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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on January 22, 2026. Claim(s) 1-3, 16 and 20 have been amended. No additional claims have been added. No claims have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous provisional rejection on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting, has been addressed through terminal disclosure. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-3, 16 and 20 filed on January 22, 2026.
The amendments to the claims have addressed the objections previously submitted, and as such the claim objections set forth in the previous office action pertaining to claims are withdrawn.
The applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are not sufficient to overcome the art of rejection. An updated rejection is set forth within the action, still reliant upon Dooley (US Patent No. 8898844), Romanov et al. (US Patent No. 8961695) and Johannes (US PG Pub No. 20080185062) applied under 35 U.S.C. 103. Please see the action below.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-13, filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered.
Claim objections: The examiner agrees that the amendments addressed the objected to informalities.
Claim Rejections 103: Applicant remarks that Dooley is silent having “at least one drainage aperture positioned on a bottom surface of the reservoir” and contends that at least one of the two parallel slits (1110) disclosed by Dooley fails to meet the requirements of the limitation. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim requires in part “at least one drainage aperture positioned on a bottom surface of the reservoir for draining fluid…” So while there is a wick inserted into the slits of Dooley, it is part of how Dooley transfers fluid from the reservoir to outside of its mopping apparatus. In the inclusion of a wick in that transfer process doesn’t preclude fluid from draining out of Dooley’s apparatus, but rather enables it.
If the slits were not present in Dooley, fluid would not be able to flow out; there would be no exit path. The applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive, and the claims remain obvious in view of Dooley, Romanov, and Johannes.
Double Patenting: The examiner agrees that the double patenting rejection has been resolved through terminal disclaimer.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are 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:
Means for holding in claims 1, 6, 12 and 14.
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.
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 § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley (US Patent No. 8898844) which incorporates by reference Romanov et al. (US Patent No. 8961695), in view of Johannes (US PG Pub No. 20080185062).
In regards to claim 1, Dooley discloses
a removable mop attachment module (mopping assembly 120; col. 3 lines 65-66: mopping assembly 120 is detachably attached to the robot housing), comprising:
a reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9);
an opening (Dooley claim 1; fig. 5 - ann. 1) for filling the reservoir with a fluid (claim 1: a removable cap; skilled artisan would recognize an opening is necessitated to remove cap from and fill reservoir; see fig. 5 – ann. 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
390
1029
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a lid (refill cap 520, fig. 5, 6 9; Dooley claim 1) for sealing the opening; at least one draining aperture (at least one parallel slit 1100 of dispenser 240, fig. 2, 3, 7, 8, 11; col. 2 lines 49-52, col. 3 lines 35-40) positioned on a bottom surface of the reservoir for draining fluid from the at least one drainage aperture;
col. 2 lines 49-52: Fluid is dispensed from the dispenser 240 and air admitted into the reservoir through inlet 250 on the bottom surface 260 of the mopping assembly.
Col. 3 lines 35-40: As shown in the preferred embodiment in FIGS. 11-13, the wick cap includes two parallel slits 1110 through which the wick is folded into a U-shape. The bottom portion of the wick protrudes beyond the bottom face of the reservoir, which causes the cleaning cloth to be pressed against the wick. This pressure enhances contact and fluid flow between the wick and cloth. The cleaning fluid passes through the wick to the center of the cleaning cloth.
a mopping cloth (cleaning cloth 910, fig. 2, 3 and 6-9);
a means for holding the mopping cloth (col. 3 lines 53-58); and
col. 3 lines 53-58: The cleaning cloth 910 is large enough to cover the bottom of the mopping assembly and wrap around at least a portion of the reservoir. In the preferred embodiment, the cloth attaches to Velcro hook and loop fasteners on the top of the reservoir. In other embodiments, the cloth is attached using pins, clips, clasps, straps, or combination thereof.
wherein a robotic cleaning device (mobile robot 100, fig. 1-4; col. 2 lines 33-44) comprises the removable mop attachment module (mopping assembly 120; col. 3 lines 65-66).
However, Dooley fails to explicitly disclose “a pressure actuated valve positioned at least partially inside the” reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9), wherein “the pressure actuated valve is configured to open from a closed position when an air pressure inside the reservoir reaches a predetermined amount of negative air pressure due to the fluid flowing out of the reservoir through at least one drainage aperture; close from an open position when the air pressure inside the reservoir increases to a predetermined amount due to air flowing into the reservoir through the at least one breathing aperture; wherein the opening and closing of the pressure actuated valve at least partially control the flow of the fluid out of the reservoir through the at least one drainage aperture.”
Dooley is concerned and aware of necessity to maintain proper balance of pressure inside and outside of the tank in order to ensure proper mop saturation:
Col. 3 lines 3-21: A vent hole or inlet 250 may also be incorporated into the chamber to admit air into the chamber as fluid is dispensed. Air must be admitted into the reservoir to prevent a vacuum which would effectively stop the flow of fluid out of the reservoir… The location of the inlet serves, in part, as a self-regulating mechanism that helps control the rate of fluid dispensed. When the cleaning cloth is dry, air readily passes through the cleaning cloth 910 and into the reservoir which allows fluid to flow out of the reservoir at a relatively high rate…
However, Dooley fails to disclose particularly a pressure actuated valve as the means for controlling the pressure and effectively the fluid flow.
Johannes, which is concerned with the same problem of maintaining fluid flow through openings to maintain a certain pressure discloses a “fluid control value, such as an umbrella valve (40), to be inserted in a valve housing (140), said valve comprising a sealing element (44) having a sealing surface and projecting in a radial direction for sealing one or more fluid openings (145) in said valve housing, which sealing element is responsive to fluid pressure to open and close to control the fluid flow through the fluid openings (abstract).”
PNG
media_image2.png
375
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0002] A known example of a fluid control valve is an umbrella valve or an inverted umbrella valve. An (inverted) umbrella valve typically has an integral stem by which it is normally attached in a preloaded position of closure. A sealing element is attached to the stem and is deflectable in response to differential pressure to assume an open position permitting forward flow there past, once the differential pressure reaches a certain opening pressure. When the differential pressure acting in this direction is relieved or when the differential pressure acts in the opposite direction such as on the occurrence of a backward flow, the elastomeric (inverted) umbrella valve because of its preload assumes its normally closed position and so prevents further forward flow as well as flow in the reverse or backward direction with the preload then assisted by the back pressure.
Dooley is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of endeavor, disclosing a mopping and vacuuming robot with a removable mopping module.
Johannes is analogous to the claimed invention as it is concerned with same problem of maintaining proper fluid flow using a pressure activated valve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dooley with Johannes, and provide the umbrella valve (20) and fluid openings (125, analogous to the air inlet of Dooley) of Johannes that has its stem positioned in the housing (120), in the housing of the reservoir of Dooley in order to control the differential pressure between the inside and outside of the reservoir in order as a simple substitution for the air inlet of Dooley, yielding the predictable result of controlling fluid flow between the interior and exterior of the tank, allowing for proper saturation of the mopping cloth.
In regards to claim 2, Dooley as modified discloses
the removable mop attachment module of claim 1, wherein: and the mopping cloth (cleaning cloth 910, fig. 2, 3 and 6-9) is positioned on at least a portion of a bottom surface of the robotic cleaning device (see fig. 1-4).
In regards to claim 3, Dooley as modified discloses
the removable mop attachment module of claim 1, wherein: the pressure actuated valve covers the at least one breathing aperture (see Johannes figures 2A and 2B).
In regards to claim 4, Dooley as modified discloses
the removable mop attachment module of claim 3, wherein: the opening (Dooley claim 1; fig. 5 - ann. 1) for filling the reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9) with the fluid is positioned on a top surface of the reservoir (see fig. 5 – ann. 1); and the at least one breathing aperture (fluid openings 12 as taught by Johannes) and the pressure actuated valve (valve 25 as taught by Johannes) are positioned on a surface (where air inlet 250 of Dooley was) of the reservoir different than the top surface on which the opening (claim 1) is positioned.
In regards to claim 5, Dooley as modified discloses
the removable mop attachment module of claim 1, further comprising a flow reduction valve (see fig. 9 – ann. 1) positioned on the at least one drainage aperture (at least one parallel slit 1100 of dispenser 240, fig. 2, 3, 7, 8, 11; col. 2 lines 49-52, col. 3 lines 35-40).
PNG
media_image3.png
476
827
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Note:
Per applicant’s specification and figure 7 provided, the “valve” shown is understood as an opening at the base of the reservoir. Since a valve can simply something that “controls fluid flow”, a skilled artisan would recognize the opening in Dooley as meeting the structural requires of the claims in light of the applicant’s specification.
In regards to claim 6, Dooley as modified discloses
the removable mop attachment module of claim 1, wherein the means for holding the mopping cloth (col. 3 lines 53-58) to the at least the portion of the bottom surface of the removable mop attachment module comprises hooks and loops (col. 3 lines 53-58).
col. 3 lines 53-58: The cleaning cloth 910 is large enough to cover the bottom of the mopping assembly and wrap around at least a portion of the reservoir. In the preferred embodiment, the cloth attaches to Velcro hook and loop fasteners on the top of the reservoir. In other embodiments, the cloth is attached using pins, clips, clasps, straps, or combination thereof.
In regards to claim 7, Dooley as modified
the removable mop attachment module of claim 1, wherein the pressure actuated valve further comprises: a valve body (stem 23 of umbrella valve 20 taught by Johannes; see fig. 2a-2b) positioned at least partially external to the reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9); and
a valve member (see at elements 26, 25, and 28 of umbrella valve taught by Johannes; fig. 2a-2b) connected to the valve body having at least a flexible element ( elements 26 and 25; [0052] Preferably the fluid control valve according to the invention is made of a suitable elastomeric material, such as thermoset or thermoplastic rubber; thereby, the entire valve is flexible) disposed inside the reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9) moveable relative to the valve body that forms a seal on at least one breathing aperture when in a closed position; wherein:
[0002] A known example of a fluid control valve is an umbrella valve or an inverted umbrella valve. An (inverted) umbrella valve typically has an integral stem by which it is normally attached in a preloaded position of closure. A sealing element is attached to the stem and is deflectable in response to differential pressure to assume an open position permitting forward flow there past, once the differential pressure reaches a certain opening pressure.
a pressure difference between a first side and a second side of the valve member moves the flexible element from the closed position to an open position; and the flexible element returns to the closed position when the pressure has equalized (Johannes [0002]).
In regards to claim 8, Dooley as modified discloses
the removable mop attachment module of claim 7, wherein the flexible element is made from any of: silicon, rubber, or plastic ([0052] Preferably the fluid control valve according to the invention is made of a suitable elastomeric material, such as thermoset or thermoplastic rubber).
In regards to claim 9, Dooley as modified discloses
the removable mop attachment module of claim 1, wherein the removable mop attachment module (mopping assembly 120; col. 3 lines 65-66) is removable as a unit from a body of a robotic cleaning device (mobile robot 100, fig. 1-4; col. 2 lines 33-44) .
In regards to claim 10, Dooley as modified
the removable mop attachment module of claim 9, wherein the removable mop attachment module (mopping assembly 120; col. 3 lines 65-66) is adapted (see fig. 4 – ann. 1) to slide into one or more slots on a rear portion of the body of the robotic cleaning device (mobile robot 100, fig. 1-4; col. 2 lines 33-44) .
PNG
media_image4.png
412
974
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 11, Dooley as modified
the removable mop attachment module of claim 1, wherein: the removable mop attachment module (mopping assembly 120; col. 3 lines 65-66) is attachable to a robotic cleaning device (mobile robot 100, fig. 1-4; col. 2 lines 33-44) ; and the robotic cleaning device is configured to mop and vacuum (Romanov col. 30 lines 61-67 incorporated by reference).
Romanov Col. 30 lines 61-67 :a cleaning module that may include a powered mechanical cleaning device, such as a motorized brush, duster, buffer, vacuum, fluid or steam cleaning apparatus, motorized pad, cloth or sponge, and/or other powered device, either by itself or in combination with another powered device, stationary cleaning material, and/or waste collection bin for gather material from the floor).
In regards to claim 12, Dooley discloses
a robotic cleaning device (mobile robot 100, fig. 1-4; col. 2 lines 33-44; US patent No. 8961695 comprises the exemplary mobile robot is taught in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/930,260 filed Dec. 30, 2010… are hereby incorporated by reference herein) comprising:
a chassis (Romanov robot drive body 12, fig. 1-5) including a set of wheels (wheels 15, fig. 1-5);
a motor (motor; Romanov col. 12 lines 19-25) to drive the wheels (wheels 15, fig. 1-5);
a processor for controlling the motor and cleaning operations of the robot (col. 29 lines 65-67: A main control board with microprocessor, memory and I/O into all of the electrical components for controlling the robotics functions and behaviors); and
a removable mop attachment module (mopping assembly 120; col. 3 lines 65-66), comprising:
a reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9); an opening (Dooley claim 1; fig. 5 - ann. 1) disposed on a top surface of the reservoir for filling the reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9) with a fluid;
a lid (refill cap 520, fig. 5, 6 9; Dooley claim 1) for sealing the opening;
at least one drainage aperture (at least one parallel slit 1100 of dispenser 240, fig. 2, 3, 7, 8, 11; col. 2 lines 49-52, col. 3 lines 35-40) positioned on a bottom surface of the reservoir;
a mopping cloth (cleaning cloth 910, fig. 2, 3 and 6-9) positioned on at least a portion of a bottom surface of the robotic cleaning device (mobile robot 100, fig. 1-4; col. 2 lines 33-44) and dampened with fluid drained from the at least one drainage aperture during mopping;
a means for holding the mopping cloth (col. 3 lines 53-58) to the at least the portion of the bottom surface of the robotic cleaning device (mobile robot 100, fig. 1-4; col. 2 lines 33-44) ;
at least one breathing aperture (air inlet 250), and
the removable mop attachment module (mopping assembly 120; col. 3 lines 65-66) is removable from a body of the robotic cleaning device (mobile robot 100, fig. 1-4; col. 2 lines 33-44) ; and the robotic cleaning device is configured to at least one of: vacuum and mop vacuum (Romanov col. 30 lines 61-67 incorporated by reference).
Dooley fails to disclose “a pressure actuated valve positioned at least partially inside” the reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9), wherein “the pressure actuated valve opens from a closed position when an air pressure inside” the reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9) reaches a predetermined amount of negative air pressure, and the pressure actuated valve closes from an open position when the air pressure inside the reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9) increases to a predetermined amount; the opening and closing of the pressure actuated valve at least partially control the flow of the fluid out of the reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9) through the at least one drainage aperture (at least one parallel slit 1100 of dispenser 240, fig. 2, 3, 7, 8, 11; col. 2 lines 49-52, col. 3 lines 35-40).
Dooley is concerned and aware of necessity to maintain proper balance of pressure inside and outside of the tank in order to ensure proper mop saturation:
Col. 3 lines 3-21: A vent hole or inlet 250 may also be incorporated into the chamber to admit air into the chamber as fluid is dispensed. Air must be admitted into the reservoir to prevent a vacuum which would effectively stop the flow of fluid out of the reservoir...The location of the inlet serves, in part, as a self-regulating mechanism that helps control the rate of fluid dispensed. When the cleaning cloth is dry, air readily passes through the cleaning cloth 910 and into the reservoir which allows fluid to flow out of the reservoir at a relatively high rate…
However, Dooley fails to disclose particularly a pressure actuated valve as the means for controlling the pressure and effectively the fluid flow.
Johannes, which is concerned with the same problem of maintaining fluid flow through openings to maintain a certain pressure discloses a “fluid control value, such as an umbrella valve (40), to be inserted in a valve housing (140), said valve comprising a sealing element (44) having a sealing surface and projecting in a radial direction for sealing one or more fluid openings (145) in said valve housing, which sealing element is responsive to fluid pressure to open and close to control the fluid flow through the fluid openings (abstract, [0002], see rejection of claim 1).”
Dooley is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of endeavor, disclosing a mopping and vacuuming robot with a removable mopping module.
Johannes is analogous to the claimed invention as it is concerned with same problem of maintaining proper fluid flow using a pressure activated valve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dooley with Johannes, and provide the umbrella valve (20) and fluid openings (125, analogous to the air inlet of Dooley) of Johannes that has its stem positioned in the housing (120), in the housing of the reservoir of Dooley in order to control the differential pressure between the inside and outside of the reservoir in order as a simple substitution for the air inlet of Dooley, yielding the predictable result of controlling fluid flow between the interior and exterior of the tank, allowing for proper saturation of the mopping cloth.
In regards to claim 13, Dooley as modified discloses
the robotic cleaning device of claim 12, further comprising a flow reduction valve (see fig. 9 – ann. 1) positioned on the at least one drainage aperture (at least one parallel slit 1100 of dispenser 240, fig. 2, 3, 7, 8, 11; col. 2 lines 49-52, col. 3 lines 35-40).
In regards to claim 14, Dooley as modified discloses
the robotic cleaning device of claim 12, wherein the pressure actuated valve further comprises: a valve body (stem 23 of umbrella valve 20 taught by Johannes; see fig. 2a-2b) adapted for mounting on the top surface and positioned at least partially external to the reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9); and
a valve member (see at elements 26, 25, and 28 of umbrella valve taught by Johannes; fig. 2a-2b) connected to the valve body having at least a flexible element (at least elements 25 and 26; [0052] Preferably the fluid control valve according to the invention is made of a suitable elastomeric material, such as thermoset or thermoplastic rubber; thereby, the entire valve is flexible) disposed inside the reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9) moveable relative to the valve body that forms a seal on at least one breathing aperture when in a closed position; wherein:
a pressure difference between a first side and a second side of the valve member moves the flexible element from the closed position to an open position; and the flexible element returns to the closed position when the pressure has equalized (Johannes [0002]).
Examiner’s Note:
The limitation “adapted for mounting on the top surface” does not positively recite that the valve is mounted at the location. “Adapted” simply requires that the structure be capable of doing so
In regards to claim 15, Dooley as modified discloses
the robotic cleaning device of claim 12, wherein the removable mop attachment module (mopping assembly 120; col. 3 lines 65-66) is adapted to slide into one or more slots on a rear portion of the body of the robotic cleaning device (see fig. 4 – ann. 1).
In regards to claim 16, Dooley discloses
a method for controlling a fluid flow of fluid from a reservoir of a mop module (mopping assembly 120), wherein: the reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9) comprises an opening (Dooley claim 1; fig. 5 - ann. 1) disposed on the reservoir for filling the reservoir with the fluid;
the reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9) further comprises a lid (refill cap 520, fig. 5, 6 9; Dooley claim 1) for sealing the opening;
draining fluid through the at least one drainage aperture (at least one parallel slit 1100 of dispenser 240, fig. 2, 3, 7, 8, 11; col. 2 lines 49-52, col. 3 lines 35-40), wherein: the mop module is attachable to a robotic cleaning device (mobile robot 100, fig. 1-4; col. 2 lines 33-44) ;
and the robotic cleaning device (mobile robot 100, fig. 1-4; col. 2 lines 33-44) is configured to mop and vacuum (Romanov col. 30 lines 61-67 incorporated by reference) as the robotic cleaning device traverses a floor surface.
However the method fails to disclose “autonomously and iteratively opening a pressure actuated valve to an open position from a closed position in response to a first change in air pressure within” the reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9) caused by at least a portion of the fluid flowing out of at least one drainage aperture (at least one parallel slit 1100 of dispenser 240, fig. 2, 3, 7, 8, 11; col. 2 lines 49-52, col. 3 lines 35-40) positioned on a bottom surface of the reservoir; “autonomously and iteratively closing the pressure actuated valve to the closed position from the open position” in response to a second change in air pressure within the reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9) caused by air flowing into the reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9) through at least one air aperture… and the pressure actuated valve is positioned at least partially inside the reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9).”
Dooley is concerned and aware of necessity to maintain proper balance of pressure inside and outside of the tank in order to ensure proper mop saturation:
Col. 3 lines 3-21: A vent hole or inlet 250 may also be incorporated into the chamber to admit air into the chamber as fluid is dispensed. Air must be admitted into the reservoir to prevent a vacuum which would effectively stop the flow of fluid out of the reservoir... The location of the inlet serves, in part, as a self-regulating mechanism that helps control the rate of fluid dispensed. When the cleaning cloth is dry, air readily passes through the cleaning cloth 910 and into the reservoir which allows fluid to flow out of the reservoir at a relatively high rate…
However, Dooley fails to disclose particularly a pressure actuated valve as the means for controlling the pressure and effectively the fluid flow.
Johannes, which is concerned with the same problem of maintaining fluid flow through openings to maintain a certain pressure discloses a “fluid control value, such as an umbrella valve (40), to be inserted in a valve housing (140), said valve comprising a sealing element (44) having a sealing surface and projecting in a radial direction for sealing one or more fluid openings (145) in said valve housing, which sealing element is responsive to fluid pressure to open and close to control the fluid flow through the fluid openings (abstract, [0002], see rejection of claim 1).”
Dooley is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of endeavor, disclosing a mopping and vacuuming robot with a removable mopping module.
Johannes is analogous to the claimed invention as it is concerned with same problem of maintaining proper fluid flow using a pressure activated valve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dooley with Johannes, and provide the umbrella valve (20) and fluid openings (125, analogous to the air inlet of Dooley) of Johannes that has its stem positioned in the housing (120), in the housing of the reservoir of Dooley in order to control the differential pressure between the inside and outside of the reservoir in order as a simple substitution for the air inlet of Dooley, yielding the predictable result of controlling fluid flow between the interior and exterior of the tank, allowing for proper saturation of the mopping cloth.
Pursuant MPEP 2112.02-I, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art device. The examiner finds that Dooley in view of Johannes discloses a prior art device (floor robot with removable mop module with flow valve for pressure regulation) that during its normal and usual operation would necessarily perform the method balancing and rebalancing the pressure in the tank to allow for proper saturation of the mop attached to the floor robot.
In regards to claim 17, Dooley as modified discloses
the method of claim 16, wherein: a flow reduction valve (see fig. 9 – ann. 1) is positioned on the at least one drainage aperture;
the fluid flow of fluid through the at least one flow reduction valve and the at least one drainage aperture (at least one parallel slit 1100 of dispenser 240, fig. 2, 3, 7, 8, 11; col. 2 lines 49-52, col. 3 lines 35-40) is at least partially controlled by the opening and the closing of the pressure actuated valve (Dooley in view of Johannes [0002]);
the flow reduction valve comprises a fluid passage (channel between valve and aperture, see fig. 9 – ann. 1) through which the fluid flows prior to reaching the at least one drainage aperture (at least one parallel slit 1100 of dispenser 240, fig. 2, 3, 7, 8, 11; col. 2 lines 49-52, col. 3 lines 35-40);
a mopping cloth (cleaning cloth 910, fig. 2, 3 and 6-9) is attached to at least a portion of a bottom surface of the mop module to receive the fluid drained from the at least one drainage aperture (at least one parallel slit 1100 of dispenser 240, fig. 2, 3, 7, 8, 11; col. 2 lines 49-52, col. 3 lines 35-40);
and the mop module comprises a means for holding the mopping cloth (col. 3 lines 53-58) to the at least the portion of the bottom surface of the mop module.
In regards to claim 18, Dooley as modified discloses
the method of claim 16, wherein the pressure actuated valve further comprises:
a valve body (stem 23 of umbrella valve 20 taught by Johannes; see fig. 2a-2b) adapted for mounting on the top surface and positioned at least partially external to the reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9); and
a valve member (see at elements 26, 25, and 28 of umbrella valve taught by Johannes; fig. 2a-2b) connected to the valve body having at least a flexible element (at least elements 25 and 26; [0052] Preferably the fluid control valve according to the invention is made of a suitable elastomeric material, such as thermoset or thermoplastic rubber; thereby, the entire valve is flexible) disposed inside the reservoir (reservoir 510, fig. 5, 6, 9) moveable relative to the valve body that forms a seal on at least one air aperture when in a closed position; wherein:
a pressure difference between a first side and a second side of the valve member moves the flexible element from the closed position to an open position; and the flexible element returns to the closed position when the pressure has equalized (Johannes [0002]).
Examiner’s Note:
The limitation “adapted for mounting on the top surface” does not positively recite that the valve is mounted at the location. “Adapted” simply requires that the structure be capable of doing so
In regards to claim 19, Dooley as modified discloses
the method of claim 16, wherein the mop module (mopping assembly 120) comprising the reservoir, the pressure actuated valve, and the at least one drainage aperture (at least one parallel slit 1100 of dispenser 240, fig. 2, 3, 7, 8, 11; col. 2 lines 49-52, col. 3 lines 35-40) is removable as a unit from a body of a robotic cleaning device (mobile robot 100, fig. 1-4; col. 2 lines 33-44) .
In regards to claim 20, Dooley as modified discloses
the method of claim 16, further comprising: installing the mop module on the body of the robotic cleaning device (mobile robot 100, fig. 1-4; col. 2 lines 33-44) by sliding (see fig. 4 – ann. 1) the mop module (mopping assembly 120) into one or more slots on a rear portion of the body of the robotic cleaning device (mobile robot 100, fig. 1-4; col. 2 lines 33-44) .
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 JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723