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 .
Objections to the Drawings
1. 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 controller must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. 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.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 112
2. 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.
Claim 11 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. In particular, claim 11 line 4 mentions a controller but the specification at paragraph [0021] merely mentions a microcontrollers but does not provide any specifics of the controller namely, i.e., a processor or algorithm associated with the controller or flow chart in the drawings depicting the controller.
Independent claim 11 recites the limitation "a side brush" in line 2. Since claim 11 depends from clam 1, it is not clear whether the side brush is the same as the one mentioned in line 2 of claim 1, from which claim 11 depends. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 is rejected for its dependency on claim 11.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
3. 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent (10,433,697) to Lindhe` et al. (cited by Applicant).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lindhe` et al. discloses moving the floor robot (10) (See FIG. 4a; S101), upon approaching a corner, so that the side brush (24) lies in the corner (See Col. 7 lines 30-45); varying a rotational speed of the side brush while the floor robot is at a standstill (See Col. 3 lines 1-15); and steering the floor robot (10) out of the corner (See Col. 7 lines 33-40; FIG. 5b).
Regarding claim 2, Lindhe` et al. discloses that the moving step includes driving along a lateral boundary of the floor area (against a wall into the corner), wherein the side brush (24) is facing the lateral boundary (against a wall into the corner; See Col. 5 lines 30-40).
Regarding claim 3, Lindhe` et al. discloses that the controlling the rotational speed of the side brush (24) while driving along in dependence upon a driving speed of the floor robot (10) (See Col. 1 lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 4, Lindhe` et al. discloses that the varying of the rotational speed of the side brush (24) step further includes temporarily reducing the rotational speed (See Col. 1 lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 5, Lindhe` et al. discloses that the includes varying the rotational speed in stages (See Col. 1 lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 6, Lindhe` et al. discloses that the rotational speed is reduced when the floor robot (10) is at the standstill, and a reduction in the rotational speed is ended prior to an end of the standstill (See Col. 7 lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 7, Lindhe` et al. discloses that the rotational speed is reduced prior to the floor robot (10) being at the standstill and a reduction in the rotational speed is ended prior to an end of the standstill (See Col. 15-25).
Regarding claim 8, Lindhe` et al. discloses that the rotational speed is varied multiple times in succession (See Col. 6 lines 55-67).
Regarding claim 9, Lindhe` et al. discloses a variation of the rotational speed includes temporary reversal of a direction of rotation of the side brush (See Col. 7 lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 10, Lindhe` et al. discloses a further variation of the rotational speed is controlled while the floor robot (10) is steered out of the corner (See Col. 7 lines 33-45).
Regarding claim 11, Lindhe` et al. discloses a side brush (24) being rotatable about a vertical axis and having at least one flexible cleaning arm (at numeral 24 in FIG. 1) being configured so as to be guided over a floor area; and a controller (16) configured so as to control the floor robot (10) according to the method according to claim 1 (See Col. 6 lines 10-20).
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D. JENNINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30pm. EST.
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 S. 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.
MICHAEL DEANGILO. JENNINGS
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MICHAEL D JENNINGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723