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 . Claims 1-19 are pending in the current application.
Drawings
Each of Figures 1-7, 8B, 9, and 10, is objected to because the sheets must not contain frames around the sight. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(g).
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, 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 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.
Claims 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Specifically, Claims 14 and 16 are rejected since the language “roundabout embracement manner” is indefinite.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected since the language “interference manner” is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neumann et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0367554 A1, hereinafter “Neumann”).
Specifically, regarding Claim 1, Neumann discloses an automatic cleaning device (100), comprising: a mobile platform (102; FIG. 1) configured to automatically move on an operation surface and comprising a cover plate (154; FIG. 4A), and a button assembly (163) assembled to the cover plate (154), wherein the button assembly (163) comprises a button cap (195, 199) and a bracket (192), and the button cap (195, 199) is assembled to the bracket (192), wherein the bracket (192) and the cover plate (154) are integrally formed.
Regarding Claim 2, Neumann discloses that the button cap (195, 199) comprises a button cap pressing portion (195), and a button cap skirt border (194) disposed around the button cap pressing portion (195; FIG. 7A).
Regarding Claim 3, Neumann discloses a decorative cover (104) disposed on an upper surface of the cover plate (154), wherein the decorative cover (104) comprises a mounting hole (164) that matches with the button cap pressing portion (195) in shape, and when the button cap (195, 199) is assembled to the bracket (192), an edge of the mounting hole (164) presses against the button cap skirt border (194).
Regarding Claim 4, Neumann discloses that the cover plate (154) comprises a button cap mounting portion (FIGS. 4-5) that substantially matches with the button cap skirt border (194) in contour (FIGS. 4-5), and when the button cap (195, 199) is assembled to the bracket (192), the button cap skirt border (194) fits with the button cap mounting portion (FIGS. 4-5), and an upper surface of the button cap skirt border (194) is substantially coplanar with or is slightly higher than surface of the cover plate (154; inherently disclosed at, e.g., FIGS. 4-5).
Regarding Claim 7, Neumann discloses that the button cap mounting portion (FIGS. 4-5) comprises two button holes disposed symmetrically (FIG. 4A), and the bracket (192) is integrally formed in each of the button holes (FIG. 4A).
Regarding Claim 19, the method limitations have been given little patentable weight since the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself.
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann in view of Lin et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,278,579 B2, hereinafter “Lin”).
Neumann discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed portion and protrusion. However, Lin discloses (i) a button cap mounting portion (200) [comprising] a groove (2012) extending circumferentially along an edge of the button cap mounting portion (FIG. 6), the button cap skirt border (103; FIG. 6) comprises a protruding rim (1035; FIG. 6) extending circumferentially along an edge of the button cap skirt border (FIG. 6), and when the button cap is assembled to the bracket, the protruding rim (1035) is inserted into the groove (2012), as recited in Claim 5, and (ii) that at least one of an inner surface and an outer surface of the protruding rim (1035) comprises at least one protrusion (1035 itself), as recited in Claim 6.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lin with those of Neumann to increase guidance of an actuation surface during actuation.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann in view of Rajagopal et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0084251 A1, hereinafter “Rajagopal”).
Neumann discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed portions. However, Rajagopal discloses that the button cap (195, 199) further comprises a first protruding portion (230; FIG. 9) and a second protruding portion (230; FIG. 9) which are disposed on a lower surface of the button cap pressing portion (298), and when the button cap (300) is assembled to the bracket (202; via 204, FIG. 9), the first protruding portion (230) and the second protruding portion (230) implement pressing through the bracket (FIG. 9).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rajagopal with those of Neumann to increase a contact surface area during actuation.
Regarding Claim 11, Neumann discloses that the bracket (192) comprises at least one elastic arm (194) and a button plate (192; FIG. 7A) connected through the at least one elastic arm (194; FIG. 7A), the button plate is configured to transmit a pressing force through the first protruding portion and the second protruding portion when the button cap (195, 199) is pressed, and the elastic arm is configured to enable the button plate to restore an original position thereof (FIG. 7A).
Claims 9, 12, 13, and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Neumann and Rajagopal in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0224330 A1, hereinafter “Liu”).
The combination of Neumann and Rajagopal discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed protrusions.
However, Liu discloses that the protruding portion (5) comprises a columnar structure (CS; FIG. 5, reproduced and annotated below) extending downward from the lower surface of the button cap pressing portion (PP) and a conical structure (CNS) extending downward from the columnar structure (FIG. 5), and a flat structure (FS) is formed at a joint where the columnar structure is connected with the conical structure (FIG. 5), as recited in Claim 9, (ii) a lower surface of the button plate (BP) comprises a conical protrusion (CNS; FIG. 5), and the conical protrusion is configured for use in implementing pressing (FIG. 5), as recited in Claim 12, (iii) further comprising a switch element (41, 42; FIG. 2) configured to be triggered by pressing applied through the conical structure or the conical protrusion (FIG. 5), as recited in Claim 13, and (iv) a switch element (41, 42; FIG. 2) configured to be triggered by pressing applied through the conical structure or the conical protrusion (FIG. 5), as recited in Claim 15.
PNG
media_image1.png
808
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Liu with those of Neumann and Rajagopal to provide depression stabilization and increased actuation accuracy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY R. JIMENEZ whose telephone number is 313-446-6518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 1030am - 9pm.
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, Renee Luebke, can be reached at (571) 272-2009. 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.
/ANTHONY R JIMENEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights