DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-8, 11, 12 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 21 July 2026.
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 1, as well as claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 13 and 14 which depend therefrom, are 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. The limitation that the nozzle is configured to eject the liquid in a continuous flow and convert the continuous flow into droplets is not disclosed in a manner that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the claimed nozzle. Other than repeated statements in the specification of the claimed function, there is no specific structure disclosed for a nozzle that would be capable of providing the claimed function. Further, the current examiner has consulted with a primary examiner, considered to be an expert, in the art of fluid flow (US Class 239 - Fluid sprinkling, spraying, and diffusing), who confirmed that such a conversion from a continuous flow to droplets would not only dependent on a specific nozzle design, but also would depend on several other factors, such as fluid flow rate and properties of the liquid, such as viscosity. Due to the expert analysis of the claim limitation and disclosure, effectively any nozzle structure having opening(s) therein and connected to an electrically driven pump will be considered to be capable of performing the claimed function based on different pump speeds to control fluid flow, and capability to pump liquids with a wide range of viscosities.
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 1-3 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.
Regarding claim 1, as discussed supra, it is unclear what structure is required for the claimed nozzle to be capable of performing the claimed function of converting a continuous flow into droplets.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, both claims recite relative locations based on a movement direction of the robot, which is understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to be capable of movement in more than one direction, such that the claim limitations would only be accurate when moving in certain directions. It is suggested that the applicant amend the claims to definitively claim the respective locations (i.e. define a front of the robot, and the locations of the collection section, nozzle and wheels relative thereto).
Claim limitations “collection section” (claims 1 and 2), “liquid feeding section” (claim 10), “detection section” (claim 13) and “ejection control section” (claim 14) have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because none of the limitations use the term “means for”, but also fail to provide any specific structure in the claims. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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.
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 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (2014/0182627).
Regarding claim 1, Williams discloses a floor cleaning robot comprising: a main body (100); drive wheels (124a/b) configured to movably support the main body on a floor surface; a first storage (202a) that is provided in the main body and that is configured to store a liquid; at least one nozzle (174) that is disposed on a facing surface of the main body facing the floor surface and that is configured to eject the liquid, and would obviously be capable of ejecting a liquid (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112a above) in a continuous flow and convert the continuous flow into droplets (shown in Fig. 7B as droplets) so that the liquid collides with the floor surface in a droplet shape; and a collection section (suction duct 208, squeegees 206a/b and brush 310) that is disposed on the facing surface at a position different from that of the nozzle and that is configured to collect the liquid ejected from the nozzle onto the floor surface.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Williams further discloses that the collection section is disposed to the rear of the nozzle in a movement direction of the main body by driving the drive wheels and the nozzle is disposed forward from the drive wheels in the movement direction (as seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Williams further discloses a liquid feeding section (pump 172 and applicator 170a) configured to feed the liquid stored in the first storage to the nozzle.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (2014/0182627) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Brown (11,213,180).
Williams discloses the cleaner as discussed supra, having a brush and squeegees in the collection section, but fails to disclose an absorbent material configured to absorb liquid from the floor surface. Brown discloses another similar cleaning robot, also having a liquid supply and a collection section defined by a brush (41) in a suction conduit, and teaches that the brush is capable of distributing, absorbing and removing the liquid from the floor surface (Col. 11, lines 60-65), which would be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to assist cleaning functions by distributing the liquid and also assist in leaving the surface relatively dry by absorbing and collecting any excess liquid on the surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the brush of Williams with a similar material to function in the same manner taught by Brown, to distribute, absorb and remove the liquid from the floor surface, to assist in cleaning functions.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (2014/0182627) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Wenzel (WO 2018/202301 A1) and Dooley et al. (10,398,277).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Williams discloses that the cleaner may have a plurality of sensors and a controller to control functions in response to results from the sensors, but fails to disclose detection of a condition of the floor or ejection control of the liquid in response to the detected floor condition. Both Wenzel and Dooley also disclose similar cleaning robots, also having a liquid supply, and both teach that sensors detect the condition (type) of floor and will prevent liquid from being applied when the floor is detected as being carpet (Pg. 8 of English translation of Wenzel, “carpet 72 can be detected and the at least one cleaning unit 24 can be controlled such that no passage of cleaning liquid occurs during the passage over the carpet 72, but only a dry cleaning with sweeping and suction takes place”; and Col. 10, lines 8-14 and Col. 27, lines 17-26), which would be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to prevent carpets from getting wet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provided similar sensors to the cleaner of Williams to detect floor conditions, including carpeted floors, and to configure the controller to prevent liquid from being applied to carpeted areas, as taught by Wenzel and Dooley.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Berninni (WO 2002/062194) and Morse et al. (7,620,476) disclose cleaners having similar structure and functions as the applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 10 September 2026
Prosecution Insights