DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: ventilation holes 1221 (paragraph [0021]), tracks 31 (paragraph [0023]), and driving mechanism 32 (paragraph [0023]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9 line 2 it appears that the word “scrap” is meant to be “scrape”.
In claim 10 line 3 it appears that “mechanism includes” is meant to be “mechanisms include” for improved grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “elastic component” in claim 1 (corresponds to a spring, paragraph [0020]), a “cleaning component” in claim 2 (corresponds to fabric, paragraph [0015]) and “caterpillar mechanisms” in claim 9 (corresponds to a driving mechanism with continuous tracks, paragraph [0023]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pei et al., CN 216602697U (see English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Pei et al. disclose a window cleaning robot (Abstract, Figures), comprising: a main body including a base assembly (1); and a plurality of elastic wiper modules disposed on the base assembly (at 10 and 11 in Figure 1, circled as A in Figure 2, shown in detail in Figure 3), wherein the elastic wiper module includes an elastic component (15) and a wiper (6); wherein a first end of the elastic component is coupled to the base assembly (upper end of 15 as shown in Figure 3) and at least one second end is coupled to the wiper (via 14, 16, 17; Figure 3; English translation last paragraph of page 4), wherein the first end is opposite to the second end (Figure 3) and the wiper is leaned against window glass under acting force of the elastic component (see English translation last paragraph of page 4 and first paragraph of page 5). Regarding claim 2, the base assembly includes a floating plate (9) and a cleaning component (4, 5; first three paragraphs of English translation page 4), wherein the elastic wiper module is elastically coupled to the floating plate and the cleaning component is for cleaning the window glass (Figures 1-3, page 4 of the English translation). Regarding claim 3, the wiper is made of elastic material (rubber, fourth paragraph from bottom of page 2 of the English translation). Regarding claim 4, the elastic wiper module further includes a mounting bracket (bracket 14), wherein the mounting bracket includes an accommodating cavity (groove 17) and the wiper (6) is installed in the accommodating cavity (as assembled in Figure 3). Regarding claim 5, there base assembly further includes a plurality of accommodating grooves (at least two for each of 10 and 11, Figure 1) and each of the accommodating grooves is configured to accommodate the elastic wiper module (in that there are two modules shown in Figures 1-3; see English translation including page 2 fifth paragraph and page 5 second paragraph). Regarding claim 9, the base assembly further includes at least two caterpillar mechanisms (8, Figure 1; described on page 4 English translation as including a driving motor and a crawler wheel and a track wheel) and the elastic wiper modules are configured to scrap(e) off water drops (see English translation, including fourth paragraph on page 4). Regarding claim 10, the two caterpillar mechanisms are respectively disposed in parallel at two sides of the base assembly (Figure 1) and each of the caterpillar mechanisms include continuous tracks (Figure 1, described as track wheels in English translation) and wherein the elastic wiper modules are respectively disposed at two sides of the continuous tracks (Figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pei et al., CN 216602697U (see English translation) in view of Chae et al., KR 20080089759A (see English translation).
Pei et al. disclose all elements previously discussed above. Regarding claim 7, Pei et al. additionally disclose that the base assembly includes a plurality of accommodating grooves (at least two for each of 10 and 11, Figure 1), however fails to disclose that the elastic component includes a flat spring (instead spring 15 is a coil or helical type of spring, see Figures).
Chae et al. disclose a window cleaning system (Title) that includes a base assembly having an accommodating groove (groove within 20, Figures 1 and 3) that retains a wiper (40). Further regarding claim 7, there is an elastic component that includes a flat spring (50), wherein the flat spring is pressed against a wall of the accommodating groove and held in the accommodating groove (as shown unassembled in Figure 1, also Figure 3) in order to elastically support the blade 40 (see English translation on page 2 under head of “Tech-Solution” and page 3 fourth paragraph).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the spring of Pei et al. for a flat spring pressed against a wall of the accommodating groove and held in the accommodating groove, as taught by Chae et al., as a sufficient alternative to elastically supporting a blade held within an accommodating groove for elastic support when cleaning a glass surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art made of record disclose, teach or suggest the invention of claims 6 and 8. Specifically, none of the prior art teach (a) that the mounting bracket includes at least two positioning arms and a limit block, wherein the positioning arms are respectively located at each of the two ends of the limit block and the positioning arms respectively go through a first opening and a second opening of the accommodating groove to snap-connect to the base assembly; or (b) wherein the accommodating cavity includes a plurality of ventilation holes penetrating the accommodation cavity. Neither Pei et al. nor Chae et al. teach these features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0007903 to Chao et al., CN 113616101A to Pei et al., and CN 11671355A to Ouyang et al. are other glass cleaning robots that are relevant to the applicant’s disclosure and include some structural similarities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg
