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 .
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 device”, “water supply device”, “dust collection device”, and “power supply device” in claims 1 and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Furthermore, the limitation from claim 5 of “the charging docking device is symmetrically arranged along the first line” is not shown, as the first line is defined as between a center of the robot and an outlet of the dust collection docking device and the charging docking device is not shown as symmetrically arranged along that line. This arrangement of a charging docking device must also be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
Claims 3, 4, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3, 4, and 17 recite the limitation “the center of the robot”. Because the robot will inherently have a center (which is interpreted in light of the specification as referring to a geometric center or centroid rather than a center of mass or center of gravity), the claims are not indefinite due to a lack of antecedent basis, but for purposes of clarity, applicant is advised to consider amending the claims to refer to ––a center of the robot–– or ––a geometric center of the robot––
Claims 3 and 4 contain references to “an outlet of the dust collection docking device” and “an inlet of the water supply docking device”. These appear to use the terms “inlet” and “outlet” backwards, as the portion of a dust collection docking device that receives dust from a robot would be understood to act as an inlet (because the flow is directed inward), while a portion of a water supply that interfaces with and refills a robot with water would generally be understood as an outlet (because the water flow is directed outward).
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: “cleaning device”, “water supply device”, “dust collection device”, “power supply device”, “berthing device”, “charging docking device”, “dust collection docking device”, “water supply docking device”, and “ wastewater retrieval docking device” in claims 1 and 20; “cleaning component” in claims 9 and 12; and “cleaning groove cleaning component” in claim 10.
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 2-11 and 15 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the height of the dust collection docking device, the charging docking device, and the water supply docking device is greater than the height of the berthing device relative to the pedestal”. It is unclear which heights are being used for the comparison, as no antecedent basis exists for specific heights and it is not clear if the height of the berthing device is being compared to a collective height of each of the docking devices or to heights of each of the individual docking devices.
Claims 3-11 depend from claim 2 and are likewise rejected as indefinite.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the axial extension lines”. Because it is unclear which axes are being used to define the lines, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9 and 10 each recite the limitation “the cleaning groove”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For purposes of examination, claims 9 and 10 will be treated as depending from claim 8.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the dust collection interface and the water supply interface are arranged on both sides of the berthing interface.”. It is unclear whether this limitation requires the dust collection interface and the water supply interface to each be present on both sides the berthing interface or if it simply requires one interface on each side.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bo (CN 113057531).
12. Bo teaches a robot (20), comprising:
a main body including a top surface and a bottom surface opposite to each other, and a side surface located between the top surface and the bottom surface (robot has flat top and bottom surfaces and a circumferential sidewall, see Bo fig. 4);
the bottom surface including a cleaning component (Bo teaches that the robot is a sweeping robot, Bo Translation [n0002]; Bo fig. 4 shows a brush bristle tuft extending from a bottom side of robot 20) and a berthing interface (protrusion that mates with guiding slot 104, see Bo fig. 3 and Bo Translation [n0034]); and
the side surface including a charging interface (24), a dust collection interface (21), and a water supply interface (22, see Bo fig. 4 and Bo Translation [n0034]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Qian et al. (US PGPUb 2023/0389769, "Qian").
20. Qian teaches a robot system (Qian fig. 7), comprising:
a robot (200), with multiple docking interfaces (charging electrode 2005, dust outlet 2002, and a water injection part are configured to interface with electrode 901, liquid supply tube 602, and dust collector 403, see Qian figs. 20-21 and [0171]-[0176]);
a base station (100), comprising:
a base stand (housing of 100) for docking the robot (200);
a cleaning device (cleaning module, Qian fig. 9 and [0100]-[0101] for cleaning the robot;
a water supply device (combination of clean water tank 51 and water pump 52, Qian fig. 9 and [0101]) for supplying water to at least one of the robot and the cleaning device;
a dust collection device (garbage collection module, Qian [0102]-[0103]) for collecting dust from the robot;
a power supply device (charging module, Qian [0106]) for charging the robot;
wherein:
the base stand is equipped with various devices for docking with the robot, including: a berthing device (guidance sensors 801, Qian fig. 17 and [0157]), a charging docking device (electrode 901, Qian fig. 17 and [0164]), a dust collection docking device (403, Qian fig. 19 and [0171]), a water supply docking device (602, Qian fig. 19 and [0161]-[0162]), and a wastewater retrieval docking device (associated with cleaning pool 55 of cleaning module, Qian fig. 9 and [0101]);
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 1-6 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian in view of Won et al. (US 9492048, "Won")
1. Qian teaches a robot base station, comprising:
a base stand (100) for docking a robot (200);
a cleaning device (cleaning module, Qian fig. 9 and [0100]-[0101] for cleaning the robot;
a water supply device (combination of clean water tank 51 and water pump 52, Qian fig. 9 and [0101]) for supplying water to at least one of the robot and the cleaning device;
a dust collection device (garbage collection module, Qian [0102]-[0103]) for collecting dust from the robot;
a power supply device (charging module, Qian [0106]) for charging the robot;
wherein:
the base stand is equipped with various devices for docking with the robot, including: a berthing device (guidance sensors 801, Qian fig. 17 and [0157]), a charging docking device (electrode 901, Qian fig. 17 and [0164]), a dust collection docking device (403, Qian fig. 19 and [0171]), a water supply docking device (602, Qian fig. 19 and [0161]-[0162]), and a wastewater retrieval docking device (associated with cleaning pool 55 of cleaning module, Qian fig. 9 and [0101]);
the base stand comprises a pedestal and an upper cover, the upper cover is connected to the pedestal, forming a docking cavity with one end open (100 includes a pedestal and upper cover defining a cavity with one open end for receiving robot 200, see Qian figs. 15, 17, and 19);
the berthing device, the charging docking device, and the water supply docking device are all set on a side wall of the docking cavity (801, 901, and 602 are all set on a back wall of cavity S2, see Qian fig. 17).
Qian does not teach that the dust collection docking device is arranged on the side wall of the docking cavity.
However, Won teaches a base stand (122, Won fig. 8) for a docking station (100, see Won fig. 3 and 5:18-42), wherein the base stand includes a berthing device (clips 262, Won fig. 8 and 7:25-47) and a dust collection docking device (400), wherein the dust collection docking device may be arranged on a wall of the base stand to interface with a robot dust collection interface (manifold 410 of dust collection assembly 400 interfaces with evacuation port assembly 80 on robot 10, see Won fig. 8 and 7:62-8:29). Won further teaches that a robot dust collection interface may be positioned on a top, bottom, or side of the robot, with the dust collection docking device located in a corresponding location. Won 7:62-8:29.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of Won regarding locations for a dust collection interface and dust collection docking device into the robot base station of Qian such that the dust collection docking device was arranged on the side wall of the docking cavity, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one art-recognized dust collection docking device location for another, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
2. Qian as modified teaches the robot base station according to claim 1, wherein:
the height of the dust collection docking device, the charging docking device, and the water supply docking device is greater than the height of the berthing device relative to the pedestal (Qian teaches that charging docking device 901 and water supply 602 are located higher than berthing device 801; Won teaches that the dust collection docking device 400 may be positioned higher than its berthing device 262, and in modifying Qian according to the teachings of Won, one of ordinary skill would have positioned the dust collection docking device above berthing device 801 so as to be consistent with the teachings of each); and the wastewater retrieval docking device is located on the pedestal (cleaning pool 55 is located on base, see Qian fig. 9 and [0109]).
3. Qian as modified teaches the robot base station according to claim 2, wherein:
the axial extension lines of an inlet of the dust collection docking device and an outlet of the water supply docking device both pass through the center of the robot (because the axes of the inlet of the dust collection docking device and outlet of the water supply docking device have not been defined, it would be possible to draw arbitrary axes on each such that lines extending from each passed through the center of the robot).
4. Qian as modified teaches the robot base station according to claim 2, wherein:
an outlet of the dust collection docking device and the center of the robot form a first line;
an inlet of the water supply docking device and the center of the robot form a second line;
the berthing device and the center of the robot form a third line (it would be possible to draw three lines connecting each of the elements to a center of the robot).
Qian as modified does not explicitly teach that, with the center of the robot as the common endpoint, an angle value range between the first line and the third line is 20-50 degrees.
However, Qian teaches a base station configured for use with a robot having a largely flat surface including interfaces for docking with the station (see Qian fig. 7). Although Qian is silent as to the relative distances or angles between the berthing device, the dust collection docking device, and the center of the robot, modifying Qian according to the teachings of Won such that the dust collection docking device was on the same side wall as the berthing device would necessarily result in there being some definable angle between them.
Claim 1, from which claim 4 ultimately depends, requires that the dust collection docking device, the water supply docking device, and the berthing device be on the same wall of the cavity, and Qian teaches a squared-off cavity (see, e.g., Qian fig. 17) So the docking devices on the robot would be positioned no further apart than on the two corners of that side.
The maximum angle would be defined by lines passing between adjacent corners and a center of an approximately square robot, which would result in a maximum angle of approximately 90º. The minimum angle suggested by Qian as modified would approximately 0º (assuming the berthing device is formed as part of the dust collection docking device). This means that Qian as modified teaches a range of angles from 0º to 90º.
It has been held that, absent some indication of criticality or unexpected results, a prima facie case of obviousness is established by a showing that claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Because the prior art implicitly teaches an overlapping range and the disclosure does not provide sufficient evidence that the claimed range is critical to the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the device of Qian as modified such that an angle value range between the first line and the third line was 20-50 degrees.
5. Qian as modified teaches the robot base station according to claim 4, but does not teach that the charging docking device is symmetrically arranged along the first line.
However, 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).
Because there is no indication that moving the charging docking device (and associated charging contacts on a robot) would modify the operation of the device, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have modified the station of Qian such that the charging docking device was symmetrically arranged along the first line, as doing so represents no more than an obvious matter of design choice.
6. Qian as modified teaches the robot base station according to claim 2, but does not teach that a distance range between the dust collection docking device and the berthing device in a width direction of the side wall is 50-150mm.
However, it would nonetheless have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Qian such that a distance range between the dust collection docking device and the berthing device in a width direction of the side wall is 50-150mm, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Qian as modified is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
12. Qian teaches a robot (200), comprising:
a main body including a top surface and a bottom surface opposite to each other, and a side surface located between the top surface and the bottom surface (robot 200 has relatively flat top and bottom surfaces and a side surface therebetween, see Qian figs. 20-21);
the bottom surface including a cleaning component (wiping plate 2003, see Qian figs. 20-21 and [0170]); and
the side surface including a charging interface (2005) and a water supply interface (electrode 2005 and liquid injection port are arranged on a side surface of 2001, Qian figs. 20-21 and [0172]-[0173]).
Qian further teaches that the robot includes a dust collection interface (2002, see Qian fig. 200 and [0171]), but does not teach that it is on the side surface, or that there is a berthing interface on the bottom surface.
However, Won teaches a robot (10, Won fig. 9) having a dust collection interface (80) located on a side surface of the robot (see Won fig. 9) and a berthing interface (74) located on a bottom surface (31) of the robot (see Won fig. 7 and 7:25-47). Won further teaches that a robot dust collection interface may be positioned on a top, bottom, or side of the robot. Won 7:62-8:29.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of Won regarding locations for a dust collection interface and berthing interface into the robot of Qian, such that the dust collection interface was arranged on a side surface of the robot and the berthing interface was arranged on a bottom surface of the robot, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one art-recognized interface location for another, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
13. Qian as modified teaches the robot according to claim 12, wherein:
the main body has a head area and a rear area along a direction of travel of the robot (Qian teaches that the wiping plate is in a rear area based on a direction of travel, see Qian [0078]); the cleaning component, the docking interface, the charging interface, the dust collection interface, and the water supply interface are all located in the rear area (sidewall with charging electrode 2005 and the liquid injection port is on the same end as wiping plate 2003, Qian figs. 20-21 and [0172]-[0173]; integrating the teachings of Won would result in the dust collection interface being on the same portion of sidewall).
14. Qian as modified teaches the robot according to claim 13, wherein:
relative to a plane where the bottom surface is located, the berthing interface is located below the charging interface (Qian teaches a charging electrode 2005 located on a side surface, Qian fig. 21; Won teaches a berthing interface located on a bottom surface, see Won fig. 7 and 7:25-47; the modification of Qian would result in the berthing interface being located below the charging interface), and the dust collection interface and the water supply interface are higher than the position where the berthing interface is located (modifying Qian as described in the rejection of claim 12 above would result in the dust collection interface and the water supply interface being on the same side wall as the charging interface, which places them above the berthing interface).
15. Qian as modified teaches the robot according to claim 13, but does not explicitly teach that the dust collection interface and the water supply interface are arranged on both sides of the berthing interface.
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).
One of ordinary skill would understand that the dust collection interface and the water supply interface each are connected with a water tank and dust box of the robot cleaner, and that such elements occupy a certain amount of physical volume so as to be able to store clean water or collected debris, in a manner similar to the clean water and dust tanks disclosed in Qian as part of station 100. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would be aware that it was desirable to minimize the distance between each of the dust collection interface/dust box, and water supply interface/robot water tank pairs, as longer channels require more material and introduce energy costs due to fluid friction effects. One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date would therefore have inferred that placing the dust collection interface and water supply interface on the same side of the berthing device would mean that the pipeline for at least one of dirty air or clean water would have to bypass the tank for the other, since both tanks cannot occupy the same volume on that side. Finally, one of ordinary skill would be aware that with limited surface area in which to place the interfaces, positioning them on separate sides would simplify the design of the robot. For these reasons, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the robot of Qian as modified such that the dust collection interface and the water supply interface are arranged on both sides of the berthing interface.
16. Qian as modified teaches the robot according to claim 13, wherein: axial extension lines of the dust collection interface and the water supply interface both pass through a center of the robot (it would be possible to define arbitrary axes on each of the dust collection interface and the water supply interface such that lines extending from each would pass through the center of the robot).
17. Qian as modified teaches the robot according to claim 13, wherein:
there is a fourth line between the dust collection interface and the center of the robot, a fifth line between the water supply interface and the center of the robot, and a sixth line between the berthing interface and the center of the robot (it would be possible to draw three lines connecting each of the elements to a center of the robot);
Qian as modified does not explicitly teach that, with the center of the robot as a common endpoint, the angle value range between the fourth line and the sixth line is between 20-50 degrees.
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).
Qian teaches a robot having a largely flat surface including interfaces for docking with a station (see Qian fig. 7). Although Qian is silent as to the relative distances or angles between the berthing interface, the dust collection interface, and the center of the robot, modifying Qian according to the teachings of Won such that the dust collection interface was on the same end of the robot as the berthing interface would necessarily result in there being some definable angle between them.
Claim 13, from which claim 17 depends, requires that the dust collection interface, the water supply interface, and the berthing interface be on the same end of the robot, with the docking devices on the side and the berthing interface on a bottom Qian teaches a squared-off robot (see, e.g., Qian fig. 17) So the interfaces on the robot would be positioned no further apart than on the two corners of that side.
A berthing interface and a dust collection interface on an outermost portion of the rear side wall would result in a maximum angle defined by lines passing between each of adjacent corners and a center of an approximately square robot, which would result in a maximum angle of approximately 90º. The minimum angle suggested by Qian as modified would approximately 0º (assuming the berthing interface is formed immediately below the dust collection interface). Therefore, Qian as modified teaches a range of angles from 0º to 90º.
It has been held that, absent some indication of criticality or unexpected results, a prima facie case of obviousness is established by a showing that claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Because the prior art implicitly teaches an overlapping range and the disclosure does not provide sufficient evidence that the claimed range is critical to the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the device of Qian as modified such that an angle value range between the first line and the third line was 20-50 degrees.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Qian teaches the robot according to claim 13, but does not teach that, in a width direction of the robot, a distance range between the dust collection interface and the berthing interface is 50-150mm, or that, in the width direction of the robot, a distance range between the water supply interface and the berthing interface is 50-150mm.
However, it would nonetheless have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Qian such that distance ranges between the dust collection interface and the berthing device and between the water supply interface and the berthing interface in a width direction of the robot is 50-150mm, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Qian as modified is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the relative dimensions are critical to the invention.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian and Won as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US PGPub 2023/0029165, "Li").
7. Qian as modified teaches the robot base station according to claim 2, but does not teach that
the pedestal is further equipped with edge-guiding roller structures for assisting in positioning the robot, enabling the robot to enter the docking cavity at an angle.
However, Li teaches the use of edge-guiding roller structures (361, see Li fig. 12) in a docking station for assisting in positioning the robot, enabling the robot to enter the docking cavity at an angle (Li [0166]-[0168]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Qian as modified according to the teachings from Li such that the pedestal was further equipped with edge-guiding roller structures for assisting in positioning the robot, enabling the robot to enter the docking cavity at an angle, as doing so would help a robot avoid contacting a side surface and would provide rolling guidance (Li [0164]).
11. Qian as modified teaches a robot base station according to claim 2, but does not teach that the pedestal of the base station is provided with a drive wheel groove and a brush end cover, and drain structures are provided at the drive wheel groove and the brush end cover.
However, Li teaches a robot base station including drive wheel grooves (including anti-skid protrusions 3081, see Li figs. 7-8 and [0157]) and a brush end cover (portion of central surface 308 would be capable of covering an end of side brushes 150, see Li figs. 7 and 25a),
and drain structures (through holes 307 include portions in the guide wheel grooves and of central surface 308 and would be capable of acting as drains, see Li fig. 7 and [0159]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Qian as modified according to the teachings from Li such that the pedestal of the base station was provided with a drive wheel groove and a brush end cover, and drain structures are provided at the drive wheel groove and the brush end cover, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian and Won as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (US PGPub 2024/0000283, "Brown").
8. Qian as modified teaches the robot base station according to claim 2, but does not teach that a cleaning groove is provided on the pedestal of the base station, and the cleaning groove is provided with at least one layer of anti-fouling film.
However, Brown teaches a robot base station (14) for use with a robot (12, Brown fig. 1), wherein a cleaning groove (scrubbers 136 can include elements such as nodules that define grooves spaced therebetween, see Brown figs. 9-10 and [0119]-[0123]) is provided on the pedestal of the base station (136 are on pedestal of base station 270, see Brown fig. 9), and the cleaning groove is provided with at least one layer of anti-fouling film (grooves can include antimicrobial silicone which would be capable of reducing biological fouling, Brown [0123]; grooves can be on a removable layer, see Brown fig. 10 and [0127]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Qian according to the teachings of Brown regarding a cleaning system such that the cleaning system included a cleaning groove provided on the pedestal of the base station, the cleaning groove being provided with at least one layer of anti-fouling film, as doing so would increase a contact area, resulting in more efficient removal of debris (Brown [0122]).
Regarding claim 10, Qian as modified teaches a robot base station according to claim 8.
Because the robot is not positively claimed as part of the robot base station, the limitation of “a cleaning groove cleaning component installed on the robot to clean the cleaning groove on the pedestal” is being interpreted as an intended use of the base station equivalent to “wherein the cleaning groove on the pedestal is configured to be cleaned by a cleaning groove cleaning component installed on the robot”.
Because the cleaning groove on the base station of Qian as modified would be capable of being cleaned by a robot having a cleaning groove cleaning component, it teaches claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
The closest identified prior art does not teach or suggest that “the cleaning groove is provided with protrusions; a cleaning liquid outlet is provided on the protrusions for outputting cleaning liquid to a cleaning component; corresponding to the position of the protrusions where at least one layer of anti-fouling film is located, there are through holes, and the protrusions protrude through the through holes to contact the cleaning component to be cleaned by the robot.” Further, no additional art has been identified that would have rendered the claimed limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. Consequently, claim 9 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
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights