CTNF 19/020,306 CTNF 73002 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-15 are 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. As to claims 1-14: The claims are indefinite and could not be properly understood because claim 1 recites “ determine whether dry mopping is required, for an area to be cleaned that is detected by the front sensor, based on information about the area obtained by the rear sensor after the mop coupled to the lower portion of the main body cleans the area detected by the front sensor”. The referenced limitation contains contradictive requirements. It is not clear how the detection of whether the dry mopping is required for an area to be cleaned can be done based on the information obtained after the cleaning . What is actually required by the claims? The claims are further indefinite because it is not clear how the controller, which is disclosed by the specification as comprising a processor and a memory, can perform a recleaning and a drying operation. Do the applicants meant the controller is configured to control the robot cleane r to perform a drying operation on the mop to obtain a dried mop and perform the re-cleaning of the area by the dried mop? The claims are further indefinite because claim 1 recites “performing a drying operation on the mop” but fails to recite any structure to perform such. The claims are further indefinite because claim 1 recites “the mop coupled to the lower portion of the main body cleans the area” but fails to recite any structure to perform such. Claims 2-3 are indefinite because claim 2 contradicts to claim 1. Claim 1 requires performing of re-cleaning after performing a drying operation, while claim 2 recites the controller that is configured to perform re-cleaning without the drying operation. Claims 4-5 and 13 are further indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the recited “docking station” is a part of the claimed cleaner. Claim 7 is further indefinite because it is not clear how the controller, which is disclosed by the specification as comprising a processor and a memory, can control the mop to touch the floor or to prevent touching. Claim 8 is further indefinite because it requires “the controller is configured to move the robot cleaner to clean an area other than the area while the drying operation on the mop is performed by operating the intake motor”. It is not clear how the controller, which is disclosed by the specification as comprising a processor and a memory, can perform the recited operation. Further, the claim is indefinite because no structure to perform cleaning except for the mop is recited by the claims. As to claim 15: The claim is indefinite and could not be properly understood because of the reasons similar to the reasons indicated with respect to claim 1. Claim 15 requires: “determining whether dry mopping by a mop coupleable to and decoupleable from a lower portion of a main body of the robot cleaner is required for an area to be cleaned that is detected by a front sensor having a front field of view of the main body based on information about the area obtained by a rear sensor having a rear field of view of the main body after the mop coupled to the lower portion of the main body cleans the area detected by the front sensor, and based on the dry mopping being determined as being required for the area and humidity of the mop detected by a humidity sensor being greater than a reference humidity, performing a re-cleaning to allow the mop to pass over the area again after performing a drying operation on the mop”. The referenced limitation contains contradictive requirements. It is not clear how the detection of whether the dry mopping is required for an area to be cleaned can be done based on the information obtained after the cleaning. What is actually required by the claim? 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim s 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claims are of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.. The parent claim 1 requires performing of re-cleaning after performing a drying operation, while claim 2 recites the controller that is configured to perform re-cleaning without the drying operation . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and § 103 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-27-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over XU et al (WO 2020/125758) . Xu et al teach a robot cleaner and a method of operation of the robot cleaner. The robot cleaner 100 is disclosed as comprising a main body 10, plurality of sensors including humidity sensors and sensors detecting dirt and stains. The cleaner also comprises moping module 40 with a detachably installable mop 43. The cleaner also comprises a controller 60, which controls the functioning of the robot. The disclosed robot also comprises a docking station 200. The robot is disclosed as performing multiple cleaning and re-cleaning including dry cleaning and wet cleaning. The robot is disclosed as regulating the humidity of the of the mop by delivering liquid to the mop as required. The drying operation is readable on the reducing humidity of the mop requiring delivering of the liquid. The cleaning modes are disclosed as depending from the type of the dirt and stains on the ground. In view of the indefiniteness of the claims it is reasonably believed that the claims are either anticipated or obvious over the teaching of XU et al . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show the state of the art with respect to cleaning robots and the methods of their operations . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 pm. 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. /ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 Application/Control Number: 19/020,306 Page 2 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 19/020,306 Page 3 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 19/020,306 Page 4 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 19/020,306 Page 5 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 19/020,306 Page 6 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 19/020,306 Page 7 Art Unit: 1711 Application/Control Number: 19/020,306 Page 8 Art Unit: 1711
Prosecution Insights