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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On pg. 17, ln 3 the phrase “the water container 120 is spaced apart from the heater 130 on the heater 130” appears to be an error.
On pg. 23, ln 21, a “)” was used where it should read “.”
Appropriate correction is required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract has exceeded the 150 word limit. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s special definition of cleaner as “a cleaning apparatus operated by a user manually,” as stated on page 9 of the specification.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the safety mode control" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that limitation should read “the safety mode.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a surface to be cleaned" twice within the claim. A limitation should only be recited once within a claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the second instance of “a surface to be cleaned” should read “the surface to be cleaned.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the motion control unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that “the motion control unit” should read “the motion detecting part”
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a surface to be cleaned" when claim 1, on which it depends had previously recited the limitation. A limitation should only be recited once within a claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the instance of “a surface to be cleaned” in claim 5 should read “the surface to be cleaned.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the safety mode control" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that limitation should read “the safety mode.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a surface to be cleaned" twice within the claim. A limitation should only be recited once within a claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the second instance of “a surface to be cleaned” should read “the surface to be cleaned.”
Claims 8 and 9 recite the limitation "the planar motion displacement" in line 2 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the first limitation in claim 8 should read “a planar motion displacement.” Claim 9 recites the limitation "a preset threshold displacement" twice within the claim. A limitation should only be recited once within a claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the second instance of “a preset threshold displacement” should read “the preset threshold displacement.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a main battery" when claim 6, on which it depends had previously recited the limitation. A limitation should only be recited once within a claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the instance of “a main battery” in claim 10 should read “the main battery.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation "a surface to be cleaned" twice within the claim. A limitation should only be recited once within a claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the second instance of “a surface to be cleaned” should read “the surface to be cleaned.”
Claims 14 and 15 recite the limitation "a surface to be cleaned" when claim 11, on which they depends had previously recited the limitation. A limitation should only be recited once within a claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the instances of “a surface to be cleaned” in claims 14 and 15 should read “the surface to be cleaned.”
Claim 15 recites the limitation "a preset threshold displacement" twice within the claim. A limitation should only be recited once within a claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the second instance of “a preset threshold displacement” should read “the preset threshold displacement.”
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a main battery" when claim 6, on which it depends had previously recited the limitation. A limitation should only be recited once within a claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the instance of “a main battery” in claim 10 should read “the main battery.”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang KR 102275500 B1 in view of LG KR 102021827 B1 and Franke DE 102018210731 A1.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
195
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chang Figure 1
Regarding claim 1, Chang teaches: a cleaner (100) configured to wet clean a surface (English Translation, abstract) to be cleaned using a rotating mop (123)), comprising: a main body (upper portion of 110) in which an operating part (119) configured to receive an instruction and a main battery (118) configured to supply electric power are disposed; and a cleaning module (lower portion of 110 and 120) to which the main body (upper portion of 110) is connected on an upper part thereof and to which the mop (123) is connected on a lower part thereof, wherein the cleaning module (lower portion of 110 and 120) comprises: a water container (112); a heater (113) configured to generate steam to be supplied to the mop (123) from water stored in the water container (112); a feedwater pump (114) configured to press the water stored in the water container (112) to be pressure-fed into the heater (113), and a mop motor (122) connected to the mop (123) and configured to be driven to rotate the mop (123).
Chang does not disclose a motion detecting part, load measuring part, or a control unit for entering a safety mode.
PNG
media_image2.png
432
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
LG Figure 4
However, in a related device, LG teaches a cleaning apparatus (English Translation, abstract) with a mop (40) comprising: a motion detecting part (20) configured to detect a motion of the cleaning module; a load measuring part (29) configured to measure a rotational load of the mop (40); and a control unit (10) configured to control the cleaning apparatus in a safety mode (English Translation, pg. 10, ln 1-4) when the motion detecting part (20) detects that the cleaning apparatus is in a tilted state compared to a surface to be cleaned (English Translation, pg. 10, ln 1-4), or when the load measuring part (29) detects a certain magnitude reduction with respect to the rotational load (English Translation, pg. 10, ln 1-4). Chang teaches that this advantageously allows for the cleaning apparatus to preform error correction techniques if one of the mop heads comes loose from the apparatus (English Translation, Abstract). It have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to combine the sensing methods of LG with the cleaner of Chang to advantageously allow the cleaner to preform error corrections if one of the mop heads came loose (English Translation, Abstract). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The combination of Chang and LG does not teach a stopping operation of the heater, water pump, or mop motor with data from the sensors.
PNG
media_image3.png
740
404
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Franke Figure 1
However, in a related device, Franke teaches a cleaner (1) with a mop (13) with a safety mode (English Translation, pg. 10, ln 1-4) is a stopping operation of a mop motor (12) and other ancillary tools (9) (English Translation, pg. 7, ln 24-25). Franke further teaches that this advantageously increases the safety of the device (English Translation, pg. 7, ln 39-40). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to combine the shutoff mechanism of Franke with the cleaner of the combination of Chang and LG to turn off the ancillary tools of the feedwater pump and heater and the mop motors to advantageously increase the safety of the device (English Translation, pg. 7, ln 39-40). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chang, LG and Franke teaches the motion detecting part (20 of LG) comprises a gyro sensor (26 of LG) which detects a tilt angle (English Translation, pg. 4, ln 39 of LG) at which the cleaning module is tilted compared to the surface to be cleaned.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chang, LG and Franke teaches the motion detecting part comprises an acceleration sensor (26 of LG) which detects a tilt angle at which the cleaning module is tilted compared to the surface to be cleaned (English Translation, pg. 4, line 37-38 of LG).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang KR 102275500 B1 in view of LG KR 102021827 B1 and Franke DE 102018210731 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beier DE 102012105845 A1.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chang, LG and Franke teaches the limitations of claim 1 as claimed, and turning off the heater (113 of Chang) and pump (114 of Chang), but not the motor (122 of Chang) under the safety mode control (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 48-49 of Franke).
The combination of Chang, LG and Franke does not teach the safety mode controlling a rotating speed of the motor to be greater than 0, but less than a current speed.
PNG
media_image4.png
308
371
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Beier Figure 2
However, in a related device, Beier teaches a vacuum cleaner (English Translation, abstract) wherein a control unit (42) controls a power to a fan blower motor (40) to be greater than 0 and smaller than a current power when sensors (22) detect a tilted state (English Translation, pg. 7, ln 13-15). Beier further teaches that this system allows for a user to select between the power levels of the vacuum without manually adjusting controls (English Translation, pg. 3, ln. 21-25). It have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to combine the reduced power of the fan blower motor when tilted with the motor of the combination of Chang, LG and Franke to provide angle-based control of the cleaning tool’s power to a user while turning off steam components (the heater and pump) (English Translation, pg. 3, ln. 21-25). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chang, LG and Franke teaches when the motion detecting part (20 of LG) detects a tilt angle at which the cleaning module (lower portion of 110 and 120 of Chang) is tilted compared to a surface to be cleaned, and wherein under the safety mode control (English Translation, pg. 10, ln 1-4), the control unit (10 of LG) performs a first safety mode control (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 48-49 of Franke) which stops drive of the heater (113 of Chang) and the feedwater pump (114 of Chang) when the detected angle is equal to or greater than a preset first threshold angle and smaller than a second threshold angle (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 48-49 of Franke), and performs a second safety mode control (English Translation, pg. 4, ln 1-2 of Franke) which stops drive of the heater (113 of Chang), the feedwater pump (114 of Chang), and the mop motor (122 of Chang) when the detected angle is equal to or greater than the second threshold angle (English Translation, pg. 4, ln 1-2 of Franke).
The combination of Chang, LG and Franke does not teach during the first safety mode controlling a rotating speed of the mop motor to be greater than 0 and smaller than a current speed.
However, in a related device, Beier teaches a vacuum cleaner (English Translation, abstract) wherein a control unit (42) controls a power to a fan blower motor (40) to be greater than 0 and smaller than a current power when sensors (22) detect a tilted state (English Translation, pg. 7, ln 13-15). Beier further teaches that this system allows for a user to select between the power levels of the vacuum without manually adjusting controls (English Translation, pg. 3, ln. 21-25). It have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to combine the reduced power of the fan blower motor when tilted with the motor of the combination of Chang, LG and Franke to provide angle-based control of the cleaning tool’s power to a user while turning off steam components (the heater and pump) during the first safety mode (English Translation, pg. 3, ln. 21-25). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6-8, 11, 14, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang KR 102275500 B1 in view of Beier DE 102012105845 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Chang teaches: a cleaner (100) configured to wet clean a surface (English Translation, abstract) to be cleaned using a rotating mop (123)), comprising: a main body (upper portion of 110) in which an operating part (119) configured to receive an instruction and a main battery (118) configured to supply electric power are disposed; and a cleaning module (lower portion of 110 and 120) to which the main body (upper portion of 110) is connected on an upper part thereof and to which the mop (123) is connected on a lower part thereof, wherein the cleaning module (lower portion of 110 and 120) comprises: a water container (112); a heater (113) configured to generate steam to be supplied to the mop (123) from water stored in the water container (112); a feedwater pump (114) configured to press the water stored in the water container (112) to be pressure-fed into the heater (113), and a mop motor (122) connected to the mop (123) and configured to be driven to rotate the mop (123).
Chang does not teach a motion detecting part, control unit configured for a safety mode, or a safety mode.
However, in a related device, Beier teaches a vacuum cleaner (English Translation, abstract) comprising a motion detecting part (22) configured to detect a motion of the cleaning module (20); and a control unit (42) configured to control the tool in a safety mode (English Translation, pg. 9, ln 29-32) when the motion detecting part (22) detects that the cleaning module is in a non-moving-state (English Translation, pg. 9, ln 29-32) on a surface to be cleaned, and wherein the safety mode control (English Translation, pg. 9, ln 29-32) vacuum blower (40). Beier further teaches that this advantageously allows for omission of a separate switch for determining when a user has ‘parked’ the device in order to turn it off (English Translation, pg. 9, ln 32-34). It have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to combine the safety mode of Beier with the cleaning device of Chang to turn off the motor, pump, and heater with a lack of displacement to advantageously turn off the device when ‘parked’ without need for a separate switch (English Translation, pg. 9, ln 32-34). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chang and Beier teaches the motion detecting part (22 of Beier) comprises a displacement sensor (English Translation, pg. 6, ln 20 of Beier (acceleration sensors are capable of being used to measure displacement))which detects a planar motion displacement with which the cleaning module travels in a state of contacting a surface to be cleaned.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Chang and Beier teaches when a certain time elapses in a state in which the planar motion displacement of the cleaning module (lower portion of 110 and 120 of Chang) detected by the motion detecting part (22 of Beier) is equal to or smaller than a preset threshold displacement, the control unit performs the safety mode control (English Translation, pg. 9, ln 29-32).
Regarding claim 11, Chang teaches: a cleaner (100) configured to wet clean a surface (English Translation, abstract) to be cleaned using a rotating mop (123)), comprising: a main body (upper portion of 110) in which an operating part (119) configured to receive an instruction and a main battery (118) configured to supply electric power are disposed; and a cleaning module (lower portion of 110 and 120) to which the main body (upper portion of 110) is connected on an upper part thereof and to which the mop (123) is connected on a lower part thereof, wherein the cleaning module (lower portion of 110 and 120) comprises: a water container (112); a heater (113) configured to generate steam to be supplied to the mop (123) from water stored in the water container (112); a feedwater pump (114) configured to press the water stored in the water container (112) to be pressure-fed into the heater (113), and a mop motor (122) connected to the mop (123) and configured to be driven to rotate the mop (123).
Chang does not teach a first event where the cleaner is spaced apart from the surface or a second event where the cleaner is stationary.
However, in a related device, Beier teaches a vacuum cleaner (English Translation, abstract) wherein when at least one among a first event, in which the cleaning module is spaced apart from a surface to be cleaned (English Translation, pg. 7, ln 13-15), and a second event, in which the cleaning module does not move for a certain period of time or more, occurs (English Translation, pg. 9, ln 29-32), a vacuum fan blower is controlled to stop. Beier further teaches that the control on the second event advantageously allows for using motion sensors rather than a separate switch for determining when a user has ‘parked’ the device in order to turn it off (English Translation, pg. 9, ln 32-34). It have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to combine turning off during the second event of Beier with the cleaning device of Chang to turn off the motor, pump, and heater with a lack of displacement to advantageously turn off the device when ‘parked’ without need for a separate switch (English Translation, pg. 9, ln 32-34). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Chang and Beier teaches when only the second event occurs, at an elapse of a certain time in a state in which a planar motion displacement with which the cleaning module travels in a state of contacting a surface to be cleaned is equal to or smaller than a preset threshold displacement (English Translation, pg. 9, ln 29-32 of Beier), the heater (113 of Chang), the feedwater pump (114 of Chang), and the mop motor (122 of Chang) are controlled to stop (English Translation, pg. 9, ln 29-32 of Beier).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Chang and Beier teaches the cleaning module (lower portion of 110 and 120 of Chang) further comprises an acceleration sensor (22 of Beier) which detects occurrence of the first event (English Translation, pg. 7, ln 13-15 of Beier).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Chang and Beier teaches the cleaning module (lower portion of 110 and 120 of Chang) further comprises a displacement sensor (22 of Beier (acceleration sensors are capable of measuring displacement)) which detects occurrence of the second event (English Translation, pg. 9, ln 29-32 of Beier).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang KR 102275500 B1 in view of Beier DE 102012105845 A1 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Thomas et al. US 20040049878 A1 (herein Thomas).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chang and Beier teaches when a preset threshold time elapses in a state in which the planar motion displacement of the cleaning module (lower portion of 110 and 120 of Chang) detected by the motion detecting part (22 of Beier) is equal to or smaller than a preset threshold displacement, the control unit (42 of Beier) performs a cleaning end mode control which pauses the heater (113 of Chang), the feedwater pump (114 of Chang), and the mop motor (122 of Chang), and stops supply of electric power to the cleaning module (English Translation, pg. 9, ln 29-32).
The combination of Chang and Beier does not teach a prior preset threshold time where the heater, pump, and mop motor are paused, but the control unit still provided power.
However, in a related device, Thomas teaches a cleaner (abstract) wherein if sensors (26A-B) detect an incorrect state for a first threshold time, the device puts a cleaning tool (168) into a paused state where it turns off the tool (para 158, ln 1-2; ln 8-9) and when a preset second threshold time which is greater than the first threshold time elapses in a state in which sensors (26A-B) are in an incorrect state is equal to or smaller than a preset threshold displacement, a control unit (34) controls the tool to move to an off position (para 159, ln 1-5). Thomas further teaches that this advantageously allows the device to power down if it detects a lack of inputs from a user for safety (para 158, ln 3-6). It have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to combine time delayed shut-off modes of Thomas with the cleaner of the combination of Chang and Beier to allow for a pause mode where power is removed from the components and a shutdown mode where the cleaning unit is fully powered down to advantageously increase safety if no user input was detected with the motion detecting part (English Translation, pg. 9, ln 32-34). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chang, Beier, and Thomas teaches the electric power is supplied from a main battery (118 of Chang).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Chang and Beier teaches when a preset threshold time elapses in a state in which the planar motion displacement of the cleaning module (lower portion of 110 and 120 of Chang) detected by the motion detecting part (22 of Beier) is equal to or smaller than a preset threshold displacement, the control unit (42 of Beier) performs a cleaning end mode control which pauses the heater (113 of Chang), the feedwater pump (114 of Chang), and the mop motor (122 of Chang), and stops supply of electric power to the cleaning module (English Translation, pg. 9, ln 29-32).
The combination of Chang and Beier does not teach a prior preset threshold time where the heater, pump, and mop motor are paused, but the control unit still provided power.
However, in a related device, Thomas teaches a cleaner (abstract) wherein if sensors (26A-B) detect an incorrect state for a first threshold time, the device puts a cleaning tool (168) into a paused state where it turns off the tool (para 158, ln 1-2; ln 8-9) and when a preset second threshold time which is greater than the first threshold time elapses in a state in which sensors (26A-B) are in an incorrect state is equal to or smaller than a preset threshold displacement, a control unit (34) controls the tool to move to an off position (para 159, ln 1-5). Thomas further teaches that this advantageously allows the device to power down if it detects a lack of inputs from a user for safety (para 158, ln 3-6). It have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to combine time delayed shut-off modes of Thomas with the cleaner of the combination of Chang and Beier to allow for a pause mode where power is removed from the components and a shutdown mode where the cleaning unit is fully powered down to advantageously increase safety if no user input was detected with the motion detecting part (English Translation, pg. 9, ln 32-34). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Chang, Beier, and Thomas teaches the electric power is supplied from a main battery (118 of Chang).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang KR 102275500 B1 in view of Beier DE 102012105845 A1 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Franke DE 102018210731 A1.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chang and Beier teaches the limitations of claim 1 as claimed. The combination also teaches when the first event occurs and the second event does not occur reducing the speed of the motor (122 of Chang) to a speed greater than 0, and smaller than a current speed (English Translation, pg. 7, ln 13-15 of Beier).
The combination of Chang and Beier does not teach turning off the heater and feedwater pump when the first event occurs.
However, in a related device, Franke teaches a stopping operation of ancillary tools (9) when a tool is detected to be tilted (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 48-49). Franke further teaches that this advantageously increases the safety of the device (English Translation, pg. 7, ln 39-40). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to combine the shutoff mechanism of Franke when tilted (i.e. lifted) with the cleaner of the combination of Chang and Beier to turn off the ancillary tools of the feedwater pump and heater while reducing the speed of the motors to advantageously increase the safety of the device (English Translation, pg. 7, ln 39-40). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Chang and Beier teaches the limitations of claim 1 as claimed. The combination also teaches when the first event occurs and the second event does not occur reducing the speed of the motor (122 of Chang) to a speed greater than 0, and smaller than a current speed when a tilt angle of the cleaning module is equal to or greater than a preset threshold angle (English Translation, pg. 7, ln 13-15 of Beier).
The combination of Chang and Beier does not teach turning off the heater and feedwater pump when the first event occurs or a second threshold angle in which the cleaner turns off all tools.
However, in a related device, Franke teaches a stopping operation of ancillary tools (9) when a tool is detected to be tilted to a first threshold angle (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 48-49) pg. 3, ln 48-49 of Franke), and performs a second safety mode control (English Translation, pg. 4, ln 1-2 of Franke) which stops a mop motor (12) and other ancillary tools (9) when the detected angle is equal to or greater than the second threshold angle (English Translation, pg. 4, ln 1-2 of Franke). Franke further teaches that this advantageously increases the safety of the device (English Translation, pg. 7, ln 39-40). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to combine the shutoff mechanism of Franke when tilted with the cleaner of the combination of Chang and Beier to turn off the ancillary tools of the feedwater pump and heater while reducing the speed of the motors to advantageously increase the safety of the device at a first threshold angle, and turn of the mop motor as well as the heater and pump at a second angle (English Translation, pg. 7, ln 39-40). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang KR 102275500 B1 in view of Beier DE 102012105845 A1 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of LG KR 102021827 B1.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Chang and Beier teaches the limitations of claim 11 as claimed. The combination of Chang and Beier does not teach the cleaner comprising a gyro sensor.
However, in a related device, LG teaches a cleaner (English Translation, abstract) comprising a gyro sensor (26) which detects occurrence of an event where the device is unevenly spaced from the floor (English Translation, pg. 4, ln 39). The gyro sensor being a known technique would have been applicable to the combination of Chang and Beier and would have provided predictable results if added to the cleaning module preforming the same function that it did in LG.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 4963503 as it relates to a pause mode in the device when lifted.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRANT D HAY whose telephone number is (571)272-9510. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-3:30pm EST.
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.
/G.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights