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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPub 2016/0183752 (Morin).
In Re claim 1 Morin discloses an evacuation station (100, Paragraph 45) for collecting debris from a cleaning robot (robotic cleaner 10, Paragraph 45) , the evacuation station comprising: an intake (intake opening 200, Paragraph 57) configured to interface with the cleaning robot; a canister (canister 110) including a receptacle in pneumatic communication with the intake via an airflow path (Paragraph 45); an air mover in pneumatic communication with the canister, the air mover (126, in Paragraph 49) configured to draw air from the canister into the air mover during an evacuation operation; and a controller configured to: attempt to establish a communication between the cleaning robot and the evacuation station, and to generate a contact status indicator indicating whether or not the cleaning robot is docked with the evacuation station; and in response to the contact status indicator indicating that the cleaning robot is docked with the evacuation station, initiate an evacuation operation by controlling the air mover to draw air containing debris from the cleaning robot through the intake and the airflow path such that the receptacle receives at least a portion of the debris drawn (controls initiates collection of debris from the cleaning robot in response to a signal indicating that the robot is docked with the evacuation station in Paragraph 50).
In Re claim 12 Morin discloses a controller configured collect debris from a cleaning robot when a signal is detected indicating a connection between the cleaning robot and an evacuation station. This configuration necessarily includes discontinuing an evacuation operation when no signal is detected indicating that the robot is docked.
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.
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin.
In Re claim 13 Morin discloses many limitations, but doesn’t explicitly disclose the controller being configured to present a contact status indicator on a user interface. Morin discloses a user interface (control panel 12) which include a display (display 8, Paragraph 54), the display configured to display an operational mode of the cleaning robot. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a docked status between the robot and an evacuation station would fall within the broad category of the operational mode of the robot, and further, would be useful information to present to a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention configure the controller of Morin to display a status of whether a cleaning robot is connected to an evacuation station.
In Re claim 14, Morin discloses the use of a display to display the operational mode of the robot, which would include a status of a connection between the cleaning robot and an evacuation station, as discussed in Re claim 13 above, indicates the use of a visual notification.
In Re claim 15 Morin discloses many limitations, but doesn’t disclose a controller configured to display instructions to dock a cleaning robot in response to a signal indicating that the cleaning robot is not docked with the evacuation station. The step of displaying instructions on or around an apparatus to assist a user in the common functions of that apparatus was old and well known in many arts at the effective filing date of the invention. Given that the docking of a cleaning robot with an evacuation station is a frequent operation, it would have been obvious to configure a controller of an evacuation station to display the instructions for such a docking operation when necessary.
In Re claim 16 Morin discloses a user interface (control panel 12).
In Re claim 17 Morin discloses many limitations, but fails to disclose a user interface associated with a user device. The step of connecting a user interface, in this case the control panel 12 and display 8, remotely with a user device, e.g. a personal computer or cell phone, is an obvious matter of design choice which does not require extraordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 23-30 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The step of detecting a query from a cleaning robot sent to an evacuation station and determining a contact status between the cleaning robot and the evacuation station based on the detection of the query, in the context of the claims and in the presence of the other limitations, is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion.
For example, US Patent 9,462,920 discloses an evacuation station for a cleaning robot which uses a pressure sensor to determine a presence of a cleaning robot, but doesn’t disclose the step of detecting a query from the cleaning robot to the evacuation station.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KAROL NIESZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
/JASON K NIESZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753