The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
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 use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “device” in Claims 1-18, “sealing members” in Claims 16 and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bofill et al. US 2019/0320859 (hereafter Bofill et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Bofill et al. anticipates:
1. A device (robotic cleaning apparatus, Title) for cleaning a substantially vertical surface (exterior surface 18 of building 16, Figure 3), the device comprising:
a body (robotic device 12) comprising:
a first body end (end near topmost structural brace 32), a second body end (end near bottommost structural brace 32) and a longitudinal axis (vertical axis parallel to electric cable 48, Figure 1) extending between the first body end and the second body end,
a front body surface (face of main body 30 on side with gas delivery system 70, Figure 2) to face the substantially vertical surface,
a rear body surface (face of main body 30 on side with thrust controller 42, Figure 1) positioned opposite the front body surface, and
an opening (apertures 40 and openings through tubular housings of thruster systems 35 and 36) formed through the body between the front body surface and the rear body surface (Figure 2);
a propeller (bottommost rotor 36 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) disposed within the opening of the body (Figure 1), the propeller being rotatable about a propeller rotation axis (rotation axis of propeller blades 39 shown in Figure 1) that is substantially perpendicular to the front body surface and the longitudinal axis (Figure 1);
a cable connector (fastener 54) to connect the body to a cable (tether 52, distribution line 66, gas feed line 76, and electrical cable 48); and
a controller (thrust controller 42) to control rotations of the propeller (Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 2, Bofill et al. anticipates:
2. The device of claim 1, wherein the controller (thrust controller 42) is to control the rotations of the propeller (bottommost rotor 36 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) to generate thrust to push the device against the substantially vertical surface (exterior surface 18 of building 16, Figure 3)(Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 3, Bofill et al. anticipates:
3. The device of claim 1, comprising: a second propeller (topmost rotor 36 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) and a third propeller (topmost rotor 36 on right with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) disposed on the body (robotic device 12) on opposing sides of the longitudinal axis (vertical axis parallel to electric cable 48, Figure 1) with respect to each other (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Bofill et al. anticipates:
4. The device of claim 3, wherein the second propeller (topmost rotor 36 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) is rotatable about a second propeller rotation axis (rotation axis of topmost propeller blade 39 on left shown in Figure 1) and the third propeller (topmost rotor 36 on right with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) is rotatable about a third propeller rotation axis (rotation axis of topmost propeller blade 39 on right shown in Figure 1), and wherein the second propeller rotation axis and the third propeller rotation axis are substantially perpendicular to the front body surface (face of main body 30 on side with gas delivery system 70, Figure 2) and the longitudinal axis (vertical axis parallel to electric cable 48, Figure 1)(shown in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Bofill et al. anticipates:
6. The device of claim 3, wherein the controller (thrust controller 42) is to control rotations of at least one of the propeller (bottommost rotor 36 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1), the second propeller (topmost rotor 36 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) and the third propeller (topmost rotor 36 on right with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) to generate thrust to push the device against the substantially vertical surface (exterior surface 18 of building 16, Figure 3)(Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 8, Bofill et al. anticipates:
8. The device of claim 3, wherein the controller (thrust controller 42) is to control rotations of at least one of the propeller (bottommost rotor 36 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1), the second propeller (topmost rotor 36 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) and the third propeller (topmost rotor 36 on right with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) to overcome obstacles on the substantially vertical surface (Paragraphs [0042], [0043], and [0056]).
Regarding Claim 9, Bofill et al. anticipates:
9. The device of claim 8, wherein the controller (thrust controller 42) is to detect the obstacles (Paragraph [0043] – “The thrust controller does not merely use the sensor data for obstacle avoidance, but it responds to the sensor data to actively maintain the body in position for working on the surface”) based on output signals from one or more sensors (position sensors 44 and 46) disposed on the body (robotic device 12) of the device.
Regarding Claim 10, Bofill et al. anticipates:
10. The device of claim 9, wherein the one or more sensors (position sensors 44 and 46) comprises at least one of one or more distance sensors (proximity sensor or displacement sensor, Paragraph [0045]) and one or more optical sensors (optics-based sensing technology and is light or laser based, Paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 11, Bofill et al. anticipates:
11. The device of claim 3, wherein the controller (thrust controller 42) is to control rotations of at least one of the propeller (bottommost rotor 36 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1), the second propeller (topmost rotor 36 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) and the third propeller (topmost rotor 36 on right with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) to stabilize the device with respect to the substantially vertical surface (exterior surface 18 of building 16, Figure 3)(Paragraph [0046] – “The robotic device 12 may include additional sensors in communication with the controller 42, such as accelerometers for determining the position and orientation of the body while suspended from the hoisting device, tilt sensors and gyroscopes for providing input to the controller in order to maintain level orientation relative to the exterior surface, and/or intake flow sensors to monitor airflow through the rotors. These sensors can provide more data for the controller to appropriately control each rotor independently such that the body remains parallel or substantially parallel to the exterior surface 18 within a range of distance away from the exterior surface 18”).
Regarding Claim 12, Bofill et al. anticipates:
12. The device of claim 3, wherein the controller (thrust controller 42) is to control rotations of at least one of the propeller (bottommost rotor 36 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1), the second propeller (topmost rotor 36 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) and the third propeller (topmost rotor 36 on right with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) to maintain a desired vertical orientation of the device with respect to the substantially vertical surface (exterior surface 18 of building 16, Figure 3)(Paragraph [0046] – “The robotic device 12 may include additional sensors in communication with the controller 42, such as accelerometers for determining the position and orientation of the body while suspended from the hoisting device, tilt sensors and gyroscopes for providing input to the controller in order to maintain level orientation relative to the exterior surface, and/or intake flow sensors to monitor airflow through the rotors. These sensors can provide more data for the controller to appropriately control each rotor independently such that the body remains parallel or substantially parallel to the exterior surface 18 within a range of distance away from the exterior surface 18”).
Regarding Claim 13, Bofill et al. anticipates:
13. The device of claim 11, wherein the device comprises one or more sensors (accelerometers, tilt sensors and gyroscopes) disposed on the body (robotic device 12) of the device, and wherein the controller (thrust controller 42) is to control rotations of at least one of the propeller (bottommost rotor 36 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1), the second propeller (topmost rotor 36 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) and the third propeller (topmost rotor 36 on right with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) based on output signals from the one or more sensors (Paragraph [0046] – “The robotic device 12 may include additional sensors in communication with the controller 42, such as accelerometers for determining the position and orientation of the body while suspended from the hoisting device, tilt sensors and gyroscopes for providing input to the controller in order to maintain level orientation relative to the exterior surface, and/or intake flow sensors to monitor airflow through the rotors. These sensors can provide more data for the controller to appropriately control each rotor independently such that the body remains parallel or substantially parallel to the exterior surface 18 within a range of distance away from the exterior surface 18”).
Regarding Claim 14, Bofill et al. anticipates:
14. The device of claim 13, wherein the one or more sensors (accelerometers, tilt sensors and gyroscopes) comprises one or more inertial sensors (accelerometers).
Regarding Claim 16, Bofill et al. anticipates:
16. The device of claim 1, comprising one or more sealing members (rubber wipers 95, Paragraph [0066] - “rubber wipers are configured to form a seal with the exterior surface for facilitating the generation of the partial vacuum”) disposed on the front body surface (face of main body 30 on side with gas delivery system 70, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Bofill et al. anticipates:
17. The device of claim 16, wherein the one or more sealing members (rubber wipers 95) is to cause generation of a negative pressure within the opening and provide a vacuum cleaning effect of the substantially vertical surface (exterior surface 18 of building 16, Figure 3) when the propeller is rotating (rubber wipers 95, Paragraph [0066] - “rubber wipers are configured to form a seal with the exterior surface for facilitating the generation of the partial vacuum”).
Regarding Claim 18, Bofill et al. anticipates:
18. The device of claim 1, comprising one or two brushes (Paragraph [0053] In some embodiments, the robotic device may include additional tools, such as a brush (e.g., roller brush), wet pads, dry pads (for drying surfaces), etc.), wherein each of the one or two brushes (roller brush) is rotatably connected to one of the first body end (end near topmost structural brace 32) or second body end (end near bottommost structural brace 32)(connection to the body 30 will connect to both cited first body end and second body end).
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bofill et al. US 2019/0320859 (hereafter Bofill et al.) using a second interpretation.
Regarding Claim 3, Bofill et al. anticipates:
3. The device of claim 1, comprising: a second propeller (top-middle rotor 35 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) and a third propeller (top-middle rotor 35 on right with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) disposed on the body (robotic device 12) on opposing sides of the longitudinal axis (vertical axis parallel to electric cable 48, Figure 1) with respect to each other (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Bofill et al. anticipates:
7. The device of claim 3, wherein the controller (thrust controller 42) is to control rotations of at least one of the propeller (not selected) , the second propeller (top-middle rotor 35 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) and the third propeller (top-middle rotor 35 on right with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1) to generate thrust to push the device away from the substantially vertical surface (exterior surface 18 of building 16, Figure 3)(Paragraph [0040]).
Note: Propeller blades 39 of rotators 36 are designed to generate thrust in a direction toward the vertical surface. Propeller blades 39 of rotators 35 are designed to generate thrust in a direction away from vertical surface.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bofill et al. US 2019/0320859 (hereafter Bofill et al.) using a third interpretation.
Regarding Claim 3, Bofill et al. anticipates:
3. The device of claim 1, comprising: a second propeller (middle rotor 37 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 8) and a third propeller (middle rotor 37 on right with propeller blade 39 , Figure 8) disposed on the body (robotic device 12) on opposing sides of the longitudinal axis (vertical axis parallel to electric cable 48, Figure 8) with respect to each other (Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 5, Bofill et al. anticipates:
5. The device of claim 3, wherein the second propeller (middle rotor 37 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 8) is rotatable about a second propeller rotation axis (rotation axis of middle propeller blade 39 on left shown in Figure 1) and the third propeller (middle rotor 37 on right with propeller blade 39 , Figure 8) is rotatable about a third propeller rotation axis (rotation axis of middle propeller blade 39 on right shown in Figure 1), and wherein the second propeller rotation axis and the third propeller rotation axis are substantially parallel (Paragraph [0061] and Figure 8) to the front body surface (face of main body 30 on side with gas delivery system 70, Figure 2) and substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (vertical axis parallel to electric cable 48, Figure 1)(shown in Figure 8).
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bofill et al. US 2019/0320859 (hereafter Bofill et al.) using a third interpretation in view of common knowledge.
Regarding Claim 15, Bofill et al. teaches:
15. The device of claim 3, wherein if the device unintentionally flips about the longitudinal axis (vertical axis parallel to electric cable 48, Figure 1), the controller (thrust controller 42) is to control rotations of at least one of the propeller (bottommost rotor 36 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 1), the second propeller (middle rotor 37 on left with propeller blade 39 , Figure 8) and the third propeller (middle rotor 37 on right with propeller blade 39 , Figure 8) to flip back the device about the longitudinal axis (vertical axis parallel to electric cable 48, Figure 1)(shown in Figure 8)(see discussion below).
Bofill et al. discloses a configuration shown in Figure 8 that includes a combination of four rotors 36 which create a force toward the vertical wall, four rotors 35 which create a force away from the wall, and two rotors 37 which create a force parallel to the vertical wall in different directions to help maintain control against crosswinds. Bofill et al. discloses a thrust controller 42 equipped with multiple types of sensors allowing it to control the orientation of the robotic device relative to the vertical wall. Bofill et al. does not specifically address the scenario where an unexpected strong crosswind quickly flips the device over. It would have been obvious common knowledge to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that being flipped over by an unexpected strong crosswind would be an expected scenario for this type of device rendering it useless until it is flipped back over. Therefore, it would have been obvious that the device disclosed by Bofill et al. would be configured to be capable of sensing and employing a combination of propellers that would be capable of flipping over the device to return it to an operational state. For example, if flipped over, deploy all four rotors 36 to create the operating condition 3 as shown in Figure 5, followed by turning on two rotors 35 on the right side (and simultaneously turning off/slowing two rotors 36 on the right side). It would have been obvious that this maneuver in combination with operation of rotors 37 would create a rotating force that the controller could employ to flip over the device with sensors helping to verify the successful completion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of vertical surface cleaners.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723