DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Remarks
Claim Interpretation
The interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are withdrawn in light of Applicant amending the claims such that each term stems from an item having sufficient structure.
For clarity of the record, Examiner notes that interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are not objections as indicated by Applicant.
Examiner additionally notes that Applicant appears to potentially believe that the scope of the claims is significantly altered, however Applicant still frequently uses the term “module”. Examiner notes that these terms which may have previously been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) do not necessarily bear any particular inherent limitation, and furthermore that interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) would only have narrowed, not broadened, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms.
For example, a “communication module” is merely something within the host structure which may arbitrarily be labelled as such without further limitation. As another example, a processor or computer in general may function as any number of “module”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The rejections of the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s cancellation of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejections of the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Examiner notes that Applicant appears to misunderstand the nature of the rejections and possibly believe they were related to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretations. They were not provided due to “the use of functional, generic placeholders”, but instead because they did not recite structure or a clear functional limitation thereof which are the proper forms for limitation of the statutory category of a machine or apparatus (MPEP 2106 and 2114 relate) or had general issues of clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 03/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant has removed those limitations which Wolter was relied upon to some degree in the rejection. Second, Applicant’s amendments do not presently require the hierarchical separation and communication presently argued under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms. Applicant does not clearly and narrowly separate out the particular modules and communication channels in a manner which would render Choi unable to read on the claims. The term “module” is especially broad and carries little to no meaning beyond the function claimed. As another example, the term “server” is not defined and under the plain meaning of the term merely requires that one device processes requests from another device sent over a network and replies to them. Furthermore, Choi discloses more than two robots (see e.g. [0049] “it should be appreciated that the system can include a large number of robots”), thus one robot dictating to another does not render Choi to not read on the limitations for at least several reasons. Thus, Choi alone appears to teach the limitations.
In the interest of compact prosecution as Applicant appears to dispute Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language, the rejection under Wolter is maintained.
Thus, alternatively, and with respect to the combination of Choi and Wolter:
Applicant’s arguments appear to generally amount to that the combination of Choi and Wolter that are not able to be combined for a variety of reasons to teach particular limitations, rather than that the combination of Choi and Wolter do not teach the limitations.
Examiner additionally notes that particular portions of the limitations still appear to be broader than may be intended, though Applicant’s specific arguments do not appear particularly reliant thereon.
First, Applicant indicates that Choi “teaches away from the features of amended Claim 1”, however, Choi is not relied upon individually for these features, and furthermore the argument appears wholly invalid. Choi disclosing a particular distribution of processing resources is not equivalent to Choi teaching away from a particular different distribution of processing resources. Choi does not appear to provide any discussion or disclosure which might be considered as teaching away from a particular different distribution of processing resources with respect to a server, and instead merely provides particular embodiments.
In fact, Choi discloses and refers to some degree to distributed computing in [0189] (e.g. “The control method may be performed only by the controller 1800, or may be performed by the controller 1800 and the terminal 300 or by the controller 1800 and the server 500 depending on the embodiment”) as was pointed out in Examiner’s discussion of the combination of Choi and Wolter found in at least 31. of the previous Office Action which does not appear addressed by Applicant’s arguments here or in later paragraphs.
Applicant’s second argument appears to be that “as Choi requires a robot in the fleet to have the necessary logic for a cleaning operation, combining Choi with Wolter … would not still result in a server-generated cleaning operation plan as required in amended Claim 1”.
First, Applicant fails to show why the combination of Choi and Wolter still requires a particular combination, particularly wherein Applicant’s asserted combination does not appear to fully align with the argued combination provided in Examiner’s rejection.
Second, there is no reason to believe such a requirement exists, particularly in the provided combination of Choi and Wolter. This appears to be an arbitrary requirement alleged by Applicant.
Third, for a robot to perform a cleaning operation, it clearly must have the necessary logic to do so, otherwise it would be unnecessary logic. By the same logic, Applicant would not teach this limitation.
Fourth, Wolter clearly discloses that the system makes operational decisions at higher hierarchical levels for lower hierarchical levels based on polled information. See for example [0035] of Wolter, “For instance, the mid-level controller 120 may be configured to “poll” the low-level controllers 130 and/or 140 for their current states or “status.” … Based on the statuses, sensor data from sensors 150, and/or information from databases 160, the mid-level controller 120 may determine whether to set a new intent for the low-level controllers 130 and/or 140” and [0036] “[0036] Likewise, the high-level controller 110 may be configured to “poll” the mid-level controller 120 for its status. … Based on the statuses, the high-level controller 110 may determine whether to set a new intent for the mid-level controller”.
Fifth, as was explicitly stated in the rejection the combination was “to utilize hierarchical and abstracted levels of command and control as well as fluidly distributed computing as taught by Wolter in the system of Choi”. This clearly includes the argued “server-determined, top-down, hierarchical approach” (Page 11 of Applicant’s Remarks).
Sixth, and generally, Applicant’s remarks appear to amount to ignoring effectively all that Wolter discloses. There is no expectation by one of ordinary skill in the art that a robot of such a combination would not communicate with and would furthermore ignore the hierarchy of the system it belongs to as appears suggested by Applicant’s asserted “required” combinations or stated incompatibilities/teaching away. Wolter is clearly and explicitly directed towards hierarchical robotic fleet management. Choi discloses robots without any disclosure against such management.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the authentication manager configured to”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is furthermore apparent that the limitation is meant to define the authentication manager.
It should therefore read “wherein the authentication manager is configured to” or similar.
Claim 23 does not end with a period. A period should be added to the end of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 5 and 9 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.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “the plurality of cleaning robots are selected from a sweeping robot, a vacuum robot, a scrub robot, a mop robot, a window cleaning robot, a table cleaning robot, a garbage collecting robot, and a cleaning assistant robot”. The claim recites a “system” not a method/process claim. The claim must recite a structural or functional limitation. MPEP 2114 relates. As constructed, this states something which has been done (selecting) and does not clearly limit the scope of the claim. This is especially true in light of limitations directed towards structures configured to receive user input which could comprise a selection, making it unclear if instead the claim meant to cover a function of such a selection. However, it is believed that the intent of the claim is to the plurality of cleaning robots to a particular group of cleaning robots. The form of the claim construction appears to have been chosen similar to that of a Markush claim, however the appropriate language of “selected from the group consisting of” is absent, and furthermore is unsupported by Applicant’s specification (Applicant not disclosing a closed but instead open group). MPEP 2117 relates. Thus, in the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is instead interpreted as reading:
“the plurality of cleaning robots comprise at least one or more of a vacuum robot, a scrub robot, a mop robot, a window cleaning robot, a table cleaning robot, a garbage collecting robot, or a cleaning assistant robot”.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites “the cleaning operation plan using different cleaning robots to execute the cleaning task simultaneously at the multiple cleaning zones”. This phrasing is unclear and the intended scope of the potential limitation similarly unclear.
It should instead recite “wherein the cleaning operation plan further comprises instructions, wherein the instructions when executed cause different cleaning robots to execute the cleaning task simultaneously at the multiple cleaning zones” or similar.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 18, and 20 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by anticipated by Choi (US 20200230806 A1). An alternative rejection is also provided under 35 U.S.C. 103, which also contains this rejection, therefore please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below for details.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 18, and 20 – 23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Choi (US 20200230806 A1) or, in the alternative, Claims 1, 5, 9, 18, and 20 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Wolter et al. (US 20200344293 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Choi teaches:
A system for performing a cleaning task, comprising: -
a processor unit (See at least [0056] “A controller 1800 configured to control the robot cleaner 1” and [0165] “The server 500 may include a processor” at this point. The combination of references does not necessitate the same information flow or processor/controllers),
a plurality of cleaning robots (See at least Figure 5A and [0010] “a method of controlling a plurality of mobile robots having respectively different cleaning types such that the mobile robots efficiently perform cooperative cleaning of the same space”) having respective robot information comprising an operational state of the cleaning robots (Applicant does not claim the nature of “operational state” at this point with any particularity. Almost any communicated information without further narrowing may be considered an “operational state” as even the mere act of communicating indicates an operational state of communicating. Alternatively, see also at least [0156] “exchanging information regarding the traveling states and positions thereof”), at least one of the plurality of cleaning robots comprising a controller module, a cleaning module controlled by the controller module to perform one or more cleaning actions, and a communication module configured to communicate with and to transmit the robot information to the processor unit (See at least Figure 5B); and
