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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of the response and amendment dated 9/25/2026. Minor amendments were made to the claims, along with the addition of claim 19. Thus, claims 1-19 are pending and discussed below.
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 1-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/171004 to Lopez in view of WO 2019/097736 to Yato.
Regarding claim 1, Lopez discloses a robotic vacuum cleaner (see Background) comprising: a main body (104); a wheel (102, 106, or 108) for enabling movement of the main body (104); a drive motor (130) for driving the wheel, a gearbox (110) coupling the drive motor to the wheel (see page 9, line 31- page 10, line 2; Examiner notes that 110 as much couples the drive motor to the wheel as the described “gearbox” in the written description); and a suspension system coupling the wheel to the main body (see Figure 3); wherein the suspension system comprises a first arm (132) and a second arm (134), the first arm (132) coupled to the gearbox(110) at a first pivot point (142) and coupled to the main body (104) at a second pivot point (138), the second arm (134) coupled to the gearbox at a third pivot point (144) and coupled to the main body (104) at a fourth pivot point (140), the first pivot point (142) spaced from the third pivot point (144) by a first distance, and the second pivot point (138) spaced form the fourth pivot point (140) by a second distance greater than the first distance (see Figures 3 and 4).
Lopez fails to disclose having a distance sensor located on the main body, the distance sensor for sensing a distance between the main body and a surface upon which the wheel is located.
Yato discloses a distance sensor (18) located on the main body (1) of a self-propelled cleaner (1), the distance sensor for sensing a distance between the main body and a surface upon which the wheel is located (see top of page 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to have a distance sensor described by Yato on the robotic vehicle of Lopez with a reasonable expectation of success in order to better avoid objects and to also better navigate the floor. The combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Lopez discloses the robotic vacuum cleaner (100) is movable in a first direction (154) substantially orthogonal to a rotational axis of the wheel (164), and in a second, opposite, direction substantially orthogonal to the rotational axis of the wheel second direction (reverse 154; see at least Figure 2), the first (142) and third (144) pivot points are located rearwardly of the second (138) and fourth pivot (14) points when the robotic vacuum cleaner moves in the first direction, and the second and fourth pivot points are located rearwardly of the first and third pivot points when the robotic vacuum cleaner moves in the second direction (see at least Figure 3).
Regarding claims 3, 5, 7 and 18, Lopez and Yato are discussed above, but fail to disclose a ratio of the second distance to the first distance is in the range of 1.1 to 3.0; the first distance is in the range of 10.0mm to 16.0mm; and the second distance is in the range of 17.0mm to 30.0mm.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention would have been motivated to modify the suspension arm distances of Lopez such that the distances for the pivot points are in the claimed ratio and distance ranges, since it has been held that discovering the optimum workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, the suspension of Lopez would function for its intended purpose with a ratio of the second distance to the first distance is in the range of 1.1 to 3.0; the first distance is in the range of 10.0mm to 16.0mm; and the second distance is in the range of 17.0mm to 30.0mm. Additionally, the subject disclosure does not provide any criticality to the ratio of the second distance to the first distance is in the range of 1.1 to 3.0; the first distance is in the range of 10.0mm to 16.0mm; and the second distance is in the range of 17.0mm to 30.0mm.
Regarding claims 4, 6, and 8, Lopez and Yato are discussed above, but fail to disclose a ratio of the second distance to the first distance is approximately 1.5; the first distance is approximately 14.3mm; and the second distance is approximately 21.3mm.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention would have been motivated to modify the suspension arm distances of Lopez such that the ratio and arm distances are the claimed ratio and distances, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, the suspension of Lopez would function for its intended purpose with the ratio of the second distance to the first distance is approximately 1.5; the first distance is approximately 14.3mm; and the second distance is approximately 21.3mm. Additionally, the subject disclosure does not provide any criticality to the ratio of the distances to each other or the specific length of the distances.
Regarding claim 17, Lopez discloses the wheel (102) is located at a first side (top side) of the main body (see at least Figure 2), and the robotic vacuum cleaner comprises: a further wheel (106 or 108) located at a second side of the main body opposite to the first side of the main body (see Figure 2); and a further suspension system coupling the further wheel (106 or 108) to the main body; wherein the further suspension system comprises a third arm and a fourth arm, the third arm coupled to the further gearbox at a fifth pivot point and coupled to the main body at a sixth pivot point, the fourth arm coupled to the further gearbox at a seventh pivot point and coupled to the main body at an eighth pivot point, the fifth pivot point spaced from the seventh pivot point by a third distance, and the sixth pivot point spaced from the eighth pivot point by a fourth distance greater than the third distance (Figure 3 shows the exemplary suspension system for wheel 102, but it is the same suspension and pivot system use for both further wheels 106 and 108).
Lopez and Yato fail to disclose having a further drive motor for driving the further wheel; a further gearbox coupling the further drive motor to the further wheel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to have an additional drive motor and gearbox in order to provide better handing and wheel control, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device only involves routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The addition would yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 19 was added by amendment. Claim 14 was previously indicated as allowable by the Examiner. Claim 19 contains the limitations of claim 14 and independent claim 1, from which claim 14 depends. Thus, claim 19 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., gears in a gearbox) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim language simply recites “a gearbox coupling the drive motor to the wheel.” Applicant admits on page 7 of their response that “[t]he axle housing … couples the wheel 102 to the motor within motor housing 130” in Lopez. Further, the written description for the present application does not appear to define the “gearbox” as containing any gears or that gears must be used to couple the wheel to the motor. Effectively, the axle housing in Lopez performs the same function as the “gearbox” of the present invention. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive, and claims 1-8 and 17-18 are rejected as noted above.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Tiffany L. Webb whose telephone number is (571)272-3950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30-5.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at 571-270-5985. 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.
/T.L.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
