IP &The PCT Application 

Summary of the examiner’s written opinion:

• The claims (12, 13, 26 and 17) relating to the recharging robot (that follows the working robot around) have been found patentable. 

• The claim (7) relating to the spreader roller being able to spread right up against a wall was also found to be patentable

• The remaining claims were rejected by the examiner based primarily on the following citations:

  • D1: (Drones 2020) https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200002000A1/en

  • D2 (Drones 352): https://patents.google.com/patent/US10011352B1/en

• The fact that the examiner did not cite any floor robot related publications may be seen as a positive indication.  It therefore seems as though the floor coating robot may be patentable with the current claims even though this specific examiner rejected the claims. 

• Alternatively, we could potentially amend claim 1 to overcome the prior art:

  • An automated coating material laying system comprising: a mobile floor laying robot (FLR) configured for laying of a coating material on a surface floor and including a mobile storage container configured to store and mix constituent materials; and a docking station configured for filling the FLR with constituent coating materials for use by the FLR for coating the surface.

• Since we are in the PCT (international) phase of the application, the generally accepted practice is not to respond to the examiner, however, I believe that we have a strong case against the references cited, should these references be used in the National phases.  Some examples of arguments against the examiner used in conjunction with the amended claims. 

  • D1 and D2 relate to drones and do not mention coating of floors at all

  • No mention is made of use of epoxies or mixed fast drying materials

  • The drones require feeding from  “umbilical” cords and the storage containers are thus not mobile

  • The Examiner’s comparison of paint areas covered by the drones to uneven surfaces coated by the floor robot is not appropriate. 

  • The fact that claim 7 was found patentable is a good indication that the drones are not suitable for floor work. 

• Regarding claims 31-38 relating to the “3d printing” robot:  Due to Unity of Invention rules, these claims were considered by the Examiner to be a second invention and therefore were not examined.  We have requested and paid for examination of these claims but have still not received a response from the USPTO.