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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species 1 (claims 1, 2 and 4-34) in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3 and 35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2 and 4-34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “Cleaning system” in line 1 should apparently be replaced with “A cleaning system”; and the phrase “, comprising” in line 1 should apparently be replaced with “, comprising:”.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-34, the phrase “Cleaning system” in line 1 should apparently be replaced with “The cleaning system”.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “an, portable” in line 2 should apparently be replaced with “a portable”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: high-pressure cleaning apparatus in claim 34, hard surface cleaning apparatus in claim 34, and dry ice cleaning apparatus in claim 34.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Based on a review of the specifications, there do not appear to be structural examples provided by which the terms may be interpreted.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 34 recites the features high-pressure cleaning apparatus, hard surface cleaning apparatus, and dry ice cleaning apparatus, which are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). However, the specification as filed does not appear to provide structural examples of these terms.
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.
Claims 26 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the capturing device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “high-pressure” in claim 34 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-pressure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 5-7, 12-19 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0049288 to Knutson et al. (“Knutson”).
Regarding claim 1, Knutson teaches a cleaning system (abstract, Fig. 1, para [0050] – [0051)), comprising a cleaning apparatus with at least one cleaning tool (Fig. 1, ref. 22, 30 and 32, para [0018]), a sensor device for detecting a propagation of vibrations due to the operation of the cleaning apparatus and providing input information related thereto (Fig. 4A, ref. 50, para [0051] – [0051]), and a data processing device on which an application program is running or is runnable, in which the input information is able to be analyzed (Fig. 2, ref. 10 and 18, para [0019], [0050] – [0051]), wherein, by means of the analysis of the input information, it is ascertainable whether the detected propagation of vibrations is an abnormal propagation of vibrations which is indicative of an actual operating state which deviates from a normal operating state of the cleaning apparatus, wherein, depending on the deviation, a cause of the abnormal propagation of vibrations is determinable and/or a corrective measure with regard to correcting the cause of the abnormal propagation of vibrations is providable by the data processing device (para [00580] – [0051]).
Regarding claim 2, Knutson discloses a system wherein the sensor device comprises at least one microphone, and wherein the abnormal propagation of vibrations is or comprises a noise that occurs during operation of the cleaning apparatus (para [0050] – [0051]).
Regarding claim 5, Knutson discloses a system wherein the cleaning system comprises an indicator unit, at which an indication is configured to be output to an operator as a corrective measure regarding the cause of the abnormal propagation of vibrations (Fig. 5, ref. 92A-C, ref. para [0026], [0062]).
Regarding claim 6, Knutson discloses a cleaning system wherein the indicator unit is or comprises at least one of the following: - an optical display unit, with a controllable image display; - an acoustic indicator unit; and - a haptic indicator unit (Fig. 5, ref. 92A-C, ref. para [0026], [0062]).
Regarding claim 7, Knutson discloses a system wherein the indication comprises corrective information for the operator to correct the cause of the abnormal propagation of vibrations (para [0038], [0048], [0051]).
Regarding claim 12, Knutson discloses a system wherein the cleaning apparatus comprises the sensor device and/or the data processing device and/or an indicator unit for outputting an indication regarding the cause of the abnormal propagation of vibrations (para [0044], [0045], [0051]).
Regarding claim 13, Knutson discloses a system wherein the cleaning apparatus comprises a control unit for controlling the operation of the cleaning apparatus, wherein the control unit comprises or forms the data processing device (Fig. 2, ref. 10 and 18, para [0019], [0050] – [0051]).
Regarding claim 14, Knutson discloses a system wherein the cleaning system comprises a portable capturing apparatus which comprises the sensor device, the data processing device and/or an indicator unit for outputting an indication relating to the abnormal propagation of vibrations (para [0058], [0063], Fig. 1, ref. 22, 30 and 32, para [0018], Fig. 4A, ref. 50, para [0051] – [0051], and Fig. 2, ref. 10 and 18, para [0019], [0050] – [0051]).
Regarding claim 15, Knutson discloses a system wherein the capturing apparatus is one of the following: smartphone, tablet computer, laptop computer, smartwatch (para [0058], [0063]).
Regarding claim 16, Knutson discloses a system wherein the capturing apparatus is detachably connected or is configured to be detachably connected to the cleaning apparatus (para [0058], [0063]).
Regarding claim 17, Knutson discloses a system wherein the cleaning apparatus has a receptacle useful for the capturing apparatus, on which receptacle the capturing apparatus is arrangeable in a defined position (para [0042])).
Regarding claim 18, Knutson discloses a system wherein at least one electrical connection element for electrically connecting the capturing apparatus to the cleaning apparatus is arranged on the receptacle, and/or wherein the data processing device of the capturing device is couplable wirelessly to a control unit of the cleaning apparatus (para [0017], [0027], [0043] – [0050], [0098]).
Regarding claim 19, Knutson discloses an operating unit of the cleaning apparatus, on which at least one operating element for operating the cleaning apparatus by an operator is arranged (Fig. 2, ref. 20, para [0013]), but does not explicitly teach the system wherein the receptacle is arranged on an operating unit of the cleaning apparatus, on which at least one operating element for operating the cleaning apparatus by an operator is arranged. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Knutson system wherein the receptacle is arranged on an operating unit of the cleaning apparatus, on which at least one operating element for operating the cleaning apparatus by an operator is arranged, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance convenience for an operator. Note that rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 32, Knutson discloses a system wherein the cleaning apparatus is configured to be self-propelled and self-steering (para [0004], [0019], [0072]). It is noted that the present specification does not appear to demonstrate the criticality of the cleaning apparatus being self-propelled and self-steering (note present claim 33).
Regarding claim 32, Knutson discloses a system wherein the cleaning apparatus is configured to be user-guided and comprises an operating unit for guiding the cleaning apparatus (para [0004], [0019]). It is noted that the present specification does not appear to demonstrate the criticality of the cleaning apparatus being user-guided and comprising an operating unit for guiding the cleaning apparatus (note present claim 32).
Regarding claim 34, Knutson discloses a system wherein the cleaning apparatus is one of the following: scrubber-dryer, sweeper, high-pressure cleaning apparatus, suction device for cleaning purposes, mopping device, hard surface cleaning apparatus, dry ice cleaning apparatus (para [0019]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 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.
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.
Claims 4, 20-24, 26-28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2017/0049288 to Knutson et al. (“Knutson”).
Regarding claim 4, Knutson does not explicitly teach the system being operated in a manner wherein the cause of the abnormal propagation of vibrations comprises at least one of the following: - a fault or an impending fault of the cleaning apparatus; - a fault or an impending fault of at least one functional unit and/or at least one cleaning tool; - excessive wear or progressive wear of a functional unit of the cleaning apparatus and/or at least one cleaning tool; - incorrect operation by an operator; - a shortage or excess of a consumable component for operating the cleaning apparatus. However, since Knutson discloses the claimed structural features, and appears to be substantially identical to the claimed system, the Knutson system appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 can be made when the prior art product seems to be identical except that the prior art is silent as to an inherent characteristic. MPEP 2112(III)(A).
Once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. MPEP 2112(V).
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 20, Knutson does not explicitly teach the system wherein the propagation of vibrations is recorded and/or monitored for a specified period of time to create the input information. However, since Knutson discloses the claimed structural features, and appears to be substantially identical to the claimed system, the Knutson system appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Regarding claim 21, Knutson does not explicitly teach the system wherein the propagation of vibrations is monitored continuously or substantially continuously via the sensor device. However, since Knutson discloses the claimed structural features, and appears to be substantially identical to the claimed system, the Knutson system appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Regarding claim 22, Knutson does not explicitly teach the system wherein the propagation of vibrations is detected at successive time intervals and/or is recorded for a specified period of time for analysis by the data processing device. However, since Knutson discloses the claimed structural features, and appears to be substantially identical to the claimed system, the Knutson system appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Regarding claim 23, Knutson does not explicitly teach the system wherein the time intervals are regular time intervals. However, since Knutson discloses the claimed structural features, and appears to be substantially identical to the claimed system, the Knutson system appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Regarding claim 24, Knutson discloses a control unit (Fig. 2, ref. 10 and 18, para [0019], [0050] – [0051]), but does not explicitly teach the system being operated in a manner wherein a communication connection between the data processing device and a control unit of the cleaning apparatus is provided, wherein a detection of the propagation of vibrations, the provision of the input information and/or an analysis of the input information only takes place when the cleaning apparatus, in particular at least one functional unit and/or a cleaning tool of the cleaning apparatus, is in operation. However, since Knutson discloses the claimed structural features, and appears to be substantially identical to the claimed system, the Knutson system appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Regarding claim 26, Knutson discloses a system wherein the cleaning system in the cleaning apparatus and/or in the capturing device comprises a storage device (para [0036], [0050]), and wherein the wherein the cleaning apparatus and/or the capturing device is connectable to a spatially remotely arranged data processing device via a communication interface and the abnormal propagation of vibrations and/or the input information is transmittable to the data processing device (para [0058], [0063]), but does not explicitly teach the system being operated in a manner wherein the storage device is used for storing the detected abnormal propagation of vibrations and/or the input information. However, since Knutson discloses the claimed structural features, and appears to be substantially identical to the claimed system, the Knutson system appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Regarding claim 27, Knutson does not disclose the system being operated in a manner wherein the analysis of the input information by the application program is configured to be carried out in accordance with at least one of the following methods: use of a neural network, K-nearest neighbor analysis, decision tree method, machine learning algorithm, deep learning technology. However, since Knutson discloses the claimed structural features, and appears to be substantially identical to the claimed system, the Knutson system appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Regarding claim 28, Knutson discloses a system wherein the data processing device comprises a communication interface (Fig. 5, para [0017], [0057]) but does not explicitly teach the system being operated in a manner wherein the communication interface is used for transmitting an update of the application program. However, since Knutson discloses the claimed structural features, and appears to be substantially identical to the claimed system, the Knutson system appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Regarding claim 31, Knutson discloses a system wherein the data processing device comprises a communication interface (Fig. 5, para [0017], [0057]) but does not explicitly teach the system being operated in a manner wherein the communication interface is used for transmitting an update of the application program and wherein the application programs are synchronizable with one another in the case of a location of use of the same type. However, since Knutson discloses the claimed structural features, and appears to be substantially identical to the claimed system, the Knutson system appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
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.
Claims 11, 25, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0049288 to Knutson et al. (“Knutson”).
Regarding claim 11, Knutson does not explicitly teach the system wherein the cleaning system comprises, arranged spatially remotely from the data processing device, a further data processing device to which information about the cause of the abnormal propagation of vibrations and/or, if the cause is unable to be ascertained, information relating to this is transmittable. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Knutson system wherein it includes a further data processing system, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance processing power, save time and provide for backup. Note that duplication of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). The modified Knutson system appears to be fully capable of being operated in the recited manner.
Regarding claim 25, Knutson discloses a system wherein the data processing device is arranged spatially separated from the sensor device (note Fig. 4A) and wireless communication (para [0057] – [0061]), but does not explicitly teach the system wherein the data processing device is connectable to said sensor device via a wireless communication connection, via which the abnormal propagation of vibrations and/or the input information is transmittable to the data processing device. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Knutson system wherein the data processing device is connectable to said sensor device via a wireless communication connection, via which the abnormal propagation of vibrations and/or the input information is transmittable to the data processing device, with a reasonable expectation of success, in view of the disclosure of wireless communication and in order to enhance process control and communication.
Regarding claim 29, Knutson does not explicitly teach the system wherein the cleaning system comprises two or more cleaning apparatuses, in particular of the same type. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Knutson system wherein it includes two or more cleaning apparatuses, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance cleaning, save time and provide for backup. Note that duplication of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 30, Knutson does not explicitly teach the system wherein the cleaning system comprises two or more data processing devices which are assigned to the cleaning apparatuses, wherein the application program, depending on a location of use of the cleaning apparatuses, is the same for locations of use of the same type or differs for different locations of use. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Knutson system wherein it includes two or more data processing devices, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance process control, save time and provide for backup. Note that duplication of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Further, the modified Knutson system appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and are objected to on other grounds as discussed above, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if amended to cure the other objection issues.
The closest prior art reference is US 2017/0049288 to Knutson et al. The prior art references of record, taken alone or in combination, do not anticipate or suggest fairly the limitations of: wherein the indication in the case of ambiguous determination of the cause of the abnormal propagation of vibrations comprises the specification of a plurality of possible causes (as in claim 8), or wherein the corrective measure comprises the decommissioning of the cleaning apparatus or of a functional unit of the cleaning apparatus and/or of a cleaning tool which has been identified as the cause of the abnormal propagation of vibrations (as in claim 10), in combination with the other structural elements as instantly recited. Upon further search no other prior art has been located at the date of this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714