The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “angel” is misspelled. It should be “angle” for accuracy. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 49 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “slop” is misspelled. It should be “slope” for accuracy. 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 use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “cleaning device” in Claims 1, 5-8, 19-21, 40, 42-51, and 53, “main cleaning component” in Claims 1, 6, 44, and 51, “guiding component” in Claims 1, 7, and 44, “plane forming member” in Claims 6-8 and 19-21, and “drive unit” in Claims 51 and 53.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 48 recites the limitation "the first conveyor belts". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since more than one first conveyor belt has not been previously claimed and is not consistent with the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 40, 42-46, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ham US 4914773 (hereafter Ham).
Regarding Claim 1, Ham anticipates:
1. (Original) A cleaning device (cleaning apparatus 1) for cleaning a surface (floor 19), the cleaning device comprising:
a container (trash containing corner 2);
a main cleaning component (conveyor belt 4 assembly) comprising a first rotatable conveyor belt (conveyor belt 4, Figure 3); and
a guiding component (wiping belt 5 assembly) in front of the main cleaning component along a moving direction of the cleaning device (Figure 2), the guiding component comprising a second rotatable conveyor belt (wiping belt 5, Figure 3), wherein:
the first and second conveyor belts rotate in opposite directions (Figure 2) to remove an object from the surface and move the object toward the container when the cleaning device reaches the object on the surface (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Ham anticipates:
5. (Original) The cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the first conveyor belt (conveyor belt 4) rotates clockwise while the second conveyor belt (wiping belt 5) rotates counterclockwise (when viewed from other side of device shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
1092
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Ham anticipates:
6. (Original) The cleaning device of claim 1, wherein:
the main cleaning component (conveyor belt 4 assembly) further comprises at least one roller (first conveyor guiding roller 6') and at least one plane forming member (second conveyor roller 6 – forms two planar conveyor surfaces through belt tension, Figure 3),
the at least one roller and the at least one plane forming member are spaced apart laterally or spaced apart from each other along a height of the cleaning device (Figure 3), and
the first conveyor belt (conveyor belt 4) rotatably surrounds the at least one roller and the at least one plane forming member (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Ham anticipates:
7. (Original) The cleaning device of claim 1, wherein:
the guiding component (wiping belt 5 assembly) further comprises at least one roller (first wiping guiding roller 7') and at least one plane forming member (second wiping guiding roller 7 – forms two planar conveyor surfaces through belt tension, Figure 3),
the at least one roller and the at least one plane forming member are spaced apart laterally or spaced apart from each other along a height of the cleaning device (Figure 3), and
the second conveyor belt (wiping belt 5) rotatably surrounds the at least one roller and the at least one plane forming member (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 40, Ham anticipates:
40. (Original) The cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the first (conveyor belt 4) and second (wiping belt 5) conveyor belts are at least partially parallel (shown in attached Figure 3 below) and positioned at an angel relative to the surface (floor 19)(Figure 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
512
579
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 42, Ham anticipates:
42. (Original) The cleaning device of claim 1, wherein:
the first conveyor belt (conveyor belt 4) has a top side (near first conveyor guiding roller 6’) and
a bottom side (near second conveyor guiding roller 6), and the bottom side of the first conveyor belt forms a first plane (labeled in attached Figure 2 below) that presses against the surface (floor 19).
PNG
media_image3.png
468
889
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 43, Ham anticipates:
43. (Original) The cleaning device of claim 42, wherein a surface area of the first plane (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) is greater than a surface area (topmost distal surface of conveying members 4’) of the top side (near first conveyor guiding roller 6’) of the first conveyor belt (conveyor belt 4, Figure 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
510
901
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 44, Ham anticipates:
44. (Original) The cleaning device of claim 42, wherein the first plane (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) presses against the surface (floor 19) partially due to a weight (positioned so that the device weight causes deflection as shown in Figures 2 and 3) of the main cleaning component (conveyor belt 4 assembly) and partially due to a weight shifting of the guiding component (wiping belt 5 assembly) onto the main cleaning component (shifting due to collision that would occur between conveying members 5a’ and 4’).
Regarding Claim 45, Ham anticipates:
45. (Original) The cleaning device of claim 42, wherein:
the second conveyor belt (wiping belt 5, Figure 3) has a bottom side (Figure 3) comprising a second plane (distalmost surface of conveying members 5a’, Figure 3), and
an area of the first plane (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) is greater than an area of the second plane (shown in Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding Claim 46, Ham anticipates:
46. (Original) The cleaning device of claim 45, wherein the second plane (distalmost surface of conveying members 5a’, Figure 3) also presses against the surface (floor 19)(shown in Figure 3).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Claims 47 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham US 4914773 (hereafter Ham) in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 47, Ham teaches:
47. (Original) The cleaning device of claim 46, wherein:
the first plane (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) presses against the surface (floor 19) such that the first plane is entirely in contact with the surface (see discussion below), and
the second plane (distalmost surface of conveying members 5a’, Figure 3) presses against the surface such that the second plane is partially in contact with the surface (at an instant of time where the distalmost surface of conveying members 5a’ are in partial contact with the floor 19 during movement).
Ham discloses the position and length of the conveying members 4’ such that they achieve at least partial contact with the floor 19. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the roller 6 closer to the floor and configuring the conveying members 4’ to be flexible enough to completely make contact with the floor as it moves through its path resulting in full contact with the floor, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 50, Ham teaches:
50. (Original) The cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the second conveyor belt (wiping belt 5, Figure 3) is longer than (see discussion below) the first conveyor belt (conveyor belt 4, Figure 3) and rotates in the opposite direction of the first conveyor belt (shown in Figure 3).
Ham discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for specifically disclosing that the second conveyor belt is longer than the first conveyor belt. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the length of the second conveyor belt, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and the device would operate equally well with the second conveyor belt being longer. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 8 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham US 4914773 (hereafter Ham) in view of Qian CN 103961038 A (hereafter Qian).
Regarding Claim 8, Ham teaches:
8. (Original) The cleaning device of claim 6, wherein:
the at least one plane forming member (second conveyor roller 6 – forms two planar conveyor surfaces through belt tension, Figure 3) comprises two plane forming members that cause a bottom portion of the first conveyor belt near the surface to form a plane that presses against the surface (floor 19)(see discussion below), and
the at least one roller is positioned above the two plane forming members along the height of the cleaning device (Figure 3).
Ham discloses a single conveyor roller 6 that forms two planar conveyor surfaces through belt tension. Ham does not disclose two plane forming members that cause a bottom portion to form a plane that presses against the floor surface 19. The reference Qian discloses in Figure 1 that includes two plane forming members (first belt wheel 201 and second belt wheel 202) that cause a bottom portion of the conversion belt (belt cloth 3) to form a plane that presses against the floor surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ham device to include an additional conveyor roller that forms a plane that presses against the surface as taught by Qian with the motivation to increase the surface area of contact with multiple conveying members 4’ simultaneously in contact with the floor to prevent missing debris.
Regarding Claim 19, Ham teaches:
19. (Original) The cleaning device of claim 7, wherein at least one of the at least one plane forming member is positioned above the at least one roller along the height of the cleaning device (see discussion below).
Qian discloses in Figure 1 that includes two plane forming members (first belt wheel 201 and second belt wheel 202), however, Qian also discloses belt wheels 203, 204, 205, and 206 that form planes in the conveyor belt positioned above the lower rollers along the height of the cleaning device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ham device to include additional rollers, as taught by Qian, forming at least one plane positioned above the lowermost rollers with the motivation to fit within the device shape.
Regarding Claim 20, Ham teaches:
20. (Original) The cleaning device of claim 7, wherein:
the at least one plane forming member comprises two plane forming members that are spaced apart laterally (Qian - Figure 1), and
the at least one roller is positioned above the two plane forming members along the height of the cleaning device (see discussion below).
Qian discloses in Figure 1 that includes two plane forming members (first belt wheel 201 and second belt wheel 202), however, Qian also discloses belt wheels 203, 204, 205, and 206 that form planes in the conveyor belt positioned above the lower rollers along the height of the cleaning device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ham device to include additional rollers, as taught by Qian Figure 1, forming at least one plane positioned above the lowermost rollers with the motivation to fit within the device shape.
Regarding Claim 21, Ham teaches:
21. (Original) The cleaning device of claim 20, wherein the two plane forming members and the at least one roller form the second conveyor belt as a triangular shape (shown in Qian Figure 1).
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham US 4914773 (hereafter Ham) in view of Kadokawa JP 2003011333 A (hereafter Kadokawa).
Regarding Claim 51, Ham teaches:
51. (Currently Amended) The cleaning device of claim 1, further comprising a drying component (brush 9 would promote drying by removing wetness from the surface) that is positioned behind (Figure 3) the main cleaning component (conveyor belt 4 assembly) along a moving direction of the cleaning device, the drying component configured to dry at least one of the surface and the main cleaning component (Figure 3), wherein the drying component comprises at least a scraper (bristles of brush 9) and a drive unit for moving the scraper (see discussion below).
Ham discloses a brush 9 that is in contact with the conveyor belt 4 to remove debris/wetness and therefore promote drying. Ham does not disclose the that the brush 9 includes a drive unit for moving the brush. The reference Kadokawa et al. discloses a scraper that is movable engaged allowing it to be retracted from contact or extended for scraping contact. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brush on the Ham device to be movable with the motivation to reduce wear to the brush or conveyor belt 4, between an extended or retracted position allowing the scraping to occur periodically rather than continuously.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 53 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but it would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of ground cleaners with conveyor belt collection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights