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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 19-26) in the reply filed on 7/1/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/1/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 19-21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fan et al. (CN115012170A).
Regarding claim 19, Fan et al. teaches a cleaning device (see abstract) comprising: a first device (see e.g. clothes treatment device), the first device being one of a floor cleaning device and a clothes treatment device; a second device (see e.g. floor cleaner), the second device being another one of the floor cleaning device and the clothes treatment device (see abstract, page 6 of the translation); a memory (see e.g. 502) capable of storing programs or instructions; and a processor (see e.g. 501) configured to execute the programs or instructions to perform a control method (see pages 5-6, 8, 10 of the translation) including: acquiring an operation request of the first device (see page 6 of the translation, S101 whereby the floor cleaner controller acquires that the clothes treatment device controller sends a water inlet/drainage request); acquiring an operation state of the second device (see page 6 of the translation, S102 determining whether the floor cleaner is in a water inlet/drainage state); determining that a first operation corresponding to the operation state of the second device and a second operation corresponding to the operation request of the first device are interference operations (see page 6 of the translation, S103 see e.g. determining that the clothes treatment device sent a water inlet request and that the floor cleaner is in a water inlet state or determining that the clothes treatment device sent a water drainage request and that the floor cleaner is in a water drainage state); and controlling the floor cleaning device to operate (see e.g. preset action associated with water inlet or water drainage) (see abstract and page 6 of the translation).
Regarding claim 20, Fan et al. teaches the limitations of claim 19. Fan et al. also teaches in page 7 of the translation that the first device may be the floor cleaning device and the second device may be the clothes treatment device; and controlling the floor cleaning device to operate may include: controlling the clothes treatment device to suspend the first operation (see e.g. when the floor cleaning device controller recognizes that the floor cleaning device is in the draining stage after the floor cleaning device controller recognizes that the clothes treating apparatus has issued the drain request, the floor cleaning device controller may be configured to send a signal to the clothes treatment device controller to prohibit the clothes treatment device from draining water), and controlling the floor cleaning device to perform the second operation (see e.g. the floor cleaning device proceeds with the drainage); and controlling, subsequent to the floor cleaning device completing the second operation, the clothes treatment device to continue to perform the first operation (see e.g. when the floor cleaning device controller recognizes that the floor cleaning device is not in the draining stage, the floor cleaning device controller may be configured to send a signal to the laundry treatment device controller to allow the laundry treatment device to drain water).
Regarding claim 21, Fan et al. teaches the limitations of claim 19. Fan et al. also teaches in page 7 of the translation that the second device may be the floor cleaning device and the first device may be the clothes treatment device; and controlling the floor cleaning device to operate may include: controlling the floor cleaning device to continue performing the first operation (see e.g. the floor cleaning device continues a drainage operation); and controlling, subsequent to the floor cleaning device completing the first operation, the clothes treatment device to perform the second operation (see e.g. when the floor cleaning device controller recognizes that the floor cleaning device is not in the draining stage, the floor cleaning device controller may be configured to send a signal to the laundry treatment device controller to allow the laundry treatment device to drain water).
Regarding claim 23, Fan et al. teaches the limitations of claim 19. Fan et al. also teaches in page 6 of the translation that determining that the first operation and the second operation are the interference operations may include: determining that an operation stage corresponding to the operation state of the second device (see e.g. the water inlet stage is the preset stage when the preset state of the second device is the water inlet state) and an operation stage corresponding to the operation request of the first device are interference operation stages.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (CN115012170A) as applied to claim 19 and further in view of Yu (CN104317346A).
Regarding claim 22, Fan et al. teaches the limitations of claim 19. Fan et al. does not teach that wherein determining that the first operation and the second operation are the interference operations includes: determining that a sum of an operation power corresponding to the operation request and an operation power corresponding to the operation state is greater than a predetermined power. Yu teaches a power control system for household appliances (see abstract) and that the operation of household appliances may be regulated if the total operating power of household appliances is greater than a predetermined power (see e.g. default load power) so as to ensure electrical safety (see abstract, page 4 of the translation). Since both Fan et al. and Yu teach electrical household appliance systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that, in the system by Fan et al., a determination of interference operations may be made if the sum of an operation power corresponding to the operation request and an operation power corresponding to the operation state is greater than a predetermined power so as to ensure electrical safety, as shown to be known and conventional by Yu.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (CN115012170A) as applied to claim 23 and further in view of Miao et al. (CN114995237A).
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Fan et al. teaches the limitations of claim 23. Fan et al. teaches in the abstract that the first device may be the floor cleaning device or the clothes treatment device and the second device may be the clothes treatment device or the floor cleaning device. Fan et al. does not teach that the operation stage corresponding to the operation request of the first device is a charging stage, and the operation stage corresponding to the operation request of the second device is a spin-drying stage. Miao et al. teaches a system for controlling multiple household appliances (see abstract) and that a charging stage of the floor cleaning device and a spin-drying stage of a laundry treatment apparatus may interfere with another causing improper charging (see abstract and page 10 of the translation). Since both Fan et al. and Miao et al. teach systems of household appliances it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that, in the system by Fan et al. when the first device is the floor cleaning device and the second device is the clothes treatment device, the operation stage corresponding to the operation request of the first device may be a charging stage, and the operation stage corresponding to the operation request of the second device may be a spin-drying stage (reads on claim 24); and when the second device is the floor cleaning device and the first device is the clothes treatment device, and the operation stage corresponding to the operation request of the first device may be a spin-drying stage, and the operation stage corresponding to the operation request of the second device may be a charging stage (reads on claim 25), so as to prevent improper charging, as shown to be known and conventional by Miao et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Fan et al. (CN115012170A). Fan et al. fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claim 26. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL BARR can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights