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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102023125323.9, filed on 09/19/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
Claim 8 — “Detection Unit”
Claim 8 recites:
“the floor cleaning machine has a detection unit for detecting objects in the region of the first coupling arrangement”
and further requires that:
“the detection unit is used to check whether there are objects present between the floor cleaning machine and the supply device.”
The limitation “detection unit for detecting objects” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
The term “unit” is a generic placeholder, and the modifier “detection” identifies the function performed rather than sufficiently definite sensor structure. The claimed functions are:
detecting objects in the region of the first coupling arrangement; and
checking during movement of the floor-cleaning machine whether objects are present between the floor-cleaning machine and the supply device.
Paragraph 64 discloses a detection device of the floor-cleaning machine having a detection field and identifies a laser protection field as an exemplary embodiment. Paragraph 64 further explains that recess 47 accommodates the detection field so that the detection device does not improperly recognize the supply device as an obstacle during coupling.
Paragraph 77 expressly links the detection unit to the claimed operation. It explains that the detection unit checks whether objects are present between the floor-cleaning machine and the supply device and that movement is stopped when an object is detected near the supply device. Figure 7 illustrates the corresponding detection and stop-or-continue control sequence.
Accordingly, the corresponding structure is:
the disclosed laser-based detection device configured to generate the laser protection field, arranged relative to recess 47 and operating according to the object-detection control described in paragraph 77 and Figure 7, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 112
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 12 and 13
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as indefinite because the claims do not clearly identify the location and identity of the recited fresh-water tank.
Claim 1 recites:
“the floor cleaning machine has a fresh water tank for holding fresh water.”
Claims 12 and 13 subsequently recite both:
“the fresh water tank in the supply device”
and:
“the fresh water tank of the floor cleaning machine.”
The language supports at least two materially different interpretations.
Under one interpretation, “the fresh water tank in the supply device” refers to the fresh-water tank inherited from Claim 1 but improperly identifies that tank as being located in the supply device rather than in the floor-cleaning machine.
Under another interpretation, Claims 12 and 13 introduce a separate fresh-water tank located in the supply device in addition to the fresh-water tank of the floor-cleaning machine. This interpretation is uncertain because the alleged supply-device tank is introduced using the definite article “the” without any prior introduction of such a tank.
The specification does not resolve the ambiguity. Paragraphs 39 and 40 repeat the disputed language but then describe fresh water being conveyed into the floor-cleaning machine’s fresh-water tank. Paragraph 39 explains that the floor-cleaning machine transmits the level and volume of its fresh-water tank to the supply device so that the supply device can determine whether the dispensed quantity corresponds to the transmitted tank level. Paragraph 40 similarly explains that detecting the maximum level prevents excessive fresh water from being conveyed into the floor-cleaning machine’s fresh-water tank.
It is therefore unclear whether Claims 12 and 13 require:
filling a tank located in the supply device while monitoring a different tank in the floor-cleaning machine;
filling the floor-cleaning machine’s tank using fresh water supplied by the supply device; or
filling or monitoring two separate fresh-water tanks.
These interpretations impose materially different structural and operational requirements. Claims 12 and 13 therefore fail to define the claimed methods with reasonable certainty.
Applicant may clarify the limitation by reciting, if accurate and supported:
“while conveying fresh water from the fresh water inlet of the supply device into the fresh water tank of the floor cleaning machine.”
Alternatively, if a separate fresh-water tank in the supply device is intended, that tank should be expressly introduced and distinguished from the fresh-water tank of the floor-cleaning machine.
Claim 14
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as indefinite because it does not clearly identify which claimed device possesses the chassis and driven wheel.
Claim 14 begins:
“A system comprising a floor cleaning machine and a supply device having a chassis with at least one wheel that is driven by a chassis drive, wherein the chassis is designed in such a way that the floor cleaning machine can be moved over a floor surface . . .”
Under ordinary grammatical construction, “having a chassis with at least one wheel that is driven by a chassis drive” modifies the immediately preceding noun “supply device.” The following clause, however, states that the chassis permits the floor-cleaning machine to move over the floor surface.
It is therefore unclear whether:
the supply device possesses the chassis and driven wheel;
the floor-cleaning machine possesses the chassis and driven wheel; or
both devices possess or share the recited chassis structure.
The ambiguity materially changes the physical structure of the claimed system and the identity of the component driven by the chassis drive. Claim 14 therefore fails to define the claimed system with reasonable certainty.
Applicant may clarify the limitation by reciting, if accurate and supported:
“A system comprising a floor cleaning machine and a supply device, wherein the floor cleaning machine has a chassis with at least one wheel that is driven by a chassis drive . . .”
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.
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 1, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Buehler (US 2020/0329941 A1) in view of Pfeiffer (US 2012/0303190 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Disclosure by Buehler
Buehler teaches:
A method for operating a system
See at least:
“FIG. 11 depicts one embodiment of a method 700 for refilling and emptying a deep cleaning robot 100 using the system 5 of FIG. 1.” (0098)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches method 700 for operating its autonomous-floor-cleaner servicing system.
comprising a floor cleaning machine and a supply device,
See at least:
“The system 5 for deep cleaning of a floor surface can include an autonomous floor cleaner in the form of a deep cleaning robot 100 and a toilet 30 having a docking station 10 for the robot 100.” (0027)
Rationale: Deep-cleaning robot 100 is the floor-cleaning machine, and docking station 10 is the supply device.
wherein the floor cleaning machine has a chassis
See at least:
“The deep cleaning robot 100 mounts the components of various functional systems of the extraction cleaner in an autonomously moveable unit or housing 112.” (0030)
Rationale: Housing 112 supports the robot’s functional components and movement system and therefore functionally constitutes the claimed chassis.
with at least one wheel that is driven by a chassis drive,
See at least:
“The drive system can include drive wheels 130.... The drive wheels 130 can be operated by a common drive motor or individual drive motors 131 coupled with the drive wheels 130 by a transmission.” (0036)
Rationale: Drive wheel 130 is driven by motor 131 through a transmission. Motor 131 and the transmission constitute the chassis drive.
wherein the chassis is designed in such a way that the floor cleaning machine can be moved over a floor surface,
See at least:
“The drive system can include drive wheels 130 for driving the robot 100 across a surface to be cleaned.” (0036)
Rationale: Housing 112, wheels 130, and motors 131 cooperate to move the floor-cleaning machine across the floor surface.
wherein the floor cleaning machine has at least one cleaning device
See at least:
“At least one agitator or brush 140 can be provided.” (0033)
Rationale: Brush 140 is a cleaning device carried by robot 100.
that is designed to engage with the floor surface,
See at least:
“At least one agitator or brush 140 can be provided for agitating the surface to be cleaned onto which fluid has been dispensed.” (0033)
Rationale: Brush 140 engages the floor to perform the expressly disclosed agitation function.
wherein the floor cleaning machine has a fresh water tank for holding fresh water,
See at least:
“The fluid delivery system can include the supply tank 106 for storing a supply of cleaning fluid.... The cleaning fluid can be a liquid such as water.” (0032)
Rationale: Supply tank 106 stores water and therefore corresponds to the claimed fresh-water tank.
a waste water tank for holding waste water
See at least:
“The recovery tank 118 [is] for receiving dirt and liquid removed from the surface for later disposal.” (0034)
Rationale: Recovery tank 118 receives and holds recovered dirty liquid, which constitutes waste water.
and/or a rechargeable battery for supplying power to the floor cleaning machine
See at least:
“The motor drivers ... can be electrically coupled to a battery management system 150 which includes a rechargeable battery or battery pack 152.” (0039)
Rationale: Rechargeable battery pack 152 supplies power to the wheel, brush, pump, and vacuum motors of robot 100.
and a first coupling arrangement,
See at least:
“The water receiver coupling 132 on the robot 100 is in fluid communication with the robot supply tank 106.” (0072)
Rationale: Robot-side water receiver coupling 132 forms at least part of the first coupling arrangement. Robot-side waste coupling 136 and charging contacts provide the alternative waste and electrical interfaces.
wherein the fresh water tank, the waste water tank and/or the battery are connected to the first coupling arrangement;
See at least:
“The water receiver coupling 132 on the robot 100 is in fluid communication with the robot supply tank 106.” (0072)
“The waste disposal coupling 136 on the robot 100 is in fluid communication with the robot recovery tank 118.” (0078)
“Charging contacts for the battery pack 152 can be provided on the exterior of the unit 112.” (0039)
Rationale: Buehler expressly connects supply tank 106, recovery tank 118, and battery pack 152 to the corresponding robot-side water, waste, and electrical coupling components.
wherein the supply device has a second coupling arrangement
See at least:
“A water supply coupling 316 on a housing 311 of the docking station 310 is configured to mate or otherwise couple with a corresponding water receiver coupling 132 on the robot 100.” (0072)
Rationale: Dock-side water supply coupling 316 forms at least part of the second coupling arrangement. Buehler additionally discloses corresponding dock-side waste and charging coupling components.
that can be connected to the first coupling arrangement,
See at least:
“A water supply coupling 316 ... is configured to mate or otherwise couple with a corresponding water receiver coupling 132 on the robot 100.” (0072)
Rationale: Buehler expressly configures second coupling 316 to mate with first coupling 132.
wherein the second coupling arrangement is connected to a fresh water inlet, a waste water outlet and/or to a power supply,
See at least:
“The docking station 10 integrated with the toilet 30 can include a liquid supply system for refilling the supply tank 106 of the robot 100, and a disposal system for emptying the recovery tank 118.... The docking station 10 can include a charging system for recharging the robot 100.” (0054)
Rationale: The dock-side coupling arrangement communicates with the household water supply, toilet drain, and/or household electrical supply.
wherein the supply device and the floor cleaning machine are designed in such a way that,
See at least:
“The docking station 10 can be configured to automatically fill or refill a solution tank, or supply tank 106 ... with fresh water and empty a recovery tank 118 ... using existing plumbing infrastructure.” (0027)
Rationale: Buehler configures robot 100 and docking station 10 as complementary components capable of connecting and performing the recited servicing functions.
when the first and the second coupling arrangement are connected to one another,
See at least:
“Docking the robot 100 with the docking station 10 can include ... making a fluid connection ... and/or making an electrical connection between the charging contacts 154, 684.” (0099)
Rationale: Buehler expressly establishes a docked condition in which the robot-side and dock-side coupling arrangements are connected.
fresh water can be conveyed from the fresh water inlet into the fresh water tank
See at least:
“The fill pump 134 energizes and draws liquid from the intermediate reservoir 360 of the docking station 310.” (0074)
Rationale: When the water couplings are connected, fill pump 134 draws fresh water through the coupling pathway and into robot supply tank 106.
and/or waste water can be conveyed from the waste water tank to the waste water outlet
See at least:
“The disposal pump 472 ... creates suction to draw waste from the recovery tank 118 through the disposal conduit 458, and into the drain 438.” (0081)
Rationale: Buehler conveys waste water from recovery tank 118 through the docking-station disposal system to drain 438.
and/or the battery is connected to the power supply,
See at least:
“The docking station 610 can be connected to a household power supply, such as a wall outlet 614, by a power cord 682.” (0096)
Rationale: When the corresponding charging contacts are connected as taught at 0099, battery pack 152 is connected through docking station 610 to household power supply 614.
wherein the method comprises the following steps:
See at least:
“FIG. 11 depicts one embodiment of a method 700 for refilling and emptying a deep cleaning robot 100 using the system 5.” (0098)
Rationale: Buehler expressly provides a sequence of operational steps for docking and servicing its floor-cleaning robot.
so that the floor cleaning machine moves towards the supply device
See at least:
“This may include autonomously driving the robot 100 to the toilet 30 and docking the robot 100 with the docking station 10.” (0098)
Rationale: Autonomously driving robot 100 to docking station 10 moves the floor-cleaning machine toward the supply device.
coupling the floor cleaning machine and the supply device
See at least:
“Docking the robot 100 with the docking station 10 can include one or more of: making a fluid connection ... [and] making an electrical connection.” (0099)
Rationale: The disclosed fluid and/or electrical connections couple robot 100 and docking station 10.
by connecting the first coupling arrangement to the second coupling arrangement,
See at least:
“In a successful docking ... the water receiver coupling 132 on the robot 100 mates or otherwise fluidly couples with the water supply coupling 316 of the docking station 310.” (0074)
Rationale: Buehler expressly performs the coupling step by connecting robot-side coupling 132 to dock-side coupling 316.
conveying fresh water from the fresh water inlet into the fresh water tank
See at least:
“The docking station 10 can be configured to automatically fill or refill a solution tank, or supply tank 106 ... with fresh water.” (0027)
Rationale: Buehler expressly performs the claimed fresh-water conveyance operation.
and/or conveying waste water from the waste water tank to the waste water outlet
See at least:
“The disposal pump 472 ... creates suction to draw waste from the recovery tank 118 through the disposal conduit 458, and into the drain 438.” (0081)
Rationale: Buehler expressly performs the claimed waste-water conveyance operation.
and/or charging the battery with the power supply,
See at least:
“The servicing mode may also include a recharging phase at step 770 in which the battery 152 of the robot 100 is recharged via the docking station 10.” (0103)
Rationale: Buehler expressly performs the claimed battery-charging operation.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Buehler
Buehler does not explicitly teach:
wherein the supply device can be moved by means of a drive unit connected to it
on the floor surface
in or in the opposite direction to a straight first direction of travel
between a first and a second position,
wherein the supply device is moved from the first to the second position
by a movement in the first direction of travel,
and wherein the first direction of travel points in the direction in which the second coupling arrangement must be moved
in order to be connected to the first coupling arrangement,
actuating the supply device so that the supply device assumes the second position,
moving the floor cleaning machine in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel by means of the chassis drive,
in such a manner that during the movement the first coupling arrangement points towards the second coupling arrangement,
releasing the connection between the first and the second coupling arrangement
by moving the supply device in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel
from the second position to the first position.
Disclosure by Pfeiffer
For the following mapping:
Pfeiffer’s shift unit 120, charging contact block 124, and connected actuator 112 collectively correspond to the claimed supply device.
Station base unit 110 corresponds to the fixed supporting frame.
The retracted position corresponds to the claimed first position.
The extended position corresponds to the claimed second position.
Extension direction E corresponds to the claimed first direction of travel.
Retraction direction R or shift-unit movement direction 202 is opposite the claimed first direction of travel.
wherein the supply device can be moved by means of a drive unit connected to it
See at least:
“The docking station 100 further includes an actuator 112 coupled to the station base unit 110 and the shift unit 120.” (0022)
Rationale: Actuator 112 is a drive unit physically connected to shift unit 120. It translates the coupling-carrying shift unit relative to floor-fixed base 110. Thus, the assembly corresponding to the claimed supply device is moved by a connected drive unit.
on the floor surface
See at least:
“The docking station 100 includes a station base unit 110 that is affixed to the factory floor and a shift unit 120 that moves relative to the station base unit 110.” (0021)
See also:
“The station base unit 110 includes a plurality of linear bearings 114.... The linear bearings 114 provide support to the shift unit 120 through the range of motion of the shift unit 120 relative to the station base unit 110.” ( 0023–0024)
Rationale: Pfeiffer’s shift unit moves along a bearing-supported structure mounted on the factory floor. The application expressly treats movement on a floor-mounted base plate as movement “on the floor surface.” Application 0054–0055. Pfeiffer’s bearing-supported movement relative to floor-affixed base 110 therefore functionally satisfies this limitation. Direct contact between shift unit 120 and the bare floor is not required.
in or in the opposite direction to a straight first direction of travel
See at least:
“The shift unit 120 translates laterally relative to the station base unit 110. The direction of movement of the shift unit 120 from the extended position to the retracted position defines a shift unit movement direction 202.” (0021)
Rationale: Linear translation between the extended and retracted positions occurs in opposing directions along the same straight travel axis.
between a first and a second position,
See at least:
“The shift unit 120 moves between an extended position ... and a retracted position.” (0021)
Rationale: Pfeiffer’s retracted and extended positions respectively correspond to the claimed first and second positions.
wherein the supply device is moved from the first to the second position
See at least:
“The docking station 100 depicted in FIG. 2 is shown with the shift unit 120 shifted ... such that the shift unit 120 is located in an extended position.” (0028)
Rationale: Starting from the retracted first position, actuator-driven movement of shift unit 120 to the extended position is movement of the supply-device assembly to the second position.
by a movement in the first direction of travel,
See at least:
“The shift unit 120 [is] shifted in a direction corresponding to arrow E relative to the station base unit 110, such that the shift unit 120 is located in an extended position.” (0028)
Rationale: Extension direction E moves the shift unit from the retracted first position to the extended second position and therefore corresponds to the claimed first direction of travel.
and wherein the first direction of travel points in the direction in which the second coupling arrangement must be moved
See at least:
“The at least one locator block 122 and the charging contact block 124 move with the shift unit 120 between the extended position and the retracted position.” (0025)
Rationale: Charging contact block 124 constitutes Pfeiffer’s dock-side second coupling arrangement. It moves with shift unit 120 in extension direction E toward its operative connection position.
in order to be connected to the first coupling arrangement,
See at least:
“The charging contact block 124 and the electrical connector 34 are positioned to come into contact with one another when the AGV 20 is stopped by the docking station 100.” (0030)
Rationale: Extension of shift unit 120 moves charging contact block 124 into the position where it can connect with vehicle-side connector 34. The subsequent oppositely directed approach of the vehicle completes the physical connection. The application likewise extends its supply device before the floor-cleaning machine approaches and completes coupling. Application 0023–0025 and 0069–0070. Pfeiffer therefore functionally satisfies the claimed movement-for-connection relationship.
actuating the supply device so that the supply device assumes the second position,
See at least:
“Before the AGV 20 reaches the docking station 100, the shift unit 120 is positioned in an extended position by the actuator 112.” (0036)
Rationale: Pfeiffer expressly actuates actuator 112 before vehicle arrival to place the coupling-carrying supply-device assembly in the extended second position.
moving the floor cleaning machine in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel by means of the chassis drive,
See at least:
“The AGV 20 approaches the docking station 100 in a first direction of travel that is parallel to the shift unit movement direction 202, with the drive mechanisms 26 of the AGV 20 following a normal portion 42 of the navigation pathway 40.” (0036)
Rationale: Pfeiffer defines shift-unit movement direction 202 as movement from the extended position to the retracted position. Direction 202 is therefore opposite extension direction E. Drive mechanisms 26 move the vehicle toward the extended shift unit in direction 202. In the proposed combination, Buehler’s driven floor-cleaning robot replaces Pfeiffer’s AGV while preserving that opposite-direction approach.
in such a manner that during the movement the first coupling arrangement points towards the second coupling arrangement,
See at least:
“The charging contact block 124 along the shift unit 120 of the docking station 100 may be aligned and placed in contact with the electrical connector 34 of the AGV 20.” (0037)
Rationale: Connector 34 must face or point toward charging contact block 124 during the final approach for the two oppositely positioned coupling components to become aligned and physically contact. This orientation is inherent in Pfeiffer’s disclosed face-to-face end-contact arrangement. Applying this configuration to Buehler would place the robot-side coupling arrangement facing the dock-side coupling arrangement during approach.
releasing the connection between the first and the second coupling arrangement
See at least:
“With the shift unit 120 in the retracted position, the locator blocks 122 and the charging contact block 124 are located a distance away from the cam followers 32 and the electrical connector 34 of the AGV 20. As there is no contact between the docking station 100 and the AGV 20, the AGV 20 is free to travel.” (0033)
Rationale: Retraction separates charging contact block 124 from vehicle connector 34 so that no contact remains. It therefore releases the connection without requiring reverse movement of the vehicle.
by moving the supply device in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel
See at least:
“The docking station 100 is shown with the shift unit 120 shifting in the direction of arrow R relative to the station base unit 110, such that the shift unit 120 is located in a retracted position.” (0032)
Rationale: Retraction direction R is opposite extension direction E, which corresponds to the claimed first direction of travel. The connection is released by moving the coupling-carrying supply-device assembly in that opposite direction.
from the second position to the first position.
See at least:
“The electronic controller 300 may then transmit a control signal to the docking station 100 to move the docking station 100 from the extended position to the retracted position.” (0042)
Rationale: Pfeiffer expressly commands movement from the extended second position to the retracted first position after the docked operation is completed.
Motivation to Combine Buehler and Pfeiffer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Buehler and Pfeiffer before them, to modify Buehler’s floor-cleaner supply and disposal docking station by mounting Buehler’s water, waste, and/or electrical coupling components on an actuator-driven shift unit as taught by Pfeiffer, such that the coupling-carrying supply-device assembly is extended from a retracted first position to an extended second position before Buehler’s autonomous floor-cleaning robot approaches, remains extended while the robot approaches in the opposite direction and completes the coupling, and is retracted after completion of the servicing operation to separate the coupling arrangements without requiring the floor-cleaning robot to reverse.
Buehler and Pfeiffer address technically compatible autonomous-machine docking problems. Buehler provides the specialized floor-cleaning, fluid-transfer, waste-disposal, and charging architecture. Pfeiffer provides a floor-mounted active-coupling mechanism that moves a dock-side service contact between retracted and extended positions.
Pfeiffer expressly explains that the extended shift unit accurately and repeatably positions the vehicle and that retracting the shift unit provides clearance after the docked operation. Pfeiffer 0028, 0033, and 0044. Applying that known mechanism to Buehler would predictably improve coupling alignment, connection repeatability, controlled separation, mechanical reliability, and post-service clearance. It would also reduce the mechanical force that the floor-cleaning machine would otherwise apply to the docking station when engaging or separating fluid couplings.
Each component would continue performing its known function: Buehler’s coupling arrangement would transfer water, waste, and/or power, while Pfeiffer’s shift unit and actuator would translate the dock-side coupling arrangement between the connection and release positions.
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination of Buehler and Pfeiffer establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 13.
Disclosure by Buehler
Buehler teaches:
wherein, while conveying fresh water
See at least:
“In operation and referring back to FIG. 6, in a successful docking between the robot 100 and the docking station 310, the water receiver coupling 132 on the robot 100 mates or otherwise fluidly couples with the water supply coupling 316 of the docking station 310. Next, the fill pump 134 energizes and draws liquid from the intermediate reservoir 360 of the docking station 310.” (Buehler, 74)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches a docked filling operation during which fill pump 134 conveys fresh water from docking station 310 to robot 100.
from the fresh water inlet
See at least:
“The supply conduit 356 provides water from the water line 340 to the water supply coupling 316.” (Buehler, 72)
Rationale: Water line 340 supplies fresh water to the docking-station liquid-supply system and therefore corresponds to the fresh-water inlet.
into the fresh water tank in the supply device,
See at least:
“The docking station 310 further can include an intermediate reservoir with a float-style shut-off valve similar to the float 350 shut-off assembly in the toilet tank.” (Buehler, 73)
And:
“Opening the refill valve sends water from the high-pressure supply conduit 356 into the intermediate reservoir 360.” (Buehler, 73)
Rationale: Under the literal wording of this micro-limitation, intermediate reservoir 360 is a fresh-water-holding tank located in docking station 310, corresponding to the supply device. Buehler expressly teaches conveying fresh water from supply conduit 356 into that supply-device reservoir.
the level of fresh water
See at least:
“For example, the supply tank 106 can be provided with a fluid level sensor (not shown) that communicates with the controller 128 on the robot 100 when the supply tank 106 is full and filling is complete.” (Buehler, 70)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches detecting the level of fresh water in supply tank 106. Detection of the full-tank condition constitutes detection of a particular fresh-water level.
in the fresh water tank of the floor cleaning machine
See at least:
“The robot 100 can include a fill pump 134 for drawing clean water from the toilet tank 34 into the robot supply tank 106 via the supply conduit 56.” (Buehler, 62)
Rationale: Supply tank 106 is carried by robot 100 and contains clean water used by the floor-cleaning machine. It therefore corresponds to the fresh-water tank of the floor-cleaning machine.
is detected,
See at least:
“The supply tank 106 can be provided with a fluid level sensor (not shown) that communicates with the controller 128 on the robot 100 when the supply tank 106 is full and filling is complete.” (Buehler, 70)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches a fluid-level sensor that detects the full condition in robot supply tank 106 and communicates that detected condition to controller 128.
and wherein the conveying of fresh water is stopped
See at least:
“The fill pump 134 can be automatically de-energized when the robot supply tank 106 is full.” (Buehler, 70)
Rationale: De-energizing fill pump 134 terminates the pumping action that conveys fresh water into robot supply tank 106. Buehler therefore expressly teaches stopping the fresh-water conveyance.
when the level in the fresh water tank
See at least:
“The fill pump 134 can be automatically de-energized when the robot supply tank 106 is full.” (Buehler, 70)
Rationale: Buehler expressly makes termination of the filling operation responsive to the detected level in robot supply tank 106.
has reached a maximum level.
See at least:
“The supply tank 106 can be provided with a fluid level sensor . . . that communicates with the controller 128 on the robot 100 when the supply tank 106 is full and filling is complete.” (Buehler, 70)
Rationale: A “full” tank has reached its permissible maximum filling level. Buehler therefore expressly teaches detecting the claimed maximum-level condition and stopping filling in response.
Motivation to Combine Buehler and Pfeiffer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Buehler and Pfeiffer before them, to incorporate Pfeiffer’s movable coupling-carrying supply-device arrangement into Buehler’s autonomous floor-cleaner servicing system while retaining Buehler’s fluid-level-controlled filling operation, such that the fill pump is automatically de-energized when the machine’s fresh-water tank reaches its maximum level.
Pfeiffer’s movable docking portion changes the manner in which the coupling is positioned and released; it does not require modification of Buehler’s fresh-water tank, level sensor, fill pump, or controller. Buehler’s automatic maximum-level shutoff would continue to perform its established function after the docking movement is modified according to Pfeiffer.
Retaining the automatic shutoff would predictably:
prevent overfilling of the machine’s fresh-water tank;
avoid fresh-water leakage around the coupled machine and supply device;
protect adjacent electrical charging contacts;
conserve water; and
permit unattended autonomous servicing.
Regarding Claim 14,
Disclosure by Buehler
Buehler discloses:
A system
See at least:
“The system 5 for deep cleaning of a floor surface can include an autonomous floor cleaner in the form of a deep cleaning robot 100 and a toilet 30 having a docking station 10.” (0027)
Rationale: Buehler expressly discloses floor-cleaner servicing system 5.
comprising a floor cleaning machine and a supply device
See at least:
“The system 5 ... can include an autonomous floor cleaner in the form of a deep cleaning robot 100 and a toilet 30 having a docking station 10 for the robot 100.” (0027)
Rationale: Robot 100 is the floor-cleaning machine, and docking station 10 is the supply device.
having a chassis
See at least:
“The deep cleaning robot 100 mounts the components of various functional systems ... in an autonomously moveable unit or housing 112.” (0030)
Rationale: Housing 112 carries the robot components and supports its movement system and therefore constitutes the chassis.
with at least one wheel that is driven by a chassis drive,
See at least:
“The drive system can include drive wheels 130.... The drive wheels 130 can be operated by a common drive motor or individual drive motors 131.” (0036)
Rationale: Driven wheel 130 and motor 131 satisfy the wheel and chassis-drive limitation.
wherein the chassis is designed in such a way that the floor cleaning machine can be moved over a floor surface,
See at least:
“The drive system can include drive wheels 130 for driving the robot 100 across a surface to be cleaned.” (0036)
Rationale: Buehler configures the chassis, driven wheels, and motors to move robot 100 across the floor.
wherein the floor cleaning machine has at least one cleaning device
See at least:
“At least one agitator or brush 140 can be provided.” (0033)
Rationale: Brush 140 is a cleaning device carried by robot 100.
that is designed to engage with the floor surface,
See at least:
“At least one agitator or brush 140 can be provided for agitating the surface to be cleaned.” (0033)
Rationale: Brush 140 engages the floor to perform its agitation function.
wherein the floor cleaning machine has a fresh water tank for holding fresh water,
See at least:
“The fluid delivery system can include the supply tank 106 for storing a supply of cleaning fluid.... The cleaning fluid can be a liquid such as water.” (0032)
Rationale: Supply tank 106 stores water and therefore provides the fresh-water tank.
a waste water tank for holding waste water
See at least:
“The recovery tank 118 [is] for receiving dirt and liquid removed from the surface for later disposal.” (0034)
Rationale: Recovery tank 118 holds recovered dirty liquid and therefore provides the waste-water tank.
and/or a rechargeable battery for supplying power to the floor cleaning machine
See at least:
“The motor drivers ... can be electrically coupled to a battery management system 150 which includes a rechargeable battery or battery pack 152.” (0039)
Rationale: Battery pack 152 supplies electrical power to the operating systems of robot 100.
and a first coupling arrangement,
See at least:
“The water receiver coupling 132 on the robot 100 is in fluid communication with the robot supply tank 106.” (0072)
Rationale: Robot-side water receiver coupling 132 forms at least part of the first coupling arrangement.
wherein the fresh water tank, the waste water tank and/or the battery are connected to the first coupling arrangement;
See at least:
“The water receiver coupling 132 on the robot 100 is in fluid communication with the robot supply tank 106.” (0072)
“The waste disposal coupling 136 on the robot 100 is in fluid communication with the robot recovery tank 118.” (0078)
“Charging contacts for the battery pack 152 can be provided on the exterior of the unit 112.” (0039)
Rationale: Supply tank 106, recovery tank 118, and battery pack 152 are respectively connected to robot-side water, waste, and charging coupling components.
wherein the supply device has a second coupling arrangement
See at least:
“A water supply coupling 316 on a housing 311 of the docking station 310 is configured to mate or otherwise couple with a corresponding water receiver coupling 132 on the robot 100.” (0072)
Rationale: Dock-side coupling 316 forms at least part of the second coupling arrangement.
that can be connected to the first coupling arrangement,
See at least:
“A water supply coupling 316 ... is configured to mate or otherwise couple with a corresponding water receiver coupling 132 on the robot 100.” (0072)
Rationale: Dock-side coupling 316 is expressly configured to connect with robot-side coupling 132.
wherein the second coupling arrangement is connected to a fresh water inlet, a waste water outlet and/or to a power supply,
See at least:
“The docking station 10 ... can include a liquid supply system ... a disposal system ... [and] a charging system.” (0054)
Rationale: The second coupling arrangement communicates with the household fresh-water source, drain, and/or electrical supply.
wherein the supply device and the floor cleaning machine are designed in such a way that,
See at least:
“The docking station 10 can be configured to automatically fill or refill ... supply tank 106 ... and empty ... recovery tank 118.” (0027)
Rationale: Buehler configures docking station 10 and robot 100 as complementary components for automatic servicing.
when the first and the second coupling arrangement are connected to one another,
See at least:
“Docking the robot 100 with the docking station 10 can include ... making a fluid connection ... and/or making an electrical connection.” (0099)
Rationale: Docking establishes the connected condition of the robot-side and dock-side coupling arrangements.
fresh water can be conveyed from the fresh water inlet into the fresh water tank
See at least:
“The fill pump 134 energizes and draws liquid from the intermediate reservoir 360 of the docking station 310.” (0074)
Rationale: The connected system conveys fresh water from the docking-station source to supply tank 106.
and/or waste water can be conveyed from the waste water tank to the waste water outlet
See at least:
“The disposal pump 472 ... creates suction to draw waste from the recovery tank 118 ... into the drain 438.” (0081)
Rationale: The connected system conveys waste water from recovery tank 118 to drain 438.
and/or the battery is connected to the power supply,
See at least:
“The docking station 610 can be connected to a household power supply, such as a wall outlet 614, by a power cord 682.” (0096)
Rationale: Connected charging contacts place battery pack 152 in electrical communication with household power supply 614.
wherein the system is configured to:
See at least:
“FIG. 11 depicts one embodiment of a method 700 for refilling and emptying a deep cleaning robot 100 using the system 5.” (0098)
Rationale: Buehler’s controllers, drives, pumps, couplings, and charging components configure the system to perform the described automated sequence.
so that the floor cleaning machine moves towards the supply device
See at least:
“This may include autonomously driving the robot 100 to the toilet 30 and docking the robot 100 with the docking station 10.” (0098)
Rationale: Robot 100 is driven toward docking station 10.
couple the floor cleaning machine and the supply device
See at least:
“Docking the robot 100 with the docking station 10 can include ... making a fluid connection ... and/or making an electrical connection.” (0099)
Rationale: Establishing the service connections couples robot 100 to docking station 10.
by connecting the first coupling arrangement to the second coupling arrangement,
See at least:
“The water receiver coupling 132 on the robot 100 mates or otherwise fluidly couples with the water supply coupling 316 of the docking station 310.” (0074)
Rationale: The coupling operation is performed by connecting the complementary robot-side and dock-side coupling components.
convey fresh water from the fresh water inlet into the fresh water tank
See at least:
“The docking station 10 can be configured to automatically fill or refill ... supply tank 106 ... with fresh water.” (0027)
Rationale: The system is configured to perform the fresh-water transfer operation.
and/or conveying waste water from the waste water tank to the waste water outlet
See at least:
“The disposal pump 472 ... creates suction to draw waste from the recovery tank 118 ... into the drain 438.” (0081)
Rationale: The system is configured to perform the waste-water transfer operation.
and/or charging the battery with the power supply,
See at least:
“The servicing mode may also include a recharging phase at step 770 in which the battery 152 of the robot 100 is recharged via the docking station 10.” (0103)
Rationale: The system is configured to charge the robot battery through the docking-station power supply.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Buehler
Buehler does not explicitly disclose limitations 13–18, 21–22, 30–31, 33, and 39–41.
Disclosure by Pfeiffer
wherein the supply device can be moved by means of a drive unit connected to it
See at least:
“The docking station 100 further includes an actuator 112 coupled to the station base unit 110 and the shift unit 120.” (0022)
Rationale: Actuator 112 is connected to and moves shift unit 120, which carries the dock-side charging coupling.
on the floor surface
See at least:
“The docking station 100 includes a station base unit 110 that is affixed to the factory floor and a shift unit 120 that moves relative to the station base unit 110.” (0021)
Rationale: Shift unit 120 moves on a bearing-supported assembly mounted to the factory floor. The application treats movement on a floor-mounted base plate as movement on the floor surface. Application 0054–0055.
in or in the opposite direction to a straight first direction of travel
See at least:
“The shift unit 120 translates laterally relative to the station base unit 110.” (0021)
Rationale: The disclosed translation occurs in opposite directions along a straight linear axis.
between a first and a second position,
See at least:
“The shift unit 120 moves between an extended position ... and a retracted position.” (0021)
Rationale: The retracted and extended positions respectively provide the claimed first and second positions.
wherein the supply device is moved from the first to the second position
See at least:
“The shift unit 120 [is] shifted ... such that the shift unit 120 is located in an extended position.” (0028)
Rationale: Shift unit 120 moves from the retracted first position to the extended second position.
by a movement in the first direction of travel,
See at least:
“The shift unit 120 [is] shifted in a direction corresponding to arrow E ... such that the shift unit 120 is located in an extended position.” (0028)
Rationale: Extension direction E corresponds to the claimed first direction of travel.
and wherein the first direction of travel points in the direction in which the second coupling arrangement must be moved
See at least:
“The charging contact block 124 move[s] with the shift unit 120 between the extended position and the retracted position.” (0025)
Rationale: Extension direction E is the direction in which the coupling-carrying shift unit moves charging contact block 124 toward its operative connection position.
in order to be connected to the first coupling arrangement,
See at least:
“The charging contact block 124 and the electrical connector 34 are positioned to come into contact with one another when the AGV 20 is stopped by the docking station 100.” (0030)
Rationale: Extension places charging contact block 124 in the connection path where the approaching vehicle connector 34 engages it.
actuate the supply device so that the supply device assumes the second position,
See at least:
“Before the AGV 20 reaches the docking station 100, the shift unit 120 is positioned in an extended position by the actuator 112.” (0036)
Rationale: Actuator 112 places the coupling-carrying supply-device assembly in the extended second position before vehicle approach.
move the floor cleaning machine in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel by means of the chassis drive,
See at least:
“The AGV 20 approaches the docking station 100 ... parallel to the shift unit movement direction 202, with the drive mechanisms 26.” (0036)
Rationale: Direction 202 is the retraction direction and is opposite extension direction E. Drive mechanisms 26 move the vehicle toward the extended shift unit in that opposite direction. Buehler supplies the claimed floor-cleaning machine and its chassis drive.
in such a manner that during the movement the first coupling arrangement points towards the second coupling arrangement,
See at least:
“The charging contact block 124 ... may be aligned and placed in contact with the electrical connector 34 of the AGV 20.” (0037)
Rationale: The face-to-face alignment and physical engagement inherently require the vehicle-side connector to point toward the dock-side contact during the final approach.
and release the connection between the first and the second coupling arrangement
See at least:
“With the shift unit 120 in the retracted position, the ... charging contact block 124 [is] located a distance away from the ... electrical connector 34.... [T]here is no contact.” (0033)
Rationale: Retraction separates the corresponding coupling components and releases the connection.
by moving the supply device in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel
See at least:
“The docking station 100 is shown with the shift unit 120 shifting in the direction of arrow R ... such that the shift unit 120 is located in a retracted position.” (0032)
Rationale: Retraction direction R is opposite extension direction E, which corresponds to the claimed first direction.
from the second position to the first position.
See at least:
“The electronic controller 300 may then transmit a control signal to the docking station 100 to move the docking station 100 from the extended position to the retracted position.” (0042)
Rationale: Pfeiffer expressly controls movement from the extended second position to the retracted first position.
Motivation to Combine Buehler and Pfeiffer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Buehler and Pfeiffer before them, to configure Buehler’s docking station with Pfeiffer’s floor-supported, actuator-driven shift unit and to mount Buehler’s dock-side water, waste, and/or charging coupling arrangement on that shift unit so that the coupling arrangement is extended before the floor-cleaning machine approaches, remains extended during coupling and servicing, and retracts after servicing to release the connection without requiring reverse movement of the floor-cleaning machine.
The references provide complementary teachings directed to automated servicing of autonomous wheeled machines. The modification would predictably improve alignment, repeatability, controlled coupling separation, mechanical reliability, and clearance following servicing. Buehler’s service couplings would continue performing their known fluid-transfer and charging functions, and Pfeiffer’s actuator-driven shift unit would continue performing its known extension and retraction functions.
Claims 2, 3, and 8 are rejected over Buehler and Pfeiffer, further in view of Abramson (WO 2005/006098 A2).
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Buehler and Pfeiffer establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 2.
As set forth in the analysis of claim 1, Buehler teaches the autonomous floor-cleaning machine and servicing architecture, while Pfeiffer supplies the actuator-driven movement of the coupling-carrying supply device. Their combination establishes the underlying method of claim 1.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Buehler
Buehler does not explicitly teach:
wherein after the connection is released,
the floor cleaning machine performs a lateral pivoting movement
about a vertical axis,
in which the first coupling arrangement is laterally pivoted
with respect to the second coupling arrangement.
Examiner Note: Buehler teaches that the robot may undock and resume cleaning after servicing, but does not identify the movement performed after release as the claimed lateral pivoting movement:
“After the end 780 of the servicing mode, the docked deep cleaning robot 100 can undock to resume cleaning or may remain docked until another cleaning operation is required.” (0105)
Disclosure by Pfeiffer
Pfeiffer teaches:
wherein after the connection is released,
See at least:
“Once the robot 400 has loaded parts onto the AGV 20, the robot 400 may transmit a signal to the electronic controller 300 that the operation by the robot 400 is complete. The electronic controller 300 may then transmit a control signal to the docking station 100 to move the docking station 100 from the extended position to the retracted position. The electronic controller 300 may then transmit a signal to the AGV 20 to begin to drive along the navigation pathway 40.” (0042)
Rationale:
As established for claim 1, retracting Pfeiffer’s coupling-carrying shift unit separates charging contact block 124 from electrical connector 34 and thereby releases the connection. Pfeiffer expressly performs the subsequent vehicle movement only after the shift unit has been retracted and the docked operation has been completed. Pfeiffer therefore teaches the claimed temporal relationship: the vehicle movement occurs after release of the connection.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by the Combination of Buehler and Pfeiffer
After combining Buehler and Pfeiffer, the following limitations remain not explicitly taught:
the floor cleaning machine performs a lateral pivoting movement
about a vertical axis,
in which the first coupling arrangement is laterally pivoted
with respect to the second coupling arrangement.
Examiner: Pfeiffer teaches that the AGV changes to a lateral direction after the shift unit retracts:
“Once the drive mechanisms 26 are aligned along the lateral portion 44 of the navigation pathway 40, the drive mechanisms 26 apply force to the AGV 20 that tends to cause the AGV 20 to travel in a second direction of travel, i.e., in the lateral direction 204, or ‘crab.’” (0038)
However, Pfeiffer’s “crab” movement may be produced by rotation of its casters without requiring the AGV body itself to pivot about a vertical axis.
Disclosure by Abramson
Abramson teaches:
the floor cleaning machine performs a lateral pivoting movement
See at least:
“This block includes the subprocesses of the apparatus 20 performing a 180 degree turn in the direction from which the beam 120 was detected, as indicated by the arrow 150, at block 304.” (page 10, lines 2–5)
Rationale:
Abramson expressly teaches that autonomous apparatus 20 performs a 180° turn on the supporting floor surface. Abramson further explains that apparatus 20 may be a robotic vacuum cleaner or an autonomous machine performing surface cleaning or floor sweeping. See Abramson, page 5. A 180° turn of such a floor-supported wheeled cleaning machine is a lateral pivoting movement because the machine changes its horizontal orientation by rotating in the plane of the floor rather than merely translating forward or backward.
Abramson performs this turn during its docking-location sequence rather than after release from the docking station. Thus, Abramson expressly teaches the claimed type of movement, but the timing of performing that known movement after connection release is supplied by the proposed combination and the motivation discussed below.
about a vertical axis,
See at least:
“This 180 degree turn is in the direction the beam is most likely coming from, as determined by the sensor through which it was detected. A second rotation is then made, at block 306.” (page 10, lines 5–7)
Rationale:
Abramson’s apparatus is a wheeled autonomous machine supported on and moving over a floor surface. See Abramson, page 5. When such a floor-supported machine changes its horizontal heading through a 180° turn without tipping or rolling about a horizontal axis, its body necessarily rotates in yaw about an axis extending vertically through the machine and perpendicular to the floor. The vertical-axis characteristic is therefore inherent in Abramson’s disclosed floor-plane rotation.
in which the first coupling arrangement is laterally pivoted
See at least:
“The apparatus 20 also includes docking contacts 68, typically at its rear.” (page 6)
Rationale:
Abramson’s docking contacts 68 are fixed to the body of apparatus 20. When the apparatus body performs the disclosed 180° lateral turn, the body-mounted docking contacts necessarily rotate laterally through the same angular displacement. In the proposed combination, Buehler’s first coupling arrangement is similarly fixed to the floor-cleaning-machine chassis. A lateral pivot of the machine would therefore laterally pivot its first coupling arrangement.
with respect to the second coupling arrangement.
See at least:
“These docking contacts 110 are configured to correspond with the docking contacts 68 on the apparatus 20.” (page 7)
Rationale:
Abramson’s docking-station contacts 110 remain on the stationary docking station while the body-mounted contacts 68 rotate with apparatus 20. The apparatus-side contacts consequently pivot laterally with respect to the station-side contacts. In the proposed combination, after Pfeiffer’s supply-device assembly retracts and releases Buehler’s robot-side coupling arrangement, the robot pivots while the retracted supply-device coupling remains stationary. The first coupling arrangement therefore changes its lateral angular orientation relative to the second coupling arrangement.
Motivation to Combine Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Abramson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Abramson before them, to configure the floor-cleaning machine resulting from Buehler and Pfeiffer to perform Abramson’s known lateral turning maneuver after Pfeiffer’s movable supply-device assembly retracts and releases the coupling connection, thereby reorienting the floor-cleaning machine away from the supply device so that the machine can resume forward cleaning travel without first reversing away from the supply device.
Buehler expressly teaches that its autonomous floor-cleaning robot undocks after servicing to resume cleaning. Buehler 0105. Pfeiffer teaches releasing the connection by retracting the dock-side shift unit and then commanding the autonomous vehicle to begin moving along its navigation path. Pfeiffer 0033 and 0042. Abramson teaches that a floor-supported autonomous cleaning machine uses controlled lateral turns, including a 180° turn, to change its heading relative to a docking station.
The teachings are technically compatible. Buehler’s floor-cleaning robot has independently controllable driven wheels capable of turning the robot in a desired direction:
“The drive wheels can be operated simultaneously or individually in order to turn the unit in a desired direction.” (Buehler, 0036)
Thus, no new or unconventional mechanical structure would be required to implement Abramson’s turning maneuver. The modification would use Buehler’s existing wheel motors and controller to perform a known autonomous-robot turning operation after Pfeiffer’s retraction mechanism creates sufficient clearance.
A person of ordinary skill would have had reason to perform the turn after release because doing so would predictably:
reorient the floor-cleaning machine for forward departure and resumption of its cleaning route;
avoid requiring the machine to reverse away from the supply device;
permit the machine’s forward-facing navigation and obstacle sensors to monitor the departure path;
reduce the clearance needed behind the machine for undocking; and
use the machine’s existing differential-drive steering capability according to its known function.
This is a predictable use of Abramson’s known autonomous-robot turning maneuver in the post-release state created by Pfeiffer. The rationale does not depend on Abramson expressly performing its turn after undocking; rather, it relies on the recognized suitability of Abramson’s turn for reorienting an autonomous cleaning machine and the express teachings of Buehler and Pfeiffer that the machine resumes travel after servicing and release.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Abramson establishes the method of Claim 2, which is the basis for Claim 3.
Buehler supplies the floor-cleaning robot and its post-servicing resumption of cleaning; Pfeiffer supplies release by retraction of the coupling-carrying supply device; and Abramson supplies the lateral pivoting movement. Their combination establishes the method of claim 2.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Buehler
Buehler does not explicitly teach:
wherein the pivoting angle
of the lateral pivoting movement
is more than 90°.
Disclosure by Pfeiffer
Pfeiffer does not explicitly teach a pivoting angle greater than 90°. Pfeiffer states:
“Because the change in direction of travel of the AGV 20 from the shift unit movement direction 202 to the lateral direction 204 is less than or equal to about 90 degrees, the rotation of the casters 24 is predictable.” (0039)
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by the Combination of Buehler and Pfeiffer
After combining Buehler and Pfeiffer, the following limitations remain not explicitly taught:
wherein the pivoting angle
of the lateral pivoting movement
is more than 90°.
Disclosure by Abramson
Abramson teaches:
wherein the pivoting angle
See at least:
“This block includes the subprocesses of the apparatus 20 performing a 180 degree turn in the direction from which the beam 120 was detected.” (page 10, lines 2–5)
Rationale:
Abramson expressly assigns an angular magnitude—180°—to the turning movement performed by autonomous apparatus 20. Thus, Abramson expressly teaches a defined pivoting angle.
of the lateral pivoting movement
See at least:
“This 180 degree turn is in the direction the beam is most likely coming from, as determined by the sensor through which it was detected.” (page 10, lines 5–6)
Rationale:
The recited 180° value applies to the floor-plane turning movement of the wheeled autonomous apparatus. As explained for claim 2, this movement is a lateral pivot about a vertical axis. The 180° value therefore defines the angle of the lateral pivoting movement rather than an unrelated component movement.
is more than 90°.
See at least:
“This block includes the subprocesses of the apparatus 20 performing a 180 degree turn.” (page 10, lines 2–4)
Rationale:
A 180° pivot is expressly and necessarily more than 90°. Abramson therefore expressly teaches the claimed angular range.
Motivation to Combine Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Abramson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Abramson before them, to configure the floor-cleaning machine resulting from Buehler and Pfeiffer to perform Abramson’s expressly disclosed 180° lateral turn after the coupling connection has been released, thereby orienting the floor-cleaning machine generally away from the supply device for forward departure and resumption of its cleaning operation.
Abramson identifies a 180° turn as a known controlled maneuver for reorienting an autonomous cleaning machine. Buehler’s independently controllable drive wheels already permit the robot to turn in a desired direction. Buehler 0036. Pfeiffer’s retraction of the coupling-carrying shift unit creates clearance between the machine-side and dock-side coupling components before subsequent vehicle movement. Pfeiffer 0033 and 0042.
Selecting Abramson’s 180° turn would have been a predictable use of a known robot maneuver to place the floor-cleaning machine in the opposite heading after servicing. It would allow the machine to depart in a forward direction, use its forward-facing navigation and obstacle sensors, and resume its cleaning path without backing away from the supply device. The 180° angle also provides a complete reversal of heading and therefore a predictable orientation for leaving the servicing area.
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination of Buehler and Pfeiffer establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 8.
Disclosure by Buehler
Buehler teaches:
wherein the floor cleaning machine has a detection unit
See at least:
“The robot 100 can include a positioning or localization system having one or more sensors determining the position of the robot relative to objects. The localization system can include one or more infrared (IR) obstacle sensors 170 for distance and position sensing.” (Buehler, 43)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches that the floor-cleaning robot includes obstacle sensors 170 forming part of its positioning or localization system. The sensors and associated controller constitute a “detection unit” because they generate object-distance and object-position information used to control movement of the robot.
for detecting objects
See at least:
“The obstacle sensors 170 can be mounted to the housing 112 of the robot 100, such as in the front of robot 100 to determine the distance to obstacles in front of the robot 100. Input from the obstacle sensors 170 can be used to slow down and/or adjust the course of the robot 100 when objects are detected.” (Buehler, 43)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches that obstacle sensors 170 detect objects and determine their distance relative to the robot. The sensors therefore perform the claimed object-detection function and do more than merely sense an unrelated operating condition.
the detection unit is used to check
See at least:
“The robot 100 can include a positioning or localization system having one or more sensors determining the position of the robot relative to objects.” (Buehler, 43)
Rationale: Determining the position of the robot relative to objects necessarily involves using the sensor system to check the robot’s surroundings for objects. This is an express functional use of the sensor output by the navigation or localization system.
whether there are objects present
See at least:
“Input from the obstacle sensors 170 can be used to slow down and/or adjust the course of the robot 100 when objects are detected.” (Buehler, 43)
Rationale: Buehler expressly conditions movement control on whether objects are detected. The obstacle sensors therefore check whether an object is present and provide the result of that check to the robot controller.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Buehler
Buehler does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
in the region of the first coupling arrangement,
wherein, during the movement of the floor cleaning machine in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel,
between the floor cleaning machine and the supply device,
and wherein, if the detection unit detects an object
in the vicinity of the supply device,
the movement of the floor cleaning machine in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel is stopped.
In particular, Buehler’s statement that its obstacle sensors may be mounted at the front of the robot does not, standing alone, expressly establish that the detection field covers the region of the robot’s first coupling arrangement during the claimed docking approach.
Disclosure by Pfeiffer
Pfeiffer teaches:
wherein, during the movement of the floor cleaning machine in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel,
See at least:
“As depicted in FIG. 4A, before the AGV 20 reaches the docking station 100, the shift unit 120 is positioned in an extended position by the actuator 112. The AGV 20 approaches the docking station 100 in a first direction of travel that is parallel to the shift unit movement direction 202.” (Pfeiffer, 36)
Rationale: Under the construction established for Claim 1, Pfeiffer’s shift unit 120 is the movable coupling-carrying portion of the supply device. The shift unit is extended toward the AGV, whereas the AGV subsequently approaches the extended shift unit from the opposite side. Thus, relative to the supply device’s extension direction—the claimed first direction of travel—the AGV moves toward the supply device in the opposite direction. Pfeiffer therefore teaches that the relevant object-detection operation can occur during the claimed docking-approach movement.
between the floor cleaning machine and the supply device,
See at least:
“Infrared and/or ultrasonic sensors may also be used for collision avoidance of the AGV 20.” (Pfeiffer, 40)
Rationale: Pfeiffer teaches using infrared or ultrasonic collision-avoidance sensors while the AGV autonomously approaches a docking station. For collision avoidance to operate during that approach, the sensors must monitor at least the impending travel space separating the approaching AGV from the docking station. Accordingly, the monitored region includes the space between the machine and the supply device. This correspondence is implicit in the disclosed collision-avoidance function rather than an express statement using the claimed spatial language.
Motivation to Combine Buehler and Pfeiffer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Buehler and Pfeiffer before them, to operate Buehler’s obstacle-detection system during the docking approach taught by Pfeiffer and to direct the sensors toward the path between the floor-cleaning machine and the movable supply-device coupling.
Buehler already uses obstacle sensors to determine the distance and position of objects and to modify robot motion when objects are detected. Pfeiffer independently recognizes the use of infrared or ultrasonic sensors for collision avoidance by a vehicle approaching a docking station. Applying Buehler’s known object-detection system during Pfeiffer’s known autonomous docking approach would have been a predictable use of an existing safety system for its established purpose: detecting obstacles in the vehicle’s direction of movement and preventing collision with obstacles or docking equipment.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by the Combination of Buehler and Pfeiffer
After combining Buehler and Pfeiffer, the following claim limitations are not explicitly taught:
in the region of the first coupling arrangement,
and wherein, if the detection unit detects an object
in the vicinity of the supply device,
the movement of the floor cleaning machine in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel is stopped.
Buehler teaches slowing or course adjustment when an object is detected, while Pfeiffer generally identifies infrared or ultrasonic collision avoidance. Neither reference expressly specifies stopping the claimed docking movement when an object is detected near the supply device or expressly places an object-detection field at the first coupling arrangement.
Disclosure by Abramson
Abramson teaches:
in the region of the first coupling arrangement,
See at least:
“The apparatus 20 also includes sensors, for example, for obstacle detection, obstruction detection, boundary detection, proximity detection to objects and/or boundaries. These sensors form a sensor system 56, that is coupled to the control system 40 and are under the control thereof.” (Abramson, p. 5)
And:
“The apparatus 20 also includes docking contacts 68, typically at its rear.” (Abramson, p. 6)
Rationale: Abramson expressly teaches both an object/proximity-detection sensor system and a coupling arrangement formed by rear docking contacts 68. Abramson does not expressly state that an obstacle-detection sensor is positioned immediately adjacent to the rear docking contacts. Nevertheless, placing or orienting one of the expressly disclosed proximity or obstacle sensors to monitor the region of the rear docking contacts would have been a predictable sensor-placement choice. The coupling region is the portion of the robot that approaches the docking station and therefore is a location where foreign-object detection would directly prevent interference with contact alignment.
and wherein, if the detection unit detects an object
See at least:
“Throughout this ‘seek’ process, there may be stopping events, at block 208.” (Abramson, p. 9)
And:
“The stopping event at block 208, can occur if the bumper/wheels are stuck or if a stair has been detected, or other unexpected event, that is considered inadequate for further pursuing the beam location or would not allow the apparatus 20 to move in a straight course to the docking station 100.” (Abramson, pp. 9-10)
Rationale: Abramson expressly conditions the continuation of docking-directed movement on the absence of a sensed stopping condition. A detected obstacle, obstruction, stair, or other unexpected condition that prevents a safe straight course constitutes an object-related detection event that causes the controller to invoke the stopping logic.
in the vicinity of the supply device,
See at least:
“The first range 121 is the short range … where continuous transmissions of a weak signal … approximately less then 50 cm, are emitted.” (Abramson, p. 7)
And:
“Homing is typically in three sequences, beam confirmation, return, and repositioning. All three of these events are subject to stopping events.” (Abramson, p. 10)
Rationale: Abramson’s docking procedure includes a short-range docking zone adjacent to the docking station and subjects the homing and repositioning operations to stopping events. The reference therefore teaches applying stopping-event logic during close-range docking operations in the vicinity of the supply device. To the extent Abramson does not expressly identify a foreign object within that short-range zone as the particular stopping event, doing so would have been obvious because its sensor system expressly detects obstacles, obstructions, and proximity to objects.
the movement of the floor cleaning machine in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel is stopped.
See at least:
“This method also includes ceasing robot movement once the robot has docked in the docking station and a docking contact between the robot and the docking station is established.” (Abramson, p. 4)
And:
“The stopping event at block 208, can occur if the bumper/wheels are stuck or if a stair has been detected, or other unexpected event, that is considered inadequate for further pursuing the beam location or would not allow the apparatus 20 to move in a straight course to the docking station 100.” (Abramson, pp. 9-10)
Rationale: Abramson expressly teaches terminating robot movement during docking when a sensed condition makes continued movement toward the docking station inappropriate. Abramson does not expressly describe its stopping direction using Pfeiffer’s defined shift-unit direction. Once Abramson’s stopping control is incorporated into the Buehler-Pfeiffer docking method, however, the movement being stopped is the floor-cleaning machine’s docking approach—i.e., the movement already mapped to the claimed opposite direction. The directional aspect follows from the modified Buehler-Pfeiffer method; Abramson supplies the sensor-responsive stopping control.
Motivation to Combine Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Abramson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Abramson before them, to configure the obstacle-detection system of the Buehler-Pfeiffer floor-cleaning machine to monitor the coupling-side region and the intervening space during approach to the movable supply device, and to stop that approach when an object is detected near the supply device.
Buehler establishes that obstacle-sensor information controls robot movement. Pfeiffer establishes that infrared or ultrasonic collision avoidance is appropriate during autonomous travel toward a docking station. Abramson further teaches obstacle, obstruction, and proximity sensors and teaches stopping docking-directed movement when a sensed condition makes continued straight movement toward the docking station inappropriate.
A PHOSITA would have recognized that steering around an object during the final coupling approach could misalign the first and second coupling arrangements and could permit the robot or coupling hardware to strike or trap the object. Stopping instead of steering during the final approach would predictably:
prevent collision with the supply device;
prevent trapping an object between the machine and the supply device;
protect the mating electrical or fluid couplings;
avoid fluid leakage or electrical-contact damage; and
preserve the alignment required for successful coupling.
Locating or orienting a known obstacle or proximity sensor so that its detection field covers the coupling-side region would have required only routine selection of sensor position and field of view according to the known direction of docking travel. The modification would use each reference’s known components according to their established functions and would yield the predictable result of stopping an unsafe docking approach.
Buehler expressly supplies the floor-cleaning machine’s object-detection system; Pfeiffer supplies the docking-approach context and collision-avoidance teaching; and Abramson supplies close-range docking sensor use and sensor-responsive stopping. The precise placement of the detection field in the region of the first coupling arrangement and the precise rule requiring a stop for an object in the vicinity of the supply device are not expressly disclosed in a single passage. Those features depend on the articulated predictable-safety modification above. Consequently, the rejection is supportable under §103.
Claims 4–7 are rejected over Buehler and Pfeiffer, further in view of Mass (EP 2 273 336 A2).
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Buehler and Pfeiffer establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 4.
As established in the analysis of claim 1, Buehler teaches the autonomous floor-cleaning machine and its fluid and electrical servicing architecture. Pfeiffer teaches the actuator-driven supply-device movement, the opposite-direction machine approach, and retraction of the coupling-carrying supply device to release the connection. The combination therefore establishes the method of claim 1.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Buehler
Buehler does not explicitly teach:
wherein, prior to the step of moving the floor cleaning machine in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel,
the floor cleaning machine is positioned in front of the supply device
such that the first coupling arrangement is aligned with the second coupling arrangement
in such a manner that they can be connected
by a straight movement towards one another.
Examiner Note: Buehler teaches generally that its robot is guided to and docks with the supply device:
“This may include autonomously driving the robot 100 to the toilet 30 and docking the robot 100 with the docking station 10. The robot 100 may be guided to the toilet 30 using the IR transceivers 192.” (0098)
Buehler, however, does not describe a distinct pre-approach positioning state in which the robot is already in front of the supply device and the corresponding coupling arrangements are aligned for connection by a subsequent straight movement.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by the Combination of Buehler and Pfeiffer
Pfeiffer teaches that its AGV approaches the extended supply-device assembly along a predetermined navigation pathway:
“Before the AGV 20 reaches the docking station 100, the shift unit 120 is positioned in an extended position by the actuator 112. The AGV 20 approaches the docking station 100 in a first direction of travel that is parallel to the shift unit movement direction 202, with the drive mechanisms 26 of the AGV 20 following a normal portion 42 of the navigation pathway 40.” (0036)
Pfeiffer further teaches:
“The charging contact block 124 along the shift unit 120 of the docking station 100 may be aligned and placed in contact with the electrical connector 34 of the AGV 20.” (0037)
These teachings establish that the coupling components become aligned during the AGV’s approach. Pfeiffer does not clearly teach that, before beginning the claimed final movement toward the supply device, the AGV is first positioned in front of the supply device with the coupling arrangements already aligned for connection by a subsequent straight movement.
Accordingly, after combining Buehler and Pfeiffer, the following limitations remain not explicitly taught:
wherein, prior to the step of moving the floor cleaning machine in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel,
the floor cleaning machine is positioned in front of the supply device
such that the first coupling arrangement is aligned with the second coupling arrangement
in such a manner that they can be connected
by a straight movement towards one another.
Disclosure by Mass
Mass teaches:
wherein, prior to the step of moving the floor cleaning machine in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel,
See at least:
“Where the two signals overlap (the ‘yellow’ zone 66), the robot 40 knows that the base station 10 is nearby and may then dock.” (0063)
See also:
“At this point, the robotic device 40 will move in direction MF directly towards the base station 10.” (0064)
Rationale:
Mass teaches an ordered docking sequence. Robot 40 first detects and enters overlapping homing-signal zone 66, which establishes the robot’s docking orientation and position. Only after reaching that aligned condition does the robot execute the final movement in direction MF directly toward base station 10. In the proposed combination, Mass’s final movement toward the dock would be performed in Pfeiffer’s vehicle-approach direction, which is opposite the extension direction of the movable supply-device assembly.
the floor cleaning machine is positioned in front of the supply device
See at least:
“Homing signal 62, 64 ranges that extend from approximately six inches beyond the front of the base plate 12, to up to and beyond several feet beyond the base plate 12 are contemplated.” (0060)
See also:
“Where the two signals overlap (the ‘yellow’ zone 66), the robot 40 knows that the base station 10 is nearby and may then dock.” (0063)
Rationale:
Mass projects its directional homing signals outward from the front of base station 10. The overlapping yellow zone 66 defines a docking corridor extending in front of the station. When robot 40 detects and enters that zone, it is positioned in front of the base station for the final docking approach. The positioning is functional, not merely incidental: it places the robot in the particular forward region from which it can travel directly into the station.
such that the first coupling arrangement is aligned with the second coupling arrangement
See at least:
“Such a system may be optimized to make the yellow zone 66 as thin as practicably possible, to ensure proper orientation and approach of the robot 40 and successful docking.” (0063)
Rationale:
Mass’s narrow overlapping homing-signal zone ensures the robot’s proper orientation before the final approach. The purpose of that orientation is successful docking of the robot-side charging contacts with the base-station charging contacts. Thus, the robot-side coupling arrangement is brought into the lateral and angular alignment necessary to meet the base-station-side coupling arrangement.
Mass teaches this limitation expressly as to orientation of the robot and implicitly as to the corresponding charging contacts. Because the charging contacts are fixed to the robot and base station, proper orientation of the two bodies necessarily establishes the corresponding alignment of their coupling arrangements.
in such a manner that they can be connected
See at least:
“The robotic device 40 performs its docking with the base station 10 accurately and repeatably, without the need for gross mechanical guidance features.” (0062)
Rationale:
Mass does not align the robot merely for navigation near the base station. It aligns the robot specifically so that the robot can dock accurately and repeatably. The resulting orientation therefore places the complementary charging contacts in a relationship permitting them to connect during the final approach.
by a straight movement towards one another.
See at least:
“Last, in FIG. 4C, the detector 50 has encountered yellow zone 66. At this point, the robotic device 40 will move in direction MF directly towards the base station 10.” (0064)
Rationale:
Once the robot is positioned in the narrow overlapping signal zone, Mass commands it to move “directly towards” base station 10 in direction MF. In the context of Mass’s established orientation and thin docking corridor, “directly towards” teaches a straight final approach rather than a curved, lateral, or evasive movement. That straight movement brings the already aligned robot-side and station-side charging contacts toward one another until connection occurs.
Motivation to Combine Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Mass
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Mass before them, to configure Buehler’s autonomous floor-cleaning machine and Pfeiffer’s movable coupling-carrying supply device with Mass’s homing-signal alignment technique, such that the floor-cleaning machine first detects the narrow overlap between the directional homing signals, positions itself in front of the supply device with its first coupling arrangement aligned with the second coupling arrangement, and then executes a straight final movement toward the extended supply-device coupling arrangement to complete the connection.
Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Mass address complementary aspects of autonomous-machine docking. Buehler provides the autonomous floor-cleaning machine and its water, waste, and charging service couplings. Pfeiffer provides the actuator-driven supply-device assembly that extends its coupling into the docking position before vehicle approach. Mass provides a known optical homing arrangement that establishes proper robot orientation and a direct final docking path.
Mass expressly identifies accurate, repeatable docking and successful contact alignment as benefits of its narrow overlapping homing-signal zone. Mass 0062–0063. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that accurate pre-alignment would be particularly beneficial in Buehler’s system because fluid couplings require greater positional accuracy than broad electrical contact pads. Misalignment could prevent fluid coupling, damage seals, or produce leakage. Applying Mass’s alignment technique would therefore predictably improve coupling accuracy, reliability, and mechanical safety.
The modification would not alter the operating principle of any reference. Buehler’s couplings would continue performing fluid-transfer and charging functions; Pfeiffer’s shift unit would continue extending and retracting the dock-side coupling arrangement; and Mass’s homing signals would continue positioning and orienting the autonomous machine for a direct final approach.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Mass establishes the method of Claim 4, which is the basis for Claim 5.
Buehler provides the autonomous floor-cleaning machine and service system; Pfeiffer provides the movable coupling-carrying supply device and opposite-direction approach; and Mass provides the prior positioning and alignment required by claim 4. Their combination therefore establishes the method of claim 4.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Buehler
Buehler does not explicitly teach:
wherein after positioning,
the floor cleaning machine moves exclusively in a straight movement
in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel.
Although Buehler teaches autonomously driving robot 100 to docking station 10, it does not specify that, after a distinct positioning operation, all remaining movement toward the docking station is exclusively straight.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by the Combination of Buehler and Pfeiffer
Pfeiffer teaches:
“The AGV 20 approaches the docking station 100 in a first direction of travel that is parallel to the shift unit movement direction 202, with the drive mechanisms 26 of the AGV 20 following a normal portion 42 of the navigation pathway 40.” (0036)
Pfeiffer further teaches:
“The AGV 20 continues to travel along the normal portion 42 of the navigation pathway 40 in the shift unit movement direction 202 until the cam followers 32 come into contact with the locator blocks 122.” (0037)
These teachings support travel along a defined approach path. Pfeiffer does not expressly distinguish a completed positioning step from a subsequent exclusively straight final movement. Accordingly, after combining Buehler and Pfeiffer, the following limitations remain not explicitly taught:
wherein after positioning,
the floor cleaning machine moves exclusively in a straight movement
in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel.
Disclosure by Mass
Mass teaches:
wherein after positioning,
See at least:
“Where the two signals overlap (the ‘yellow’ zone 66), the robot 40 knows that the base station 10 is nearby and may then dock.” (0063)
See also:
“At this point, the robotic device 40 will move in direction MF directly towards the base station 10.” (0064)
Rationale:
Entry into the narrow overlapping yellow zone establishes the positioning and alignment state described for claim 4. Mass then states that “[a]t this point” the robot executes the direct movement toward the base station. The final approach therefore occurs after the positioning operation.
the floor cleaning machine moves exclusively in a straight movement
See at least:
“Last, in FIG. 4C, the detector 50 has encountered yellow zone 66. At this point, the robotic device 40 will move in direction MF directly towards the base station 10.” (0064)
Rationale:
Mass’s use of a single final direction MF and the phrase “directly towards” teaches that, after the robot reaches the aligned overlapping-signal corridor, its final docking movement is a straight advance toward the base station. Mass does not describe an intervening turn, curve, lateral translation, or corrective maneuver between entry into yellow zone 66 and the docking approach.
The term “exclusively” is not quoted verbatim by Mass. Nevertheless, it is implicit in the disclosed final phase because the robot follows the single direction MF directly toward the station after positioning. A person of ordinary skill would understand that adding a turn or lateral deviation during that phase would move the robot out of the narrow overlap corridor and defeat the proper orientation that Mass uses to ensure successful docking.
in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel.
See at least:
“At this point, the robotic device 40 will move in direction MF directly towards the base station 10.” (0064)
Rationale:
Pfeiffer defines the supply-device extension direction E as the direction from the retracted first position to the extended second position and directs the vehicle to approach the extended shift unit in the opposite, retraction direction 202. Pfeiffer 0021, 0028, and 0036. Applying Mass’s direct movement MF to Pfeiffer’s approach geometry would cause the floor-cleaning machine to move directly toward the extended supply-device coupling in direction 202, opposite the claimed first direction E.
Mass supplies the exclusively straight nature of the final approach. Pfeiffer supplies its required directional relationship to movement of the supply device. The limitation is therefore taught by the references’ complementary disclosures rather than by Mass in isolation.
Motivation to Combine Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Mass
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Mass before them, to control the floor-cleaning machine resulting from Buehler and Pfeiffer so that, after Mass’s homing signals position and align the machine in front of the extended supply-device coupling, the machine proceeds only in a straight final movement toward the supply device, in the vehicle-approach direction opposite Pfeiffer’s supply-device extension direction, until the corresponding coupling arrangements connect.
Mass teaches that a narrow signal-overlap zone ensures proper orientation and successful docking and that the robot then moves directly toward the base station. Mass 0063–0064. Pfeiffer teaches that an autonomous vehicle follows a predetermined approach pathway toward the extended dock-side shift unit until the corresponding connection components contact. Pfeiffer 0036–0037.
Maintaining the already aligned machine on a straight final path would have been a predictable control choice because any turn or lateral correction after alignment would tend to introduce coupling misalignment. The exclusively straight final movement would:
preserve the alignment established by Mass’s homing signals;
minimize lateral loading on Buehler’s water and waste couplings;
reduce the possibility of damaged seals or fluid leakage;
simplify the navigation controller during the final docking phase;
reduce docking time; and
improve repeatability of the coupling operation.
Buehler’s drive wheels can be controlled together to move the machine forward or rearward and individually to turn the machine. Buehler 0036. Programming those existing wheels to operate together without differential turning during the final aligned approach would have required only routine use of Buehler’s existing drive controls and would have produced the predictable straight-line movement taught by Mass.
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Buehler and Pfeiffer establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 6.
As established for claim 1, Buehler teaches the autonomous floor-cleaning machine and its water, waste, and charging service architecture. Pfeiffer teaches the actuator-driven coupling-carrying supply device, extension of that device before the floor-cleaning machine approaches, movement of the machine in the direction opposite the supply-device extension direction, and retraction of the supply device to release the connection. The combination therefore establishes the method of claim 1.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Buehler
Buehler does not explicitly teach:
wherein the movement in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel
is interrupted
for a time interval.
Examiner Note: Buehler teaches stopping the robot once the docking operation is completed:
“Once docked, the drive wheels 130 are stopped.” (0098)
That terminal docking stop does not, by itself, teach an interruption of the approach movement followed by further movement toward the supply device. Accordingly, it does not expressly satisfying the added limitations.
Disclosure by Pfeiffer
Pfeiffer teaches:
wherein the movement in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel
See at least:
“The AGV 20 approaches the docking station 100 in a first direction of travel that is parallel to the shift unit movement direction 202, with the drive mechanisms 26 of the AGV 20 following a normal portion 42 of the navigation pathway 40.” (0036)
Rationale:
Pfeiffer defines shift-unit movement direction 202 as movement from the extended position toward the retracted position. Pfeiffer 0021. That direction is opposite extension direction E, which corresponds to the claimed first direction of travel. Pfeiffer therefore moves the autonomous vehicle toward the extended supply-device assembly in the direction opposite the claimed first direction.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by the Combination of Buehler and Pfeiffer
After combining Buehler and Pfeiffer, the following limitations remain not explicitly taught:
is interrupted
for a time interval.
Examiner Note: Pfeiffer teaches stopping the AGV when it reaches the docking station:
“The drive mechanisms 26 of the AGV 20 may be given a command to stop applying a drive force to the AGV 20. The drive mechanisms 26 may also be given a command to brake.” (0037)
That stop occurs at the completion of the approach and is maintained during the docked operation. It does not expressly teach interrupting the pre-connection approach for a finite interval and then resuming that same approach. Pfeiffer therefore does not expressly satisfy the remaining limitations.
Disclosure by Mass
Mass renders obvious:
is interrupted
See at least:
“Where the two signals overlap (the ‘yellow’ zone 66), the robot 40 knows that the base station 10 is nearby and may then dock. Such a system may be optimized to make the yellow zone 66 as thin as practicably possible, to ensure proper orientation and approach of the robot 40 and successful docking.” (0063)
See also:
“At this point, the robotic device 40 will move in direction MF directly towards the base station 10. While approaching the base station 10, the robotic device 40 may slow its speed of approach and/or discontinue vacuuming, or perform other functions to ensure trouble-free docking.” (0064)
Rationale:
Mass does not expressly state that translational movement is stopped upon entering yellow zone 66. Mass does, however, teach a distinct control-state transition: the robot first maneuvers to detect and enter the narrow signal-overlap zone, establishes the proper docking orientation, and then begins the direct final approach while reducing speed or performing other operations to ensure trouble-free docking.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill implementing this state transition to momentarily stop the drive wheels upon detecting entry into the narrow overlap zone before commanding the direct final approach. A finite pause would permit the controller to confirm stable reception of both homing signals, verify that the machine remains properly aligned, terminate or reconfigure the cleaning operation, and transition the drive controller from navigation mode to final docking mode. This would constitute a predictable control implementation of Mass’s express transition between general homing and the slower direct approach.
The interruption is not mapped as an express teaching of Mass. It is a PHOSITA-obvious implementation of Mass’s separate alignment and final-approach control phases.
for a time interval.
See at least:
“Where the two signals overlap ... the robot 40 knows that the base station 10 is nearby and may then dock.” (0063)
“At this point, the robotic device 40 will move in direction MF directly towards the base station 10.” (0064)
Rationale:
A controller-implemented interruption between Mass’s detection/alignment phase and its subsequent direct-approach phase necessarily has a finite duration: it begins when the drive controller stops the robot to confirm the aligned signal condition and ends when the controller commands the direct final approach. The interval need only be sufficiently long to validate the homing signals and complete the transition to the final docking state.
Selecting the particular duration would have been a routine control parameter based on sensor sampling rate, signal-stability requirements, vehicle inertia, and desired docking speed. The claim recites no particular minimum or maximum duration. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have arrived at a finite interruption interval through ordinary implementation of Mass’s docking-state transition.
Motivation to Combine Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Mass
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Mass before them, to configure the floor-cleaning machine resulting from Buehler and Pfeiffer to momentarily interrupt its movement toward the extended supply-device coupling upon reaching Mass’s narrow overlapping-signal alignment zone, maintain the interruption for a finite interval sufficient to confirm stable alignment and transition the controller to a final docking mode, and then resume the approach toward the supply device.
Buehler teaches an autonomous floor-cleaning robot having a controller and independently driven wheels. Buehler 0036–0038. Pfeiffer teaches driving an autonomous vehicle toward an extended dock-side coupling assembly along a predetermined approach path. Pfeiffer 0036–0037. Mass teaches a two-phase docking process in which the robot first enters a narrow overlapping-signal zone that ensures proper orientation and then performs a direct final approach while slowing or performing other operations to ensure trouble-free docking. Mass 0063–0064.
Momentarily stopping at the transition between the alignment and final-approach phases would have been a predictable control technique that would:
allow confirmation that both homing signals are being received consistently;
prevent the robot from continuing toward the supply device while materially misaligned;
allow oscillation or wheel slip from the preceding positioning maneuver to settle;
permit transition from general navigation control to precision docking control;
permit the cleaning components to be deactivated or reconfigured; and
reduce the risk of damaging or improperly mating Buehler’s fluid and electrical coupling components.
The modification would use Buehler’s existing controller and wheel motors according to their known functions. No change to the mechanical operating principles of Buehler, Pfeiffer, or Mass would be required.
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Mass establishes the method of Claim 6, which is the basis for Claim 7.
Buehler provides the controller, autonomous floor-cleaning machine, and driven wheels; Pfeiffer provides the opposite-direction approach toward the extended supply-device assembly; and Mass renders obvious the finite interruption between alignment and final approach. The combination therefore establishes the method of claim 6.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Buehler
Buehler does not explicitly teach:
wherein the movement in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel
after the interruption
is carried out at a reduced speed
compared to the speed before the interruption.
Examiner Note: Buehler teaches that obstacle sensors may be used to slow the robot:
“Input from the obstacle sensors 170 can be used to slow down and/or adjust the course of the robot 100 when objects are detected.” (0043)
That disclosure does not provide the claimed sequence of pre-interruption movement, an interruption, and resumed post-interruption movement at a reduced comparative speed.
Disclosure by Pfeiffer
Pfeiffer teaches:
wherein the movement in the opposite direction to the first direction of travel
See at least:
“The AGV 20 approaches the docking station 100 in a first direction of travel that is parallel to the shift unit movement direction 202, with the drive mechanisms 26 of the AGV 20 following a normal portion 42 of the navigation pathway 40.” (0036)
Rationale:
As established for claims 1 and 6, Pfeiffer’s vehicle approach direction 202 is opposite extension direction E, which corresponds to the claimed first direction of travel.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by the Combination of Buehler and Pfeiffer
After combining Buehler and Pfeiffer, the following limitations remain not explicitly taught:
after the interruption
is carried out at a reduced speed
compared to the speed before the interruption.
Neither Buehler nor Pfeiffer expressly describes resuming the final docking approach after a finite interruption at a speed lower than the approach speed before that interruption.
Disclosure by Mass
Mass renders obvious:
after the interruption
See at least:
“Where the two signals overlap (the ‘yellow’ zone 66), the robot 40 knows that the base station 10 is nearby and may then dock.” (0063)
See also:
“At this point, the robotic device 40 will move in direction MF directly towards the base station 10.” (0064)
Rationale:
As established for claim 6, it would have been obvious to interrupt the robot’s movement for a finite interval when the robot enters Mass’s narrow overlapping-signal alignment zone, thereby confirming alignment and transitioning to the final docking state. Mass’s subsequent direct movement in direction MF occurs after that alignment-state transition and, in the proposed implementation, after the finite interruption.
is carried out at a reduced speed
See at least:
“While approaching the base station 10, the robotic device 40 may slow its speed of approach ... to ensure trouble-free docking.” (0064)
Rationale:
Mass expressly teaches reducing the robot’s speed during the final approach to the base station. Applying that teaching after the finite alignment interruption would cause the resumed final approach to be performed at a reduced speed. The reduced speed serves Mass’s stated purpose of ensuring trouble-free docking and provides finer positional control as the coupling components converge.
compared to the speed before the interruption.
See at least:
“While approaching the base station 10, the robotic device 40 may slow its speed of approach.” (0064)
Rationale:
“Slow its speed” is comparative language. It necessarily means that the robot’s later approach speed is lower than its preceding speed. In Mass’s sequence, the robot initially maneuvers to locate and enter the overlapping homing-signal zone and then performs the final direct approach while slowing. When the finite interruption is implemented at the transition between those phases, the direct approach after the interruption is performed at a lower speed than the positioning or homing movement before the interruption.
Mass therefore expressly teaches the comparative speed reduction, while the placement of that reduction after the finite interruption follows from the claim 6 modification.
Motivation to Combine Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Mass
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Mass before them, to configure the floor-cleaning machine resulting from Buehler and Pfeiffer so that, after momentarily interrupting its approach upon entering Mass’s narrow overlapping-signal alignment zone, the machine resumes its movement toward the extended supply-device coupling at a speed lower than the speed used before the interruption.
Mass expressly teaches slowing the robot’s final approach to ensure trouble-free docking. Mass 0064. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that the speed reduction is most effectively implemented when the controller transitions from general navigation and alignment to precision final-approach control. The finite interruption of claim 6 provides a natural control-state boundary at which to command the lower speed.
The modification would have predictably:
increased the time available for the controller to detect and correct small alignment errors;
reduced the robot’s stopping distance;
reduced impact loading on the robot-side and supply-device-side coupling arrangements;
reduced the risk of damage to Buehler’s water and waste coupling seals;
reduced the likelihood of an incomplete electrical or fluid connection; and
improved docking accuracy and repeatability.
Buehler’s controller and motor drivers already regulate wheel motors 131. Buehler 0037–0038. Changing the commanded wheel speed after the interruption would therefore require only ordinary programming of existing drive components. Mass supplies an express reason for that programming: ensuring trouble-free docking.
Claim 9 is rejected over Buehler and Pfeiffer, further in view of Hahm (US 2007/0226949 A1).
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of Buehler and Pfeiffer establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 9.
Buehler provides the autonomous floor-cleaning machine, recovery tank, waste-disposal coupling, docking station, and wastewater-transfer operation. Pfeiffer provides the movable coupling-carrying supply device and the claimed relative docking and release movements.
Disclosure by Buehler
Buehler teaches:
wherein the first coupling arrangement has a waste water valve
See at least:
“Alternatively, for the robot 100, the waste disposal coupling 136 can be provided directly on the recovery tank 118 and can be configured to close an outlet of the recovery tank 118 when the robot 100 is not docked with the docking station 810 and further be configured to open the outlet of the recovery tank 118 when the robot 100 is docked with the docking station 810.” (Buehler, 112)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches that waste-disposal coupling 136 selectively closes and opens the outlet of recovery tank 118 depending on whether the robot is docked. A coupling structure that selectively closes and opens a fluid outlet performs the function of a valve. Thus, Buehler expressly discloses the claimed valve function and implicitly discloses a valve incorporated in, or forming part of, the first coupling arrangement. Buehler does not, however, expressly identify the particular mechanical actuating element that transfers the valve between its positions.
that is connected to the waste water tank,
See at least:
“The waste disposal coupling 136 on the robot 100 is in fluid communication with the robot recovery tank 118, such that waste collected by the recovery tank 118 can be disposed of by the disposal system via the docked or mated couplings 136, 515.” (Buehler, 86)
Rationale: Recovery tank 118 is Buehler’s waste-water tank. Waste-disposal coupling 136 is directly connected in fluid communication with that tank so that recovered wastewater can pass from the tank through the coupling.
wherein the waste water valve has a closed position
See at least:
“[T]he waste disposal coupling 136 can be provided directly on the recovery tank 118 and can be configured to close an outlet of the recovery tank 118 when the robot 100 is not docked with the docking station 810.” (Buehler, 112)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches a first operative condition in which the coupling closes the recovery-tank outlet. The coupling therefore has a closed position that prevents wastewater from escaping while the robot is away from the docking station.
and an open position
See at least:
“[T]he waste disposal coupling 136 can be provided directly on the recovery tank 118 and can be configured to . . . open the outlet of the recovery tank 118 when the robot 100 is docked with the docking station 810.” (Buehler, 112)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches a second operative condition in which the coupling opens the recovery-tank outlet. This is the claimed open position.
wherein, when the waste water valve is in the open position
See at least:
“[T]he waste disposal coupling 136 can be provided directly on the recovery tank 118 and can be configured to . . . open the outlet of the recovery tank 118 when the robot 100 is docked with the docking station 810.” (Buehler, 112)
Rationale: Buehler expressly conditions opening of the recovery-tank outlet on the robot being docked. Thus, the coupling-side valve is in its open condition during the docked wastewater-transfer operation.
and the first coupling arrangement is connected to the second coupling arrangement,
See at least:
“In operation, in a successful docking between the robot 100 and the docking station 410, the waste disposal coupling 136 on the robot 100 mates or otherwise fluidly couples with the waste receiver coupling 415 of the docking station 410.” (Buehler, 81)
Rationale: Waste-disposal coupling 136 is the first coupling arrangement on the floor-cleaning machine, and waste-receiver coupling 415 is the second coupling arrangement on the supply device. Buehler expressly teaches that those coupling arrangements are mated and fluidly connected during successful docking.
waste water can be conveyed from the waste water tank
See at least:
“Next, the disposal pump 472 in the docking station 410 energizes and creates suction to draw waste from the recovery tank 118 through the disposal conduit 458.” (Buehler, 81)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches withdrawing recovered wastewater from recovery tank 118 after the waste couplings have been connected.
to the waste water outlet,
See at least:
“[T]he disposal pump 472 in the docking station 410 energizes and creates suction to draw waste from the recovery tank 118 through the disposal conduit 458, and into the drain 438 of the toilet 430, which may connect to a septic tank or a system connected to a sewage treatment plant.” (Buehler, 81)
Rationale: Drain 438 constitutes the claimed wastewater outlet because it receives wastewater conveyed from the robot’s recovery tank and transfers that wastewater to a septic or sewage-treatment system.
wherein, in order to convey waste water from the waste water tank to the waste water outlet,
See at least:
“In operation, in a successful docking between the robot 100 and the docking station 410, the waste disposal coupling 136 on the robot 100 mates or otherwise fluidly couples with the waste receiver coupling 415 of the docking station 410. Next, the disposal pump 472 in the docking station 410 energizes and creates suction to draw waste from the recovery tank 118 through the disposal conduit 458, and into the drain 438 of the toilet 430.” (Buehler, 81)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches that the coupling and wastewater-transfer operations are performed to convey wastewater from recovery tank 118 to drain 438. This limitation identifies the purpose and operating context of the subsequent actuator operation; it does not independently require a particular actuator structure.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Buehler
Buehler does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
and can be transferred from the closed position to the open position
by actuating an actuating element,
wherein the supply device has an actuator
that can engage with the actuating element
when the first and the second coupling arrangement are connected,
the actuator engages with the actuating element
and transfers the waste water valve to the open position.
Examiner Note: Although Buehler teaches a wastewater coupling that closes when undocked and opens when docked, Buehler does not expressly describe the mechanical interface responsible for changing the coupling from its closed position to its open position.
Limitations Remaining After Buehler and Pfeiffer
Pfeiffer does not cure the foregoing deficiencies. Pfeiffer’s actuator moves the docking-station shift unit between extended and retracted positions; it is not disclosed as engaging a wastewater-valve actuating element to open a valve. Accordingly, the limitations remain after Buehler and Pfeiffer.
and can be transferred from the closed position to the open position
by actuating an actuating element,
wherein the supply device has an actuator
that can engage with the actuating element
when the first and the second coupling arrangement are connected,
the actuator engages with the actuating element
and transfers the waste water valve to the open position.
Disclosure by Hahm
Hahm teaches:
and can be transferred from the closed position to the open position
See at least:
“The first opening/closing device 160 operates to close the dust discharge hole 114 while the robot cleaner 100 performs an automatic cleaning operation and to open the dust discharge hole 114 while the robot cleaner 100 is docked with the docking station 200.” (Hahm, 88)
Rationale: Hahm expressly teaches an opening/closing device on a robot cleaner that changes from a closed condition during cleaning to an open condition when the robot docks. Hahm’s transferred material is dust and debris rather than wastewater. Nevertheless, the cited disclosure expressly supplies the missing mechanical valve-transition arrangement: a normally closed discharge opening is transferred to an open position upon docking.
by actuating an actuating element,
See at least:
“Each of the opening/closing units 160a includes an opening/closing member 162 to pivotally rotate about a pivoting shaft 161 within the protrusion 150a so as to open and close the dust discharge hole 114, a lever 163 that extends out of the protrusion 150a from one end of the opening/closing member 162 coupled to the pivoting shaft 161.” (Hahm, 89)
Rationale: Lever 163 is an actuating element because applying force to the lever causes opening/closing member 162 to rotate about pivoting shaft 161. The lever therefore mechanically transfers the valve-like opening/closing member from its closed position to its open position.
wherein the supply device has an actuator
See at least:
“[T]he lever 163 of the first opening/closing device 160 is pushed and pivotally rotated by the station body 210 at a time point when the robot cleaner 100 is completely docked with the docking station 200.” (Hahm, 90)
Rationale: Hahm’s station body 210 includes the contact structure that pushes lever 163. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, an “actuator” is not limited to an electrically powered linear or rotary motor; it encompasses a mechanical structure that applies the force required to operate another component. The contact portion of station body 210 therefore functions as a supply-device actuator because it applies force to lever 163 and causes the opening/closing member to move.
that can engage with the actuating element
See at least:
“[T]he lever 163 of the first opening/closing device 160 is pushed and pivotally rotated by the station body 210.” (Hahm, 90)
Rationale: The station body physically contacts and pushes lever 163. That contact is an express mechanical engagement between the supply-side actuator and the robot-side actuating element.
when the first and the second coupling arrangement are connected,
See at least:
“[T]he lever 163 of the first opening/closing device 160 is pushed and pivotally rotated by the station body 210 at a time point when the robot cleaner 100 is completely docked with the docking station 200.” (Hahm, 90)
Rationale: Hahm expressly places the actuator-to-lever engagement at completion of docking, when first docking portion 150a has entered the docking station’s dust-suction opening and the robot-side and station-side transfer paths are connected. Thus, the engagement occurs as part of establishing the connected condition of the coupling arrangements.
the actuator engages with the actuating element
See at least:
“Also, as the introduction of the protrusion 150a is continued, each lever 163 of the first opening/closing device 160 is pushed by the station body 210.” (Hahm, 104)
Rationale: Hahm expressly teaches that continued coupling movement brings station body 210 into physical engagement with lever 163. The station-body contact surface is the actuator, and lever 163 is the actuating element.
and transfers the waste water valve to the open position.
See at least:
“Thereby, each opening/closing member 162 is pivotally rotated about the associated pivoting shaft 161 to open the dust discharge hole 114.” (Hahm, 104)
Rationale: The engagement of station body 210 with lever 163 causes opening/closing member 162 to rotate into its open position. When this known docking-actuated mechanism is used to implement Buehler’s wastewater coupling—which Buehler already requires to close when undocked and open when docked—the station-side actuator transfers the wastewater valve to its open position. Hahm expressly teaches the mechanical actuation sequence; applying that sequence to Buehler’s wastewater coupling is the proposed obvious modification.
Motivation to Combine Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Hahm
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Hahm before them, to implement Buehler’s dock-responsive wastewater coupling using Hahm’s normally closed, mechanically actuated opening/closing arrangement, such that a supply-device contact actuator engages a lever on the floor-cleaning machine during coupling and thereby transfers the wastewater valve to its open position.
Buehler expressly teaches the functional requirement that the robot-side waste coupling close the recovery-tank outlet when the robot is undocked and open the outlet when the robot is docked. Buehler, however, leaves the particular mechanism for accomplishing that dock-responsive opening to the skilled artisan. Hahm addresses the same implementation problem in the closely related context of automatically transferring collected material from an autonomous floor-cleaning robot to a docking station. Hahm teaches:
a robot-side discharge closure;
a closed position during autonomous cleaning;
an open position during docking;
a lever connected to the closure;
a docking-station structure that engages and pushes the lever; and
opening of the discharge path as a direct mechanical consequence of docking.
A PHOSITA would have recognized Hahm’s mechanism as a suitable implementation of Buehler’s expressly contemplated dock-responsive waste coupling. Substituting a fluid-compatible valve member and seals for Hahm’s dust-discharge closure would have been a routine adaptation dictated by the material being transferred. The underlying mechanical relationship remains unchanged: docking causes a supply-side structure to engage a robot-side actuating element, which opens a normally closed discharge valve.
The proposed modification would have provided the predictable benefits of:
automatically opening the wastewater path only after the coupling arrangements are connected;
maintaining the recovery-tank outlet closed while the robot is undocked;
reducing accidental wastewater leakage;
coordinating valve opening mechanically with physical coupling;
avoiding a separate valve motor, sensor, or control circuit; and
increasing reliability by making valve operation a direct consequence of docking.
Pfeiffer’s movable supply-device arrangement remains technically compatible with this modification. Hahm’s actuator-to-lever interface can be carried by the movable coupling portion of Pfeiffer’s supply device so that the same movement that completes coupling also produces the mechanical engagement needed to open the valve. The references therefore perform their respective established functions without requiring a change in their basic principles of operation.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected over Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Hahm, further in view of Finison (US 2021/0290025 A1).
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Hahm establishes the method of Claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 10.
Disclosure by Buehler
Buehler teaches:
wherein after conveying the waste water from the waste water tank to the waste water outlet,
See at least:
“The disposal pump 472 can be automatically de-energized when the robot recovery tank 118 is empty. For example, the recovery tank 118 can be provided with a level sensor (not shown) that communicates with the controller on the docking station 410 when the recovery tank 118 is empty and emptying is complete.” (Buehler, 85)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches detecting completion of wastewater conveyance from recovery tank 118. The completion signal establishes the claimed temporal point “after conveying the waste water from the waste water tank to the waste water outlet.” Buehler does not expressly teach that a valve-flushing operation is performed after that point.
fresh water is supplied from the supply device,
See at least:
“A water supply coupling 316 on a housing 311 of the docking station 310 is configured to mate or otherwise couple with a corresponding water receiver coupling 132 on the robot 100. The supply conduit 356 provides water from the water line 340 to the water supply coupling 316.” (Buehler, 72)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches that its docking station—the claimed supply device—receives fresh water from water line 340 and supplies that water through supply conduit 356 and water-supply coupling 316.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Buehler
Buehler does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
to the waste water valve
while the waste water valve is in the open position
in order to flush the waste water valve.
Examiner Note: Buehler supplies fresh water to the robot and separately conveys wastewater from the robot. It does not expressly route the supplied fresh water to its wastewater coupling or valve for purposes of flushing that valve.
Disclosure by Finison
Finison teaches:
to the waste water valve
See at least:
“In some examples, docking station 14 may flush waste fluid reservoir 24, fluid recovery system 26, and/or other fluid conduits or features associated with the waste fluid system of floor cleaning machine 12. Docking station 14 may introduce a flushing liquid (e.g., water, cleaning fluid, device cleaning fluid) into a fluid conduit associated with the waste fluid system to flush some or all of the system with the flushing liquid.” (Finison, 50)
Rationale: Finison expressly teaches introducing water from the docking station into the machine’s waste-fluid system to flush the waste-fluid reservoir, recovery system, conduits, or other features associated with that system. Finison does not specifically identify a wastewater valve as the terminal target. However, when Finison’s flushing teaching is applied to Buehler’s wastewater-discharge architecture, the waste valve forms part of the waste-fluid flow path. Routing the flushing water through that path necessarily directs the flushing water to and through the wastewater valve.
while the waste water valve is in the open position
See at least:
“After a positive determination that floor cleaning machine 12 has docked to docking station 14, various actions may be performed on the machine. For example, different valves may be actuated and/or pump(s) activated to deliver device cleaning liquid to clean floor cleaning machine 12, to refill cleaning fluid reservoir 20, and/or empty waste fluid reservoir 24.” (Finison, 52)
Rationale: Finison expressly teaches actuating valves and pumps after docking to deliver cleaning liquid and service the waste-fluid system. A wastewater valve must be open for flushing liquid to flow through the valve and downstream waste path. Accordingly, maintaining the valve in its open position during the flushing flow would have been functionally necessary and, at minimum, obvious to a PHOSITA. Closing the valve would prevent flow through the valve and defeat the stated purpose of flushing that component.
in order to flush the waste water valve.
See at least:
“Docking station 14 may introduce a flushing liquid (e.g., water, cleaning fluid, device cleaning fluid) into a fluid conduit associated with the waste fluid system to flush some or all of the system with the flushing liquid.” (Finison, 50)
Rationale: Finison expressly teaches flushing some or all of the machine’s waste-fluid system. The wastewater valve is a feature of that system and is exposed to the contaminated wastewater discharged from the recovery tank. Directing fresh flushing water through the open valve would predictably remove residual soil, sediment, and wastewater from the valve and prevent fouling. Finison therefore renders the claimed valve-flushing purpose obvious, even though it does not expressly identify the wastewater valve by name.
Motivation to Combine Buehler, Pfeiffer, Hahm, and Finison
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Buehler, Pfeiffer, Hahm, and Finison before them, to configure the supply device of the Buehler-Pfeiffer-Hahm system to supply fresh water through the open wastewater valve after wastewater conveyance is complete, thereby flushing residual wastewater and debris from the valve.
Buehler teaches a docking station that supplies fresh water, removes wastewater, and detects when the recovery tank has been emptied. Hahm teaches a discharge valve that remains open during the docked transfer operation. Finison expressly recognizes that the waste-fluid reservoir, recovery system, conduits, and related waste-system features benefit from being flushed with water supplied by the docking station.
A PHOSITA would have recognized that the wastewater valve is particularly susceptible to accumulation of sediment, detergent residue, hair, and other debris because the entire recovered waste stream passes through it. Performing the flush after the recovery tank has been emptied would have been a predictable sequence because:
the contaminated bulk wastewater would first be removed;
the subsequent fresh-water flow would not be immediately contaminated by the remaining tank contents;
the fresh water would carry residual material through the already-established wastewater outlet;
maintaining the valve open would provide an unobstructed flushing path; and
the operation would reduce valve fouling, leakage, sticking, and maintenance.
The modification uses Buehler’s fresh-water source and wastewater-disposal path, Hahm’s dock-actuated open valve, and Finison’s waste-system flushing operation according to their known functions. No change in the basic operating principle of any reference would be required.
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination of Buehler, Pfeiffer, Hahm, and Finison establishes the method of Claim 10, which is the basis for Claim 11.
Disclosure by Buehler
Buehler teaches:
wherein the level in the waste water tank is detected,
See at least:
“For example, the recovery tank 118 can be provided with a level sensor (not shown) that communicates with the controller on the docking station 410 when the recovery tank 118 is empty and emptying is complete.” (Buehler, 85)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches a level sensor associated with recovery tank 118. The sensor detects the liquid level condition corresponding to the tank being empty and communicates that detected condition to the docking-station controller.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Buehler
Buehler does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
and wherein fresh water is supplied from the supply device
to the waste water valve
in order to flush the waste water valve
when the level in the waste water tank has fallen below a minimum level.
Examiner Note: Although Buehler detects when the recovery tank is empty and the emptying operation is complete, it does not expressly use the detected tank level as the trigger for supplying fresh water to flush the wastewater valve.
Disclosure by Finison
Finison teaches:
and wherein fresh water is supplied from the supply device
See at least:
“Docking station 14 may introduce a flushing liquid (e.g., water, cleaning fluid, device cleaning fluid) into a fluid conduit associated with the waste fluid system to flush some or all of the system with the flushing liquid.” (Finison, 50)
Rationale: Finison expressly teaches supplying water or another flushing liquid from the docking station into the floor-cleaning machine’s waste-fluid system.
to the waste water valve
See at least:
“In some examples, docking station 14 may flush waste fluid reservoir 24, fluid recovery system 26, and/or other fluid conduits or features associated with the waste fluid system of floor cleaning machine 12.” (Finison, 50)
Rationale: Finison teaches flushing conduits and other features associated with the machine’s waste-fluid system. When applied to the Buehler-Hahm configuration, the wastewater valve is a feature located in the waste discharge path. Supplying the flushing liquid through that discharge path directs the liquid to and through the valve.
in order to flush the waste water valve
See at least:
“Docking station 14 may introduce a flushing liquid . . . into a fluid conduit associated with the waste fluid system to flush some or all of the system with the flushing liquid.” (Finison, 50)
Rationale: A PHOSITA implementing Finison’s instruction to flush some or all of the waste-fluid system would have included the wastewater valve because it directly contacts contaminated wastewater and presents movable surfaces and flow restrictions where debris can accumulate. Passing the flushing liquid through the open valve performs the claimed valve-flushing function.
when the level in the waste water tank has fallen below a minimum level.
See at least:
“After a positive determination that floor cleaning machine 12 has docked to docking station 14, various actions may be performed on the machine. For example, different valves may be actuated and/or pump(s) activated to deliver device cleaning liquid to clean floor cleaning machine 12, to refill cleaning fluid reservoir 20, and/or empty waste fluid reservoir 24.” (Finison, 52)
In combination with:
“The recovery tank 118 can be provided with a level sensor . . . that communicates with the controller on the docking station 410 when the recovery tank 118 is empty and emptying is complete.” (Buehler, 85)
Rationale: Finison teaches flushing the waste-fluid system as a docking-station servicing operation, while Buehler expressly detects the low-level condition representing completion of wastewater evacuation. Neither reference expressly states that the flushing operation begins in response to the tank level falling below a minimum level. However, using Buehler’s existing level indication as the control trigger for Finison’s flushing operation would have been an obvious control choice. The detected low-level condition confirms that bulk wastewater has been removed and that fresh flushing water can be introduced without unnecessarily diluting or mixing with a substantial quantity of retained wastewater.
Motivation to Combine Buehler, Pfeiffer, Hahm, and Finison
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Buehler, Pfeiffer, Hahm, and Finison before them, to use Buehler’s detected recovery-tank level as the trigger for supplying fresh water from the supply device through the open wastewater valve according to Finison’s waste-system flushing teaching, such that flushing begins when the detected level has fallen below a selected minimum level.
Buehler already provides:
a recovery-tank level sensor;
communication of the detected level to the docking-station controller;
automatic wastewater evacuation;
automatic termination of evacuation when the tank is empty; and
a docking-station fresh-water source.
Finison teaches introducing water from the docking station into the waste-fluid system to flush that system. Once these teachings are combined, the controller must determine when to transition from wastewater evacuation to fresh-water flushing. Using the existing recovery-tank level sensor for that transition would have been a predictable application of a known feedback signal to control sequential servicing operations.
Selecting a minimum-level threshold would have involved routine calibration. A PHOSITA would select a level sufficiently low to indicate that the bulk wastewater had been removed while accounting for sensor accuracy, residual liquid, pump performance, and the need to avoid running the disposal pump dry. Triggering the flush at that threshold would:
prevent premature introduction of fresh water;
avoid unnecessary dilution of the waste remaining in the tank;
provide a repeatable transition from evacuation to flushing;
improve removal of residual contaminants;
reduce wastewater-valve fouling; and
automate the servicing cycle without additional operator intervention.
This rationale does not require the claim itself as a roadmap. Buehler expressly provides the level signal identifying completion of emptying, and Finison expressly provides a logically subsequent waste-system flushing operation. Using the detected completion or low-level signal to initiate that subsequent operation is a conventional and predictable control sequence.
Claim 12 is rejected over Buehler and Pfeiffer, further in view of Norris (EP 0 310 298 A1).
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of Buehler and Pfeiffer establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 12.
Buehler provides the autonomous floor-cleaning machine, fresh-water supply tank, docking station, fresh-water source, fluid couplings, fill pump, fluid-level sensor, and automatic filling-control operation. Pfeiffer supplies the movable coupling-carrying supply device and the claimed relative docking and release movements.
Disclosure by Buehler
Buehler teaches:
wherein, while conveying fresh water
See at least:
“A water supply coupling 316 on a housing 311 of the docking station 310 is configured to mate or otherwise couple with a corresponding water receiver coupling 132 on the robot 100. The supply conduit 356 provides water from the water line 340 to the water supply coupling 316.” (Buehler, 72)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches conveying fresh water through supply conduit 356 and water-supply coupling 316.
from the fresh water inlet
See at least:
“The supply conduit 356 provides water from the water line 340 to the water supply coupling 316.” (Buehler, 72)
Rationale: Water line 340 is the source through which fresh water enters the docking-station supply system and therefore corresponds to the fresh-water inlet.
into the fresh water tank in the supply device,
See at least:
“The docking station 310 further can include an intermediate reservoir with a float-style shut-off valve similar to the float 350 shut-off assembly in the toilet tank.” (Buehler, 73)
And:
“Opening the refill valve sends water from the high-pressure supply conduit 356 into the intermediate reservoir 360.” (Buehler, 73)
Rationale: Intermediate reservoir 360 is a tank that holds fresh water in docking station 310, corresponding to a fresh-water tank in the supply device. Buehler expressly teaches conveying fresh water from supply conduit 356 into that reservoir.
wherein, while conveying fresh water
See at least:
“In operation and referring back to FIG. 6, in a successful docking between the robot 100 and the docking station 310, the water receiver coupling 132 on the robot 100 mates or otherwise fluidly couples with the water supply coupling 316 of the docking station 310. Next, the fill pump 134 energizes and draws liquid from the intermediate reservoir 360 of the docking station 310.” (Buehler, 74)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches a filling operation during which fill pump 134 conveys fresh water from the docking station toward the robot’s fresh-water tank.
from the fresh water inlet into the fresh water tank,
See at least:
“The robot 100 can include a fill pump 134 for drawing clean water from the toilet tank 34 into the robot supply tank 106 via the supply conduit 56.” (Buehler, 62)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches conveying clean water from the docking-station water source into robot supply tank 106.
the level of the fresh water
See at least:
“The supply tank 106 can be provided with a fluid level sensor (not shown) that communicates with the controller 128 on the robot 100 when the supply tank 106 is full and filling is complete.” (Buehler, 70)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches detecting the level of fresh water in supply tank 106 through a fluid-level sensor. The detected full condition is a particular detected liquid level.
in the fresh water tank of the floor cleaning machine
See at least:
“The robot 100 can include a fill pump 134 for drawing clean water from the toilet tank 34 into the robot supply tank 106.” (Buehler, 62)
Rationale: Supply tank 106 is carried by robot 100 and holds the fresh water used by the floor-cleaning machine. It therefore corresponds to the fresh-water tank of the floor-cleaning machine.
is detected,
See at least:
“The supply tank 106 can be provided with a fluid level sensor (not shown) that communicates with the controller 128 on the robot 100 when the supply tank 106 is full and filling is complete.” (Buehler, 70)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches that the fluid-level sensor detects the full-tank level and communicates that detected condition to controller 128.
and wherein the conveying of fresh water is stopped
See at least:
“The fill pump 134 can be automatically de-energized when the robot supply tank 106 is full.” (Buehler, 70)
Rationale: Buehler expressly teaches stopping the fresh-water conveyance by automatically de-energizing fill pump 134. Accordingly, a separate reference is not required merely to establish a controller-responsive capability to stop filling.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Buehler
Buehler does not explicitly teach:
the amount of fresh water conveyed is detected,
when the increase in the level in the fresh water tank
does not correspond to
the amount of fresh water conveyed as detected.
Examiner Note: Buehler detects a full-tank condition and stops the fill pump in response. It does not independently meter the quantity of fresh water delivered or compare that independently measured quantity with a tank-level increase.
Disclosure by Pfeiffer
Examiner Note: Pfeiffer does not teach the limitations remaining after Buehler because it does not describe measuring delivered liquid quantity, measuring a corresponding tank-level increase, or comparing those measurements.
After Buehler and Pfeiffer, the following limitations remain:
the amount of fresh water conveyed is detected,
when the increase in the level in the fresh water tank
does not correspond to
the amount of fresh water conveyed as detected.
Disclosure by Norris
Norris teaches:
the amount of fresh water conveyed is detected,
See at least:
“According to the invention, apparatus is provided for calibrating sensing means . . . the apparatus comprising a first input for receiving outputs from the sensing means, a second input for receiving outputs from metering means used to meter volumetric quantities of material into or out of the tank.” (Norris, p. 2)
And:
“Data representing corresponding liquid levels (mm), as detected by the sensing means 4, is collected at the same times.” (Norris, p. 6)
Rationale: Norris expressly teaches a meter that independently detects the volumetric quantity of liquid conveyed into or out of a tank. When incorporated in Buehler’s fresh-water supply conduit, the metering means detects the amount of fresh water conveyed during the filling operation. Norris also teaches acquiring the metered quantity and the corresponding liquid-level measurement contemporaneously.
when the increase in the level in the fresh water tank
See at least:
“The data collected by the site controller 5 and the sensing means 4 is used to construct a file . . . which relates Pump Tote (litres) to liquid level (mm) . . . Data representing corresponding liquid levels (mm), as detected by the sensing means 4, is collected at the same times.” (Norris, p. 6)
And:
“Volume change (in litres) as determined by the sensing means 4 based on the primary calibration.” (Norris, p. 6)
Rationale: Norris teaches detecting successive tank levels while liquid is being metered and deriving the resulting volumetric change from those level measurements. When Norris’s technique is applied to filling Buehler’s supply tank, successive detected levels establish the increase in the level of fresh water in the tank.
does not correspond to
See at least:
“It computes, for each calibration point . . . Volume dispensed (in litres) between adjacent calibration points as determined by a change in the total volumetric metered amounts . . . Volume change (in litres) as determined by the sensing means 4 . . . [and] The Absolute Error in B with respect to A.” (Norris, p. 6)
Rationale: Norris expressly compares the amount measured by the flow-metering system with the volumetric change determined from the tank-level sensor and computes the error between them. A nonzero or significant error expressly represents a failure of correspondence between the tank-level increase and the independently metered quantity.
the amount of fresh water conveyed as detected.
See at least:
“The program in the microprocessor of calibration system 6 also computes . . . the correlation between the total volume of liquid dispensed, as determined by the metering means (2, 3), and the total volume of liquid removed from the tank 1, as determined by the sensing means 4.” (Norris, p. 6)
Rationale: Norris’s metering means produces the independently detected quantity of liquid conveyed. The controller uses that detected quantity as the reference against which the level-sensor-derived volume change is compared.
Motivation to Combine Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Norris
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Norris before them, to provide Buehler’s fresh-water supply path with Norris’s volumetric metering means, contemporaneously monitor the corresponding increase in the level of Buehler’s robot supply tank, compare the level-derived increase with the independently metered amount of fresh water conveyed, and use Buehler’s existing filling-termination control to stop the fill pump when the two quantities do not correspond.
Buehler already provides:
a fresh-water filling system;
a fluid-level sensor in robot supply tank 106;
controller 128 receiving the detected tank-level condition;
fill pump 134; and
automatic de-energization of fill pump 134 to stop fresh-water conveyance.
Norris provides:
an independent meter measuring the amount of liquid conveyed;
contemporaneous tank-level measurements;
calculation of the volumetric change derived from tank level;
comparison of the metered quantity with the level-derived quantity; and
identification of an error or significant discrepancy between the two measurements.
Norris expressly recognizes that such a discrepancy can indicate leakage or an unaccounted loss:
“[I]f there is any significant difference between data collected from the dispensers 2 and derived from the level sensors 4, a warning is given so that action may be taken to check if there is a leak in the system, or an unaccounted loss of fuel.” (Norris, p. 10)
A PHOSITA would have recognized that, in Buehler’s unattended autonomous filling system, merely generating a warning while allowing filling to continue would permit additional water to escape if the discrepancy resulted from a leaking tank, ruptured conduit, or incompletely connected coupling. Using Buehler’s existing pump-de-energization capability to stop filling upon Norris’s discrepancy determination would have been a predictable fail-safe response.
The modification would have:
limited water loss from a leak or failed connection;
prevented flooding around the docking station;
protected adjacent electrical charging contacts;
prevented continued pumping into a damaged tank or disconnected conduit;
identified inaccurate tank-level or flow-meter operation; and
used Buehler’s existing controller and pump-shutoff functionality without adding a different shutoff mechanism.
This is a recognized application of a known safety technique: using an abnormal sensor comparison as the trigger for an existing shutdown control. Buehler’s basic principle of operation remains unchanged. Its controller still stops the filling operation by de-energizing fill pump 134; Norris supplies the additional condition under which that existing stopping operation is initiated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed on 03/03/2026 in response to the Office Action mailed December 3, 2025 have been fully considered. The prior-art rejections presented in that Office Action are withdrawn and replaced by the new grounds of rejection set forth in the present Office Action. Because the present rejections rely on materially different combinations of references, this action is made non-final.
Applicant’s arguments concerning Fisher, Brown, and Hoobler do not overcome the present rejections because none of those references is relied upon in the new grounds. Accordingly, those arguments are moot as applied to the presently pending rejections. Withdrawal of the former grounds should not be interpreted as agreement with every characterization of those references or as a determination that the claims are patentable.
1. Applicant’s non-analogous-art argument concerning Fisher
Applicant argues that Fisher is non-analogous because Fisher concerns portable electric-vehicle charging stations rather than floor-cleaning machines and is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem addressed by the present application.
This argument is moot. Fisher is not relied upon in the present Office Action. Consequently, no determination concerning whether Fisher is analogous art is necessary to sustain the current rejections.
The present rejection of independent claims 1 and 14 instead relies upon Buehler in view of Pfeiffer. Buehler is directly within the field of autonomous floor-cleaning machines and associated servicing or docking stations. Pfeiffer supplies the particular movable docking-interface teachings that are not expressly disclosed by Buehler.
Pfeiffer is also reasonably pertinent to the docking problem addressed by the claimed invention. Pfeiffer concerns controlled docking between an automated guided vehicle and a station having a powered, translationally movable contact-carrying shift unit. Pfeiffer’s shift unit is moved between retracted and extended positions to establish and release a service connection with an approaching autonomous vehicle. Those teachings logically would have commended themselves to a person of ordinary skill seeking to improve the alignment, engagement, and disengagement of a floor-cleaning machine with a servicing interface while reducing the need for the floor-cleaning machine to forcefully press against a wholly stationary coupling.
Thus, unlike the argument directed to Fisher, the present combination is based on complementary teachings concerning:
an autonomous floor-cleaning machine and servicing station, as taught by Buehler; and
a powered, linearly movable docking interface that extends to make a connection and retracts to release the connection, as taught by Pfeiffer.
2. Applicant’s claim-construction argument concerning “supply device”
Applicant argues that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “supply device” cannot encompass an unrelated EV charging station and that the broadest reasonable interpretation is not the broadest possible interpretation.
The general legal principle identified by Applicant is acknowledged. During examination, claim language receives its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, not an interpretation divorced from the disclosure. The present rejection, however, does not interpret the claimed “supply device” as any generic EV charging station. Nor does it depend on treating every charging apparatus as interchangeable with the claimed supply device.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the present specification, the statement that “the supply device can be moved . . . on the floor surface” does not require the entirety of a servicing installation, including every frame, support, utility connection, and base, to translate across the floor. The specification describes a servicing arrangement having a stationary supporting structure or base and a driven portion carrying the coupling arrangement that moves relative to that supporting structure between retracted and extended positions. The relevant movement is the movement of the coupling-carrying supply portion that establishes and releases the service connection.
Pfeiffer discloses that same operative relationship. In particular, Pfeiffer discloses:
a base positioned at or secured to the floor;
a shift unit supported by the base;
a charging-contact block carried by the shift unit;
an actuator that translates the shift unit between retracted and extended positions;
extension of the shift unit for connection with an approaching automated guided vehicle; and
retraction of the shift unit to separate the contact block from the vehicle.
Accordingly, the present rejection does not depend on an impermissibly expansive construction of “supply device.” Pfeiffer’s actuator-driven, coupling-carrying shift unit performs the claimed supply-device movement in a manner consistent with the structure and operation described in Applicant’s own specification.
3. Applicant’s argument that the former combination lacked a movable supply device
Applicant argues that Buehler, Fisher, and Brown do not disclose a supply device that is movable between first and second positions. Applicant further argues that Brown’s docking station appears stationary and is connected to a fixed electrical receptacle.
This argument is moot with respect to the current rejection because neither Fisher nor Brown is relied upon. The present rejection uses Pfeiffer specifically to supply the movable-interface features that Applicant identified as absent from the former combination.
Pfeiffer teaches a drive-actuated shift unit that carries the station-side coupling contact and translates along a straight path between retracted and extended positions. The shift unit is moved into the extended position before or during the docking sequence so that the station-side contact can connect with the vehicle-side contact. After service is completed, the shift unit retracts, thereby releasing the connection.
The fact that Pfeiffer’s base or utility connection may remain fixed does not negate the movement of the shift unit. Claim 1 does not reasonably require every part of the servicing installation to move as a unit. The claim requires that the supply device, including the second coupling arrangement, be movable by a connected drive unit between the recited positions. Pfeiffer’s actuator, shift unit, and contact block collectively disclose that functional and structural relationship.
Moreover, the presence of a wired power connection does not establish that a coupling-carrying interface is immovable. A station may remain connected to a fixed utility source while a supported docking head, carriage, arm, or shift unit moves relative to the station base. Pfeiffer expressly teaches such relative movement.
The present combination therefore accounts for the disputed operation as follows:
Buehler teaches the autonomous floor-cleaning machine, driven chassis, floor-engaging cleaning equipment, fresh-water and waste-water tanks, battery, service couplings, fluid transfer, charging, docking, and undocking operations.
Pfeiffer teaches the powered movement of a station-side, coupling-carrying shift unit between retracted and extended positions; movement of that unit in the coupling direction; connection with a vehicle that approaches while the station-side interface is extended; and retraction of the station-side interface to release the connection.
A person of ordinary skill would have had reason to incorporate Pfeiffer’s movable docking interface into Buehler’s floor-cleaner service station to improve docking reliability, control the coupling stroke independently of the floor-cleaning machine’s propulsion system, accommodate positioning tolerances, and reduce contact forces imposed on the station by the cleaning machine. This is a predictable use of a known movable docking mechanism for its established purpose and does not depend on Applicant’s disclosure as a roadmap.
4. Claim 1
Applicant’s conclusion that claim 1 is allowable was premised on asserted deficiencies in the former combination of Buehler, Fisher, and Brown. That combination is no longer the basis of the rejection.
As explained in the present rejection, Buehler in view of Pfeiffer accounts for the limitations of claim 1. Pfeiffer supplies the powered movement of the coupling-carrying supply portion between first and second positions, its movement in the coupling direction, its extension for engagement with the approaching machine, and its reverse movement to release the connection. Applicant’s arguments directed to what Fisher and Brown allegedly fail to disclose therefore do not address the teachings of the presently applied combination.
The rejection of claim 1 is maintained on the new ground stated in the present Office Action.
5. Claims 2–13
Applicant argues that claims 2–13 are allowable because they ultimately depend from allegedly allowable claim 1. This argument is not persuasive against the present grounds because claim 1 has not been shown to be allowable over Buehler and Pfeiffer.
In addition, the dependent claims have been separately considered, and the present Office Action identifies additional references only where necessary to address their respective added limitations:
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected over Buehler and Pfeiffer, further in view of Abramson.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected over Buehler and Pfeiffer, further in view of Mass.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected over Buehler and Pfeiffer, further in view of Mass.
Claim 8 is rejected over Buehler and Pfeiffer, further in view of Abramson.
Claim 9 is rejected over Buehler and Pfeiffer, further in view of Hahm.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected over Buehler, Pfeiffer, and Hahm, further in view of Finison.
Claim 12 is rejected over Buehler and Pfeiffer, further in view of Norris.
Claim 13 is rejected over Buehler in view of Pfeiffer.
Each dependent claim is rejected based on the combination establishing its incorporated subject matter together with the additional teaching identified for that claim. The dependency of claims 2–13 from claim 1 therefore does not independently establish patentability.
6. Claims 9–12 and Applicant’s argument concerning Hoobler
Applicant argues that Hoobler was relied upon only for limitations of claims 9–12 and did not cure the asserted deficiencies of the former Buehler-Fisher-Brown combination.
This argument is moot. Hoobler is not relied upon in the present Office Action. The current rejection of claim 9 uses Hahm for the mechanically actuated wastewater-valve limitations. Claims 10 and 11 further rely on Finison for the flushing operations. Claim 12 relies on Norris for contemporaneously measuring conveyed liquid and tank level and responding to a discrepancy between the measured quantity and the expected tank-level increase.
Those references are combined with the presently applied Buehler-Pfeiffer foundation, not with the withdrawn Buehler-Fisher-Brown combination. Applicant’s argument that Hoobler failed to cure a deficiency in the former combination therefore does not address the current grounds.
7. Claim 14
Applicant applies its claim 1 arguments to claim 14 and contends that the former combination does not teach the claimed supply device.
That argument is moot because Fisher and Brown are no longer applied. Claim 14 is presently rejected over Buehler in view of Pfeiffer. Although claim 14 is drafted as a system claim rather than a method claim, its relevant supply-device limitations materially correspond to the operations recited in claim 1.
Buehler discloses the floor-cleaning machine and servicing architecture. Pfeiffer discloses a station-side shift unit carrying the coupling interface and driven between retracted and extended positions to connect to and separate from an autonomous vehicle. The combined system therefore possesses the structure and control capability necessary to perform the recited extension, machine approach, coupling, servicing, and retraction operations.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the allegedly stationary docking station of Brown do not rebut Pfeiffer’s express movable shift-unit teaching. The rejection of claim 14 is therefore maintained on the new ground stated in the present Office Action.
Examiner Response Conclusion
Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but do not overcome the rejections set forth in the present Office Action. The prior rejections relying on Fisher, Brown, and Hoobler are withdrawn. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments directed specifically to the teachings, analogous-art status, or combinability of those references are moot with respect to the present grounds.
The present rejections rely on Buehler and Pfeiffer for the independent claims and on the additional claim-specific references identified above for the dependent claims. Because these are materially new grounds of rejection and no claim amendment necessitated them, the present Office Action is made non-final so that Applicant may respond to the newly applied art and rationales.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights