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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “cleaning solution pump and a pump liquid pipe, the pump liquid pipe being connected to a cleaning trough on the pedestal or the clean water tank” from claim 5, the mechanism for carrying out the claimed function of “the wastewater flowing out of the leak hole is collected by a wastewater recovery device on the pedestal” in claim 7, the “air duct connected to an outlet of the drying module” in claim 12, “each of the multiple functional components includes the second connection structure at a bottom surface and the first connection structure at a top surface of the function component” in claim 15 (the illustrations only show a first connection structure at the top module 5, not of modules 4 and 5 as required by the claim), and the “sterilization module” in claims 17 and 18.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are additionally objected to because the reference number 12, described by the specification as a top cover appearing in figs 2, 9, and 10, also appears in fig. 6, with each instance of fig. 12 appearing to be associated with a different structural element.
Finally, the drawings are objected to because they contain at least one photograph. “Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention.” 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1). For black and white photographs to be permitted, the photographs or photomicrographs must show the invention more clearly than ink drawings and otherwise comply with the rules concerning such drawings. MPEP 608.02(VII).
In the present application, figure 8 appears to be a photographic representation of a 3d model of the structure of the invention. The photograph does not appear to show the invention more clearly than an equivalent ink drawing and does not appear to be the only practicable medium for illustrating the invention. Because the requirements for permitting a photograph in the application have not been met, the drawings are objected to.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation of “function component” in claim 15 appears to be a typographical error. Consider ––functional component––. 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: “storage module” in claims 3 and 19; “wastewater recovery device” in claim 7; “dust collection docking device” in claim 8; “docking device” and “water supply docking device” in claim 10; “charging docking device” in claim 11; “first connection structure” and “second connection structure” in claims 14 and 15; and “wastewater collection module”, “water supply module”, “water storage module”, “water sterilization module”, “dust collection module”, and “drying module” in claim 17..
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 7 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim limitations “wastewater recovery device” in claim 7 and “water sterilization module” in claim 17 invoke 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 functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. Regarding the “wastewater recovery device” in claim 7 that collects wastewater flowing out of the leak hole, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Regarding the “water sterilization module” in claim 17, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. The sole references to sterilization describe the module in functional terms. Because there is no disclosure of the actual structure, it is both unclear what the scope of the claimed invention is and whether applicant had actual possession of the invention as claimed.
For these reasons, claims 7 and 17 (and claims 18-20 depending therefrom) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for failing to comply with the written description requirement and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Furthermore, the limitation of “water storage module” from claim 17 appears to lack any antecedent basis in the disclosure. Because the disclosure does disclose a generic storage module, one of ordinary skill would be unclear as to whether the claimed “water storage module” was a typographical error and should refer simply to the disclosed storage module, or if it referred to some specialized element related to the water tank. Therefore, claims 7 and 17 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 18-20 depend from claim 17 and are likewise rejected as indefinite.
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.
Claims 10, 14-16, and 19-20 are likewise 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.
Claim 10 depends from claim 8, which introduces a “dust collection docking device”. Claim 10 further introduces a “docking device” and also makes reference to “the dust collection docking device”. It is unclear whether the additional reference to “a docking device” refers to the dust collection docking device or a different structure.
As best understood by the examiner based on the disclosure, the docking device of claim 10 refers to a charging docking device.
The pedestal is claimed as including “a first connection structure”, and each of the multiple functional components are claimed as including “a first and a second connection structure”. Subsequent references to “the first connection structure” and “the second connection structure” do not specify which of the multiple disclosed first and second connection structures they refer to. Consequently, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. This could be corrected by amended the claims to refer to ––each of the first connection structures–– and ––each of the second connection structures––.
Claim 17, from which claims 19 and 20 depend, requires the presence of “a first functional component including **at least one** of the following modules: a wastewater collection module, a water supply module, a water storage module, and a water sterilization module...”. This limitation is satisfied by a prior invention that only includes one of the recited modules. However, claim 19 assumes the presence of multiple modules, such that the claimed invention includes each of a “clean water tank” and a “wastewater tank”. It is unclear whether this is intended to be interpreted as a contingent limitation equivalent to “wherein, when the first functional component includes both the wastewater collection module and the water supply module, the first functional component includes a storage module located in a gap between the clean water tank and the wastewater tank” or as equivalent to “wherein the first functional component includes both the wastewater collection module and the water supply module, and the first functional component further includes a storage module located in a gap between the clean water tank and the wastewater tank”. Because it's unclear which of the two interpretations is covered by the claim, the scope of the claimed invention is unclear. Claim 19 is therefore indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and is likewise rejected as indefinite. For purposes of examination, claim 19 (and claim 20 depending therefrom) will be interpreted as including an implicit contingent limitation.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hackert et al. (US 20200329933, "Hackert").
13. Hackert teaches a robot base station (10) comprising:
a pedestal (40b) for docking a robot (20);
multiple functional components (40,50), each having at least one functional module (expandable via one or more modules, see Hackert [0048]-[0050]), to provide various services to the robot (services such as charging, emptying, or filling cleaning devices, Hackert [0050])
wherein each of the functional components is capable of being combined with the pedestal, and at least some of the functional components are capable of being assembled together and then combined with the pedestal, forming a base station with various functional combinations (functional elements of modules 40,50 are capable of being combined with pedestal 40b to form functional combinations, see Hackert fig. 1 and [0048]-[0050]).
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 1-2, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian et al. (US PGPub 20230389769, "Qian") in view of Hackert.
1. Qian teaches a robotic base station (100, Qian fig. 7) comprising:
a pedestal for cleaning docked robots, wherein a front side of the pedestal includes a docking entrance (docking space S2 includes pedestal base and an entrance for a robot, see Qian figs. 16-17 and 19);
a first functional unit (cleaning module, see Qian fig. 9 and [0101]) including a wastewater tank (53) and a clean water tank (51), both being detachable from a top of the robotic base station (see Qian fig. 10); and
a second functional unit located above the pedestal, (garbage collection module including dust bin 14 is located above robot entrance, see Qian figs. 2 and 5 and [0102]) including a cavity with a removable dust bag configured to be inserted or removed from the cavity (bin 14 may contain a removable dust bag, Qian [0102]).
Qian further teaches the inclusion of additional functional units that may be removable horizontally (e.g., collection bin 11, Qian fig. 6), but does not teach that the removable dust bag is configured to be horizontally inserted or removed from the cavity or that the first functional unit is positioned above the second functional unit.
However, Hackert teaches a base station having a plurality of functional modules (bottom module 40, upper module 50, see Hackert fig. 1 and [0048]-[0050]), wherein the modules are configured to perform different functions (Hackert [0110]-[0116]), and wherein the modules are configured to be vertically stacked (50 is on top of 40, see Hackert figs. 1-2), and wherein at least one of the modules includes a removable dust bag (filter 50H in container 50G is referred to as filter apparatus 70 and may be a bag, see Hackert fig. 1, [0096], and [0120]), wherein the filter is configured to be horizontally inserted or removed (filter 70 inserted into or removed from cavity 50G covered by door 10D, see Hackert figs. 3a-3c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the base station of Qian according to the teachings of Hackert regarding a modular base station such that the first and second functional units were modular and arranged such that the removable dust bag was configured to be horizontally inserted or removed from the cavity and the first functional unit was positioned above the second functional unit, as doing so would allow for the inclusion of additional functions in a base station as needed for a particular application without requiring the design and manufacture of completely separate stations for each configuration. See Hackert [0110]-[0112].
2. Qian as modified teaches the robotic base station of claim 1, wherein the dust bag is configured to be removed or inserted through a front of the second functional unit (bag is inserted through a front of a unit according to the teachings of Hackert, see Hackert figs. 3a-3c).
8. Qian as modified teaches the robotic base station of claim 1, further comprising a dust collection conduit (401, Qian fig. 13), wherein one end of the dust collection conduit is connected with a dust collection docking device (403, Qian fig. 13) on the pedestal for interfacing with robots to extract internal waste from the robots (Qian [0158]-[0159]), and the other end of the dust collection conduit is connected with the removable dust bag (end of 401 carries dust from robot to dust bag in 402, Qian [0159]).
10. Qian as modified teaches the robotic base station of claim 8, further comprising a charging docking device (charging electrode 901, see Qian fig. 17 and [0164]) and a water supply docking device (liquid outlet 603, Qian fig. 12 and [0162]) on the pedestal, wherein:
the water supply docking device is connected with the clean water tank for interfacing with robots to add water (Qian [0161]-[0162]);
the water supply and dust collection docking devices are located on two sides of the docking device (water supply docking device 602 is on a lateral side of docking device 901 while dust collection docking device 403 is on a lower side of docking device 901, see Qian figs. 17 and 19).
11. Qian as modified teaches the robotic base station according to claim 10, wherein the charging docking device is located between the water supply docking device and the docking device (a pathway may be drawn connecting water supply docking device 602 to dust collection docking device 403 and passing through docking device 901, see Qian figs. 17 and 19).
Under an alternate theory of the claim, although Qian as modified does not explicitly teach that the charging docking device is located between the water supply docking device and the docking device, it would nonetheless have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to end up with such a placement during the process of modifying Qian to integrate the teachings of Hackert, since it has been held that where the sole difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the particular placement of an element, the particular placement of that element is—absent some indication that changing the position of the element would have modified the operation of the device—an obvious matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian and Hackert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (US PGPub 2022/0287527, "Hong").
3. Qian as modified teaches the robotic base station of claim 1, wherein the clean water tank (51) and the wastewater tank (53) are arranged side by side (see Qian fig. 9), but does not teach that the first functional unit includes a storage module located between the clean water and wastewater tanks.
However, Hong teaches the concept of including a storage module (623b) positioned in a robotic base station (600) between cavities (620, 623a) configured to receive functional components of the base station, wherein the storage module is configured to hold accessories or user-replaceable components of the robot cleaner (see Hong fig. 6 and [0068]-[0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the base station of Qian according to the teachings of Hong such that the first functional unit included a storage module located between the clean water and wastewater tanks, as doing so would reduce the loss of accessories stored remotely from a station and would allow for a more efficient use of space in a base station (Hong [0003]).
4. Qian as modified teaches the robotic base station of claim 3, wherein the storage module includes a cleaning solution placement area for placing a cleaning solution bottle (Hong teaches that the placeable accessories may include a cleaning solution bottle, see Hong [0067]-[0068] and [0071]).
5. Qian as modified teaches the robotic base station of claim 3, wherein the station includes a cleaning solution tank (13) associated with a pump and a pump liquid pipe connected to the clean water tank (detergent tank 13 is capable of injecting cleaning fluid through water pump and water flow duct, see Qian [0091]).
Qian does not teach that the cleaning solution pump and pump liquid pipe are located in the storage module.
However, Hong teaches that the placeable accessories in a storage module may include a cleaning solution bottle, (see Hong [0067]-[0068] and [0071]). Furthermore, Qian teaches that the detergent tank may be included or not (Qian [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to further modify the station of Qian as modified according to the teachings of Hong such that the storage module included a cleaning solution tank, a cleaning solution pump and a pump liquid pipe, the pump liquid pipe being connected to the clean water tank, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements (cleaning solution distribution equipment with a cleaning solution bottle) according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian, Hackert, and Hong as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wolff et al. (US PGPub US 2022/0061612, "Wolff").
6. Qian as modified teaches the robotic base station of claim 3, but does not teach that the storage module includes a leak hole at a bottom of the storage module for wastewater to flow out.
However, Wolff teaches the inclusion of weep holes (159) in parts of a base station to ensure that liquid is allowed to drain in a controlled manner (Wolf [0033], [0038]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the base station of Qian according to the teachings of Wolff such that the modules, including the storage module, included a leak hole at a bottom of the storage module for wastewater to flow out in a controlled manner, as doing so would ensure that water in the station was directed away from electronics (Wolff [0033]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian and Hackert as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Deng et al. (US 110607103, "Deng").
9. Qian as modified teaches the robotic base station of claim 8,
but does not teach that it further comprises a dust collection drawer within the cavity, wherein: the removable dust bag is placed in the dust collection drawer; the dust collection drawer has a dust collection connection hole for connecting with a dust bag opening; when the dust collection drawer is inside the cavity, the connection hole connects with the dust collection conduit; when the dust collection drawer is removed from the second functional unit, the connection with the dust collection conduit is disconnected.
However, Deng teaches a configuration for inserting a dust bag (330) in a robotic base station (100)
comprising a dust collection drawer (310) within the cavity (see Deng fig.5), wherein:
the removable dust bag (330) is placed in the dust collection drawer (310);
the dust collection drawer has a dust collection connection hole for connecting with a dust bag opening and when the dust collection drawer is inside the cavity, the connection hole connects with the dust collection conduit; when the dust collection drawer is removed from the second functional unit, the connection with the dust collection conduit is disconnected (optional docking portion fluidly connects conduit 350 and bag in drawer 310, see Deng 8:40-9:32, when drawer is withdrawn, there would be no connection between the docking portion and the conduit, see Deng figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the base station of Qian to include a dust collection drawer within the cavity, wherein: the removable dust bag is placed in the dust collection drawer; the dust collection drawer has a dust collection connection hole for connecting with a dust bag opening; when the dust collection drawer is inside the cavity, the connection hole connects with the dust collection conduit; when the dust collection drawer is removed from the second functional unit, the connection with the dust collection conduit is disconnected, as doing so would simplify the act of handling garbage (Deng 2:22-30).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackert.
14. Hackert teaches the robot base station of claim 13, but does not explicitly teach that:
the pedestal includes a first connection structure; each of the multiple functional components includes a first and a second connection structure at different positions on the functional component; and the first connection structure is configured to match to the second connection structure for connecting two functional components or for connecting a functional component to the pedestal.
However, Hackert does teach that the modules are fluidically and electrically connected (40 and 50 are connected such that electricity and/or fluids may flow between them to or from the robot 20, see Hackert fig. 1, [0075] and [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the robot base station of Hackert such that the pedestal included a first connection structure; each of the multiple functional components includes a first and a second connection structure at different positions on the functional component; and the first connection structure is configured to match to the second connection structure for connecting two functional components or for connecting a functional component to the pedestal, as doing so would allow for the enhanced modularity of functional components (see Hackert [0048]-[0050]).
15. Hackert as modified teaches the robot base station of claim 14, but does not explicitly teach that the pedestal includes the first connection structure at a top surface of the pedestal; and each of the multiple functional components includes the second connection structure at a bottom surface and the first connection structure at a top surface of the function component.
However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
The functions performed by modules disclosed by Hackert include charging, removing dust, and filling liquids (Hackert teaches that the base station should include a blower/fan for removing dirt and a pump to refill cleaning agent, Hackert [0014]). Hackert teaches that the station may be expanded/upgrade by one or more modules (see Hackert [0048]-[0050]), and expanding by plural modules as disclosed by Hackert would require the ability of the components to connect based on the desired set of functions. Because the specific set of required modules would not be known, one of ordinary skill would infer that each module should be connectable with the other modules such that all possible combinations of modules was possible.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to further modify the robot base station of Hackert such that the pedestal includes the first connection structure at a top surface of the pedestal; and each of the multiple functional components includes the second connection structure at a bottom surface and the first connection structure at a top surface of the function component, as doing so would allow for modularity of functional components as described by Hackert.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackert as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Wolff.
16. Hackert as modified teaches the robot base station of claim 14, but does not teach:
the first connection structure includes: a first guiding structure and a first connection hole, the first guiding structure being a guiding groove, the first connection hole located at an edge of the pedestal or the functional component;
the second connection structure includes: a second guiding structure and a second connection hole, the second guiding structure being a guiding protrusion configured to match to the guiding groove, and the second connection hole corresponding to the position of the first connection hole, allowing connection by a connecting piece passing through both connection holes.
However, Wolff teaches first and second connecting structures (see Wolff figs. 7a and 7b) for connecting elements (102,104) of a robot base station (100), wherein the first connecting structure includes a guiding groove (recess 202, see Wolff fig. 7b), the second connecting structure including a guiding protrusion (200) configured to match to the guiding groove (see Wolff fig. 7b and [0052]-[0055]), and the first and second connecting structures include first and second connecting holes located at an edge of the pedestal or the functional component, allowing connection by a connecting piece passing through both connection holes (components include coordinated bosses used to connect structural elements with a fastener such as a bolt, see Wolff figs. 3-4 and [0037]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the base station of Hackert as claimed according to the teachings of Wolff regarding connecting structures such that the first connection structure included: a first guiding structure and a first connection hole, the first guiding structure being a guiding groove, the first connection hole located at an edge of the pedestal or the functional component; and the second connection structure included: a second guiding structure and a second connection hole, the second guiding structure being a guiding protrusion configured to match to the guiding groove, and the second connection hole corresponding to the position of the first connection hole, allowing connection by a connecting piece passing through both connection holes, as doing so would prevent unwanted water debris from entering the modules and damaging electronics (see Wolff [0038], [0041], and [0056]).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackert as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (US PGPub 2024/00000283, "Brown").
17. Hackert teaches the robot base station of claim 13, wherein the multiple functional components include:
a first functional component including a water supply module (Hackert teaches that the base station should include a pump to refill cleaning agent, Hackert [0014])) and a second functional component including a dust collection module (Hackert teaches that the base station should include a blower/fan for removing dirt, Hackert [0014]).
Hackert does not teach that the base station should include a third functional component including a drying module.
However, Brown teaches the concept of providing a docking station (270) for a cleaning robot (12, Brown fig. 18), wherein the docking station includes a cleaning module for cleaning a robot component (scrubbers 290 clean robot mopping pads 16 and may be on a removable insert, Brown fig. 18 and [0177]-[0180]), and a drying module for use with the cleaning module (including a fan and a heater, see Brown [0181]).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the robot base station of Hackert according to the teachings of Brown such that it included a third functional component including both a cleaning module and a drying module, as doing so would allow for cleaning and drying of a mopping element in a robotic cleaner without user intervention (Brown [0003]).
18. Hackert as modified teaches the robot base station of claim 17, but does not explicitly teach that the first functional component has a hollow cavity, equipped with the water supply module; wherein the water supply module includes a clean water tank with a water outlet at the bottom, connecting to the pedestal through a clean water pipeline for delivering clean liquid to the pedestal and/or the robot.
However, Brown further teaches a structure for a functional component including a water supply module comprising a clean water tank (storage tank 302 holds a cleaning fluid, Brown [0184] and fig. 20; cleaning fluid can be water, Brown [0068]) with a water outlet (tank valve 312) at the bottom (312 is at bottom of 302, Brown fig. 20), connecting to the pedestal through a clean water pipeline (382, Brown fig. 21 and [0211]) for delivering clean liquid to the robot (see Brown [0188]-[0189]), wherein the functional component is located in a hollow cavity (318, see Brown fig. 20).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the robot base station of Hackert according to the teachings of Brown such that the first functional component had a hollow cavity equipped with the water supply module; wherein the water supply module includes a clean water tank with a water outlet at the bottom, connecting to the pedestal through a clean water pipeline for delivering clean liquid to the pedestal and/or the robot, as doing so represents the combination of known structural elements for a first component including a water supply module with a device including a water supply module of nebulously defined structure according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Hackert as modified teaches the robot base station of claim 18, wherein, when the first functional component includes both the wastewater collection module and the water supply module, the first functional component includes a storage module located in a gap between the clean water tank and the wastewater tank; wherein the storage module includes a storage rack with multiple placement areas for storing various accessories.(the first functional component of Hackert as modified does not include both modules, and therefore the contingent limitation of claims 19 and 20 do not apply).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12, Qian as modified teaches the robotic base station according to claim 1, wherein: the pedestal includes a top cover, a bottom, a space between the top cover and the bottom for docking robots (Qian teaches a pedestal with a space for robot 200 between a top cover and a bottom of the enclosure, see Qian fig. 7). Qian does not teach or suggest that the third functional unit includes a drying module; the top cover includes an air duct connected to an outlet of the drying module; the bottom includes a first and a second diversion channel connected to the air duct, and wherein a drying airflow passes through the first diversion channel towards an upper surface of the bottom and through the second diversion channel towards a bottom of the bottom and the ground.
Liang et al. (US PGPub 2022/0304540, "Liang") teaches robot cleaner station (10) including a drying module (including fan 70, see Liang fig. 1 and [0025]-[0031]), wherein a drying airflow passes through a lower channel (see Liang fig. 2). Liang does not teach or suggest that the top cover includes an air duct connected to an outlet of the drying module. No art has been identified that would teach or suggest the inclusion of such a duct. Consequently, claim 12 contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/J.R.Z./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights