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 .
Priority
The applicant’s claim to priority of KR10-2022-0030885 on 3/11/2022 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant filed an IDS on 9/10/24, 6/3/25 and 12/31/25. Each has been annotated and considered.
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.
Claims 18-31 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.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “object-carrying mode” is not explicitly in the Specification. Furthermore, the Specification discloses a specific functional module with a gripper arm to manipulate the object to be carried (See Specification “[0032] The lower functional module may transport an object to be transported by including a gripper arm movably coupled to the lower functional module body, and a gripper disposed on an end portion of the arm to fix the object to be transported.”). Therefore, the “object-carrying mode” lacks written description.
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.
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 18 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016047170 (hereinafter ‘170) in view of CN 214875226 (hereinafter ‘226) and further in view of Harwig et al. (US 20060293809 hereinafter Harwig).
Regarding claim 18, ‘170 teaches a robot (See at least: Fig. 4 item 104 “cleaning robot”)comprising:
a motor (See at least: Fig. 1 item 12 “drive motor” Note: Although this refers to embodiment 1, the disclosure notes “The difference from the cleaning robot 101 of the first embodiment is that the cleaning unit 23 and the rotary cleaning body 24 are provided at the center of the bottom of the cleaning robot 104.” Thus this and other citations of different embodiments will be used to disclose parts/functions common across all embodiments.);
a battery (See at least: “Further, the main body of the traveling unit 10 includes a dust collector that causes the cleaning unit 20 to suck dust and the like from the floor, a dust collection container that stores the sucked dust, a control device that controls the entire system, a rechargeable battery”);
a robot body (See at least: Fig. 4 item 10), the motor and the battery being accommodated in the robot body;
but fails to teach a first leg and a second leg, each leg coupled to respective opposite side surfaces of the robot body; a first wheel and a second wheel coupled to the first leg and the second leg, respectively, and
a lower functional assembly detachably coupled to the robot body such that the battery is electrically connected to the lower functional assembly, the lower functional assembly including: a lower functional module body defining an exterior of the lower functional module, the lower functional module body having a space located therein; and a robot body fastener located at a first side of the lower functional module body, the robot body fastener being configured to fix the lower functional module body to the robot body when coupled.
However, ‘226 teaches a first leg and a second leg, each leg coupled to respective opposite side surfaces of the robot body; a first wheel and a second wheel coupled to the first leg and the second leg, respectively; (See at least: Figs. 2-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify ‘170 in view of ‘226 to teach a first leg and a second leg, each leg coupled to respective opposite side surfaces of the robot body; a first wheel and a second wheel coupled to the first leg and the second leg, respectively so that the robot can roll around for mobility in addition to adjusting leg length to modify height.
Modified ‘170 further fails to teach a lower functional assembly detachably coupled to the robot body and operable to perform cleaning or carrying of an object so that the robot body performs driving in various modes including a cleaning mode or an object-carrying mode.
However, Harwig teaches a lower functional assembly detachably coupled to the robot body and operable to perform cleaning or carrying of an object so that the robot body performs driving in various modes including a cleaning mode or an object-carrying mode. (See at least: Figs. 2 and 4 item 10 “cleaning cartridge” and 27 “latching device”; [0068] Although a cleaning sheet material 44 has been shown and described particularly designed for use on a hard, smooth floor, a cartridge 10 for use with a carpet is shown in FIGS. 10 and 11. Here, the cartridge comprises a larger dust containment bin 30, and is weighted appropriately to maintain the cleaning device 12 against the surface to be cleaned, and in an upright position during the cleaning operation. Note: ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified ‘170 in view of Harwig to a lower functional assembly detachably coupled to the robot body and operable to perform cleaning or carrying of an object so that the robot body performs driving in various modes including a cleaning mode or an object-carrying mode so that different lower functional assemblies can be attached and detached depending on the type of cleaning needed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends that:
“Harwig relates to a cleaning device and does not disclose "a robot." Harwig discloses a structure in which a cartridge 10 is detachably mounted to a cleaning device main body 12. The cartridge does not correspond to a lower functional assembly detachably coupled to the robot body and operable to perform cleaning or carrying of an object so that the robot body performs driving in various modes including a cleaning mode or an object-carrying mode. While the cleaning device main body 12 of Harwig is limited to performing only a cleaning function, in claim 18 the robot body can perform various functions-such as dry cleaning, wet cleaning, and object transportation-depending on the type of lower functional module coupled thereto.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In light of the 112 rejection and broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner contends Harwig teaches “a lower functional assembly detachably coupled to the robot body and operable to perform cleaning or carrying of an object so that the robot body performs driving in various modes including a cleaning mode or an object-carrying mode”. The object-carrying mode lacks written description in the Specification. Furthermore, according to broadest reasonable interpretation, object-carrying mode can include various cleaning modules/cartridges.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-31 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 and overcoming all relevant rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights