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: “system” in Claims 1-14, “lift mechanism” in Claims 1, 5, 11, and 17, “user device” in Claims 7, 8, 13, 14, 19, and 20.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer et al. DE 102022205975 A1 (hereafter Schaefer et al.) in view of Kirch FR 2633507 A1 (hereafter Kirch) and Brock US 2,954,095 (hereafter Brock).
Regarding Claim 1, Schaefer et al. teaches:
1. A system (cleaning device 105) comprising:
an intake (suction mouth 205);
a suction arm (cleaning tool 160 with a suction opening 160d);
a filter (filter 320);
a collection bin (storage container) downstream from the filter;
a turbine (fan 315) enclosed within an explosion-proof enclosure (see discussion below);
an explosion-proof motor (motor of fan 315 - see discussion below) enclosed within the explosion-proof enclosure, the explosion-proof motor configured to drive the turbine to create a suction force through the intake and the suction arm to force debris through the filter and into the collection bin (standard operation);
a housing (base unit 130) configured to contain the intake, the suction arm, the filter, the collection bin, and the explosion-proof enclosure including the turbine and the explosion-proof motor;
a lift mechanism (support arm 135) attached to the housing and configured to move in an upward direction (Figure 5) and a downward direction (Figures 3 and 4) relative to the housing;
a plurality of sensors (sensors 185 – multiple shown in Figure 1) disposed on the housing (Figure 1) and configured to obtain directional data, location data, and debris data (scan surroundings allowing it to move through the household 120);
one or more wheels (wheels of drive device 180); and
a controller (control device 170 with processing device 175) configured to control the wheels to move the housing based on at least one of the directional data, the location data, and the debris data (creates 3D model of household 120 allowing it to navigate).
Schaefer et al. discloses a cleaning device that combines an autonomous vacuum cleaner with an articulating arm with another suction opening. The articulating arm uniquely providing the ability to clean surfaces at a significant distance from or above the floor as well as surfaces close to the floor. Schaefer et al. does not disclose provide significant detail regarding the commonly known parts inside an autonomous vacuum cleaner. For example, Schaefer et al. doesn’t disclose that the fan is attached to, or includes, a motor. Another example, he doesn’t disclose how the debris passes through the device and is collected in a storage bin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the Schaefer et al. device includes a motor to create suction that moves debris through the device and collects it in a storage bin because this operation is old and well known and is necessary for the device to operate as an autonomous vacuum cleaner. Additionally, Schaefer et al. discloses the operation of the device without specifically disclosing that the operation, such as navigation, image processing, and articulating arm operation, is controlled by the cited controller. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that all operation disclosed by Schaefer et al. is controlled by the controller with the motivation to operate autonomously. Lastly, Schaefer et al. discloses a number of embodiments, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schaefer et al. as presented to fill in missing elements (such as the fan 315) that are obviously present in other embodiments.
The Schaefer et al. device is specifically configured for cleaning households. However, it is obvious that the articulating arm feature would be advantageous for environments other than households to clean debris from areas other than the floor. The reference Kirch discloses that it is common knowledge that “these conventional vacuum cleaners are not suitable for working in grain silos where a gaseous atmosphere is formed from the fermentation of waste, resulting in a high risk of explosion.” Kirch discloses an invention that aims to create an explosion-proof suction device, that includes an explosion-proof motor integral with a turbine, to create the suction force. The reference Brock discloses a vacuum cleaner with an explosion-proof design that includes an explosion-proof motor, explosion-proof switches, explosion-proof housing, and electrically conductive wheels that allow the device to always be grounded. Therefore, motivated to allow the Schaefer et al. device to safely operate in environments where a spark or static discharge could ignite an explosion, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Schaefer et al. device to include, at the least, an explosion-proof motor and an explosion-proof enclosure, in combination with the additional details taught by Kirch and Brock.
Regarding Claim 2, Schaefer et al. teaches:
2. The system of Claim 1, wherein the controller (control device 170 with processing device 175) is configured to move (Figures 2-5) the suction arm (cleaning tool 160 with a suction opening 160d).
Regarding Claim 3, Schaefer et al. teaches:
3. The system of Claim 2, wherein the controller (control device 170 with processing device 175) moves the suction arm (cleaning tool 160 with a suction opening 160d) to debris in response to the debris data (removes cobwebs).
Regarding Claim 4, Schaefer et al. teaches:
4. The system of Claim 1, wherein the controller (control device 170 with processing device 175) moves the housing (base unit 130) to debris in response to the debris data (“The cleaning devices 160 are each set up to pick up dust or other contamination from objects or surfaces in the household 120”).
Regarding Claim 5, Schaefer et al. teaches:
5. The system of Claim 1, wherein the controller (control device 170 with processing device 175) is configured to control the lift mechanism (support arm 135) to move the lift mechanism in the upward direction and the downward direction (Figures 2-5).
Regarding Claim 6, Schaefer et al. teaches:
6. The system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors (sensors 185 – multiple shown in Figure 1) includes at least one of a camera, a Lidar sensor, a radar sensor, a sonar sensor, a GPS sensor, an accelerometer, or a gyrometer (“The sensors 185 may include, for example, a radar sensor, a Li-DAR sensor, a camera, a stereo camera, or an ultrasonic sensor”).
Regarding Claim 7, Schaefer et al. teaches:
7. The system of Claim 1, wherein the controller (control device 170 with processing device 175) is in communication with a user device (central location 115 through communication device 190).
Schaefer et al. discloses a cleaning device that employs a communication device 190 to remotely communicate to a central location 115. Schaefer et al. does not identify that the central location is a user device, however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the central location 115 to include a user operating a device that would allow the user to provide operational direction since it is obvious that the device is incapable of autonomously making all the operational decisions without user input.
Regarding Claim 8, Schaefer et al. teaches:
8. The system of Claim 7, wherein the user device is configured to define directional parameters (see Claim 7 discussion) for the controller (control device 170 with processing device 175) to control the wheels (wheels of drive device 180) to move the housing (base unit 130).
Regarding Claim 9, Schaefer et al. teaches:
9. A system (cleaning device 105) comprising:
an intake (suction mouth 205);
a turbine (fan 315) enclosed within an explosion-proof enclosure (see discussion below);
an explosion-proof motor (motor of fan 315 - see discussion below) enclosed within the explosion-proof enclosure, the explosion-proof motor configured to drive the turbine to create a suction force through the intake to force debris through the intake (standard operation);
a housing (base unit 130) configured to contain the intake and the explosion-proof enclosure including the turbine and the explosion-proof motor;
a plurality of sensors (sensors 185 – multiple shown in Figure 1) disposed on the housing (Figure 1) and configured to obtain directional data, location data, and debris data (scan surroundings allowing it to move through the household 120);
one or more wheels (wheels of drive device 180); and
a controller (control device 170 with processing device 175) configured to control the wheels to move the housing based on at least one of the directional data, the location data, and the debris data (creates 3D model of household 120 allowing it to navigate).
Schaefer et al. discloses a cleaning device that combines an autonomous vacuum cleaner with an articulating arm with another suction opening. The articulating arm uniquely providing the ability to clean surfaces at a significant distance from or above the floor as well as surfaces close to the floor. Schaefer et al. does not disclose provide significant detail regarding the commonly known parts inside an autonomous vacuum cleaner. For example, Schaefer et al. doesn’t disclose that the fan is attached to, or includes, a motor. Another example, he doesn’t disclose how the debris passes through the device and is collected in a storage bin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the Schaefer et al. device includes a motor to create suction that moves debris through the device and collects it in a storage bin because this operation is old and well known and is necessary for the device to operate as an autonomous vacuum cleaner. Additionally, Schaefer et al. discloses the operation of the device without specifically disclosing that the operation, such as navigation, image processing, and articulating arm operation, is controlled by the cited controller. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that all operation disclosed by Schaefer et al. is controlled by the controller with the motivation to operate autonomously. Lastly, Schaefer et al. discloses a number of embodiments, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schaefer et al. as presented to fill in missing elements (such as the fan 315) that are obviously present in other embodiments.
The Schaefer et al. device is specifically configured for cleaning households. However, it is obvious that the articulating arm feature would be advantageous for environments other than households to clean debris from areas other than the floor. The reference Kirch discloses that it is common knowledge that “these conventional vacuum cleaners are not suitable for working in grain silos where a gaseous atmosphere is formed from the fermentation of waste, resulting in a high risk of explosion.” Kirch discloses an invention that aims to create an explosion-proof suction device, that includes an explosion-proof motor integral with a turbine, to create the suction force. The reference Brock discloses a vacuum cleaner with an explosion-proof design that includes an explosion-proof motor, explosion-proof switches, explosion-proof housing, and electrically conductive wheels that allow the device to always be grounded. Therefore, motivated to allow the Schaefer et al. device to operate in environments where a spark or static discharge could ignite an explosion, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Schaefer et al. device to include, at the least, an explosion-proof motor and an explosion-proof enclosure, in combination with the additional details taught by Kirch and Brock.
Regarding Claim 10, Schaefer et al. teaches:
10. The system of Claim 9, wherein the controller (control device 170 with processing device 175) moves the housing (base unit 130) to debris in response to the debris data (“The cleaning devices 160 are each set up to pick up dust or other contamination from objects or surfaces in the household 120”).
Regarding Claim 11, Schaefer et al. teaches:
11. The system of Claim 9, further comprising a lift mechanism (support arm 135) attached to the housing (base unit 130) and configured to move in an upward direction (Figure 5) and a downward direction (Figures 3 and 4) relative to the housing, the controller (control device 170 with processing device 175) being configured to control the lift mechanism to move the lift mechanism in the upward direction and the downward direction.
Regarding Claim 12, Schaefer et al. teaches:
12. The system of Claim 9, wherein the plurality of sensors (sensors 185 – multiple shown in Figure 1) includes at least one of a camera, a Lidar sensor, a radar sensor, a sonar sensor, a GPS sensor, an accelerometer, or a gyrometer (“The sensors 185 may include, for example, a radar sensor, a Li-DAR sensor, a camera, a stereo camera, or an ultrasonic sensor”).
Regarding Claim 13, Schaefer et al. teaches:
13. The system of Claim 9, wherein the controller (control device 170 with processing device 175) is in communication with a user device (central location 115 through communication device 190).
Schaefer et al. discloses a cleaning device that employs a communication device 190 to remotely communicate to a central location 115. Schaefer et al. does not identify that the central location is a user device, however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the central location 115 to include a user operating a device that would allow the user to provide operational direction since it is obvious that the device is incapable of autonomously making all the operational decisions without user input.
Regarding Claim 14, Schaefer et al. teaches:
14. The system of Claim 13, wherein the user device is configured to define directional parameters (see Claim 13 discussion) for the controller (control device 170 with processing device 175) to control the wheels (wheels of drive device 180) to move the housing (base unit 130).
Regarding Claim 15, Schaefer et al. teaches:
15. An autonomous explosion-proof wet separator vacuum (cleaning device 105) comprising:
an intake (suction mouth 205);
a turbine (fan 315) enclosed within an explosion-proof enclosure (see discussion below);
an explosion-proof motor (motor of fan 315 - see discussion below) enclosed within the explosion-proof enclosure, the explosion-proof motor configured to drive the turbine to create a suction force through the intake to force debris through the intake (standard operation);
a housing (base unit 130) configured to contain the intake and the explosion-proof enclosure including the turbine and the explosion-proof motor;
a plurality of sensors (sensors 185 – multiple shown in Figure 1) disposed on the housing (Figure 1) and configured to obtain directional data, location data, and debris data (scan surroundings allowing it to move through the household 120); and
a controller (control device 170 with processing device 175) configured to move the housing based on at least one of the directional data, the location data, and the debris data (creates 3D model of household 120 allowing it to navigate).
Schaefer et al. discloses a cleaning device that combines an autonomous vacuum cleaner with an articulating arm with another suction opening. The articulating arm uniquely providing the ability to clean surfaces at a significant distance from or above the floor as well as surfaces close to the floor. Schaefer et al. does not disclose provide significant detail regarding the commonly known parts inside an autonomous vacuum cleaner. For example, Schaefer et al. doesn’t disclose that the fan is attached to, or includes, a motor. Another example, he doesn’t disclose how the debris passes through the device and is collected in a storage bin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the Schaefer et al. device includes a motor to create suction that moves debris through the device and collects it in a storage bin because this operation is old and well known and is necessary for the device to operate as an autonomous vacuum cleaner. Additionally, Schaefer et al. discloses the operation of the device without specifically disclosing that the operation, such as navigation, image processing, and articulating arm operation, is controlled by the cited controller. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that all operation disclosed by Schaefer et al. is controlled by the controller with the motivation to operate autonomously. Lastly, Schaefer et al. discloses a number of embodiments, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schaefer et al. as presented to fill in missing elements (such as the fan 315) that are obviously present in other embodiments.
The Schaefer et al. device is specifically configured for cleaning households. However, it is obvious that the articulating arm feature would be advantageous for environments other than households to clean debris from areas other than the floor. The reference Kirch discloses that it is common knowledge that “these conventional vacuum cleaners are not suitable for working in grain silos where a gaseous atmosphere is formed from the fermentation of waste, resulting in a high risk of explosion.” Kirch discloses an invention that aims to create an explosion-proof suction device, that includes an explosion-proof motor integral with a turbine, to create the suction force. The reference Brock discloses a vacuum cleaner with an explosion-proof design that includes an explosion-proof motor, explosion-proof switches, explosion-proof housing, and electrically conductive wheels that allow the device to always be grounded. Therefore, motivated to allow the Schaefer et al. device to operate in environments where a spark or static discharge could ignite an explosion, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Schaefer et al. device to include, at the least, an explosion-proof motor and an explosion-proof enclosure, in combination with the additional details taught by Kirch and Brock.
Regarding Claim 16, Schaefer et al. teaches:
16. The autonomous explosion-proof wet separator vacuum of Claim 15, wherein the controller (control device 170 with processing device 175) moves the housing (base unit 130) to debris in response to the debris data (“The cleaning devices 160 are each set up to pick up dust or other contamination from objects or surfaces in the household 120”).
Regarding Claim 17, Schaefer et al. teaches:
17. The autonomous explosion-proof wet separator vacuum of Claim 15, further comprising a lift mechanism (support arm 135) attached to the housing (base unit 130) and configured to move in an upward direction (Figure 5) and a downward direction (Figures 3 and 4) relative to the housing, the controller (control device 170 with processing device 175) being configured to control the lift mechanism to move the lift mechanism in the upward direction and the downward direction.
Regarding Claim 18, Schaefer et al. teaches:
18. The autonomous explosion-proof wet separator vacuum of Claim 15, wherein the plurality of sensors (sensors 185 – multiple shown in Figure 1) includes at least one of a camera, a Lidar sensor, a radar sensor, a sonar sensor, a GPS sensor, an accelerometer, or a gyrometer (“The sensors 185 may include, for example, a radar sensor, a Li-DAR sensor, a camera, a stereo camera, or an ultrasonic sensor”).
Regarding Claim 19, Schaefer et al. teaches:
19. The autonomous explosion-proof wet separator vacuum of Claim 15, wherein the controller (control device 170 with processing device 175) is in communication with a user device (central location 115 through communication device 190).
Schaefer et al. discloses a cleaning device that employs a communication device 190 to remotely communicate to a central location 115. Schaefer et al. does not identify that the central location is a user device, however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the central location 115 to include a user operating a device that would allow the user to provide operational direction since it is obvious that the device is incapable of autonomously making all the operational decisions without user input.
Regarding Claim 20, Schaefer et al. teaches:
20. The autonomous explosion-proof wet separator vacuum of Claim 19, wherein the user device is configured to define directional parameters (see Claim 19 discussion) for the controller (control device 170 with processing device 175) to control the location of the housing (base unit 130).
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 vacuum cleaners with explosion-proof capabilities.
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