DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim 4 is canceled in the 11/21/2025 amendment; claims 2-3 and 12-17 were previously canceled. Claims 1 & 5-11 are pending and examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's 11/21/2025 arguments (“Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as explained below.
Applicant contends that:
That is, Fong discloses multiple robots sharing a persistent map and coordinating cleaning tasks. While Fong may detect different floor types, such as carpets, Fong does not disclose or suggest detecting "wet-cleaning impossible sub-regions" and transmitting such information to another robot to control a cooperative cleaning sequence. Fong's disclosure is limited to sharing mapping data and dividing tasks, without consideration of the functional cleaning limitations of different robot types. (Remarks at 7)
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because they are self-contradictory.
First, the term “wet-cleaning impossible sub-regions” is not recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, because Applicant acknowledges that FONG teaches detecting carpets—which correspond to the so-called “wet-cleaning impossible sub-regions” (see specification at ¶¶ 0009, 0205; see also Remarks at 7, first bullet point)—Applicant effectively contradicts its own assertion that FONG fails to teach detecting “wet-cleaning impossible sub-regions.”
Third, because Applicant acknowledges that FONG teaches “multiple robots sharing a persistent map and coordinating cleaning tasks” and “sharing mapping data and dividing tasks,” Applicant effectively contradicts its own assertion that FONG fails to teach “transmitting such information to another robot to control a cooperative cleaning sequence.”
Fourth, FONG actually does take into “consideration of the functional cleaning limitations of different robot types.” As explained in the 8/27/2025 Non-Final Action at ¶¶ 14-15, FONG teaches the first robot performs suction (see ¶ 0085) and the second robot performs mopping (see id.), wherein the second robot cannot travel on carpet (see ¶¶ 0084, 0087). Indeed, FONG explicitly states: “sharing the persistent map enables teaming of two robots having different capabilities” (¶ 0085).
Applicant’s arguments against AFROUZI (see Remarks at 7) are not persuasive because (1) AFROUZI is just a secondary reference used to modify the primary reference FONG; (2) the deficiencies of AFROUZI—as alleged by Applicant—are already taught by FONG. For example, AFROUZI’s alleged deficiency of “cooperation between heterogeneous robots with different cleaning capabilities” is already taught by FONG, which Applicant has acknowledged (see Remarks at 7). As another example, AFROUZI’s alleged deficiency of “a process where one robot waits while another performs cleaning of a particular region” is already taught by FONG (see Non-Final Action at ¶ 22, citing ¶¶ 0201-02 of FONG).
In short, Applicant’s arguments are not responsive to the 35 USC § 103 rejection, which is based on modifying FONG’s method in view of AFROUZI’s teachings. The Non-Final Action explains that it would’ve been obvious to modify FONG’s method such that the first moving robot cleans regions that have hard floor (i.e., the “first region” and “second region”) before cleaning regions that have carpet (i.e., the “sub-region”). See Non-Final at ¶¶ 17-19.
Applicant contends that Claim 1 recites a “specific cooperative sequence” of 4 bullet points, which the prior art of record fails to teach (see Remarks at 7). This is not persuasive. First, it’s unclear what Applicant means by “specific cooperative sequence,” as this term is not used in the claims. Second, the sequence of 4 bullet points does not appear in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Third, the Non-Final Action clearly explains how the combination of FONG and AFROUZI teaches or suggests each of the 4 bullet points:
For the first bullet point, see Non-Final Action at ¶ 15 (first robot detects carpet);
For the second bullet point, see Non-Final Action at ¶ 25 (the two robots communicate with each other), and Applicant explicitly acknowledges that FONG teaches the robots share mapping information (see Remarks at 7);
For the third bullet point, see Non-Final Action at ¶ 15 (second robot cleans the first region and cannot travel on carpet, i.e., the sub-region);
For the fourth bullet point, see Non-Final Action at ¶ 22 (first robot waits in place while second robot performs cleaning task).
Applicant also contends that:
Fong lacks recognition of wet-cleaning limitations and explicit sequence control, while Afrouzi lacks multi-robot cooperation entirely. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Fong and Afrouzi to arrive at Applicant's claimed features, as the combination would still fail to teach the claimed cooperative waiting step and the explicit information exchange regarding wet-cleaning impossible regions. (Remarks at 8)
These are repetitions of prior arguments and thus they are not persuasive. For example, FONG already teaches waiting in space, see Non-Final at ¶ 22 (citing ¶¶ 0201-02 of FONG). And because Applicant already acknowledges that FONG teaches detecting carpets and teaches “multiple robots sharing a persistent map and coordinating cleaning tasks” (Remarks at 7), Applicant effectively acknowledges that FONG teaches information exchange regarding the so-called “wet-cleaning impossible regions” (i.e., carpets).
The three advantages listed on pg. 8 of Remarks are readily present in the prior art. For example, FONG teaches the second robot (e.g., a mopping robot) cannot travel on carpet (see FONG at ¶¶ 0084, 0087, 0114), so FONG’s method achieves the first advantage. And because Applicant has acknowledged that FONG teaches sharing information and coordinating tasks between the two robots (see Remarks at 7), Applicant effectively acknowledges that FONG’s method can achieve the second advantage and the third advantage.
In sum, Applicant’s arguments do not sufficiently rebut the § 103 rejections.
Claim Objections
In Claim 1 on pg. 3 line 3, “the first robot” should be “the first moving robot.”
In Claim 1 on pg. 3 line 4, “the second robot” should be “the second moving robot.”
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 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FONG (US PGPUB 20190212752), in view of AFROUZI (US Patent 10882186).
Regarding Claim 1, FONG teaches a method for controlling a plurality of moving robots (see, e.g., abstract, claims 28-30, ¶¶ 0001, 0044, 0084-85, 0110, Figs. 3-4), such as a first moving robot (e.g., first robot 102A or 202A, see Figs. 1-4, ¶¶ 0073, 0101) and a second moving robot (e.g., second robot 102B or 202B, see id.).
FONG teaches that the first moving robot performs dry cleaning (see ¶ 0085, first robot performs suction cleaning) and the second moving robot performs wet cleaning (see id., second robot performs mopping), wherein the second moving robot cannot travel on carpet (see ¶¶ 0084, 0087, 0114), wherein carpet corresponds to the recited “sub-region.”
FONG’s method comprising:
dividing a traveling area into a plurality of regions, including a first region and a second region (see, e.g., ¶¶ 0015, 0031, 0084, 0116, claim 13, Figs. 3-4, traveling through a home having a plurality of rooms or regions);
detecting, by the first moving robot (see ¶¶ 0084-85; see also Figs. 3-4), a sub-region (see ¶¶ 0084, 0087, the first robot detects a carpet in a room or region) in which the second moving robot (see ¶¶ 0084-85; see also Figs. 3-4) is unable to enter (see ¶¶ 0079, 0084, 0087, 0114);
performing a first dry cleaning of cleaning the first region by the first moving robot (see ¶¶ 0084-85, Figs. 3-4, the first robot cleans regions that have hard floor, i.e., there’s a first region having hard floor subject to cleaning by the first robot; see also ¶¶ 0015, 0031, claim 13, the first robot cleans a first region);
upon completing cleaning of the first region by the first moving robot, performing a second dry cleaning of cleaning the second region by the first moving robot (see ¶¶ 0084-85, Figs. 3-4, the first robot cleans regions that have hard floor, i.e., there’s a second region having hard floor subject to cleaning by the first robot; see also ¶¶ 0015, 0031, claim 13, the first robot cleans a second region after cleaning the first region); and
upon completing cleaning of the first region by the first moving robot, performing a first wet cleaning of starting to clean the first region, except the sub-region—as explained above, the second robot cannot enter the sub-region, i.e., carpet—by the second moving robot (see ¶ 0085, the second robot mops the floor of a room vacuumed by the first robot; see also ¶¶ 0110-11, 0207, upon the first robot completing its mission a given room, the second robot goes to perform its mission in the same room).
FONG teaches the first robot detects the sub-region (as explained above) and communicates an information of the sub-region to the second robot (see ¶¶ 0084, 0114, the first robot detects carpet, which is shared with the second robot). FONG explicitly teaches sharing information regarding carpet (see ¶¶ 0084, 0114).
FONG also teaches that the two robots may perform cleaning tasks in sequence (see ¶¶ 0201-02), i.e., if the second moving robot is in a process of cleaning the first region, the first moving robot waits in place. For example, while the second robot is performing a cleaning task, the first robot waits in place—e.g., at the docking station (see ¶ 0201)—waiting for the second robot to finish the cleaning task (see ¶¶ 0201-02). This “waiting in place” provides the benefit of allowing the first robot to charge at the docking station (see ¶ 0201).
FONG does not explicitly teach:
the first moving robot cleans the first region “except the sub-region” (i.e., except the carpet);
“upon completing cleaning of the second region by the first moving robot, performing a third dry cleaning of cleaning the sub-region by the first moving robot”;
“wherein in the third dry cleaning, if the second moving robot is in a process of cleaning the first region except the sub-region, the first moving robot waits in place.”
But it’s well understood, routine, and conventional for a cleaning robot to finish cleaning a single surface type at a time before moving onto a different work surface type. See AFROUZI at col. 4 lines 24-27, 64-66. For example, the cleaning robot may clean a wooden floor before cleaning a carpet, because the wooden floor can be cleaned quicker (see id. at col. 4 lines 4-7) and because it’s burdensome and time consuming for the cleaning robot to transition between different surface types (see id. at col. 4 lines 1-3, 8-24).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify FONG’s method such that the first moving robot cleans regions that have hard floor (i.e., the recited “first region” and “second region”) before cleaning regions that have carpet (i.e., the recited “sub-region”), with reasonable expectation of reducing cleaning time and burden on the robot, for at least two reasons:
First, because it’s burdensome and time consuming for a cleaning robot to transition between different surface types, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to let the robot finish cleaning a single surface type (e.g., hard floor) at a time before moving onto a different work surface type (e.g., carpet).
Second, it’s well understood, routine, and conventional for a cleaning robot to finish cleaning a single surface type at a time before moving onto a different work surface type, such as cleaning a hard floor before cleaning a carpet (see AFROUZI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-21 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of FONG and AFROUZI:
The first moving robot would perform dry cleaning on regions having hard floor (i.e., the first and second regions, except the sub-region) before cleaning regions having carpet (i.e., the sub-region); in other words, the first moving robot would be “performing a first dry cleaning of cleaning the first region except the sub-region” and then “performing a second dry cleaning of cleaning the second region,” and then “upon completing cleaning of the second region by the first moving robot, performing a third dry cleaning of cleaning the sub-region by the first moving robot.”
The second moving robot would be cleaning a region after such region has been cleaned by the first moving robot (as explained above; see also FONG at ¶¶ 0085, 0110-11, 0207); in other words, “upon completing cleaning of the first region, except the sub-region, by the first moving robot,” the second moving robot would be “performing a first wet cleaning of starting to clean the first region, except the sub-region, by the second moving robot.” As explained above, the second moving robot is a mopping robot that cannot travel on the sub-region (see FONG at ¶¶ 0084, 0087, 0114).
Additionally, it would’ve been obvious to make the first moving robot wait in place in the third dry cleaning if the second moving robot is in a process of cleaning the first region except the sub-region. FONG already teaches that, if the second moving robot is in a process of cleaning the first region except the sub-region—as explained above, the second moving robot is a mopping robot that cannot travel on carpet, i.e., the sub-region—the first moving robot waits in place (see FONG at ¶¶ 0201-02). This “waiting in place” provides the benefit of allowing the first moving robot to charge at the docking station while the second moving robot performs cleaning tasks (see id. at ¶ 0201). Thus, the combination of FONG and AFROUZI teaches or suggests: “wherein in the third dry cleaning, if the second moving robot is in a process of cleaning the first region except the sub-region, the first moving robot waits in place.”
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of FONG and AFROUZI teaches the method of claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches that the second moving robot cleans the first region except the sub-region.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “upon completing cleaning of the first region except the sub-region by the second moving robot, the second moving robot transmits information, indicating that cleaning of the first region except the sub-region is complete, to the first moving robot.”
But FONG teaches that the two robots coordinate with each other in performing the cleaning tasks (see, e.g., ¶¶ 0010-11, 0026, 0071, 0101, 0201, 0219). In particular, FONG teaches that “each robot is aware of the conditions of the other robots, such as the locations and the tasks being performed by the other robots” (¶ 0071).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of FONG and AFROUZI such that when one robot finishes a cleaning task (e.g., when the second robot completes cleaning of the first region except the sub-region), it notifies the other robot (e.g., transmitting information to the first moving robot), with reasonable expectation of coordinating the robots. It’s well understood, routine, and conventional for two robots to communicate with each other, such that each robot is aware of the conditions of the other robots, including the locations and the tasks being performed by the other robots. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined those elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the combination of FONG and AFROUZI: upon completing cleaning of the first region except the sub-region by the second moving robot, the second moving robot would transmit information—indicating that cleaning of the first region except the sub-region is complete—to the first moving robot.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of FONG and AFROUZI teaches the method of claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches that:
the first moving robot performs dry cleaning on the first region (except the sub-region) and then performs dry cleaning on the second region;
the second moving robot follows the first moving robot to perform wet cleaning on the same regions cleaned by the first moving robot (see FONG at ¶¶ 0085, 0110-11, 0207, the two robots work as a team to clean a given region).