a user computing device comprising an app having a user interface (See at least [0051] “The client computer 250 may include an application interface module 251”) configured to receive one or more instructions from a user (See at least [0192] “In detail, referring to FIG. 6, a method of controlling a plurality of mobile robots may include a step of registering a plurality of robot cleaners (S10). The control method may further include, after the step S10, a step of receiving selective input of a cooperative cleaning mode by a user (S20)”, [0195] “In the cooperative cleaning selection step S20, the user may select a cooperative cleaning mode using the terminal 300”, and [0199] “when the terminal 300 gives instructions to the first robot cleaner 100a and the second robot cleaner 100b through the network”) and a communication module configured to communicate with the processor unit (See at least Figure 5B), wherein the instructions from the user comprises at least an area to be cleaned (See at least [0105] “The input device 1200 may receive various control commands regarding the mobile robot from a user. The input device 1200 may include one or more buttons, for example, a verification button, a setting button, and the like. The verification button may be a button for receiving a command for checking detection information, obstacle information, position information, and map information from the user, and the setting button may be a button for receiving, from the user, a command for setting the aforementioned pieces of information”) and cleaning robots selected (See at least [0192] “registering a plurality of robot cleaners (S10)” and [0195] “The step S30 may include a robot cleaner selection step S30 of selecting a plurality of cooperating robot cleaners to perform cooperative cleaning among the registered robot cleaners”);
wherein the processor unit is a server (See at least Figure 5B) and the processor unit comprises:
- a robot registration module configured to receive the robot information received from the plurality of cleaning robots (See data path illustrated in Figure 5B),
- a user input register configured to receive and store the instructions from the user (See at least data path illustrated in Figure 5B);
- a hierarchy generation module configured to determine a hierarchy state for each of the plurality of cleaning robots based on the robot information and the instructions from the user (Applicant does not claim the nature of the determination or the hierarchy state with any particularity.
See at least [0033] “a method of controlling a plurality of mobile robots including a first mobile robot and a second mobile robot configured to perform a different type of cleaning operation from the first mobile robot, the method including detecting, by the first mobile robot, whether a liquid is present in a cleaning area, moving the first mobile robot to the vicinity of the second mobile robot upon finishing cleaning the cleaning area, excluding a liquid region, upon detecting that a liquid is present, transmitting, by the first mobile robot, a follow command to the second mobile robot and moving the first mobile robot to the liquid region, upon receiving the follow command, controlling the second mobile robot to follow the first mobile robot to the liquid region, and cleaning, by the second mobile robot, a predetermined region near the first mobile robot after the first mobile robot arrives at the liquid region); and
- a task planning module configured to generate a cleaning operation plan based on at least the hierarchy state determined for each of the plurality of cleaning apparatus and the cleaning task, wherein the cleaning operation plan comprises multiple cleaning operation layers defining an operation sequence for the cleaning robot to perform different cleaning actions (Inherent without further definition. See at least [0010] “a plurality of mobile robots having respectively different cleaning types”) according to the hierarchy state (Applicant does not claim “according to the hierarchy state” with any particularity.
See at least [0192] “selecting one of a plurality of cooperation modes (S30)”, [0231] “After finishing cleaning the liquid region A1, the second mobile robot 100b may perform cleaning while traveling after the first mobile robot 100a (S165). Specifically, when the second mobile robot 100b receives a signal for continuously cleaning the cleaning area from the first mobile robot 100a or when the first mobile robot 100a travels away from the liquid region A1, the second mobile robot 100b may perform cooperative cleaning while following the first mobile robot 100a”, and [0232] “In order to realize this following/cooperative cleaning operation, a cooperation scenario may be generated such that the total traveling route or the total traveling time of the first and second mobile robots 100a and 100b is minimized, using a shortest-route algorithm, such as a Dijkstra algorithm or an A* (A-star) algorithm, based on the detected positions relative to each other. Alternatively, a cooperation scenario may be generated such that the first mobile robot 100a and the second mobile robot 100b separately clean the divided cleaning regions respectively assigned thereto based on the cleaning priorities of the plurality of divided regions and the SoC of the batteries of the first and second mobile robots 100a and 100b”).
While Examiner believes that Choi sufficiently discloses the limitations due to broad construction and unstructured nature of the limitations (see e.g. frequent use of the term “module” and lack of narrowing limitations structurally separating particular “modules” from one another in light of the other Examiner notes and comments provided above within the rejection. In the computing arts the term “module” is effectively no more than a convenient labelling tool without further definition), as these features are considered well-known and routine to robotic fleet management and distributed computing Examiner provides reference Wolter in the interest of compact prosecution which very clearly and explicitly teaches these limitations using the perspective argued by Applicant (“levels of abstraction”, See page 13 of Applicant’s Remarks filed 10/03/2025 or “server-determined, top-down, hierarchical approach”):
… wherein the processor unit is a server and the processor unit comprises …
Wherein the server performs the recited functions, comprises the recited modules, etc. dictated to the robots top-down, hierarchically, etc. as argued.
(See at least [0030] FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example robotic control system 100. The robotic control system 100 may be configured to control any of a number types of robotic and/or mobile devices, such as industrial robots, medical robots, autonomous vehicles, drones, home assistants, etc. As shown, the robotic control system 100 includes one or more controllers, such as controllers 110, 120, 130, 140, one or more sensors 150, and one or more databases 160. The controllers of the robotic control system 100 may be configured as a hierarchy. For instance, controller 110 may be a high-level controller, controller 120 may be a mid-level controller, and controllers 130 and 140 may be low-level controllers. The controllers may be configured to communicate with each other in order to control one or more robots to complete various tasks. By way of example only, the high-level controller 110 may be an Enterprise Resource Management controller of a warehouse that manages a fleet of robots for completing various tasks. By way of another example, the high-level controller 110 may receive via a user interface an input from a user (e.g., a worker in the warehouse) including high-level commands. The mid-level controller 120 may be a motion planner for a particular robot. The low-level controllers 130, 140 may be configured to actuate mechanical and/or electrical components of the robot” and Figure 1 including arrow titled “level of abstraction” as well as [0041] “Controllers of a robotic control system, such as those shown in FIG. 1, may be distributed on the distributed system 200. For example, one or more high-level controllers, such as the high-level controller 110, and one or more mid-level controllers, such as the mid-level controller 120, may be implemented by one or more processors in a cloud computing system, such as by processors 212, 222 of server computers 210, 220”. Finally, see [0037] which indicates that the number of hierarchical level of control is arbitrary),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize hierarchical and abstracted levels of command and control as well as fluidly distributed computing as taught by Wolter in the system of Choi with a reasonable expectation of success. Choi already discloses distributed computing to some degree (See [0189]) as well as task assignment at increasing levels of specificity (See for example [0190] – [0198]). As provided in the background of Wolter ([0001]), “A robotic control system typically includes a hierarchy of controllers working in a message-driven scheme” and using cloud distributed resources of this kind can mitigate issues such as network reliability.
Regarding Claim 5, Choi, or the combination of Choi and Wolter teaches:
The system according to claim 1,
Choi further teaches:
wherein the plurality of cleaning robots are selected from a sweeping robot, a vacuum robot, a scrub robot, a mop robot, a window cleaning robot, a table cleaning robot, a garbage collecting robot, and a cleaning assistant robot. (See at least [0170] “the first mobile robot 100a may be a dry-type cleaner configured to suction dust from the floor to be cleaned, and the second mobile robot 100b may be a wet-type cleaner configured to mop the floor that has been cleaned by the first mobile robot 100a”. Exmainer furthermore notes that per [0043] of Applicant’s originally filed specification, this is a matter of labelling based on capability (“Based on the cleaning action that a particular cleaning apparatus 100 is capable of, the cleaning apparatus 100 can be referred to as …”). A particular robot may be more than one of these and no clear structural distinction is inherently required).
Regarding Claim 9, Choi, or the combination of Choi and Wolter teaches:
The system according to claim 1,
Choi further teaches:
wherein the task planning module is further configured to consider time factor and zone information to (indicates a clear intent or purpose in this construction and context and not a positively recited limitation) divide the cleaning area to multiple cleaning zones for (further indicates a clear intent or purpose in this construction and context and not a positively recited limitation) generating the cleaning operation plan, the cl (See at least [0232] “In order to realize this following/cooperative cleaning operation, a cooperation scenario may be generated such that the total traveling route or the total traveling time of the first and second mobile robots 100a and 100b is minimized, using a shortest-route algorithm, such as a Dijkstra algorithm or an A* (A-star) algorithm, based on the detected positions relative to each other. Alternatively, a cooperation scenario may be generated such that the first mobile robot 100a and the second mobile robot 100b separately clean the divided cleaning regions respectively assigned thereto based on the cleaning priorities of the plurality of divided regions and the SoC of the batteries of the first and second mobile robots 100a and 100b”) the cleaning operation plan using different cleaning robots to execute the cleaning task simultaneously at the multiple cleaning zones (See again above in the context of at least [0231] and general context being directed to “cooperative cleaning”).
Regarding Claim 18, Choi, or the combination of Choi and Wolter teaches:
The system according to claim 1,
Choi further teaches:
wherein the hierarchy generation module is configured to determine a hierarchy state for each of the plurality of cleaning robots based on infrastructure or environmental information of the area to be cleaned in addition to robot information (See at least [0022] “detecting, by the first mobile robot, whether a liquid is present in a cleaning area”, [0184] “[0184] Each obstacle map may be implemented in the form of a 2D or 3D image or a grid map of the designated space”, and [0232] “a cooperation scenario may be generated such that the first mobile robot 100a and the second mobile robot 100b separately clean the divided cleaning regions respectively assigned thereto based on the cleaning priorities of the plurality of divided regions and the SoC of the batteries of the first and second mobile robots 100a and 100b”).
Regarding Claim 20, Choi, or the combination of Choi and Wolter teaches:
The system according to claim 1,
Choi further teaches:
wherein the at least one cleaning robot further comprises a personality module configured to adjust the behavior of the cleaning robot according to a state of the apparatus (Based on Applicant’s disclosure, this appears to refer to robot behavior. See at least [0056] of Applicant’s specification “a personality (i.e. the robot behavior)”. Applicant does not appear to define or describe “behavior”. Consequently, this is an especially broad limitation as the term “behavior” may merely mean “operation” or similar. See at least e.g. [0135] “The controller 1800 may determine the state of a cliff detected by the cliff sensor and may determine whether the mobile robot is capable of passing over the cliff based on the result of determining the state of the cliff. In one example, the controller 1800 may determine the presence or absence of a cliff and the depth of a cliff using the cliff sensor and may allow the mobile robot to pass over the cliff only when the cliff sensor senses a reflection signal”).
Regarding Claim 21, Choi, or the combination of Choi and Wolter teaches:
The system according to claim 20,
Choi further teaches:
The system according to claim 20, wherein the personality module is configured to receive commands from a personality generator embedded at the processor unit to determine a personality for the cleaning robot (See again Claim 20 discussion).
Regarding Claim 22, Choi, or the combination of Choi and Wolter teaches:
The system according to claim 1,
Choi further teaches:
wherein the plurality of cleaning robots comprises different types of cleaning apparatus each performing a different cleaning action (See at least [0010] “a plurality of mobile robots having respectively different cleaning types”).
Regarding Claim 23, Choi, or the combination of Choi and Wolter teaches:
The system according to claim 1,
Choi further teaches:
wherein each operation layer corresponds to a time period during which one cleaning action is to be performed (The nature of “corresponds to” is not claimed. Furthermore, the claim does not specify that the time period is a different time period. Furthermore, the nature of an “operation layer” is not even claimed. Thus, this limitation is especially broad. All operations are performed with respect to a particular time period and thus this appears inherent without particularly claiming any of the limitations involved.
Alternatively, see at least [0232] “a cooperation scenario may be generated such that the total traveling route or the total traveling time of the first and second mobile robots 100a and 100b is minimized” and ).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi or Choi in view of Wolter et al., in view of Knuepfel et al. (US 20200114523 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Choi and Wolter teaches:
The system according to claim 1, …
Choi further teaches:
a robot database configured to store the robot information (See at least [0114] “The memory 1700 may store a control program for controlling or driving the mobile robot and data corresponding thereto. The memory 1700 may store audio information, image information, obstacle information, position information, map information, and the like. In addition, the memory 1700 may store information related to a traveling pattern”)
…
Choi or Choi in combination with Wolter does not teach, but in combination with Knuepfel teaches:
wherein the processor unit further comprises an authentication manager connected to [a robot database configured to store the robot information], the authentication manager configured to search and retrieve the robot information of a particular cleaning robot for authentication
(See at least [0144] “FIG. 18 is a flow chart that illustrates a workflow for placing an order by the user, e.g., via a touchscreen on the kiosk or native app on the user's mobile computing device. … If the user does not have an account, at block 228, the user may be asked to register with the device app via a social networking account of the user, a phone number, email address, etc. In some embodiments, the user may be asked to enter a confirmation code that is sent to the user. The validity of the confirmation code entered by the user may be checked by the device app in order to complete the user registration process” and [0182] “Those skilled in the art will appreciate that computer system 1000 is merely illustrative and is not intended to limit the scope of the techniques described herein. Computer system 1000 may include any combination of devices or software that may perform or otherwise provide for the performance of the techniques described herein. For example, computer system 1000 may include or be a combination of a cloud-computing system, a data center, a server rack, a server, a virtual server, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a server device, a client device, a mobile telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile audio or video player, a game console, a vehicle-mounted computer, or a Global Positioning System (GPS), or the like”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Choi or the combination of Choi and Wolter to incorporate the teachings of Knuepfel to authenticate a user using a One-Time Password (OTP) or similar scheme as disclosed with a reasonable expectation of success. Choi already discloses the requirement of “product registration” prior to operation in [0193], [0194], and Figure 6 (S10 “Register Robot Cleaners”). It is well-known, routine, and conventional for product and account registration and association to occur via a OTP or similar scheme as disclosed in Knuepfel in order to authenticate ownership, shared location before operation, etc.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi or Choi in view of Wolter et al, in view of OpenDSA (OpenDSA Data Structures and Algorithms Modules Collection, Chapter 14 File Processing, 14.3. Disk Drives, written Mar 5, 2017).
Regarding Claim 4, Choi, or the combination of Choi and Wolter teaches:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the processor unit further comprises a data clustering unit for managing the inflow and outflow of data between the processor unit and the plurality of cleaning apparatus (See at least Figure 5B)
This is considered inherent knowledge or claimed so broadly that Choi still teaches the limitation, but in the interest of compact prosecution see also OpenDSA as evidence of this fact:
by routing information received from the cleaning apparatus to contiguous groups of sectors in one or more disks or databases of the processor unit (Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure while supporting this limitation, does not appear to provide what this limitation actually means. Furthermore, the claim merely recites “routing” not “writing”, “reading”, “storing” etc. and is thus especially broad. Thus, it is Examiner’s best understanding that what is referred to in the disclosure is inherent common knowledge to one of ordinary skill in the art of disk and database management, and that what is claimed at most refers to the database or a disk having something which might be arbitrarily labelled groups of sectors which is inherent due to the arbitrary nature.
More specifically, see at least page 2, “Contiguous sectors are often grouped to form a cluster. A cluster is the smallest unit of allocation for a file, so all files are a multiple of the cluster size. The cluster size is determined by the operating system. The file manager keeps track of which clusters make up each file”).
If not already considered inherent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a contiguous data allocation strategy as taught by OpenDSA in the system of Choi or Choi in combination with Wolter with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 19, Choi, or the combination of Choi, Wolter, and OpenDSA teaches:
The system according to claim 4,
Choi further teaches:
further comprising a data logger which receives raw sensor data from the cleaning robot via the data clustering unit (The nature of the data logger is not claimed with any particularity. Therefore, the claim appears to merely recite that at least some raw sensor data from the cleaning robot is stored in temporary or permanent storage. See at least “image data captured by the optical flow sensor over time” and [0149] “The communication interface 1100 may transmit and receive data to and from another device present within a specific region”. Examiner furthermore notes that the recording of data with respect to time, location, etc. is well known and routine in the art of data gathering).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takaoka et al. (US 20190298134 A1) recited in previous Office Actions with respect to general and user specified operation parameters.
High et al. (US 20190389074 A1) which discloses task assignment management.
Beth et al. (US 20190235488 A1) which discloses robotic fleet management.
Williams et al. (US 20180361585 A1) which discloses robotic cleaning fleet management.
Kleiner et al . (US 20180074508 A1) which discloses robotic cleaning including various selectable operational characteristics of said cleaning by a user.
Jang et al. (US 20100312388 A1) which discloses mission planning and control of a robotic fleet.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights