bearing is provided in the bearing cavity (unlabeled, see Figure 3 connected at the rightmost end of 1), the fixed shaft passes through the opening and the bearing and is connected to the connecting piece (Figures 3-4). Regarding claim 9, there is a roller brush and an installation housing (100, 200; Figures 1-2), wherein the installation housing is enclosed to form an installation cavity (space within 100, see Figures 1-2), a driving piece is connected to the installation housing (see English translation, driving piece is external and drives the driving force described in the Abstract; drives transmission piece 2), the anti-tangle roller brush is provided in the installation cavity (Figures 1-2), the fixing/fixed portion (1) is connected to the installation housing (Figures 1-2), and the driving end is connected to an output end of the driving piece (Figures 1-2, see also English translation, particularly the paragraph underneath heading “Embodiment 1”). Regarding claim 10, the roller brush mechanism is part of a sweeping robot (in English translation, see paragraph after “Example 6”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As best understood, none of the prior art made of record discloses, teaches, or suggests the invention of claim 2. In particular, Yao does not disclose that the blade has an arc-shaped slot. Yao teaches a fixed rod provided in the roller brush housing (331, Figure 4), a slot provided at the blade (312, Figures 3-4), and the fixed rod passes through and is provided in the slot (312). The slot is not arc-shaped as required by claim 2 (claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 2). Kelsey, US 2018/0338654, is also being cited as relevant to the applicant’s invention, however also does not disclose a blade with arc-shaped slots as required by the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg