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 .
Rejections Double Patenting
1. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-9, of copending Application No. (18/853,759). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of (‘759) encompasses claim 1 of the present application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
2. 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, 5, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication (2014/0137367) to Li et al.
Regarding independent claim 1, Li et al. discloses a robot body (10); a driving system (See Annotated FIG. on next page) comprising a first driving wheel module (See annotated first wheel) and a second driving wheel module (See annotated second wheel) disposed along a transverse axis of the robot body (10), the transverse axis being perpendicular to a movement direction of the cleaning robot (10) (See paragraph [0017]); and a cleaning system (13) disposed on the robot body (10), including a cleaning head (14), a preset included angel being formed between the cleaning head (14) and the transverse axis (See paragraph [0018]).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Lid discloses a recovery system (11) disposed on the robot body (10), comprising a collecting part (12), the collecting part (12) being configured to collect residues on the cleaning head (14) and/or a surface to be cleaned (See paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses that the cleaning system (13) further includes an auxiliary cleaning head (15), a part of the auxiliary cleaning head (15) overlapping with the cleaning head (15) (See Annotated FIG. above).
Regarding claim 13, Li discloses an outer edge of the auxiliary cleaning head (15) extends beyond an outer edge of the robot body (10) (See Annotated FIG. above).
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103
3. 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.
Claims 2, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over .S. Patent Publication (2014/0137367) to Li et al. in view of U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0267428) to Scholten et al.
Regarding claim 2, Li et al. is silent regarding a wet cleaning head; and the cleaning system further includes a liquid supply part configured to feed a washing liquid to the wet cleaning head. However, Scholten et al. teaches a vacuum cleaner (810) includes a liquid supply part (12) that is configured to a feed a washing liquid to the inlet. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li et al. with Scholten et al. to include a liquid supply part (12) in order to clean difficult surfaces.
Regarding claim 14, Li et al. is silent regarding that the auxiliary cleaning head (15) comprises a wet auxiliary cleaning head; and the cleaning system (11) further includes a liquid supply part configured to feed a washing liquid to the wet auxiliary cleaning head. However, Scholten et al. teaches a vacuum cleaner (810) includes a liquid supply part (12) that is configured to a feed a washing liquid to the inlet. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li et al. with Scholten et al. to include a liquid supply part (12) in order to clean difficult surfaces.
Regarding claim 15, Li et al. is silent regarding a detection system disposed on the robot body, at least part of the detection system extending from an outer edge of the robot body. However, Scholten et al. teaches a vacuum cleaner (810) that includes a liquid detection system (898). The liquid detection system (898) is useful with determining amount of liquid in the container. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li et al. with Scholten et al. to include a liquid detection system (898) in addition to the liquid supply part (12) in order to clean difficult surfaces (See FIG. 13).
Regarding claim 16, the combination the Li et al. as modified with Scholten et al teaches claim 16. In particular, Scholten et al. teaches least part of the detection system (898) is movably disposed relative to the robot body (10) (See FIG. 13).
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D. JENNINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30pm. 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, Monica S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/MICHAEL D JENNINGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights