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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10-11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dong CN 114451813.
Claim 1, Dong teaches a wastewater treatment device comprising: a wastewater tank (120) having a tank bottom, a waste crushing mechanism (130) arranged in the wastewater tank and comprising a rotation blade (130b) and an electric actuator (30) for driving the rotating blade, the rotation blade is pre-curved constructed and comprises a leading edge disposed forwardly along the rotation direction and a trailing edge disposed rearwardly along the rotation direction, a bottom of the rotation blade is constructed flat and comprises a lower edge extending parallel to the tank bottom, wherein the rotating blade is constructed as a backward curved blade and the lower edge forms the leading edge, (The rotation direction is shown in the annotated figure below. Paragraph 39 of Dong states, “The stirring blades 130b rotate at high speed, continuously rotating and throwing the solid waste to the solid temporary storage 150 for collection”. Because the stirring blades are curved the rotation direction must be as indicated in the annotated figure in order for solids to be “thrown” to the solid storage 150 as the solid storage is located radially outwardly as shown in figure 1. If the rotation direction where in the opposite direction to that shown in the annotated figure below solids would not be thrown radially outward but rather collected radially inward due to the shape of the blades. Therefore, the rotation direction can be determined based on the disclosure of Dong.) the leading edge comprises an edge segment capable of shoveling dry debris from the tank bottom, the leading edge is disposed lower than the trailing edge in a height direction and wherein on a pressure side of the rotation blade, a straight line passed through the leading edge and the trailing edge of the rotation blade forms a tilt angle with the tank bottom that is greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees (fig. 1-2, see below). The recitation of the wastewater treatment device being of a docking station for a cleaning robot and the tank being for collecting wastewater generated during cleaning of a mopping pad of the cleaning robot is a recitation of intended use and does not provide any further structural limitations to the apparatus.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 17, Dong teaches a cleaning system comprising: a cleaning robot (par 2, 27) and a docking station (par 2-4) for the cleaning robot having a wastewater treatment device, the wastewater treatment device comprising: a wastewater tank (120) having a tank bottom, a waste crushing mechanism (130) arranged in the wastewater tank and comprising a rotation blade (130b) and an electric actuator (30) for driving the rotation blade, the at least one rotation blade is pre-curved constructed and comprises a leading edge disposed forwardly along the rotation direction and a trailing edge disposed rearwardly along the rotation direction, a bottom of the rotation blade is constructed flat and comprises a lower edge extending parallel to the tank bottom, wherein the rotating blade is constructed as a backward curved blade, and the lower edge forms the leading edge, (The rotation direction is shown in the annotated figure below. Paragraph 39 of Dong states, “The stirring blades 130b rotate at high speed, continuously rotating and throwing the solid waste to the solid temporary storage 150 for collection”. Because the stirring blades are curved the rotation direction must be as indicated in the annotated figure in order for solids to be “thrown” to the solid storage 150 as the solid storage is located radially outwardly as shown in figure 1. If the rotation direction where in the opposite direction to that shown in the annotated figure below solids would not be thrown radially outward but rather collected radially inward due to the shape of the blades. Therefore, the rotation direction can be determined based on the disclosure of Dong.) the leading edge comprises an edge segment capable of shoveling dry debris from the tank bottom of the wastewater tank, the leading edge is disposed lower than the trailing edge in a height direction and wherein on a pressure side of the rotation blade, a straight line passed through the leading edge and the trailing edge of the rotation blade forms a tilt angle with the tank bottom that is greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees (fig. 1-2, see above).
Claims 8 and 10-11, Dong further teaches the rotating blade is constructed convexly on a pressure side thereof, so that an angle between the rotation direction and a tangential direction of a point of the rotation blade on the pressure side is greater than 90 degrees (fig. 2); and the waste crushing mechanism comprises three rotation blades which are rotational symmetrically arranged (fig. 2).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong CN 114451813.
Claims 9 and 20, Dong teaches the device of claim 1 and claim 17 and further teaches the lower edge is spaced a distance from the tank bottom (fig. 2) but does not teach what that distance is. The recited distance between the lower edge and the tank bottom is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the apparatus. [W]here the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (1984).
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong CN 114451813 in view of Cheng CN 219835566.
Claim 3, Dong teaches the device of claim 1 and further teaches the tank bottom has a drain port (120b) (fig. 1). Dong does not teach the drain port configured to switch between an open state and a closed state. Providing a valve within a drain port of a tank collecting solid and liquid waste is common in the art as demonstrated by Cheng (tank (1) having tank bottom with a drain port (221) which can be switched between open and closed by valve (141)). The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a valve as it allows for control of fluid through the drain opening as desired by the user.
Claim 6, Dong further teaches the electric actuator comprises a rotation shaft (130a) having a rotation axis, the rotating blade is capable of rotating about the rotation axis and a distance between a tip of the rotating blade and the rotation axis is greater than a minimum distance between the drain port and the rotation axis (fig. 1).
Claim(s) 12 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong CN 114451813 in view of Mingsheng et al. CN 115413982.
Claim 12, Dong teaches a docking station having a wastewater treatment device comprising: a wastewater tank (120) having a tank bottom, the tank constructed to collect wastewater, a waste crushing mechanism (130) arranged in the wastewater tank and comprising a rotation blade (130b) and an electric actuator (30) for driving the rotating blade, the rotation blade is pre-curved constructed and comprises a leading edge disposed forwardly along the rotation direction and a trailing edge disposed rearwardly along the rotation direction, a bottom of the rotation blade is constructed flat and comprises a lower edge extending parallel to the tank bottom, wherein the at least one rotation blade is constructed as a backward curved blade and the lower edge forms the leading edge, (The rotation direction is shown in the annotated figure below. Paragraph 39 of Dong states, “The stirring blades 130b rotate at high speed, continuously rotating and throwing the solid waste to the solid temporary storage 150 for collection”. Because the stirring blades are curved the rotation direction must be as indicated in the annotated figure in order for solids to be “thrown” to the solid storage 150 as the solid storage is located radially outwardly as shown in figure 1. If the rotation direction where in the opposite direction to that shown in the annotated figure below solids would not be thrown radially outward but rather collected radially inward due to the shape of the blades. Therefore, the rotation direction can be determined based on the disclosure of Dong.) the leading edge comprises an edge segment capable of shoveling dry debris from the tank bottom of the wastewater tank, the leading edge is disposed lower than the trailing edge in a height direction and wherein on a pressure side of the rotation blade, a straight line passed through the leading edge and the trailing edge of the rotation blade forms a tilt angle with the tank bottom that is greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees (fig. 1-2, see above). The recitation of the wastewater treatment device being for a cleaning robot and the tank being for collecting wastewater generated during cleaning of a mopping pad of the cleaning robot is a recitation of intended use and does not provide any further structural limitations to the apparatus.
Mingsheng teaches a docking station having a clean water generation device, the clean water generation device is configured to generate clean water from steam and a wastewater treatment device comprising a wastewater tank (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the clean water generation device of Mingsheng in the docking station of Dong as it allows the water in the tank to be heated to steam and to treat the steam to obtain clear water and thus recycle the dirty water to reduce the need for fresh clean water (abstract).
Claim 16, Dong further teaches the waste crushing mechanism comprises three rotation blades (fig. 2).
Claim 15, Dong in view of Mingsheng teaches the device of claim 12 and further teaches the lower edge is spaced a distance from the tank bottom (fig. 2) but does not teach what that distance is. The recited distance between the lower edge and the tank bottom is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the apparatus. [W]here the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (1984).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the blades of Dong comprise a brush bar which is capable of being used for scraping dirt from the bottom of the container but that the brush bar is clearly different from the construction of the rotation blade as described in the present application. Dong teaches the brush bar is part of/located on the blades and extends toward/is in contact with the tank bottom (par 7, 13, 34). The claim recites the leading edge comprises an edge segment for shoveling dry debris. The brush bar of Dong is considered the recited “edge segment” and therefore, the apparatus of Dong meets the claim limitations as recited. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
Applicant argues that Dong does not disclose a rotation direction of the blades. This argument has been addressed in the body of the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
