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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 and 20 in the reply filed on 5/18/2026 is acknowledged.
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 8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as a "pre-set coefficient". Specifically, what does the "coefficient" refer to.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 11, 13, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (CN111297282A; machine translation).
Re claim 1, Gao et al. teach a method of controlling water discharge for a floor mopping robot (paragraph 1, claim 1) by controlling in a first stage a water spray system to spray a first preset amount of water at a first position (i.e. first moment) and controlling the water spray to spray a second preset amount of water, wherein the first and second stages are related to an already moved distance of the robot (refer to paragraphs 75-76, 95-97), and wherein the second preset amount of water is less than the first preset amount of water (paragraph 97 teaches a decrease in water volume as the distance increases).
Gao et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the out of station distance being a distance that the robot has moved away from the charging station. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method to include moving the robot after charging, away from the charging station to various areas in need of cleaning, as paragraph 72 teaches the robot returning to the charging dock for recharging, after performing various operations.
Re claim 5, in reference to determining the area be cleaned by the robot, the limitations are met as Gao et al. teach processors to determine which areas (first and second moments) which require spraying with water for mopping, wherein the target moving distance (i.e. second moment) is based on the area to be cleaned , wherein when the robot reaches the target moving distance (second moment), while already moving from the "already moved distance" (i.e. first moment), the water spray is controlled, as paragraph 97 teaches spraying a first water discharge volume and decreasing the volume as the distance is changed. Furthermore, paragraphs 89-90 teaches spraying (i.e. cleaning) various rooms, including the living room, master bedroom and secondary bedroom and adjusting the water discharge as the robot passes through various regions in order to prevent excessive water volume which will cause the robot to slip. In summary, Gao et al. teach determining which rooms to be cleaned, determining the moving distance (i.e. second moment, second position) and when the robot reaches the second position, adjusting the volume of the water spray amount such that excessive water is avoided. already cleaned area or an already moved distance (first position and first moment, paragraph 10), and controlling a water spray amount based on the already moved distance and a target moving distance (i.e. second position and second moment). Paragraphs 11-17 teaches a second water output volume is determined based on the distance between the first and the second position.
Re claim 11, the limitations are similar to that of claim 5, wherein the first stage is the first moment, and determining a targeted water spray amount is based on the distance, wherein the distance defines the area to be cleaned. Paragraph 96 teaches accurately controlling the water volume at various locations along a preset map. Re claim 13, refer to paragraphs 26 and 96 for example, wherein the water spray sprays a second preset amount of water at a second position (i.e. target moving distance).
Re claim 17, the limitations of at a time instance, which reads broadly on any time when the robot has moved to a first distance (i.e. first position, first moment), controlling the water spray system to spray a first pre-set amount of water, applicant is directed to paragraph 75 for example which teaches that water is discharged at a first location (first moment).
Re claim 18, the limitations are met because Gao et al. teach at a time instance when the robot reaches the already cleaned area (i.e. first area, first moment), the water spray system sprays a pre-set amount of water (claim 1, paragraphs 10-11, 46, 73, 92).
Re claim 20, the limitations are similar to that of claim 1, with the exception of the non-transitory computer readable medium. Applicant is directed to paragraph 132.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 12, and 14-16 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 prior art fails to teach or suggest the limitations as recited in the dependent claims 2-4, 6, 12, 14, and those dependent claims which are dependent thereof.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shim et al. teach a robot cleaner wherein the amount of water supplied to the mop of the cleaner can be controlled. Liu et al. teach a water spray control method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc
Prosecution Insights