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 Amendments and Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments. The previous rejections are withdrawn and a second Non Final is being issued.
Applicant agues Xia in view of Reed does not disclose “a storage tray configured to dock the surface cleaning apparatus to recharge the battery and for self-cleaning of the surface cleaning apparatus”. The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection and updated with Hwang. A second non final is being issued herein. Applicant argues the relationship shown by the Examiner is incorrect since there is a difference between charge time and operating powers, thus the rejection of routine optimization is inaccurate. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation in question recites “a wall charger configured to be plugged into a household outlet, the wall charger having a first operating power; wherein the unattended automatic cleanout cycle has a second operating power that is at least 5.7 times greater than the first operating power.” Thus, charging is a first power output (P1) and when the tray is being used, the power consumed is 5.7*(P1). This value is a ratio between charging power and power consumption is a unit-less ratio. Reed teaches “In some embodiments, the battery pack 50 has a run-time to charge-time ratio such that a device being powered by the battery pack 50 is able to operate for at least four minutes for every one hour of charging. In other embodiments, different run-time to charge-time ratios are provided.” The Examiner’s interpretation of Reed says, for every hour (60 min=P1) of charge, the motors of the cleaning appliance can run for 4 minutes. That equates to 15 times P1. The correlation between run time and charge time can be similar to overall power consumption because a battery charges at a particular rate, and the motors pull power at a particular rate. Reed shows an example of how the motor consumption can be 15x the time it takes to charge the batteries. Charge time does get clouded by efficiencies and losses from charging, but even in an extreme case of ½ the power/time being lost to different charging scenarios, the ratio is still 7x in comparison to the claims at least 5.7x. Then Reed says, “ In other embodiments, different run-time to charge-time ratios are provided.” Which is interpreted as this value can change between scenarios and apparatuses. This is why the Examiner views the power consumption to the power charge to be a ratio and is a result effective variable scenario.
Applicant argues Xia in view of Reed does not disclose the battery within a battery housing. The Examiner thought this was clear enough but has updated the rejection below to more clearly explain the interpretation. As discussed by Applicant, Reed teaches a removable battery housing that contains the rechargeable batteries. The housing protects the rechargeable batteries.
Applicant argues Xia in view of Reed does not disclose a storage tray that can recharge the battery. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 114 of Reed, there is discussion of how the charger can be incorporated in different appliances. The charger is not always its own box with a cord. Thus, the Examiner believes one skilled in the art would incorporate the charger to the tray since it’s another appliance, that holds the cleaning apparatus when not in use. This would be the most advantageous time to charge the cleaning appliance.
Regarding the rejection to claim 15:
Applicant argues Xia does not disclose a dispensing phase time and a total cycle time …with a ratio of the dispensing phase time to the total cycle time is approximately 2:3.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 73 discusses how different pressure and flows can go through the nozzles. In Paragraph 75 it discusses how the control valve can affect the flow rate of the fluid. In Paragraph 81 it gives an example of how a user gives an input, the controller actuates the fluid pump to a particular flow rate, actuate the vacuum motor to a particular speed, such that the fluid flows at approximately 50ml/min and is picked up by the vacuum motor at approximately 100ml/min. Approximately 50 and approximately 100 ml/min is about 2:3. It’s also discussed how the vacuum motor can be turned off so the user has control of the motor and how much fluid it can suction. Since Xia shows the flow rates can be varied, it is of the Examiner’s position that all these small variables describe a result effective variable. There are also several external factors that affect these variables.
Applicant argues Xia does not disclose a rechargeable battery in a battery housing. The Examiner agrees, thus a second Non-Final is being issued.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (US 2017/0119225) in view of Hwang (US 2016/0051109) in view of Reed (US 2010/0088843).
Regarding claim 1, Xia discloses floor cleaning system, comprising:
a surface cleaning apparatus comprising:
an upright body comprising a handle and a frame (Item 12), the frame supporting a supply tank (Item 300) that is selectively removable from the upright body and a recovery tank (Item 400) that is selectively removable from the upright body;
a base (Item 500) operably coupled with the upright body, the base comprising a base housing and a brushroll cover (Item 542), the brushroll cover at least partially defining a brush chamber (Item 565);
a recovery system comprising a suction inlet in the base housing (Item 564), a vacuum motor (Item 250), and the recovery tank;
a brushroll (Item 546) selectively receivable within the base and at least partially located within the brush chamber (Paragraph 89), the brushroll rotatable therein about a brushroll axis;
a brushroll motor (Item 503) adapted to provide a driving force to rotate the brushroll about the brushroll axis;
a fluid delivery system comprising the supply tank, a pump (Item 226), and a fluid distributor, the fluid distributor provided on the base and configured to spray the brushroll (Paragraph 58; Figure 10);
at least one controller (Item 750) configured to execute an unattended automatic cleanout cycle for a self-cleaning mode of operation during which the pump, the brushroll motor, and the vacuum motor are energized (Paragraph 90); and
a rechargeable battery provided within a battery housing on the upright body, the rechargeable battery configured to selectively supply power to the vacuum motor, the pump, and the brushroll motor (Paragraph 80); and
a storage tray (Item 900)
Xia fails to explicitly disclose a storage tray configured to dock the surface cleaning apparatus to recharge the battery and for self-cleaning of the surface cleaning apparatus, the storage tray comprising at least one charging contact, a power cord, and a wall charger configured to be plugged into a household outlet, the wall charger having a first operating power.
Hwang teaches a storage tray configured to dock the surface cleaning apparatus to recharge the battery and for self-cleaning of the surface cleaning apparatus, the storage tray comprising at least one charging contact, a power cord, and a wall charger (Figure 4 Paragraph 74-77). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xia to include charging operations to the tray as taught by Hwang. Such a modification would allow the user to charge the cleaning apparatus when not in use.
Reed teaches a cordless cleaning system wherein storage tray (Item 300) configured to dock the battery to recharge the battery (Item 140), the storage tray comprising at least one charging contact (Item 310), a power cord, and a wall charger configured to be plugged into a household outlet (Item 315), the wall charger having a first operating power; wherein the unattended automatic cleanout cycle has a second operating power that is at least 5.7 times greater than the first operating power (Paragraph 58 gives an example ratio of 4 min per hour of charge and that different run times are possible. Further it is known different chargers have different charging rates, different batteries have different potentials, and different cleaning tools have different power requirements). Since Reed discusses how different ratios can be used, the ratio of the claimed limitation “a second operating power that is at least 5.7 times greater than the first operating power” is view as a result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. Therefore since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Xia in view of Reed it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the charger to the tray and the “second operating power that is at least 5.7 times greater than the first operating power”. Further in the instant application Paragraphs 3 and 160 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 2-3, Xia in view of Hwang in view of Reed disclose the floor cleaning system of claim 1, wherein the first operating power is 35W and the second operating power is at least 200W (or 200-250 Watts). Reed further discusses in Paragraph 113 that different cleaning tools have different operating parameter, since it is well known that not all cleaning tools have the same power requirements. Power requirements can change dramatically depending on the size and the types of motors being used. For example a large motor can be used to provide a large suction force, and a large pump can be able to deliver a higher amount of volume to the brush roller. Thus, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. Therefore since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Xia in view of Reed it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the second operating power is at least 200W (or 200-250 Watts). Further in the instant application Paragraphs 160 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Xia in view of Hwang in view of Reed disclose the floor cleaning system of claim 1, wherein the recovery tank comprises: a recovery container forming a collection chamber for the recovery system (Xia Item 401), the recovery container defining an open top (Fig 7 and 16b); a tank inlet formed at a lower end of the recovery container; a hollow standpipe (Item 420) extending upwardly from the tank inlet and comprising a pipe outlet at an upper end thereof (Paragraph 54); a lid assembly sized for receipt on the recovery container and at least partially enclosing the open top (Item 402), the lid assembly including an air outlet of the recovery tank and supporting a filter at the air outlet (Item 405); and a removable strainer having a plurality of apertures, the strainer having a portion that mounts to the hollow standpipe (Paragraph 54-56).
Regarding claim 5, Xia in view of Hwang in view of Reed disclose the floor cleaning system of claim 1 wherein the handle comprises a hand grip (Xia Item 119) having at least one input control, and the at least one input control comprises: a power input control on the hand grip adapted to control a supply of power to one or more electrical components; and a cleaning mode input control on the hand grip adapted to select at least one mode of operation (Paragraph 80-81).
Regarding claim 6 Xia in view of Hwang in view of Reed disclose the floor cleaning system of claim 1, comprising: a self-cleaning mode input control; and a controller adapted to receive a signal from the self-cleaning mode input control and control the operation of the fluid delivery system and the recovery system, wherein the controller is configured to execute an automatic cleanout cycle for a self-cleaning mode of operation upon actuation of the self-cleaning mode input control (Xia Paragraph 90).
Regarding claim 7, Xia in view of Hwang in view of Reed disclose the floor cleaning system of claim 1, comprising a moveable joint assembly (Item 570) coupling the upright body to the base for movement about at least two axes relative to the base, wherein the suction inlet is in fluid communication with the recovery tank through a conduit, wherein the conduit passes through the moveable joint assembly and is flexible to accommodate the movement of the moveable joint assembly about the at least two axes (Xia Paragraph 40).
Regarding claim 8, Xia in view of Hwang in view of Reed disclose the floor cleaning system of claim 1 wherein the recovery tank is provided below the supply tank and is removably mounted at a front of the frame, the recovery tank having a tank inlet at a lower end thereof that is configured to align with the conduit to establish fluid communication between the base and the recovery tank (Xia Figures 2 16b; Paragraph 45-47).
Regarding claim 9, Xia in view of Hwang in view of Reed disclose the floor cleaning system of claim 1 wherein the upright body comprises: a first tank receiver to receive the supply tank, the supply tank having an externally-facing surface which forms a first external surface of the surface cleaning apparatus when the supply tank is seated in the first tank receiver; and a second tank receiver to receive the recovery tank, the recovery tank having an externally-facing surface which forms a second external surface of the surface cleaning apparatus when the recovery tank is seated in the second tank receiver, and the recovery tank has an integral hand grip provided on the externally-facing surface thereof (Xia Paragraph 43-44).
Regarding claim 10, Xia in view of Hwang in view of Reed disclose the floor cleaning system of claim 1, comprising: a first wiper (Xia Item 560) configured to interface with a portion of the brushroll; and a second wiper (Item 538) mounted to the base housing behind the brushroll and configured to contact a surface to be cleaned (Paragraph 66).
Regarding claim 11-12, Xia in view of Hwang in view of Reed disclose the floor cleaning system of claim 1, wherein the unattended automatic cleanout cycle for the self-cleaning mode of operation comprises: a dispensing phase in which the pump is activated to dispense cleaning fluid from the supply tank; a brushroll rotation phase in which the brushroll motor is activated to rotate the brushroll; and an extraction phase in which the vacuum motor is activated to extract cleaning fluid and flush out a portion of the recovery system (Paragraph 82 and 90).
Xia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the unattended automatic cleanout cycle has a dispensing phase time and a total cycle time, and wherein a ratio of the dispensing phase time to the total cycle time is approximately 2:3 (or 1:3 to 1:4.5). When looking at Paragraph 90, Xia discusses “draws fluid in storage tray 900 and into the fluid recovery pathway for a predetermined amount of time or until the fluid in storage tray 900 has been depleted”. The size of the tray, and the size of the pump would vary the amount of time required to empty the tray back into the recovery tank. Thus, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. Therefore since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Xia in view of Reed it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the a ratio of the dispensing phase time to the total cycle time is approximately 2:3 (or 1:3 to 1:4.5). Further in the instant application Paragraphs 4 or 114 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (US 2017/0119225) in view of Hwang (US 2016/0051109) in view of Reed (US 2010/0088843) in view of De Wit (US 2013/0305468).
Regarding claim 13, Xia in view of Hwang in view of Reed disclose the floor cleaning system of claim 11. Xia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the vacuum motor is activated after the brushroll motor and the pump are activated.
De Witt teaches a cleaning system wherein the vacuum motor is activated after the brushroll motor and the pump are activated (Paragraphs 48-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xia to allow the brush to rotate for a predetermined amount of time before activating the suction motor and removing the liquid, as taught by De Witt. Such a modification would allow for the head to become cleaned by the spinning action (De Witt Paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 14, Xia in view of Hwang in view of Reed disclose the floor cleaning system of claim 11. Xia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the dispensing phase ends prior to the brushroll rotation phase and prior to the extraction phase.
De Witt teaches a cleaning system wherein the dispensing phase ends prior to the brushroll rotation phase and prior to the extraction phase (Paragraphs 48-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xia to allow the brush to rotate for after the liquid is filled, as taught by De Witt. Such a modification would allow for the head to become cleaned by the spinning action, and avoid any spilling (De Witt Paragraph 9-10).
Claims 15, 16, and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (US 2017/0119225) in view of Reed (US 2010/0088843).
Regarding claim 15 (and 16), Xia discloses a surface cleaning apparatus, comprising:
an upright body comprising a handle and a frame (Item 12), the frame supporting a supply tank (Item 300) that is selectively removable from the upright body and a recovery tank (Item 400) that is selectively removable from the upright body;
a base (Item 500) operably coupled with the upright body, the base comprising a base housing and a brushroll cover (Item 542), the brushroll cover at least partially defining a brush chamber (Item 565);
a recovery system comprising a suction inlet in the base housing (Item 564), a vacuum motor (Item 250), and the recovery tank;
a brushroll (Item 546) selectively receivable within the base and at least partially located within the brush chamber (Paragraph 89), the brushroll rotatable therein about a brushroll axis;
a brushroll motor (Item 503) adapted to provide a driving force to rotate the brushroll about the brushroll axis;
a fluid delivery system comprising the supply tank, a pump (Item 226), and a fluid distributor, the fluid distributor provided on the base and configured to spray the brushroll (Paragraph 58; Figure 10);
a battery on the upright body, the rechargeable battery configured to selectively supply power to the vacuum motor, the pump, and the brushroll motor (Paragraph 80); and
at least one controller (Item 750) configured to execute an unattended automatic cleanout cycle for a self-cleaning mode of operation during which the pump, the brushroll motor, and the vacuum motor are energized (Paragraph 90);
wherein the unattended automatic cleanout cycle for the self-cleaning mode of operation comprises: a dispensing phase in which the pump is activated to dispense cleaning fluid from the supply tank; a brushroll rotation phase in which the brushroll motor is activated to rotate the brushroll; and an extraction phase in which the vacuum motor is activated to extract cleaning fluid and flush out a portion of the recovery system (Paragraph 82 and 90).
Xia fails to explicitly disclose wherein battery is rechargeable and the unattended automatic cleanout cycle has a dispensing phase time and a total cycle time, and wherein a ratio of the dispensing phase time to the total cycle time is approximately 2:3.
Reed teaches a rechargeable battery provided within a battery housing (Items 50 and 140). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xia to have a replaceable rechargeable battery as taught by Reed. Such a modification would allow for the battery to be recharged. Which creates less waste than the other option of throwing the battery away.
When looking at Paragraph 90, Xia discusses “draws fluid in storage tray 900 and into the fluid recovery pathway for a predetermined amount of time or until the fluid in storage tray 900 has been depleted”. The size of the tray, and the size of the pump would vary the amount of time required to empty the tray back into the recovery tank. Thus, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. Therefore since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Xia in view of Reed it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the a ratio of the dispensing phase time to the total cycle time is approximately 2:3 (or 1:3 to 1:4.5). Further in the instant application Paragraphs 4 or 114 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 20, Xia in view of Reed discloses the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 15, wherein the recovery tank comprises: a recovery container forming a collection chamber for the recovery system (Item 401), the recovery container defining an open top (Fig 7 and 16b); a tank inlet formed at a lower end of the recovery container; a hollow standpipe (Item 420) extending upwardly from the tank inlet and comprising a pipe outlet at an upper end thereof (Paragraph 54); a lid assembly sized for receipt on the recovery container and at least partially enclosing the open top (Item 402), the lid assembly including an air outlet of the recovery tank and supporting a filter at the air outlet (Item 405); and a removable strainer having a plurality of apertures, the strainer having a portion that mounts to the hollow standpipe (Paragraph 54-56).
Regarding claim 21, Xia in view of Reed discloses the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 15 wherein the handle comprises a hand grip (Item 119) having at least one input control (Item 120), and the at least one input control comprises: a power input control on the hand grip adapted to control a supply of power to one or more electrical components; and a cleaning mode input control on the hand grip adapted to select at least one mode of operation (Paragraph 80-81).
Regarding claim 22, Xia in view of Reed discloses the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 15, comprising: a self-cleaning mode input control; and a controller adapted to receive a signal from the self-cleaning mode input control and control the operation of the fluid delivery system and the recovery system, wherein the controller is configured to execute an automatic cleanout cycle for a self-cleaning mode of operation upon actuation of the self-cleaning mode input control (Paragraph 90).
Regarding claim 23, Xia in view of Reed discloses the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 15, comprising a moveable joint assembly (Item 570) coupling the upright body to the base for movement about at least two axes relative to the base, wherein the suction inlet is in fluid communication with the recovery tank through a conduit, wherein the conduit passes through the moveable joint assembly and is flexible to accommodate the movement of the moveable joint assembly about the at least two axes (Paragraph 40).
Regarding claim 24, Xia in view of Reed discloses the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 15 wherein the recovery tank is provided below the supply tank and is removably mounted at a front of the frame, the recovery tank having a tank inlet at a lower end thereof that is configured to align with the conduit to establish fluid communication between the base and the recovery tank (Figures 2 16b; Paragraph 45-47).
Regarding claim 25, Xia in view of Reed discloses the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 15 wherein the upright body comprises: a first tank receiver to receive the supply tank, the supply tank having an externally-facing surface which forms a first external surface of the surface cleaning apparatus when the supply tank is seated in the first tank receiver; and a second tank receiver to receive the recovery tank, the recovery tank having an externally-facing surface which forms a second external surface of the surface cleaning apparatus when the recovery tank is seated in the second tank receiver, and the recovery tank has an integral hand grip provided on the externally-facing surface thereof (Paragraph 43-44).
Regarding claim 26, Xia in view of Reed discloses the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 15, comprising: a first wiper (Item 560) configured to interface with a portion of the brushroll; and a second wiper (Item 538) mounted to the base housing behind the brushroll and configured to contact a surface to be cleaned (Paragraph 66).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (US 2017/0119225) in view of Reed (US 2010/0088843) in view of De Wit (US 2013/0305468).
Regarding claim 17, Xia discloses the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 15, Xia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the vacuum motor is activated after the brushroll motor and the pump are activated.
De Witt teaches a cleaning system wherein the vacuum motor is activated after the brushroll motor and the pump are activated (Paragraphs 48-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xia to allow the brush to rotate for a predetermined amount of time before activating the suction motor and removing the liquid, as taught by De Witt. Such a modification would allow for the head to become cleaned by the spinning action (De Witt Paragraph 9)
Regarding claim 18, Xia in view of De Witt disclose the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 17, wherein the dispensing phase ends prior to the brushroll rotation phase and prior to the extraction phase (DeWitt Paragraphs 48-49).
Regarding claim 19, Xia discloses the surface cleaning apparatus of claim 15, Xia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the dispensing phase ends prior to the brushroll rotation phase and prior to the extraction phase.
De Witt teaches a cleaning system wherein the dispensing phase ends prior to the brushroll rotation phase and prior to the extraction phase (Paragraphs 48-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xia to allow the brush to rotate for after the liquid is filled, as taught by De Witt. Such a modification would allow for the head to become cleaned by the spinning action, and avoid any spilling (De Witt Paragraph 9-10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM 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, 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.
/TOM RODGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights