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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation of “the mobile cleaning robot communicating with the controller of the robot docking station” is unnecessarily verbose, as claim 1 introduces only one mobile cleaning robot. Consider ––the mobile cleaning robot––. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: image analysis module and communication module in claim 1, optical components in claims 9 and 20, and light source in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-18, 21-29, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi et al. (US 10788836, "Ebrahimi") in view of Komorida et al. (US PGPub 2019/0391589, "Komorida").
1. Ebrahimi teaches a robot docking station comprising:
a housing (501, see Ebrahimi fig. 6a); and
a platform defined in the housing, the platform configured to receive a mobile cleaning robot in a docking position (robot 500 is received on platform inside 501, see Ebrahimi fig. 6a); and
a communication module (robot and charging station communicate with user devices such as cell phones, see Ebrahimi 161:38-162:38) configured to transmit first data and second data to a remote computing device (processor transmits information that may include notifying a customer related to maintenance problems, see Ebrahimi 147:31-65).
Ebrahimi does not explicitly teach that the transmitted second data is representative of a second maintenance alert corresponding to at least one of an occurrence of a predetermined number of docking events or an occurrence of a predetermined number of evacuation operations.
However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Ebrahimi does teach that robots may encounter problems including an object wrapped around a component of the mobile cleaning robot (issues such as entanglement, see Ebrahimi 210:8-20, 18:40-52, or 92:20-23); that a robot may return to a charging station in response to a detected issue such as a voltage drop (see Ebrahimi 147:66-148:17); that a central interface may be used to collect data from robots such as work sessions and bin empties (see Ebrahimi 211:9-38); that the robot may diagnose and report defined events (such as errors with brushes, see Ebrahimi 218:27-46); that the robot may communicate with the charging station after a predetermined metric such as a number of working sessions (see Ebrahimi 20:31-46); and that the robot may inform a user via a central controller when it has completed a cleaning task (see Ebrahimi 153:7-12).
One of ordinary skill would understand these teachings from Ebrahimi as implicitly disclosing that the docking station could be configured to act as a central interface with a communication module configured to transmit data related to operational status and problems associated with a robot, such as when it has docked to charge or empty a bin (i.e., the occurrence of a single docking event or evacuation operation), which would qualify as "data representative of a second maintenance alert corresponding to at least one of an occurrence of a predetermined number of docking events or an occurrence of a predetermined number of evacuation operations."
Ebrahimi does not teach the presence of a camera disposed in the platform, the camera configured to capture imagery of an underside of the mobile cleaning robot, wherein the captured imagery is processed by an image analysis module to detect a maintenance condition comprising: an object wrapped around a component of the mobile cleaning robot, or debris obstructing an evacuation opening of the mobile cleaning robot; or that the communication module configured to transmit first data to a remote computing device, wherein the transmitted first data is representative of a first maintenance alert that corresponds to the detected maintenance condition.
However, Komorida teaches a robot docking station comprising:
a housing (outer portion of 100, see Komorida figs. 7-8); and
a platform defined in the housing (surface 101, see Komorida fig. 8), the platform configured to receive a mobile robot in a docking position (robot 1 on platform 101, see Komorida fig. 8).
a camera disposed in the platform, the camera configured to capture imagery of an underside of the mobile cleaning robot (second captured image acquisition unit looks upward from 101 to capture a bottom surface of the robot, see Komorida [0116]-[0117]), wherein the captured imagery is processed by an image analysis module to detect a maintenance condition (diagnosis unit determines the presence of a damaged robot housing or mowing blade based on captured images, see Komorida [0117]); and
a communication module configured to transmit data to a remote computing device, wherein the transmitted data is representative of a maintenance alert that corresponds to the maintenance condition (diagnosis unit 36 includes a communication module to transmit diagnosis information to an announcement unit, see Komorida [0117]-[0118]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Komorida regarding a robot docking station having upward-facing cameras and an image diagnostic module with the docking station for a cleaning robot of Ebrahimi, such that the resulting system included a camera disposed in the platform, the camera configured to capture imagery of an underside of the mobile cleaning robot, wherein the captured imagery is processed by an image analysis module to detect a maintenance condition comprising: an object wrapped around a component of the mobile cleaning robot, or debris obstructing an evacuation opening of the mobile cleaning robot; and wherein the communication module was further configured to transmit first data to a remote computing device, wherein the transmitted first data is representative of a first maintenance alert that corresponds to the detected maintenance condition, as doing so would provide a user with diagnostic information such as something wrapped around a component located on a difficult-to-see place such as the bottom face of the robot (see Komorida [0119]).
2. Ebrahimi as modified by Komorida teaches the robot docking station of claim 1, wherein the camera captures the imagery of the underside of the mobile cleaning robot while the mobile cleaning robot is in the docking position (Komorida teaches that the camera captures still or moving images of the robot, the camera would be capable of capturing the imagery while the cleaning robot is in the station or is in the process of arriving in the station, see Komorida [0116]-[0117]).
3. Ebrahimi as modified by Komorida teaches the robot docking station of claim 1, wherein the camera captures the imagery of the underside of the mobile cleaning robot while the mobile cleaning robot navigates onto the platform (Komorida teaches that the camera captures still or moving images of the robot, the camera would be capable of capturing the imagery while the cleaning robot is on the platform or is in the process of arriving on the platform, see Komorida [0116]-[0117]).
Regarding claims 4-7, Ebrahimi as modified by Komorida teaches the robot docking station of claim 1, wherein the camera captures a first image of the underside of the mobile cleaning robot while the robot is positioned at a first location on the platform; wherein the camera captures a second image of the underside of the mobile cleaning robot while the robot is positioned at a second location on the platform; and wherein the first image corresponds to a first component on an undercarriage of the mobile cleaning robot and the second image corresponds to a second component on the undercarriage of the mobile cleaning robot.
Specifically, Komorida teaches that the camera captures moving images of the robot. Such moving images would involve the robot being positioned at multiple locations on the platform, including at least a first location and a second location. Further, Komorida teaches that the diagnosis unit determines the state of multiple components—the mower blade and the housing—based on the captured images, see Komorida [0116]-[0117]). Although Komorida does not explicitly teach that the first image corresponds to a first component on an undercarriage of the mobile cleaning robot and the second image corresponds to a second component on the undercarriage of the mobile cleaning robot, it does teach that the captured images are compared "with replacement limit images that show replacement limit states of corresponding components, and [the diagnosis unit] determines that a component requires replacement if that component has deteriorated (is worn or damaged) beyond the replacement limit state." A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have understood this to mean that each captured image was associated with a component such that they could be compared to a relevant "replacement limit image." It would have consequently been obvious to such a person that there should be a first image corresponding to a first component on the undercarriage and that there should be a second image corresponding to a second component on the undercarriage.
8. Ebrahimi as modified by Komorida teaches the robot docking station of claim 1, wherein a field of view of the camera is sufficiently wide to capture imagery of a full width of the mobile cleaning robot (As applicant has not positively claimed the relative location of camera and robot, the camera would be capable of capturing imagery of a full width of a mobile cleaning unit that was located a sufficient distance away from the camera).
9. Ebrahimi as modified by Komorida teaches the robot docking station of claim 1, further comprising one or more optical components configured to increase an effective field of view of the camera (Ebrahimi teaches the use of varied lenses to adjust field of view of a camera, implementing such teachings in the combined device would be obvious as a matter of optimizing the desired types of sensing and desired function to provide a better user experience, see Ebrahimi 9:42-66).
10. Ebrahimi as modified by Komorida teaches the robot docking station of claim 1, further comprising a light source configured to illuminate the underside of the mobile cleaning robot (Ebrahimi teaches the use of light sources in conjunction with image sensors to illuminate surfaces within the field of view of that sensor, see Ebrahimi 94:32-37).
12. Ebrahimi as modified by Komorida teaches the robot docking station of claim 1, but does not teach that the component of the mobile cleaning robot is a roller brush, a side brush, or a wheel (Komorida teaches that one of the components is a blade to be replaced when damaged or worn, see Komorida [0117]). However, Ebrahimi teaches the presence of a roller brush made from brush blades on an underside of the cleaning robot (brush 1302, see Ebrahimi fig. 18a-18h) and further teaches that the blades may be replaced when worn (see Ebrahimi 19:2:4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined device such that the component is a roller brush, as doing so represents the use of a known technique (monitoring a replaceable component on an underside of a robot for wear) to improve similar devices in the same way and the resulting robot docking station would be predictable to a person of ordinary skill.
13. Ebrahimi as modified by Komorida teaches the robot docking station of claim 1, wherein the transmitted data is representative of the imagery captured by the camera (transmitted data from diagnostic unit is based on the camera imagery, see Komorida [0116]-[0117]).
15. Ebrahimi as modified by Komorida teaches the robot docking station of claim 1, but but does not explicitly teach that the communication module is configured to transmit third data to the remote computing device, wherein the transmitted third data is representative of an end-of-life of a battery of the mobile cleaning robot.
However, Ebrahimi does further that the system transmits information that "may be used to identify problems the robot has faced or is currently facing", that the information may be used to detect "if a consumable part of the robot is facing an issue before the anticipated life time of the part," (see Ebrahimi 147:31-51), and that the robot may include a battery monitoring subsystem that may determine if the battery is losing power faster than normal (i.e. that the battery is defective or reaching end-of-life, see Ebrahimi 147:66-148:17). It would have been be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate these additional teachings into the combined device such that communication module was configured to transmit third data to the remote computing device, wherein the transmitted third data is representative of an end-of-life of a battery of the mobile cleaning robot, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements (end-of-life battery alerts and a charging station that transmits data) according to known prior art methods and the resulting invention would be predictable to a person of ordinary skill.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Ebrahimi as modified by Komorida teaches the robot docking station of claim 1, but does not teach that the communication module is configured to receive, from the remote computing device, an acknowledgment that a user has viewed the underside of the mobile cleaning robot or that the communication module is configured to transmit a signal to the mobile cleaning robot to prevent the mobile cleaning robot from executing a cleaning operation until the acknowledgment is received.
However, Ebrahimi teaches that the remote computing device is configured to receive user inputs for a variety of matters including mapping, cleaning schedules, adjusting cleaning preferences such as suction power, commanding a robot to return for recharging, etc.; as well as providing user information such as historical cleaning data and status of a robot (see Ebrahimi 210:45-211:32). Further, Ebrahimi teaches that the brush blades (one of the components potentially in need of replacement) are located on the underside of the robot such that viewing the underside would be a necessary part of removing material from the blades (see Ebrahimi figs. 18a-19b and 18:28-19:42).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the combined invention of Ebrahimi and Komorida such that the communication module on the docking station is configured to transmit a signal to the robot to prevent it from activating during the process of a user replacing the brush blades and to not transmit a reactivation signal to the robot until receiving acknowledgment from the user that the brush blades had been replaced. Or in other words, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined device of Ebrahimi and Komorida such that the communication module was configured to receive, from the remote computing device, an acknowledgment that a user has viewed the underside of the mobile cleaning robot and the communication module was further configured to transmit a signal to the mobile cleaning robot to prevent the mobile cleaning robot from executing a cleaning operation until the acknowledgment is received, as a person of ordinary skill would understand as doing so would prevent the robot from activating unexpectedly while a user was replacing a damaged component such as a brush blade, which would make such a replacement more difficult and could lead to damage to both the robot and the device.
Further, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). A person of ordinary skill would reasonably infer from the teachings in Ebrahimi regarding user commands to a robot (e.g., telling a robot to pause cleaning, Ebrahimi 49:20-36; user ability to designate the use and power of various subsystems and tools, see Ebrahimi 203:31-204:25) and the need to replace or clean certain parts on a an underside of the robot (see Ebrahimi 18:28-19:42), that Ebrahimi suggests a remote device that is capable of enabling/disabling various functionality relating to cleaning operations such that the robot includes a communication module configured to receive a variety of acknowledgments relating to user inputs and to avoid activating certain cleaning-related tasks until receiving authorization to do so in the form of a user acknowledgment.
31. Ebrahimi as modified teaches the robot docking station of claim 1, wherein the component having something wrapped around the mobile cleaning robot is a roller brush or a side brush (Ebrahimi teaches that robots may encounter problems including an object wrapped around a component located on an underside of the mobile cleaning robot, see Ebrahimi 18:28-19:42; Ebrahimi further teaches that brushes are known to become entangled, see Ebrahimi 137:54-67; one of ordinary skill would understand this to be implicitly teaching monitoring a condition such as entanglement, see MPEP 2144.01).
32. Ebrahimi as modified teaches the robot docking station of claim 1, comprising a controller (charging station may include a processor, see Ebrahimi 148:18-25) configured to detect the one or more issues associated with the mobile cleaning robot communicating with the controller of the robot docking station by detecting at least one of:
(i) an absence of communication between the mobile cleaning robot with the controller of the robot docking station despite the mobile cleaning robot being docked with the robot docking station (charging station detects a failure of the battery to charge when docked, i.e. a failure of communicating electrical power, see Ebrahimi 16:43-64),
(ii) a current draw amount that satisfies a threshold value during rotation of a drive wheel of the mobile cleaning robot (monitoring current draw for a variety of reasons, including a correlation between excessive draw and entanglement, see Ebrahimi 137:54-67 and 210:8-20;),
(iii) an absence of change in a level of debris within a cleaning bin of the mobile cleaning robot or a canister of the robot docking station, or
(iv) an air flow rate or an air pressure rate that satisfies another threshold value.
18. Ebrahimi teaches a robot cleaning system comprising:
a mobile cleaning robot (cleaning robot, see Ebrahimi fig. 3) comprising:
a drive operable to move the mobile cleaning robot across a floor surface (drive wheels 201, see Ebrahimi 13:26-67),
a cleaning assembly configured to clean the floor surface (brushes 200 and 203, see Ebrahimi 13:26-67 and fig. 3), and
a debris bin (related robots include dustbins 300, see Ebrahimi figs. 4a-4g, or an unlabeled dustbin being emptied by a station, see Ebrahimi fig. 6b and 14:51-15:2); and
a robot docking station (see Ebrahimi fig. 6a) comprising:
a housing (501, see Ebrahimi fig. 6a); and
a platform defined in the housing, the platform configured to receive a mobile cleaning robot in a docking position (robot 500 is received on platform inside 501, see Ebrahimi fig. 6a); and
a communication module (robot and charging station communicate with user devices such as cell phones, see Ebrahimi 161:38-162:38) configured to transmit first data and second data to a remote computing device (processor transmits information that may include notifying a customer related to maintenance problems, see Ebrahimi 147:31-65).
Ebrahimi does not explicitly teach that the transmitted second data is representative of a second maintenance alert corresponding to at least one of an occurrence of a predetermined number of docking events or an occurrence of a predetermined number of evacuation operations.
However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Ebrahimi does teach that robots may encounter problems including an object wrapped around a component of the mobile cleaning robot (issues such as entanglement, see Ebrahimi 210:8-20, 18:40-52, or 92:20-23); that a robot may return to a charging station in response to a detected issue such as a voltage drop (see Ebrahimi 147:66-148:17); that a central interface may be used to collect data from robots such as work sessions and bin empties (see Ebrahimi 211:9-38); that the robot may diagnose and report defined events (such as errors with brushes, see Ebrahimi 218:27-46); that the robot may communicate with the charging station after a predetermined metric such as a number of working sessions (see Ebrahimi 20:31-46); and that the robot may inform a user via a central controller when it has completed a cleaning task (see Ebrahimi 153:7-12).
One of ordinary skill would understand these teachings from Ebrahimi as implicitly disclosing that the docking station could be configured to act as a central interface with a communication module configured to transmit data related to operational status and problems associated with a robot, such as when it has docked to charge or empty a bin (i.e., the occurrence of a single docking event or evacuation operation), which would qualify as "data representative of a second maintenance alert corresponding to at least one of an occurrence of a predetermined number of docking events or an occurrence of a predetermined number of evacuation operations."
Ebrahimi does not teach the presence of a camera disposed in the platform, the camera configured to capture imagery of an underside of the mobile cleaning robot, wherein the captured imagery is processed by an image analysis module to detect a maintenance condition comprising: an object wrapped around a component of the mobile cleaning robot, or debris obstructing an evacuation opening of the mobile cleaning robot; or that the communication module configured to transmit first data to a remote computing device, wherein the transmitted first data is representative of a first maintenance alert that corresponds to the detected maintenance condition.
However, Komorida teaches a robot docking station comprising:
a housing (outer portion of 100, see Komorida figs. 7-8); and
a platform defined in the housing (surface 101, see Komorida fig. 8), the platform configured to receive a mobile robot in a docking position (robot 1 on platform 101, see Komorida fig. 8).
a camera disposed in the platform, the camera configured to capture imagery of an underside of the mobile cleaning robot (second captured image acquisition unit looks upward from 101 to capture a bottom surface of the robot, see Komorida [0116]-[0117]), wherein the captured imagery is processed by an image analysis module to detect a maintenance condition (diagnosis unit determines the presence of a damaged robot housing or mowing blade based on captured images, see Komorida [0117]); and
a communication module configured to transmit data to a remote computing device, wherein the transmitted data is representative of a maintenance alert that corresponds to the maintenance condition (diagnosis unit 36 includes a communication module to transmit diagnosis information to an announcement unit, see Komorida [0117]-[0118]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Komorida regarding a robot docking station having upward-facing cameras and an image diagnostic module with the docking station for a cleaning robot of Ebrahimi, such that the resulting system included a camera disposed in the platform, the camera configured to capture imagery of an underside of the mobile cleaning robot, wherein the captured imagery is processed by an image analysis module to detect a maintenance condition comprising: an object wrapped around a component of the mobile cleaning robot, or debris obstructing an evacuation opening of the mobile cleaning robot; and wherein the communication module was further configured to transmit first data to a remote computing device, wherein the transmitted first data is representative of a first maintenance alert that corresponds to the detected maintenance condition, as doing so would provide a user with diagnostic information such as something wrapped around a component located on a difficult-to-see place such as the bottom face of the robot (see Komorida [0119]).
21. Ebrahimi as modified by Komorida teaches the robot cleaning system of claim 18, wherein the camera is disposed in the platform of the robot docking station (Komorida as used to modify Ebrahimi teaches that the second captured image acquisition unit looks upward from bottom of docking station 101 to capture a bottom surface of the robot, see Komorida [0116]-[0117]).
22. Ebrahimi as modified by Komorida teaches the robot cleaning system of claim 18, wherein the camera captures the imagery of the underside of the mobile cleaning robot while the mobile cleaning robot is in the docking position (Komorida teaches that the camera captures still or moving images of the robot, the camera would be capable of capturing the imagery while the cleaning robot is in the station or is in the process of arriving in the station, see Komorida [0116]-[0117]).
23. Ebrahimi as modified by Komorida teaches the robot cleaning system of claim 18, wherein the camera captures the imagery of the underside of the mobile cleaning robot while the mobile cleaning robot navigates onto the platform (Komorida teaches that the camera captures still or moving images of the robot, the camera would be capable of capturing the imagery while the cleaning robot is on the platform or is in the process of arriving on the platform, see Komorida [0116]-[0117]).
Regarding claims 24-27, Ebrahimi as modified by Komorida teaches the robot cleaning system of claim 18, wherein the camera captures a first image of the underside of the mobile cleaning robot while the robot is positioned at a first location on the platform; wherein the camera captures a second image of the underside of the mobile cleaning robot while the robot is positioned at a second location on the platform; and wherein the first image corresponds to a first component on an undercarriage of the mobile cleaning robot and the second image corresponds to a second component on the undercarriage of the mobile cleaning robot.
Specifically, Komorida teaches that the camera captures moving images of the robot. Such moving images would involve the robot being positioned at multiple locations on the platform, including at least a first location and a second location. Further, Komorida teaches that the diagnosis unit determines the state of two separate components—the mower blade and the housing—based on the captured images, see Komorida [0116]-[0117]). Although Komorida does not explicitly teach that the first image corresponds to a first component on an undercarriage of the mobile cleaning robot and the second image corresponds to a second component on the undercarriage of the mobile cleaning robot, it does teach that the captured images are compared "with replacement limit images that show replacement limit states of corresponding components, and [the diagnosis unit] determines that a component requires replacement if that component has deteriorated (is worn or damaged) beyond the replacement limit state." A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have understood this to mean that each captured image was associated with a component such that they could be compared to a relevant "replacement limit image." It would have consequently been obvious to such a person that there should be a first image corresponding to a first component on the undercarriage and that there should be a second image corresponding to a second component on the undercarriage.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Ebrahimi as modified by Komorida teaches the robot cleaning system of claim 18, but does not explicitly teach that the communication module is configured to receive, from the remote computing device, an acknowledgment that a user has viewed the underside of the mobile cleaning robot or that the communication module is configured to transmit a signal to the mobile cleaning robot to prevent the mobile cleaning robot from executing a cleaning operation until the acknowledgment is received.
However, Ebrahimi teaches that the remote computing device is configured to receive user inputs for a variety of matters including mapping, cleaning schedules, adjusting cleaning preferences such as suction power, commanding a robot to return for recharging, etc.; as well as providing user information such as historical cleaning data and status of a robot (see Ebrahimi 210:45-211:32). Further, Ebrahimi teaches that the brush blades (one of the components potentially in need of replacement) are located on the underside of the robot such that viewing the underside would be a necessary part of removing material from the blades (see Ebrahimi figs. 18a-19b and 18:28-19:42).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the combined invention of Ebrahimi and Komorida such that the communication module on the docking station is configured to transmit a signal to the robot to prevent it from activating during the process of a user replacing the brush blades and to not transmit a reactivation signal to the robot until receiving acknowledgment from the user that the brush blades had been replaced. Or in other words, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined device of Ebrahimi and Komorida such that the communication module was configured to receive, from the remote computing device, an acknowledgment that a user has viewed the underside of the mobile cleaning robot and the communication module was further configured to transmit a signal to the mobile cleaning robot to prevent the mobile cleaning robot from executing a cleaning operation until the acknowledgment is received, as a person of ordinary skill would understand as doing so would prevent the robot from activating unexpectedly while a user was replacing a damaged component such as a brush blade, which would make such a replacement more difficult and could lead to damage to both the robot and the device.
Further, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). A person of ordinary skill would reasonably infer from the teachings in Ebrahimi regarding user commands to a robot (e.g., telling a robot to pause cleaning, Ebrahimi 49:20-36; user ability to designate the use and power of various subsystems and tools, see Ebrahimi 203:31-204:25) and the need to replace or clean certain parts on a an underside of the robot (see Ebrahimi 18:28-19:42), that Ebrahimi suggests a remote device that is capable of enabling/disabling various functionality relating to cleaning operations such that the robot includes a communication module configured to receive a variety of acknowledgments relating to user inputs and to avoid activating certain cleaning-related tasks until receiving authorization to do so in the form of a user acknowledgment.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi and Komorida as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Takami (US 9580018).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Ebrahimi as modified by Komorida teaches the robot cleaning system of claim 18, wherein a camera is disposed on or within the mobile cleaning robot (see Ebrahimi 9:32-10:30), and further teaches that the robot docking station comprises one or more optical components configured to adjust a field of view of a camera to include the underside of the mobile cleaning robot (Ebrahimi teaches the use of optical components to adjust field of view of a camera to accomplish desired forms of sensing, see Ebrahimi 9:64-10:6, and Komorida as combined above teaches capturing a bottom surface of the robot is a desired form of sensing, see Komorida [0116]-[0117]).
Despite these teachings, Ebrahimi as modified by Komorida does not teach that the robot docking station comprises one or more optical components configured to adjust a field of view of a camera disposed on or within the mobile cleaning robot to include the underside of the mobile cleaning robot.
However, Takami teaches the concept of using a camera not having an aperture directly pointed at a vehicle underbody in combination with an array of mirrors that extends a visual path between the camera and a vehicle underbody to inspect a vehicle underbody (see Takami figs. 1 and 3a-3d and 2:48-57).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings from Takami of using a mirror array to extend a visual path between a camera and a vehicle underbody with the combined device of Ebrahimi and Komorida such that the robot docking station comprises one or more optical components configured to adjust a field of view of a camera disposed on or within the mobile cleaning robot to include the underside of the mobile cleaning robot, as doing so would provide cost savings by reducing the need for additional expensive cameras or complex shaped mirrors (see Takami 14:32).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komorida in view of Ebrahimi.
30. Komorida teaches a method performed by a robot docking station, the method comprising:
capturing imagery of an underside of a mobile robot (second captured image acquisition unit 35 acquires images of an underside of a work vehicle, see Komorida [0116], work vehicle corresponds to a robot, see Komorida [0087]), analyzing the captured imagery to detect a maintenance condition of the mobile robot (diagnosis unit compares captured image to determine whether a component has been or needs replacement damaged, see Komorida [0117] and [0061]); and
transmitting first data to a remote computing device, wherein the transmitted first data is representative of a first maintenance alert that corresponds to the detected maintenance condition (announcement unit 37 alerts a user as to whether the component needs replacement, see Komorida [0118]).
Komorida does not teach that the mobile robot is a cleaning robot, that the maintenance condition comprises an object wrapped around a component of the mobile robot or debris obstructing an evacuation opening of the mobile cleaning robot. (Komorida teaches a maintenance condition corresponding to a damaged component and that the robot includes a "work unit" that provides work and teaches a mowing apparatus as an exemplary work unit, see Komorida [0061], [0089], and [0117]), or
a step of transmitting second data to a remote computing device, wherein the transmitted second data is representative of a second maintenance alert corresponding to at least one of an occurrence of a predetermined number of docking events or an occurrence of a predetermined number of evacuation operations.
However, Ebrahimi teaches that mobile robots may include work units for cleaning such as brushes (see, e.g. Ebrahimi fig. 18a showing a robotic cleaner with a brush-based work unit) and that work robots may include a controller configured to detect one or more issues associated with the mobile cleaning robot communicating with the controller of the robot docking station (robot includes a processor that detects issues such as parts in need of replacement or communication problems, see Ebrahimi 147:31-65), that robots may encounter problems including an object wrapped around a component of the mobile cleaning robot (issues such as entanglement, see Ebrahimi 210:8-20, 18:40-52, or 92:20-23); that a robot may return to a charging station in response to a detected issue such as a voltage drop (see Ebrahimi 147:66-148:17); that a central interface may be used to collect data from robots such as work sessions and bin empties (see Ebrahimi 211:9-38); that the robot may diagnose and report defined events (such as errors with brushes, see Ebrahimi 218:27-46); that the robot may communicate with the charging station after a predetermined metric such as a number of working sessions (see Ebrahimi 20:31-46); and that the robot may inform a user via a central controller when it has completed a cleaning task (see Ebrahimi 153:7-12).
It has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). One of ordinary skill would understand these teachings from Ebrahimi as implicitly disclosing that the docking station could be configured to act as a central interface with a communication module configured to transmit data related to operational status and problems associated with a robot, such as when it has docked to charge or empty a bin (i.e., the occurrence of a single docking event or evacuation operation), which would qualify as "data representative of a second maintenance alert corresponding to at least one of an occurrence of a predetermined number of docking events or an occurrence of a predetermined number of evacuation operations."
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings from Ebrahimi of a cleaning-based work unit that experiences maintenance conditions such as objects wrapped around a component such as a brush, and uses a controller of a charging station to send notifications or alerts to a user device with the method of Komorida to produce a method comprising capturing imagery of an underside of a mobile cleaning robot;, analyzing the captured imagery to detect a maintenance condition comprising: an object wrapped around a component of the mobile cleaning robot, or debris obstructing an evacuation opening of the mobile cleaning robot; transmitting first data to a remote computing device, wherein the transmitted first data is representative of a first maintenance alert that corresponds to the detected maintenance condition; and a step of transmitting second data to a remote computing device, wherein the transmitted second data is representative of a second maintenance alert corresponding to at least one of an occurrence of a predetermined number of docking events or an occurrence of a predetermined number of evacuation operations, as making such a modification represents the combination of known prior art elements (a method of operating a docking station for robots from Komorida with vacuum cleaner systems configured to detect issues and respond to those detected issues from Ebrahimi) according to known prior art methods (Komorida teaches that the type of robot and maintenance condition is exemplary, see Komorida [0003] and Ebrahimi teaches a related type of work robot) and such a combination would produce results predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 19 December, 2024, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-32 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable filed 19 December, 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of Ebrahimi and Komorida would fail to render the new features of amended claims 1, 18, and 30 obvious to one of ordinary skill. As noted in the rejections above, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would nonetheless have found the claimed invention obvious. Consequently, applicant’s argument to the contrary is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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 JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
