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
Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 30 September 2025.
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 spring mechanism and docking charging station (claim 1) 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: spring mechanism 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” 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: “means of arms” in claim 1.
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 § 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 1-8 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 line 12 recites that the device comprises an “external water source with electric valve”. It is not clear if the claimed water source is external to the robotic cleaning device (see water source 25 in Figure 6) in which case then the device itself does not “comprise” the water source or alternatively the water source is located on an external portion of the robotic cleaning device.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the main robotic body" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is “the main robotic body” the same as “the main body” of line 3?
Claim 1 line 21 recites “operated by spring mechanism”. It appears that the spring mechanism being referred to is the same as the one recited in claim 1 line 8. It would be clearer if line 21 recited “operated by the spring mechanism”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the movement down-stop-up" in lines 23-24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what is meant by “the motor…functions to control the movement down-stop-up of the robotic cleaner…”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the robotic cleaner" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is “the robotic cleaner” the same as “the robotic cleaning device” of line 1?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the signals" in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the analyzed results", “the status of the said rotation sensor”, and “the time and duration”, and “the cleaning cycle” in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the release" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the maximum decent and ascent" and “the robotic cleaner” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Is “decent” meant to be spelled “descent”? Is “the robotic cleaner” the same as “the robotic cleaning device” of line 1?
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the robotic cleaner" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is “the robotic cleaner” the same as “the robotic cleaning device” of line 1?
Claim 6 recites the limitations "the upper side", “the robot”, and “the bottom side” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Instead of referring to “the robot”, is the applicant referring to the main body of the device (see claim 1)?
Claim limitation “spring mechanism” 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 disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function of the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayton et al., US 9,371,651 in view of Xenis, US 2,974,932 and further in view of Lewis et al., US 9,964,250, and in view of Rostamo, US 5,528,789.
Regarding claim 1, Dayton et al. disclose an intelligent unmanned robotic cleaning device for garbage and laundry chutes of buildings (104, 200; column 21 lines 34-39), the device comprising: a main body (152); a battery pack (142; column 2 lines 52-59, column 15 lines 57-65); a motor (128, 130, 138); rollers (172); at least one rotation sensor (accelerometer or gyroscope, column 10 lines 19-21); docking charging station (column 15 lines 64 to column 16 line 4); external water source (column 21 lines 24-30); a flexible drive shaft (208 or alternatively shaft of 810, 812, 814, 808, 818, 804, 802, column 10 lines 1-4 and column 12 lines 25-41); cylindrical brush (810, 812, 814, 804, 808; see Figure 8); an internal controller (160); an external main controller with an electrical panel (remote control 168, Figure 10); an HMI monitor (programming facility 170); and a mobile application (column 18 lines 13-18), wherein, the said rollers connected to the main robotic body (Figures 2, 4-6, 15), by means of arms (arms are unrelated shafts connecting gear transmissions to wheels 172 in Figure 15); wherein, the said motor is a geared stepper motor (column 13 lines 22-40) and functions to control a movement (“down-stop-up”) of the robotic cleaner (column 23 lines 40-56); wherein, the said motor is controlled by the said internal controller (column 23 lines 49-56), which receives commands from the external controller after analyzing the signals received by the said multiple sensors (column 23 lines 34-56); wherein, the cleaning of the said garbage chute is accomplished by the said cylindrical cleaning brush connected to the drive shaft (column 12 lines 25-60, the brush is capable of cleaning a garbage chute with its cylindrical cleaning brush). Regarding claim 3, the HMI monitor (170) has a display for displaying results of a rotation sensor, drive shaft, and duration of a cleaning cycle (column 16 lines 10-37). Regarding claim 7, the rollers are TPR rubber (rubber or elastomeric, column 2 lines 16-19). Regarding claim 8, the cleaning brush comprises a hard plastic core with nylon bristle filaments (column 13 lines 10-13 and lines 54-63).
Dayton et al. fails to disclose a motorized cable reel and at least one cable tension sensor, a pair of limit switches, rollers operated by roller spring mechanism are connected to the main body by means of arms operated by the spring mechanism, and operated by spring mechanism, or that the external water source has an electric valve. Note, that Dayton et al. does include a placement pole (302, Figure 3) that attaches to a placement eyelet (174) to raise and lower the cleaner (column 16 lines 44-58). Also note that the water source of Dayton et al. is a hose connected by an air hose attachment to a pressurized water supply (column 21 lines 24-30), but there is no mention of electrical control of a valve.
Xenis teaches a device that travels through pipes and the like that is supported by a cable (45) attached to an eye (44) connected to a main body of the device (Figure 1) to raise and lower the device from pipes (column 4 lines 64-69). Regarding claims 1 and 5, Xenis teaches a pair of limit switches (93, 94, Figure 14) that serve to stop a motor in response to the main body reaching a left or right extremity, functioning to limit maximum movements of the main body of the device (column 8 lines 5-15). Also, Xenis teaches that its rollers (80) are connected to the main body of the device by arms (74, 75, 77) and operated by a spring mechanism (spring 78) so that the rollers can operate telescopically and ride on an interior surface and also so that it stays centered as it traverses (column 7 lines 3-16 and Figures 14-15). While Xenis teaches that the device is supported by a cable, Xenis fails to teach a motorized cable reel and at least one cable tension sensor.
Lewis et al. disclose a treatment device for conduits (16 with camera 11) and teach that it is known to insert and retrieve a device into a tubular conduit via a cable mounted to a reel (98) having a drive motor (48), wherein a sensor detects a load on the reel to synchronize operation of the motor and maintains the cable in tension to prevent tangling, kinking, or misalignment (column 6 lines 29-46). Regarding claim 4, the cable tension sensor is capable of preventing a release of the cable when encountering an obstacle (column 6 lines 29-46).
Rostamo is relied upon as teaching that it is known for a valve to be controlled electrically (via remote control and solenoid, column 1 lines 63-64, column 3 lines 47-50).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic cleaning device of Dayton et al. to further include a pair of limit switches, to substitute the rollers for rollers operated by a roller spring mechanism that are connected to the main body by means of arms, and to provide a cable to support the main body, as taught by Xenis, so that the motor can be stopped in response to the main body traveling too far in a left or right direction, to have rollers that aid in maintaining the main body centered in the interior surface in which it is cleaning, and also the cable allowing for ease in removing the device from a difficult to access tubular conduit. Further, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable taught by Dayton et al. as modified by Xenis so that it part of a motorized cable reel that includes at least one cable tension sensor, as taught by Lewis et al., so that the cable is supported by and inserted/retrieved into the conduit in a motorized manner that is able to synchronize with the tension sensor to prevent any kinking or misalignment in the cable that may occur due to use. In addition, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water source of Dayton et al. to include an electric valve, as taught by Rostamo, so that a user can control the fluid released by the source by remote control.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayton et al., US 9,371,651, Xenis, US 2,974,932, Lewis et al., US 9,964,250, and Rostamo, US 5,528,789.
Dayton et al., Xenis, Lewis et al., and Rostamo teach all elements previously discussed above, however fail to disclose that the main body is aluminum. Regarding claim 2, Dayton et al. teach that the motor is charged at the docking station when in a stationary mode (column 15 line 53 to column 16 line 4). Also Dayton et al. states that the main body may be formed from any suitable material, including metal, and that is resistant to water, weather, solvents, temperature, shock, breakage (column 13 lines 54-59).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the main body of Dayton et al., Xenis, Lewis et al., and Rostamo from aluminum, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayton et al., US 9,371,651, Xenis, US 2,974,932, Lewis et al., US 9,964,250, and Rostamo, US 5,528,789 as applied to claim 1, in view of Yu et al., KR 2015-0074994 (see also English translation).
Dayton et al., Xenis, Lewis et al., and Rostamo teach all elements previously discussed above. Xenis is relied upon for teaching wheels (80) and none of Dayton et al., Xenis, Lewis et al., or Rostamo teach that the cleaning device is equipped with 10 roller sets, 5 in an upper side and 5 in a lower side.
Yu et al. teach a cleaner for a pipe (see English translation of the Abstract) that includes a main body (10), the main body including 10 roller sets, 5 in an upper side and 5 in a lower side (upper side includes sets of wheels 225, see Figures 7a-7b and lower side includes sets of wheels 430, see Figures 3a-3b). The roller sets support the body as it traverse the interior of a pipe being cleaned (Figures 4a-6).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wheels of Dayton et al., Xenis, Lewis et al., and Rostamo so that there are 10 roller sets, 5 in an upper side and 5 in a lower side, as taught by Yu et al., in order to support a main body traversing a conduit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg