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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (US20200297179).
Regarding claims 1-2, Fang teaches a base station configured for cleaning member (see e.g. finishing cloth) to be cleaned of a cleaning robot (see abstract, figure 1), wherein the base station comprises: a base station body defined with a cleaning system 7, the cleaning system 7 capable of receiving clean water for cleaning the member to be cleaned (see e.g. cleaning the finishing cloth as discussed in the abstract, paragraphs [0028]-[0030]) of the cleaning robot 200 and discharging sewage generated by the cleaning system 7 (see e.g. paragraph [0031], figures 6-7); a sewage cavity 61, capable of holding sewage; a sewage input channel (see e.g. channel between 61 and 7 in figure 6), configured to be communicated with the cleaning system 7 and the sewage cavity 61, capable of allowing sewage generated by the cleaning system 7 to be transferred to the sewage cavity 61 (see e.g. figure 6 and paragraphs [0028]-[0031]). Fang does not explicitly teach a sewage output channel. However, Fang teaches in paragraph [0031] that the system may also be connected to an external sewage pipe for discharging process sewage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a sewage output channel may be included so as to allow for the expected sewage discharge from the sewage cavity to the outside of the base station. Hence, in the modified system, it is readily apparent that the sewage input channel and the sewage output channel would be provided on the sewage tank 6. Fang teaches in paragraph [0031] that valves may be used in order to control the flow of fluids in the system. Fang does not explicitly teach the sewage output channel having a closed state and an open state. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the sewage output channel may include a valve body being switchable between a closed state and an open state (reads on first and second states of claim 2), in a case that the sewage output channel is in the closed state, the sewage is restricted within the sewage cavity and/or the sewage output channel, and in a case that the sewage output channel is in the open state, the sewage is discharged from the sewage output channel to the outside of the base station; thereby allowing for the control of fluids in the sewage cavity.
Regarding claim 4, Fang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Fang does not explicitly teach that the base station includes a clean water input channel and a first pump. However, Fang teaches in paragraph [0031] that an external water pipe may be used to connect the system to an external clean water source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a first clean water input channel may be included so as to provide the expected provision of clean water to be input to the clean water cavity from an external water source outside of the base station. Fang teaches in paragraph [0031] that pumps may be used in order to control the flow of fluids in the system. Fang does not explicitly teach a pump to provide power for the clean water cavity to receive clean water from the external waterway. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that, in the modified system where water is fed to the clean water cavity from an external water supply, a first pump may be included in order to control the flow of clean water from the external waterway to the clean water cavity.
Regarding claim 9, Fang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Fang teaches in paragraph [0031] that an external water pipe may be used to connect the system to an external clean water source (reads on first sewage branch communicated to the sewage cavity). Fang does not teach a second sewage branch communicated to the cleaning system. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a second sewage branch communicated to the cleaning system may be included so as to increase the discharge capacity of the system. Furthermore, it has been determined that the duplication of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (US20200297179) as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Deane et al. (US20200001832).
Regarding claim 10, Fang teaches the limitations of claim 2. Fang does not teach that the valve body includes a duckbill valve. Deane et al. teaches a spray washing system for surface cleaning (see abstract) and that duckbill valves may be used in order to automatically prevent back flow of fluid (see paragraph [0087]). Since both Fang and Deane et al. teach surface cleaning systems with fluid flow it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a duckbill valve may be included in the system by Fang so as to allow for automatic prevention of fluid back flow, as shown to be known and conventional by Deane et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-8, 11-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Fang (US20200297179). Fang fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claims 3, 13 and 16. Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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, MICHAEL BARR can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711