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 group I (claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 17 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 2024-01-23. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN 202410095413.6 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 6 (second drive mechanism, see specification paragraph [0018]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: There are several instances where the applicant uses the term “moping” instead of “mopping” and this appears to be a typographical error. One example is in paragraph [0018] of the specification where the applicant describes that “the cleaning device in the present application, can be a sweeping robot, a moping robot, or a machine…”
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: “a first drive mechanism” in claim 1, “a transmission structure” in claim 1, “a second drive mechanism” in claim 1, “a driving member” in claim 3, “a rotating member” in claim 3, “a connecting member” in claim 7, “elevation mechanism” in claim 16, “an elastic member” in claim 19.
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.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deng et al., CN 220089389 U (see also English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Deng et al. disclose a cleaning device, comprising: a chassis (610), the chassis being recessed to form a trough (612, Figures 6-9); a first drive mechanism (first motor 260), the first drive mechanism being mounted on the chassis (not directly shown, see Figures 5-9 and English translation); a rotating plate (240) and a cleaning plate (220), the rotating plate being fitted to and mounted in the trough (not directly shown, best seen in Figures 7 and 9 as being part of the components positioned in the trough), the cleaning plate being eccentrically mounted to the rotating plate (cleaning plate can rotate about axial line L2, Figures 2 and 5, see English translation), the rotating plate being provided with a transmission structure (270), an input end of the transmission structure being in transmitting connection with the first drive mechanism (see English translation, “the rotating shaft of the first motor 260 is connected with the input end of the transmission mechanism 270…”), an output end of the transmission structure being in transmitting connection with the cleaning plate to drive the cleaning plate to rotate (see English translation and Figure 5); and a second drive mechanism (622), the second drive mechanism being connected with the rotating plate (via 430, best shown in Figure 7), wherein driven by the second drive mechanism, the rotating plate is caused to rotate about an axis of the rotating plate, so that the rotating plate drives, through rotation thereof, the cleaning plate to move for displacement (see English translation, the cleaning plate 220 swings outwards to a maximum position, maximum position of cleaning plate shown in Figures 8-9 at reference line L3).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al., CN 117357012 A (see also English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Sun et al. disclose a cleaning device, comprising: a chassis (100, Figure 8), the chassis being recessed to form a trough (300, Figure 11); a first drive mechanism (2, Figure 2), the first drive mechanism being mounted on the chassis (Figure 11); a rotating plate (3) and a cleaning plate (1), the rotating plate being fitted to and mounted in the trough (Figure 11), the cleaning plate being eccentrically mounted to the rotating plate (see English translation, rotating plate 3 is eccentrically driven about 6 which imparts eccentric motion to the cleaning plate, see Figure 6), the rotating plate being provided with a transmission structure (5, Figure 4), an input end of the transmission structure being in transmitting connection with the first drive mechanism (via 6, see English translation and Figures 2-4 and 6), an output end of the transmission structure being in transmitting connection with the cleaning plate to drive the cleaning plate to rotate (see English translation, transmitting connection with the cleaning plate via 52 and 303, Figures 5-6); and a second drive mechanism (4), the second drive mechanism being connected with the rotating plate (Figures 2-3, 5-6), wherein driven by the second drive mechanism, the rotating plate is caused to rotate about an axis of the rotating plate (about axis of 6 in Figure 5, also see unlabeled axis in Figure 11), so that the rotating plate drives, through rotation thereof, the cleaning plate to move for displacement (see English translation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-19 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.
None of the prior art made of record discloses, teaches, or suggest the invention of claims 2-19. In particular regards to claim 2, neither Deng et al. or Sun et al. disclose that the rotating plate is in the form of a circular plate, the rotating plate formed with a receiving compartment, the transmission structure being mounted in the receiving compartment, the input end of the transmission structure being in transmitting connection with the first drive mechanism to form a first coupling end, the first coupling end being located on the axis of the rotating plate, the output end of the transmission structure being transmitting connection with the cleaning plate to form a second coupling end, the second coupling end being located between the axis of the rotating plate and the circumference of the rotating plate. Sun et al. do teach some of these aspects, but fail to disclose that the rotating plate is circular, and particularly teaches advantages of the rotating plate being strip-shaped to improve displacement distance and for low cost (see English translation).
In addition, neither Deng et al. or Sun et al. disclose an elevation mechanism, wherein the elevation mechanism is connected with the first drive mechanism and configured to drive the cleaning plate to ascend or descend, when the first drive mechanism performs transmission in a first direction with respect to the transmission structure, the elevation mechanism drives the cleaning plate to ascend, and when the first drive mechanism performs transmission in a second direction with respect to the transmission structure, the elevation mechanism drives the cleaning plate to descend, when the elevation mechanism drives the cleaning plate to descend to a lowest position, the cleaning plate is located in the trough. CN 114916868 A to Wang et al. disclose an example of a screw type lifting mechanism for a cleaning plate, but does not teach all of the limitations found within claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Lcg