This means that the second moving robot performs wet cleaning on the first region (except the sub-region) and then performs wet cleaning on the second region. In other words, the combination teaches “upon completing cleaning of the first region except the sub-region by the second moving robot, performing a second wet cleaning of starting to clean the second region by the second moving robot.”
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of FONG and AFROUZI teaches the method of claim 6. As explained above, the combination teaches that:
the first moving robot performs dry cleaning on the first region (except the sub-region) and then performs dry cleaning on the second region;
the second moving robot follows the first moving robot to perform wet cleaning on the same regions cleaned by the first moving robot;
the second moving robot performs wet cleaning on the first region (except the sub-region) and then performs wet cleaning on the second region.
This means that the second moving robot performs wet cleaning on the second region after the first moving robot has already cleaned the second region and after the second moving robot has already cleaned the first region (except the sub-region). In other words, the combination teaches “upon completing cleaning of the first region except the sub-region by the second moving robot and upon completing cleaning of the second region by the first moving robot, performing the second wet cleaning of starting to clean the second region by the second moving robot.”
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of FONG and AFROUZI teaches the method of claim 6. As explained above, the combination teaches that:
the first moving robot performs dry cleaning on the first region (except the sub-region) and then performs dry cleaning on the second region;
the second moving robot follows the first moving robot to perform wet cleaning on the same regions cleaned by the first moving robot;
the second moving robot performs wet cleaning on the first region (except the sub-region) and then performs wet cleaning on the second region.
This means there is a scenario in which the second moving robot has finished wet cleaning of the first region and is ready to clean the second region, but the first moving robot is still in a process of cleaning the second region.
The combination does not explicitly teach “in the second wet cleaning, if the first moving robot is in a process of cleaning the second region, the second moving robot waits in place.”
But FONG teaches that, upon the first robot finishing a first cleaning task and returning to its docking station, the first robot informs the second robot that the first robot has finished the first cleaning task; and in response to receiving such message, the second robot can start to perform a second cleaning task (see ¶ 0207). In other words, FONG teaches or reasonably suggests that the second robot is waiting for the first robot to finish the first cleaning task before the second robot starts the second cleaning task.
FONG further teaches that as the first robot performs a cleaning task, the second robot is waiting in place at the docking station (see ¶ 0201). This “waiting in place” provides the benefit of allowing the second robot to charge while the first robot performs the cleaning task (see id.). Indeed, it’s well known in the art for a robot to wait at the docking station for the next cleaning (see FONG at ¶ 0002).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of FONG and AFROUZI to make the second moving robot wait in place in the second wet cleaning step, if the first moving robot is still in a process of cleaning the second region, with reasonable expectation of coordinating the two robots. It’s well understood, routine, and conventional for a second robot to wait for a first robot to finish a first cleaning task before the second robot starts a second cleaning task, and it’s also well known for a robot to wait in place (e.g., at the docking station), which allows the robot to be charged. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined those elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of FONG and AFROUZI: in the second wet cleaning, the second moving robot would be waiting in place if the first moving robot is in a process of cleaning the second region.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of FONG and AFROUZI teaches the method of claim 6. As explained above, the combination teaches that the first moving robot performs dry cleaning on the first region (except the sub-region) and then performs dry cleaning on the second region. The combination teaches that, upon completing cleaning of the second region by the first moving robot, the first moving robot transmits information, indicating that cleaning of the second region is complete, to the second moving robot (see FONG at ¶¶ 0110, 0207, each time the first robot finishes its mission or task, the first robot informs the second robot).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of FONG and AFROUZI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches that the first moving robot and the second moving robot share a map of the traveling area (see FONG at abstract, ¶¶ 0049, 0077, 0084-85, 0089, 0110).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of FONG and AFROUZI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches the first moving robot suctions foreign matter (see FONG at ¶ 0085); and the second moving robot performs mopping (see id.).
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art—made of record and not relied upon—are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
MUNICH (US PGPUB 20210124354) teaches coordinating two robots such that the first robot constructs a map (¶ 0034) accessible by the two robots (¶ 0022), the first robot can perform dry cleaning on both hard floor and carpet (¶ 0121), and the second robot can perform wet cleaning on only hard floor (¶ 0121).
ORZECHOWSKI (US PGPUB 20200019178) teaches that it may be optimal to clean hard surfaces first, and carpet can be deferred (¶ 0074).
JEONG (US PGPUB 20200293060) teaches cleaning hard surfaces first, before cleaning carpet (see Fig. 3).
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 RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached on (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714