DETAILED ACTION
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 of Group II (claims 27-35) and Species A1 (claim 30) in the reply filed on October 10, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 16-26 and 31-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 10, 2025.
Claims 27-30, 34 and 35 will be examined on the merits.
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 27-30, 34 and 35 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 27 recites the limitation "a floor cleaning device" in line 5. It is unclear whether the “floor cleaning device” recited in line 5 is referring to the “floor cleaning device” in line 1, or to another floor cleaning device. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “[[a]] the floor cleaning device” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 also recites “a mobile cleaning portion” in the last line. It is unclear what said recitation is claiming. A portion of what? For purposes of examination, the recitation will be interpreted as a mobile cleaning robot. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 28-30 and 34 are rejected for depending on rejected claim 27.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "a floor cleaning device" in line 3. It is unclear whether the “floor cleaning device” recited in line 5 is referring to the “floor cleaning device” in line 1, or to another floor cleaning device. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “[[a]] the floor cleaning device” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 35 recites “a clothes treatment device” in line 2 and “the laundry treatment device” in line 4. It is unclear whether the laundry treatment device is referring to the clothes treatment device or to a separate, undisclosed laundry treatment device. For purposes of examination, the laundry treatment device will be interpreted as the clothes treatment device. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 35 also recites “a mobile cleaning portion” in the last line. It is unclear what said recitation is claiming. A portion of what? For purposes of examination, the recitation will be interpreted as a mobile cleaning robot. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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(s) 27-30 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN114747989A to Chi (see machine translation) in view of WO2022/200524A2 to Schahpar et al. (see machine translation – where it is noted that the machine translation contains two different paragraph citations and the following rejections are citing to the un-bolded, bottom paragraph citations).
As to claim 27, Chi discloses a floor cleaning device comprising the washing method comprising: obtaining a washing instruction and controlling, based on the washing instruction, water supply to a washing tank of a floor cleaning device base station (see Chi paragraphs [0017]-[0020]).
Chi does not explicitly disclose controlling water supply to a cleaning member of a mobile cleaning portion based on the washing instruction. Schahpar discloses a similar floor cleaning device wherein both cleaning liquid located in a washing tank of a base station and cleaning liquid from a tank within the robot can also be used to clean a mobile cleaning portion of a cleaning robot (see Schahpar paragraphs [0067]-[0074], [0130], [0201]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Chi to include controlling water supply to a cleaning member of a mobile cleaning portion based on the washing instruction in order to improve cleaning of the cleaning member by using liquid from the interior of the robot to flush the cleaning member as disclosed by Schahpar. While Chi does not explicitly disclose one or more processors; and a memory, wherein the one or more processors are configured to invoke a program or instructions stored in the memory to perform the washing method for the floor cleaning device, Chi is directed to a control method for a robotic vacuum cleaner system and is known in the art to use of robotic cleaners to use one or more processors; and a memory, wherein the one or more processors are configured to invoke a program or instructions stored in the memory to perform the washing method for the floor cleaning device (see, e.g., Schahpar paragraph [0048]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the robot use processors and memory to invoke and carry out a steps for the robot to perform as is well known in the art (see, e.g., Schahpar paragraph [0048]).
As to claims 28-30, the combination of Chi and Schahpar discloses that the method can further comprise: prior to said controlling, based on the washing instruction, the water supply to the washing tank of the floor cleaning device base station and to the cleaning member of the mobile cleaning portion, controlling water supply to a water tank of the floor cleaning device base station to reach a first predetermined water volume threshold and subsequent to said controlling the water supply to the water tank of the floor cleaning device base station to reach the first predetermined water volume threshold, controlling the water supply to a water tank of the mobile cleaning portion to reach a second predetermined water volume threshold (see Schahpar paragraphs [0057], [0073], [0156]-[0159] and [0197]-[0206] disclosing controlling the filling and/or of the robot tank and the base station tank to the appropriate amounts to ensure enough cleaning liquid is present while also preventing overflowing by using sensors to determine the appropriate water volume thresholds have been reached). Regarding claim 30, the combination of Chi and Schahpar further discloses controlling based on the washing instruction the water supply to the cleaning member of the mobile cleaning portion and controlling the water supply to the washing tank of the floor cleaning device base station subsequent to said controlling the water supply to the cleaning member of the mobile cleaning portion (see Schahpar paragraphs [0067]-[0074], [0130], [0201] regarding the controlling of the water supply to the cleaning member and paragraphs [0057], [0073], [0156]-[0159] and [0197]-[0206] regarding controlling the water supply to the washing tanks to clean, dispose of and refill).
As to claim 34, the combination of Chi and Schahpar discloses that the method can further comprise: controlling, in response to controlling the water supply to the washing tank of the floor cleaning device base station, the cleaning member of the mobile cleaning portion to rotate for being washed (see Chi paragraphs [0017]-[0020]).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN114747989A to Chi (see machine translation) in view of WO2022/200524A2 to Schahpar et al. (see machine translation – where it is noted that the machine translation contains two different paragraph citations and the following rejections are citing to the un-bolded, bottom paragraph citations) and CN113440075A to Liu et al.
As to claim 35, Chi discloses a floor cleaning device comprising the washing method comprising: obtaining a washing instruction and controlling, based on the washing instruction, water supply to a washing tank of a floor cleaning device base station (see Chi paragraphs [0017]-[0020]).
Chi does not explicitly disclose controlling water supply to a cleaning member of a mobile cleaning portion based on the washing instruction. Schahpar discloses a similar floor cleaning device wherein both cleaning liquid located in a washing tank of a base station and cleaning liquid from a tank within the robot can also be used to clean a mobile cleaning portion of a cleaning robot (see Schahpar paragraphs [0067]-[0074], [0130], [0201]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Chi to include controlling water supply to a cleaning member of a mobile cleaning portion based on the washing instruction in order to improve cleaning of the cleaning member by using liquid from the interior of the robot to flush the cleaning member as disclosed by Schahpar. While Chi does not explicitly disclose one or more processors; and a memory, wherein the one or more processors are configured to invoke a program or instructions stored in the memory to perform the washing method for the floor cleaning device, Chi is directed to a control method for a robotic vacuum cleaner system and is known in the art to use of robotic cleaners to use one or more processors; and a memory, wherein the one or more processors are configured to invoke a program or instructions stored in the memory to perform the washing method for the floor cleaning device (see, e.g., Schahpar paragraph [0048]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the robot use processors and memory to invoke and carry out a steps for the robot to perform as is well known in the art (see, e.g., Schahpar paragraph [0048]).
Schahpar further discloses that the base station can be incorporated into a clothes treatment device (see Schahpar paragraph [0129]-[0130]) and Liu discloses that it is known in the art that the base station can be located in a space below the clothes treatment device (see Liu Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the floor cleaning device into a clothes treatment device as disclosed by Schahpar/Liu in order to improve synergy (see Schahpar paragraphs [0129]-[0130]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714