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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 7 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-7 and 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “communication port”, “rotational connection position”, “distance between the water suction port and the rotational connection position”, and “distance between the communication port and the rotational connection position” recited in claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: “cleaning module...configured to control an outflow of the water outlet and/or a suction power of the water suction port according to the thickness parameter” and “thickness measurement module...configured to obtain a thickness parameter of the carpet” in claim 1.
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 1-4, 8, and 11 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.
The limitation from claim 1 of “a cleaning module...configured to control an outflow of the water outlet and/or a suction power of the water suction port according to the thickness parameter” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The structural elements disclosed in relation to the cleaning module are a water outlet configured to discharge water toward a carpet, a water suction port configured to suck water from the carpet, and in some embodiments, roller brushes or other rollers associated with the water outlet. Although the disclose water outlet and suction port are structurally necessary for performing the claimed function, they are not capable of performing the entire function of controlling “an outflow of the water outlet and/or a suction power of the water suction port according to the thickness parameter” as claimed, as the disclosure contains no description of structure clearly linked to the function of varying outflow or suction.
Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 2-4, 8, and 11-12 depend from claim 1 and are likewise rejected as indefinite.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Additionally, claim 8 recites the limitations “a thickness parameter”, “a thickness measurement module”, and “a cleaning module”. Claim 8 depends from claim 1, which previously introduced a thickness parameter, a thickness measurement module, and a cleaning module. Similarly to claim 8, claim 11 also recites introduces certain claim elements (“a water outlet” and “a water suction port”) that were previously introduced in claim 1, from which claim 11 ultimately depends. It is unclear whether the elements recited in claims 8 and 11 refer to those introduced in claim 1 or are different ones.
Claim 8 additionally recites the limitations “controlling a cleaning module of the cleaning device to operate at a preset gear...wherein multiple preset gears are provided” and “controlling the cleaning device to clean a carpet at a selected preset gear”. It is unclear whether the preset gears for the cleaning module are the same as the selected preset gear for the cleaning device.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the memory". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For these reasons, claims 8 and 11 are rejected as indefinite. Claim 12 depends from claim 8 and is likewise rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein a cleaning control program is stored on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and the method for controlling the cleaning device of claim 8 is implemented when the cleaning control program is executed by a processor.” Claim 12 depends from the method of claim 8, which itself depends from the device of claim 1. As the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 12 is only claimed as a product containing instructions for carrying out the method described in claim 8 of using the product of claim 1, it does not require the presence of the device of claim 1 or carrying out the actual steps of claim 8. Consequently, claim 12 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gou (CN 115889288) in view of Wu et al. (CN 116982882, "Wu").
1. Gou teaches a cleaning device (Gou fig. 1), comprising:
a device body (shell 1);
a cleaning module (combination of cleaning mechanism 2 and recycling mechanism 3) provided on the device body (Gou fig. 1) and provided with
a water outlet (nozzle 23, see Gou figs. 1-5 and Gou Translation [0040]) and
a water suction port (collecting port 371, see Gou figs. 2-6 and Gou Translation [0046] and [0053]),
wherein the water outlet is configured to discharge water toward a carpet (Gou Translation [0044]), and the water suction port is configured to suck water from the carpet (Gou Translation [0053]).
Gou does not teach the presence of a thickness measurement module provided in the device body, or that the thickness measurement module is configured to obtain a thickness parameter of the carpet, and the cleaning module is configured to control an outflow of the water outlet and/or a suction power of the water suction port according to the thickness parameter.
However, Wu teaches a method of controlling a cleaning device including steps of using a thickness measurement module (second acquisition module, see Wu Translation [0044]) to obtain a carpet thickness parameter and adjusting a suction power and water volume based on the thickness parameter (See Wu Translation [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the cleaning device of Gou according to the teachings of Wu such that it included a thickness measurement module provided in the device body, wherein the thickness measurement module was configured to obtain a thickness parameter of the carpet, and the cleaning module was configured to control an outflow of the water outlet and/or a suction power of the water suction port according to the thickness parameter, as doing so would achieve more targeted cleaning, thereby improving the practicality of a cleaning robot (Wu Translation [0077]).
8. Gou as modified does not explicitly recite a method for controlling the cleaning device of claim 1.
However, Wu further teaches a method for controlling a cleaning device comprising:
obtaining a thickness parameter collected by a thickness measurement module of the cleaning device (collecting a carpet pile length, see Wu Translation [0074]; carpet length is collected using an acquisition module, see Wu Translation [0040]);
controlling a cleaning module of the cleaning device to operate at a preset gear according to the thickness parameter, wherein multiple preset gears are provided, and the cleaning module at each of the preset gears has different outflow and/or suction power (adjusting a water volume and suction power based on the thickness parameter, see Wu Translation [0077]; specific settings for water volume and suction power my be defined in terms of levels, see Wu Translation [0085]); and
controlling the cleaning device to clean a carpet at a selected preset gear (performing cleaning at the set level, see e.g. Wu Translation [0077]-[0085]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have developed a method for controlling the cleaning device of claim 1 according to the method taught by Wu, such that it comprised obtaining a thickness parameter collected by a thickness measurement module of the cleaning device; controlling a cleaning module of the cleaning device to operate at a preset gear according to the thickness parameter, wherein multiple preset gears are provided, and the cleaning module at each of the preset gears has different outflow and/or suction power; and controlling the cleaning device to clean a carpet at a selected preset gear, as doing so would achieve more targeted cleaning, thereby improving the practicality of a cleaning robot (Wu Translation [0077]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gou in view of Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Getz et al. (US 4654924, "Getz").
2. Gou as modified teaches the cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the device body is provided with a floating member (floating scraper 37, see Gou figs. 5-6), the floating member is movably provided on the device body and maintains a state of being close to a surface of the carpet, so as to adapt the thickness parameter (scraper 37 adapts to a height of the carpet, see Gou Translation [0053]).
Gou as modified further teaches the presence of sensors fixed to the device body (see, e.g. Gou Translation [0049] and [0050]), but neither Gou nor Wu teach a structure for the thickness measurement module, and consequently do not teach that the thickness measurement module comprises a first sensor fixed to the device body, and the first sensor is opposite to the floating member and is configured to detect a distance between the floating member and the first sensor.
However, Getz teaches a thickness measurement module (pile height sensing device 82, Getz 7:41-52) comprising a spring-loaded probe (i.e., a floating member) and a fixed sensor (comprising Hall effect sensors, Getz 7:53-8:2) positioned opposite to the floating member and configured to detect a distance between the floating member and the first sensor (pin displacement is determined as a function of whether the hall effect sensors detect magnets on the probe, see Getz 7:53-8:2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a thickness sensing mechanism into the device of Gou as modified such that the thickness measurement module comprises a first sensor fixed to the device body, and the first sensor is opposite to the floating member and is configured to detect a distance between the floating member and the first sensor, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
3. Gou as modified teaches the cleaning device of claim 2, wherein the device body comprises a sewage tank (31 and/or 32, see Gou figs. 4-5), the floating member (37) is configured as a floating suction nozzle that communicates with the cleaning module and the sewage tank (37 includes suction nozzle 371 and communicates with waste storage tanks 31 and 32, see Gou fig. 5 and Gou Translation [0053]), and the floating suction nozzle is provided with the water suction port (371 is on 37, see Gou figs. 4-5) and is rotatably provided on the device body, to allow the water suction port to maintain a state of being close to the surface of the carpet (37 is pivotally attached to the body via pivot 372 and floats to stay on surface of carpet, see Gou figs. 4-6 and Gou Translation [0053]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US 8346389 B2), Oh et al. (US 7921509 B2), Im et al. (US 7272868 B2), Deschenes (US 5748853 A), Takahashi et al. (US 4977639 A), Steadings et al. (US 4754520 A), Fromknecht (US 4342132 A), and Plachetka (DE 102015100483 A1) teach relevant structures used by vacuum cleaners to detect floor properties.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights