DETAILED ACTION
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 2 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. The claim is unclear because claim 1 does not require the cleanout mode to be prevented due to a battery level being below a minimum charge, because of the optional conditions for preventing execution. It is suggested that the applicant amend claim 2 to include the limitation, “when the automatic cleanout mode of operation is prevented due to the battery level being below a minimum charge threshold” after the word “wherein” in line 1.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (10,092,155) in view of Beskow et al. (2008/0148512), Orubor (8,925,142), Lim et al. (2007/0051757) and Reed et al. (2010/0088843).
Xia discloses a floor cleaning system comprising a surface cleaning apparatus comprising: a storage tray (900) configured to dock a surface cleaning apparatus in an upright storage position, and the upright body (200) comprising a handle (100) and a frame; a base assembly (500) coupled with the upright body and adapted for movement across a surface to be cleaned; a moveable joint assembly (570) mounting the base assembly to the upright body, wherein the upright body is pivotable via the joint assembly between an upright storage position and a reclined use position; a fluid delivery system comprising a supply tank (300) removable from the upright body (Col. 5, lines 35-40), a pump (140), and a fluid distributor (554); a recovery system comprising a recovery pathway (airflow channel from nozzle 580 to recovery tank 400), a recovery tank (400) removable from the upright body (Col. 5, lines 41-43), a suction nozzle (580), and a vacuum motor (205), a removable brushroll cover (nozzle 580 removable, as seen in Fig. 14, and functioning as a brushroll cleaner when attached) creating a brushroll chamber when the removeable brushroll cover is operably coupled to the base assembly; a brushroll (546) mountable within the brushroll chamber and adjacent the suction nozzle and the fluid distributor; a brushroll motor (503) operably coupled to the brushroll for rotating the brushroll, wherein the suction nozzle is configured to extract fluid and debris from the brushroll (Col. 10, lines 15-19), a battery (Col. 13, lines 23-26), operably coupled to at least one controller (750), configured to allow a user to select different cleaning modes, including a cleanout mode of operation which activates the vacuum motor and brushroll motor (Col. 15, lines 30-51); wherein the at least one controller is configured to initiate the unattended automatic cleanout mode of operation. However, Xia fails to disclose that the storage tray has at least one charging contact, that the battery is rechargeable, that the controller is configured to selectively energize the pump, that the controller also configured to determine whether the surface cleaning apparatus is docked with the tray, determine a fluid level of the supply tank and a fluid level of the recovery tank; determine the battery level for the battery; or to prevent execution of the unattended automatic cleanout mode of operation when any of the following conditions are met: the surface cleaning apparatus is not docked with the storage tray; or the battery level of the rechargeable battery is below a minimum charge threshold.
Regarding the charging contact(s) and rechargeable battery, Beskow discloses a similar cleaning system comprising a surface cleaning apparatus and a base tray, and teaches that the device is powered by a rechargeable battery, which is nearly universal for battery powered appliances (as opposed to disposable/non-rechargeable batteries that would be substantially more expensive to operate the device), and teaches that the base tray may include contacts for engagement with corresponding contacts on the cleaning apparatus to charge the apparatus via a control circuit (paragraph 165 on page 18), which is well known in the art for charging wireless appliances. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the cleaning apparatus of Xia with a rechargeable battery and to provide a charger and charging circuit to the base tray of Xia to charge the battery when placed on the tray when not in use, as is well known in the art for wireless appliances to automatically charge the battery for more convenient use without power cords.
Regarding activation of the pump, Orubor discloses another similar cleaning apparatus, also having a fluid delivery system with a pump and collection system with a collection tank and motor, and teaches that user (or automatic) activation of a self-cleaning mode will activate the suction motor, similar to Xia, but will also activate the pump to supply cleaning fluid to the cleaning tray (67). Therefore, because Xia fails to disclose how the tray is to be filled with cleaning fluid, it further would have been obvious to also activate the pump of Xia during the cleanout cycle to fill the tray will fluid from the cleaning apparatus such that a user does not need to separately fill the tray for cleaning, as taught by Orubor for a nearly identical cleanout cycle. Although the Xia and Orubor references each disclose that the cleanout function may be manually actuated (either by electrical input or manual actuation), Orubor further discloses that a more sophisticated embodiment will include a processor programmed to control the self-clean mode (Col. 6, lines 45-48), and MPEP 2144.04, section III states that automating a manual activity disclosed by the prior art is obvious because, broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, providing a similar processor programmed to control all of the cleaning functions taught by Xia and Orubor would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce necessary user input during the disclosed operations.
Regarding determining whether the cleaner is docked with the tray, and preventing execution if it is determined that the cleaner is not docked, Orubor further discloses, when referring to the automatically controlled self-cleaning process discussed supra, that a safety switch may be provided to ensure that the cover/washbasin is securely latched prior to beginning the self-clean operation (Col. 6, lines 48-50), which will ensure that the cleaning liquid is not dispensed for self-cleaning without the presence of the proper basin for collecting the liquid for cleaning. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar function to the controller of Xia, to determine if the cleaner is properly docked and to prevent self-cleaning operation, including the automatic liquid supply taught by Orubor, when the cleaning tray is not properly positioned under the surface cleaning apparatus, thus effectively locking-out the self-cleaning cycle when the cleaning apparatus is not docked with the cleaning tray.
Regarding the limitations relating to determining a fluid level of the recovery and supply tanks, as well as the limitations of claims 3, 4 and 11, Orubor further discloses an optional fluid level sensor to detect fluid level in the vacuum receptacle (recovery tank) and automatically shut-down operation when the fluid reaches a predetermined level (Col. 6, lines 12-15), which is well known in the art for fluid collecting devices to prevent overflow of the collection tank and/or prevent fluid from travelling beyond the collection tank and into the motor. Additionally, Lim discloses another cleaning device having a fluid tank (121) for supplying cleaning fluid and teaches that a first level sensor (133) may be provided to detect the fluid level in the tank and displaying an alarm when the fluid level is less than desired (paragraph 88), which is also well known in the art to alert a user that the cleaning fluid/solution needs to be refilled and/or to avoid damage to the fluid pump, which are known to be damaged when run dry. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide similar fluid sensors to the recovery and supply tanks, as taught by Orubor and Lim, respectively, and to configure the controller of Xia to monitor the levels and end execution when the levels are unacceptable (too high for the recovery tank, too low for the supply tank). Although Lim discloses an alert when fluid level is low, the teachings of Orubor would also lead one of ordinary skill in the art to also stop operations when the supply tank is too low (while optionally also providing an alarm), which will automatically prevent operation when fluid supply is too low, thus avoiding improper cleaning due to lack of cleaning fluid and/or prevent damage to the pump that may occur if run dry, even if a user is unaware of the alarm taught by Lim.
Finally, regarding determining the battery level and preventing execution of the cleanout mode when the battery is below a minimum charge threshold, Reed disclose a plurality of different cleaning devices, all powered by rechargeable battery, and teaches that the controller for the battery is capable of determining the level of charge of the battery and initiating a “sleep mode” for the battery if the battery is determined to be in a low-power mode (i.e. below a charge threshold), and that the “sleep mode” will prevent the battery from discharging to an external device (Paragraph 79), which will be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to effectively prevent the battery from powering external devices if the battery does not have sufficient charge level to power the external device for proper of complete function. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the controller of Xia, to similarly detect the charge level of the rechargeable battery, and to prevent operation of the cleanout mode if/when the battery level is below a minimum charge threshold, as taught by Reed, to prevent initiating the cleanout mode when the battery may not have sufficient charge to complete the cleanout mode.
Regarding claim 2, Reed also discloses that the controller software that detects the battery charge level and initiates the “sleep mode”, via a software flag, to prevent discharge of the battery, may remove the flag after the battery has been connected to a battery charger (paragraph 80), which effectively enables the battery to supply power to an external device, and would allow for operation of the cleanout mode taught by Xia, when charging to a level above the minimum charge threshold.
Regarding claim 5, Xia further discloses that the at least one controller is configured to adjust either the flow rate of cleaning fluid from the pump (Col. 13, lines 45-48; the claim only optionally requiring control of brushroll speed).
Regarding claims 6-8, the activation of the pump and vacuum motor as discussed supra would read on the claimed functions of claim 11 and operate to provide cleaning fluid from the supply tank to the tray via the fluid distributor an, wherein the vacuum motor will collect the liquid from the cleaning tray into the recovery tank after the pump and brushroll have been activated for cleaning the brushroll and nozzle in the same manner as claimed. Further, Orubor discloses that the vacuum collects all liquid that is collected in the wash basin (Col. 6, lines 41-44), which would only be required after the basin is at least partially filled. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the pump would obviously be started prior to the vacuum motor, to preserve the energy and prevent the noise from powering the vacuum motor prior to necessary and also to fill the storage tray to at least a level that the brush will contact the fluid for cleaning of the brush, also obvious to rotate the brush during the fill/cleaning operation prior to the vacuum being activated to ensure thorough cleaning of the brush before the fluid is evacuated from the cleaning chamber. Similarly, it would also be obvious to maintain power to the vacuum motor after the pump and brush have been stopped, to be able to collect all of the solution, as disclosed by Orubor (i.e. Vacuum would never completely collect the fluid if the pump remained activated).
Regarding claim 10, Xia further discloses a user interface (120) disposed on the upright body (shown in handle which is claimed as part of the upright body), the user interface comprising the user interface comprising a power button (for the fan, brush motor and pump; Col. 13, lines 26-36), a cleaning mode button (Col. 13, lines 41-43), and an unattended automatic cleanout mode button (Col. 15, lines 30-31, also taught by Orubor and made obvious [to automate] as discussed relating to claim 11).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (10,092,155) in view of Beskow et al. (2008/0148512), Orubor (8,925,142), Lim et al. (2007/0051757) and Reed et al. (2010/0088843) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Conrad et al. (2017/0042319).
The combination of Xia, Orubor and Lim provide the previously claimed invention, as discussed supra, but fail to disclose that the at least one controller is further configured to detect whether the brushroll cover is coupled to the base assembly. Conrad discloses a similar cleaning device, also having an openable brushroll cover, teaching that a panel open detector is provided to detect when the openable cover is opened and prevent operation of the brushroll when opened (paragraph 4), which will be understood by anyone of ordinary skill in the art to ensure safety of a user by preventing operation of the brushroll when the cover is opened, possibly for cleaning that requires a user’s fingers to be in contact with the brushroll. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the cleaner of Xia with a similar panel open detector, to indicate to the at least one controller whether the brushroll cover is coupled to the base assembly or opened (removed from the assembly), and to configure the at least one controller to prevent the unattended automatic cleanout mode of operation when the brushroll cover is not connected to the base assembly, as taught by Conrad, to prevent injury to a user.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 7, 13-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,622 in view of Reed, as applied to claim 1 above. All of the other limitations are disclosed in the corresponding claims from the parent application, except the limitation relating to preventing execution when the battery is below a charge threshold, which is taught by Reed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and proper Terminal Disclaimers are filed to overcome the above Double Patenting rejection, as well as the Terminal Disclaimers for related applications (now patents 11,071,428, 11,076,735, 11,304,581 and 11,796,097) having similar disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Brian Keller can be reached at 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 25 September 2026
