The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the arguments received June 15, 2026. Claim 1 was amended.
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 use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder 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: “floor cleaning system” in Claims 1-10, “floor cleaning machine” in Claims 1, 2, and 4-8, “cleaning fluid supply unit” in Claim 1, “dirty liquid recovery unit” in Claims 1 and 8-10, “power energy-consuming components” in Claim 1, “first control unit” in Claims 1, 2, and 4-10, “second control unit” in Claim 1, “power monitoring device” in Claim 5, “cleaning fluid monitoring device” in Claim 6, “level monitoring device” in Claim 7, and “turbidity monitoring device” in Claim 8.
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 § 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
As necessitated by amendment, Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashbaugh et al. US 2020/0268225 (hereafter Ashbaugh et al.) in view of Nguyen et al. US 2024/0315514 (hereafter Nguyen et al.).
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Ashbaugh et al. teaches:
1. A floor cleaning system, comprising:
a floor cleaning machine (surface cleaning apparatus 10) including:
a cleaning head (cleaning head 14) movable over a surface to be cleaned and having a rotatable brush roller (brushroll 40);
a cleaning fluid supply unit (fluid distributor 38) arranged for supplying a cleaning fluid to the brush roller and comprising a supply tank (supply tank 20) for storing the cleaning fluid;
a dirty liquid recovery unit (suction source and pathway from suction nozzle 44 and recovery tank 22, Paragraph [0058]) for recovering dirty liquid and debris from the surface to be cleaned and comprising a recovery tank (recovery tank 22) for storing the dirty liquid;
a rechargeable battery (battery 80) configured to power energy-consuming components of the floor cleaning machine;
a first control unit (controller 76) controlling the floor cleaning machine to perform cleaning operations and self-cleaning operations (self-cleaning and drying cycles); and
a charging plug (corresponding charging contacts can be provided on the exterior of the apparatus 10, Paragraph [0092]) electrically coupled to the rechargeable battery;
and a self-cleaning station (tray 110) including:
a station body (body of tray) configured to receive and hold at least a portion of the base (Figure 6);
a power plug (wall charger 114 of power cord 112) provided on the station body and having ability to be electrically coupled to an external power source (Paragraph [0092]);
a second control unit (performs self-cleaning of apparatus) provided on the station body (Paragraph [0091] - The tray 110 can further be configured for further functionality beyond simple storage, such as for charging the apparatus 10, running the drying cycle, and/or for self-cleaning of the apparatus 10. – therefore, self-cleaning functions can be on tray 110);
a self-cleaning switch (drying cycle input control, button, or switch of docking station 110, Paragraph [0093]) operably provided on the station body and electrically coupled with [[the]] a second charging interface (unclear due to 112(b) issue – as best interpreted - charging contacts can be provided on the exterior of the apparatus 10, Paragraph [0092]); and
a charging port (docking station charging contacts, Paragraph [0092]) configured for electrical connection to the charging plug and coupled to the second control unit (allowing battery charging circuit 84 to charge battery 80);
wherein the first control unit is in signal communication with the second control unit via an electrical pathway passing through the charging plug and the charging port when the charging plug is electrically contacted with the charging port (drying cycle and self-cleaning cycle is locked-out by the controller 76 when the apparatus is not docked with the tray 110 which is sensed by connection to docking station charging contacts, Paragraphs [0097] and [0118]), such that the self-cleaning operation is performed in response to an indication that the self-cleaning switch has been turned on (Paragraph [0132] - “The drying cycle can automatically start upon docking the apparatus 10 on the tray 110. Alternatively, the drying cycle can be initiated manually after docking the apparatus 10 on the tray 110, such as by selecting the drying cycle input control 94 on the SUI 72, or another user-engageable button or switch provided elsewhere on the apparatus 10, or by selecting a user-engageable drying cycle input control, button or switch provided on the tray 110”); and when the self-cleaning switch is turned on, the electrical pathway transmits a protocol voltage signal that is different from a charging voltage signal transmitted during charging (see discussion below).
Ashbaugh et al. discloses in Paragraph [0077] that “during the self-cleaning cycle, cleaning liquid is sprayed on the brushroll 40 while the brushroll 40 rotates. Liquid is extracted and deposited into the recovery tank, thereby also flushing out a portion of the recovery pathway.” Ashbaugh et al. discloses in Paragraph [0126] – “power cord 112 plugged into a household outlet by the wall charger 114. In one embodiment, the battery 80 can be recharged during one or both of the self-cleaning cycle and the drying cycle. In another embodiment, the battery charging circuit 84 is disabled during one or both of the self-cleaning cycle and the drying cycle in order to use the full operating power of the wall charger 114 to power the maintenance cycle(s). In yet another embodiment, the battery 80 is recharged prior to running the self-cleaning cycle in order to use the battery 80 to power both maintenance cycles. The battery 80 can be recharged again after the drying cycle is complete.” Therefore, Ashbaugh et al. discloses, multiple maintenance scenarios, self-cleaning cycle, drying cycle, and recharging, where the operations are separate or overlapping. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the different scenarios operate with different power consumptions.
The Nguyen et al. reference is a surface cleaning apparatus and tray from the same assignee, Bissell, Inc. Nguyen et al. discloses in Paragraph [0141] – “Briefly, during the self-cleaning mode a cleanout cycle can run in which cleaning liquid is sprayed on the brushroll 3060 while the brushroll 3060 rotates. Liquid is extracted and deposited into the recovery tank 3022, thereby also flushing out a portion of the recovery pathway.” Therefore, Nguyen et al. discloses a self-cleaning operation similar to the operation disclosed by Ashbaugh et al. Nguyen et al. additionally disclose in Claim 1 that the discloses a first operating power for recharging the battery and a second operating power for the self-cleaning cycle that is at least 5.7 times greater than the first operating power. Therefore, Nguyen et al. discloses that when the self-cleaning switch turns on to initiate the self-cleaning operation, the electrical pathway transmits a power that is different from a power transmitted during charging.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ashbaugh et al. device, if even necessary, that when the self-cleaning switch turns on to initiate the self-cleaning operation, the electrical pathway transmits a power that is different from a power transmitted during charging as taught by Nguyen et al. with the motivation to provide power necessary to perform the operation with the internal device components.
That being said, the obvious combination teaches power, and not specifically voltage as claimed. It is common knowledge that power is calculated by the multiplication of the voltage (in volts) and current (in Amperes). Therefore, it is common knowledge that power can be modified, by up to 5.7 times as taught by Nguyen et. al, by the adjustment of the voltage, or current, or a combination of adjusting both voltage and current. Therefore, it would have been obvious that when the self-cleaning switch turns on to initiate the self-cleaning operation on the combined device, the electrical pathway transmits a voltage that is different from a voltage transmitted during charging as taught by Nguyen et al. with the motivation change power, as taught by the prior art, using at least a partial change in voltage consistent with providing an optimal operational or charging voltage.
Regarding Claim 2, Ashbaugh et al. teaches:
2. The floor cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the floor cleaning machine (surface cleaning apparatus 10) comprises a charging control circuit (battery charging circuit 84) controlling the charging of the rechargeable battery, and the charging control circuit interrupts the charging of the rechargeable battery when the first control unit initiates the floor cleaning machine to perform the self-cleaning operation (Paragraph [0126] – “the battery charging circuit 84 is disabled during one or both of the self-cleaning cycle and the drying cycle in order to use the full operating power of the wall charger 114 to power the maintenance cycle(s)”).
Regarding Claim 3, Ashbaugh et al. teaches:
3. The floor cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the self-cleaning switch (drying cycle input control, button, or switch of docking station 110, Paragraph [0093]) is foot-operated (merely the user’s decision to actuate button or switch with their foot).
Regarding Claim 4, Ashbaugh et al. teaches:
4. The floor cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the floor cleaning machine (surface cleaning apparatus 10) comprises a cleaning switch (input controls 88, 90, on hand grip 26) configured to be operable, and the cleaning switch is communicatively coupled to the first control unit (controller 76) for initiating the cleaning operation in response to an indication that the cleaning switch has been turned on (input controls 88 and 90 can turn on and operate the device).
Regarding Claim 5, Ashbaugh et al. teaches:
5. The floor cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the floor cleaning machine (surface cleaning apparatus 10) comprises a power monitoring device (battery monitoring circuit 86) configured to monitor the remaining power of the rechargeable battery and be in signal communication with the first control unit (controller 76)(Paragraph [0074]), and the first control unit is configured to perform the self-cleaning operation (self-cleaning mode) in response to an indication that the self-cleaning switch (drying cycle input control, button, or switch of docking station 110, Paragraph [0093]) has been turned on when the power monitoring device detects the remaining power of the rechargeable battery satisfied (when apparatus is docked on charging tray, Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 6, Ashbaugh et al. teaches:
6. The floor cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the floor cleaning machine (surface cleaning apparatus 10) comprises a cleaning fluid monitoring device (flow control system, Paragraph [0054]) being in signal communication with the first control unit (controller 76) and configured to monitor the flow of the cleaning fluid in the fluid delivery unit (fluid distributor 38).
Regarding Claim 7, Ashbaugh et al. teaches:
7. The floor cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the floor cleaning machine (surface cleaning apparatus 10) comprises a level monitoring device (status indicators 74 providing status information - dirty water level, Paragraph [0076]) being in signal communication with the first control unit (controller 76) for monitoring the level in the recovery tank (recovery tank 22).
Regarding Claim 9, Ashbaugh et al. teaches:
9. The floor cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the cleaning head (cleaning head 14) comprises a brush-roller motor (brush motor 53) for rotating the brush roller (brushroll 40), the dirty liquid recovery unit (suction source, Paragraph [0058]) includes a liquid pump (pump 42) between the supply tank (supply tank 20) and the brush roller, and the brush - roller motor and the pump are both communicatively coupled to the first control unit (controller 76)(Paragraphs [0068] and [0120]).
Regarding Claim 10, Ashbaugh et al. teaches:
10. The floor cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the dirty liquid recovery unit (suction source and pathway from suction nozzle 44 and recovery tank 22, Paragraph [0058]) comprises a suction motor (vacuum motor 46) in fluid communication with the recovery tank (recovery tank 22) and communicatively coupled to the first control unit (controller 76).
As necessitated by amendment, Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashbaugh et al. US 2020/0268225 (hereafter Ashbaugh et al.) in view of Nguyen et al. US 2024/0315514 (hereafter Nguyen et al.) as presented in Claim 1 in further view of Pruiett US 2021/0038041 (hereafter Pruiett).
Regarding Claim 8, Pruiett teaches:
8. The floor cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the floor cleaning machine (surface cleaning apparatus 10) comprises a turbidity monitoring device (see discussion below) being in signal communication with the first control unit (controller 76) for monitoring the turbidity of the fluid in the dirty liquid recovery unit (recovery tank 22).
Ashbaugh et al. discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) including status indicators 72 providing status information to the controller 76. However, Ashbaugh et al. does not disclose the inclusion of a turbidity monitoring device to monitor the turbidity of the fluid in the recovery tank 22. The reference Pruiett (same assignee as Ashbaugh et al.) discloses a surface cleaning apparatus 10 with a controller 100 configured to collect data provided by one or more sensors 102. In Paragraph [0049], Pruiett discloses “Each of the one or more onboard sensors 102 is configured to detect events or changes related to the operation of the surface cleaning apparatus 10 or its operating environment and send the information to the controller 100. Non-limiting examples of the one or more onboard sensors 102 include a tank full sensor 120, a turbidity sensor 122, a floor type sensor 124 (also referred to as a floor condition sensor), a pump pressure sensor 126, a recovery system or filter status sensor 128, a wheel rotation sensor 130, an acoustic sensor 132, a usage sensor 134, a soil sensor 136 and an accelerometer 138. Any one of these sensors, or any combination of these sensors, can be provided on the surface cleaning apparatus 10.” In Paragraph [0077] – Pruiett discloses “the turbidity sensor 122 generates data related to the turbidity of the fluid within the recovery tank 22, and sends this information to the controller 100”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ashbaugh et al. device to include a turbidity sensor as taught by Pruiett with the motivation to detect a severely dirty floor and, in response, change the operation and/or notify the user as taught in Paragraph [0077] of Pruiett.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s amendments and found them satisfactory. Therefore, the Examiner withdraws the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed June 15, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 rejection(s) of Claims 1-10 under Ashbaugh et al. US 2020/0268225 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to amendment. However, as necessitated by amendment, new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 1-10 were made in combination with Nguyen et al. US 2024/0315514.
The Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot since they are based on arguments using only the Ashbaugh et al. reference.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights