iRobot Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 7, 2021

2020006076 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/240,595 08/18/2016 Christopher M. Casey 09945-0045009 6858 108858 7590 04/07/2021 Fish & Richardson PC (iROBOT) P.O. Box 1022 Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER KISWANTO, NICHOLAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3664 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/07/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): patdoctc@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHER M. CASEY, MATTHEW CROSS, DANIEL N. OZICK, and JOSEPH L. JONES __________________ Appeal 2020-006076 Application 15/240,595 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JAMES P. CALVE, and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 21 and 23–41, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies iRobot Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-006076 Application 15/240,595 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 21, the sole independent claim on appeal, recites: 21. A robot comprising: a drive system configured to maneuver the robot across a floor surface, the drive system comprising a first wheel and a second wheel; cliff sensors housed in a forward portion of the robot, each cliff sensor aimed at the floor surface; a vacuum inlet disposed on a bottom side of the robot; a first side brush rotatably mounted in the forward portion of the robot, the first side brush configured to direct debris from the floor surface towards the vacuum inlet; a second side brush rotatably mounted in the forward portion of the robot, the second side brush configured to direct debris from the floor surface towards the vacuum inlet; and wherein the first side brush and the second side brush are each mounted at approximately equal distances from the vacuum inlet and forward of the vacuum inlet; wherein the first wheel of the drive system is disposed aft of the first side brush on a first side of the vacuum inlet; and wherein the second wheel of the drive system is disposed aft of the second side brush on a second side of the vacuum inlet. REJECTIONS2 Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 21, 23–32, and 34–36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kobayashi3 and Betker.4 2 The Examiner withdrew a double patenting rejection of claims 21 and 23– 41 over claims 1–3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,594,844 to Jones in view of Miller (US 6,185,781 B1, issued February 13, 2001). Ans. 3; Non-Final Act. 2–4. 3 US 5,109,566, issued May 5, 1992. 4 US 5,279,672, issued January 18, 1994. Appeal 2020-006076 Application 15/240,595 3 Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kobayashi, Betker, and Colens.5 Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kobayashi, Betker, and Kawakami.6 Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kobayashi, Betker, and Bisset.7 Claims 39–41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kobayashi, Betker, Jung,8 and Canudas de Wit.9 ANALYSIS Claim 25 for Indefiniteness The Examiner determines claim 25 is indefinite because it recites “a first wheel” in line 2, and claim 21,10 from which claim 25 depends, recites “a first wheel” in line 3. Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner determines it is unclear whether “a first wheel” in claim 25 refers back to “a first wheel” in claim 21 or whether it refers to a different, distinct feature. Id. Appellant does not present argument for this rejection. See Appeal Br. 2–15; Reply Br. 1 (“Appellant notes that the indefiniteness rejection listed in the Examiner’s Answer is not a subject of this appeal.”). Accordingly, we summarily sustain the rejection of claim 25 for indefiniteness. 5 US 6,389,329 B1, issued May 14, 2002. 6 US 5,947,225, issued September. 7, 1999. 7 US 6,493,612 B1, issued December 10, 2002. 8 Whisker Based Mobile Robot Navigation, Intelligent Robotics Laboratory, Computer Sciences Department, University of Wollongong, Australia. 9 Theory of Robot Control, The Zodiac, Springer. 10 We treat the Examiner’s reference to claim 22 as a harmless, typographical error. See Non-Final Act. 4. Appeal 2020-006076 Application 15/240,595 4 Claims 21, 23–32, and 34–36 Rejected over Kobayashi and Betker Regarding independent claim 21, the Examiner finds that Kobayashi teaches a robot comprising a drive system, first and second wheels, cliff sensors, a vacuum inlet disposed on the bottom side of the robot, and a side brush as rotating brush agitator 7 configured to direct debris from the floor to the vacuum inlet as illustrated in Figure 1. Non-Final Act. 5; Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that Kobayashi lacks two side brushes rotatably mounted in the forward portion of the robot and configured to direct debris from a floor surface towards a vacuum inlet where both brushes are mounted at approximately equal distances from, and forward of, the vacuum inlet and drive wheels, but Betker teaches such side brushes. Non-Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner determines that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Kobayashi with Betker as an example of a known, useful vacuum undercarriage implementation.” Id. at 6. In addition, the Examiner explains that “[t]he combination would be using the respective teachings in a known manner, especially Betker since the purpose of brushes and their mechanics of operation are highly predictable, i.e. brushing in a direction directs debris and other material in that direction.” Id. Appellant argues that neither Kobayashi nor Betker teaches first and second side brushes configured to direct debris from a floor surface toward a suction nozzle or mounted at approximately equal distances from the suction nozzle and forward of the suction nozzle. Appeal Br. 10–12. Appellant also asserts that a skilled artisan would not have combined Kobayashi and Betker to provide first and second side brushes because Kobayashi is a dry vacuum cleaner whereas Betker uses its brushes with a cleaning solution. Id. at 12. Appeal 2020-006076 Application 15/240,595 5 It is well-settled that “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoted with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). “[T]he analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. However, because claimed subject matter that is composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Id. Here, the reason for the combination is stated as (Non-Final Act. 6): It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Kobayashi with Betker as an example of a known, useful vacuum undercarriage implementation. The combination would be using the respective teachings in a known manner, especially Betker since the purpose of brushes and their mechanics of operation are highly predictable, i.e. brushing in a direction directs debris and other material in that direction. The Examiner’s reasoning is not supported by a rational underpinning. First, it is unclear what teachings of Betker are provided to Kobayashi. And, as Appellant points out, Betker’s side brushes and undercarriage are used to scrub floor surfaces covered with a liquid cleaning solution dispensed from a scrub deck 42, whereas Kobayashi’s cleaning apparatus uses suction to draw dust into a dust collection chamber 3. Appeal Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 5. Appeal 2020-006076 Application 15/240,595 6 A predictable use of Betker’s undercarriage would be to use brushes 46a, 46b with scrubbing assembly 40 to dispense cleaning solution on a floor as the brushes rotate. That’s how Betker implements the brushes 46a, 46b. See Betker, 4:12–42. Betker uses squeegee assembly 58 and vacuum motor 284 to suction solution from the floor into recovery tank 260. Id. at 6:1–49. It is unclear how Betker’s brushes 46a, 46b and scrubbing assembly 40 provide a useful vacuum undercarriage for Kobayashi’s dry vacuum that lacks fluid dispensing and recovery means. Kobayashi’s filter 4 and dust collection chamber 3 do not process a liquid solution. Kobayashi, 4:16–31. Even if Betker’s brushes can be used predictably in Kobayashi’s dry vacuum, the Examiner has not explained why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so when Kobayashi already uses rotary agitator brush 7 inside the vacuum inlet 5 to capture debris. Kobayashi, 4:16–31, Figs. 1, 3. Kobayashi teaches that “[a]n agitator 7 of a rotating brush which is driven by a drive motor 6 is provided in the suction nozzle 5.” Id. at 4:29–31. Kobayashi teaches to position agitator brush 7 inside vacuum inlet 5 to direct debris from the floor to the vacuum inlet. The Examiner finds that “Kobayashi discloses such a side brush in element (7) . . . [or] [a]t the very least Kobayashi discloses a brush configured to direct debris from the floor to the vacuum inlet” as claimed. Ans. 4 (emphasis added). Given these findings, it’s unclear why Betker’s side brushes are needed, absent hindsight. If Betker’s rotary brushes 46a, 46b are simply substituted (see Ans. 7) for Kobayashi’s rotary brush 7 by placing Betker’s rotary brushes inside the vacuum inlet 5, as Kobayashi teaches, the brushes would not be mounted “forward of the vacuum inlet” as required by claim 21. Nor would the drive wheels be disposed “aft” (rearward) of the brushes as claimed. Appeal 2020-006076 Application 15/240,595 7 If Betker’s brushes are mounted forward of Kobayashi’s vacuum inlet 5 and drive wheels 15, 16, as required by claim 21, and as Betker suggests in its placement of brushes 46a, 46b forward of drive wheels 34a, 34b and squeegee assembly 58 (see Betker, 4:25–42, Figs. 1–3), it is unclear how the brushes would direct debris from the floor towards the vacuum inlet as claimed. Betker states, “[t]he dirty solution left behind after scrubbing is recovered from the floor by a squeegee assembly 58 trailing the [automated scrubber] housing 14 at the floor level.” Betker, 4:34–37 (emphasis added). Betker suggests that the rotary brushes do not “direct debris from the floor surface towards the vacuum inlet” as claimed. See Appeal Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 4. At least, the brushes do not appear to do so with cleaning solution. Even if a skilled artisan would add Betker’s brushes 46a, 46a forward of Kobayashi’s vacuum inlet 5 (see Ans. 4–5), it is not clear why a skilled artisan also would position the side brushes in front of drive wheels 15, 16, as claimed, rather than behind the drive wheels where they would be closer to vacuum inlet 5 like Kobayashi’s agitator brush 7 so any debris that they direct to the vacuum inlet is captured. Even if Betker’s brushes 46a, 46b “direct debris from the floor surface towards the vacuum inlet” of Betker’s squeegee 58, as the Examiner surmises (see Ans. 4–7), Betker positions the rotary brushes well forward of squeegee 58 and its vacuum inlet because the brushes are used with a liquid cleaning solution that leaves dirty solution on the floor to be recovered by the vacuum squeegee. Betker, 4:25–42, Fig. 1. Kobayashi positions rotary brush 7 inside vacuum inlet 5. Kobayashi thus minimizes the distance over which brush 7 directs debris to vacuum inlet 7. We are not persuaded a skilled artisan would position Betker’s wet brushes 46a, 46b far forward of vacuum inlet 5 in Kobayashi’s dry vacuum. Appeal 2020-006076 Application 15/240,595 8 On this record, the Examiner has not provided sufficient scientific evidence or technical reasoning to support a determination that it would have been obvious to combine Betker’s brushes with Kobayashi to render obvious the claimed subject matter as discussed above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 21 or dependent claims 23–32 and 34–36. Dependent Claims 31, 33, and 37–41 The Examiner relies on Colens, Kawakami, Bisset, Jung, and Canudas de Wit to teach the features of claims 31, 33, and 37–41 (e.g., casters, bump sensor, angled cliff sensors, and wall following PID control) and not to cure any deficiencies of Kobayashi and Betker as to claim 1 from which these claims depend. See Non-Final Act. 8–11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 31, 33, and 37–41. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 25 112 Indefiniteness 25 21, 23–32, 34–36 103(a) Kobayashi, Betker 21, 23–32, 34–36 31 103(a) Kobayashi, Betker, Colens 31 33 103(a) Kobayashi, Betker, Kawakami 33 37, 38 103(a) Kobayashi, Betker, Bisset 37, 38 39–41 103(a) Kobayashi, Betker, Jung, Canudas de Wit 39–41 Overall Outcome 25 21, 23, 24, 26–41 Appeal 2020-006076 Application 15/240,595 9 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART