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 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: “leg lifting device” in claim 1; “lift mechanism” in claim 1; “cleaning mechanism” in claims 1, 3, and 9; “connection mechanism” in claim 3; and “elastic energy storage element” in claim 7.
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 1-10 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 1 recites that the leg lifting device “may” be disposed on the support. It is unclear whether the leg lifting device is actually disposed on the support or is merely capable of being disposed on the support. Based on the disclosure the device is assumed to be disposed on the support.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the part to be cleaned" in lines 10, 13, and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 states that the mechanical arm mechanism is configured to be extendable or foldable. It is unclear whether the mechanism is configured to be extendable or foldable in the alternate or is configured to be extendable and foldable. Based on the disclosure it is assumed that the mechanism is configured to be extendable and foldable.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a cleaning mechanism". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear if it refers to the cleaning mechanism recited in claim 1.
Claim 9 states that the third actuation rod is “allowed” to stop moving. It is unclear whether when the arm mechanism is at a target position it is merely permissible for the third actuation rod to stop moving or whether the third actuation rod actually stops moving.
Claim 9 states that the first and second actuation rods are “allowed” to stop moving. It is unclear whether when the cleaning mechanism is at the target positions it is merely permissible for the actuation rods to stop moving or whether the actuation rods actually stop moving.
Remaining claims are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, taken alone or in obvious combination, does not teach the totality of the limitations of the independent claim. The closest prior art of record is CN111053663A by Dong et al. (cited by Applicant and the International Searching Authority in its Written Opinion). Dong teaches an auxiliary cleaning device for a disabled person with a movable support, leg lifting device, and a cleaning device having a lift mechanism and a mechanical arm mechanism (see figs. 4-7). Dong does not teach the claimed particulars of the mechanical arm mechanism, the structural arrangement of the components of the mechanical arm mechanism, and the structural arrangement of the components of the mechanical arm mechanism to the other structural features of the auxiliary cleaning device including the sliding rails, support, and lift mechanism. Nothing in the current record or knowledge of one of ordinary skill sets forth obvious rationale for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Dong to have the totality of the claimed structural features; no obvious motivation has been identified that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Dong to have the structure and function of the presently claimed device.
CN214180858U by Zhang et al. (cited by Applicant) also teaches an auxiliary cleaning device for a disabled person. While Zhang teaches a device similar to Dong and as claimed, Zhang does not teach the claimed structural arrangement and components and nothing in the present record or knowledge of one of ordinary skill sets forth an obvious rationale to modify Zhang to arrive at the present claimed invention.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200206050 by Lai et al., CN110478146A by Cai et al., and KR101208829B1 by Na et al. also teach devices similar to the presently claimed invention, but they do not teach the totality of the claimed structural components and arrangements, and nothing in the present record or knowledge of one of ordinary skill sets forth obvious rationale to modify any of the aforementioned references to arrive at the present claimed invention.
While the prior art of record teaches various arm mechanisms and actuation rods to effectuate mechanical movement, none teach the specific claimed features and nothing in the prior art of record or knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art would have provided obvious rationale to apply the various teachings to arrive at the claimed device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
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, 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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711