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 .
Status of Claims
This is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 17/940,074, with an effective filing date of 9/8/2022. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges that the necessary changes were made regarding the Specification and Claim Objection sections in Applicant’s arguments, see pp.14-17, and subsequently withdraws the previous objections to said sections. However, after considering the amendments to the claims, claim 9 is hereby objected to as described in detail below.
Examiner acknowledges that the necessary changes were made regarding the rejection of claim(s) 2-3, 5-8, 10-11, and 13-20 under 35 USC § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention due to containing relative terminology in Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 17-21 , and subsequently withdraws the previous 35 USC § 112(b) rejection to said claims. However, based on the amendments made to claims 1 and 9 a new rejection of claims 1-13 and 16-19 is hereby made and is detailed further below.
Regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection to claims 1-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 found in Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 21-27, the Examiner has considered the amended claim limitations (i.e., Claim 14 lines 21-22 transmitting the determined range of service functions via the communication interface to the cleaning device and claim 1 lines 16-17 to receive the determined scope of service functions (13) from the spatially separated data processing device (10) via the communication interface (9)) along with its description by the Applicant on pg. 26 ¶1 lines 1 and 2 as “communication of the resulting service-function determination back to the cleaning device via the communication interface” and has construed this to be a transmission of a result of a mental process/step which is an insignificant post-solution activity. The Applicant also argues on pp.23-24 that the “spatially separated data processing device” performs the determination and communicates the determination to the cleaning device “via a communication interface”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the transmission of a result of a mental process is not limited to wired connections but also comprises wireless or remote communication of the mental process results.
Therefore this argument is unpersuasive and the rejection of claims 1-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained and is detailed further below.
Regarding the 35 USC § 102 rejection of claims 1, 9, 12 and 15 as being anticipated by Jeong et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0093342 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Jeong], the Applicant has elected to amend the aforementioned claims. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection in the previous Office Action based on 35 USC § 102 is rendered moot. However, due to said amendments, previously used reference Afrouzi et al. (US Pat. No. 11,657,531) [hereinafter referred to as Afrouzi] has been reconsidered and necessitated for the aforementioned claims. Therefore, a new rejection of claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20 based on 35 USC § 103 has been made and is discussed in detail below.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that Jeong does not disclose the limitation determining the range of service functions (13) by means of a data spatially separated processing device (10) and to receive the determined scope of service functions (13) from the spatially separated data processing device (10) via the communication interface (9). However, Afrouzi in column (col) 4 line(s) (ln) 50 to col 5 ln 17 teaches the transmission of task specific information from the cleaning robot to a smartphone, which is construed as a spatially separated data processing device, and vice versa. Furthermore, col 31 ln 50-54 that charging stations may necessarily have different ranges of functions. Furthermore, in col 35 ln 17-23 services are exemplified that may include emptying waste water from the commercial cleaner and adding new water into a fluid reservoir, for a robotic vacuum, it may include emptying the dustbin or for a disinfecting robot, it may include replenishment of supplies such as UV bulbs, scrubbing pad, or liquid disinfectant. These are construed as different ranges of service functions performed at respective base stations that correspond to respective cleaning devices.
In regards to independent claims 9 and 15, Applicant argues, while differing in scope, these claims recite similar features to claim 1 and their rejections should likewise be withdrawn.
However, this argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons as given above.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC § 103 of claims 2-8, 10, 13-14, 16-18, and 20, the Applicant argues that Afrouzi allegedly teaches that “the coordination of robots with known stations before they connect to the respective station”. However, the Examiner reminds the Applicant that arguments against a rejection under 35 USC § 103 cannot be made solely toward one reference or another, but against the combination of said references, other than mere conclusory statements. As discussed in the previous Office Action, Jeong discloses in [0157] a main processor may measure a voltage output from the divider when the robot cleaner is located at a designated position to dock with the charging device, and identification may be as simple as detecting a voltage output from the divider (i.e., yes or no) and Fig. 2 (see below) that discloses a docking identifier. This combined with the aspects of Afrouzi as discussed above is construed as identification and coordination of the robots happening after connection is made between the cleaning device and its respective base station.
Therefore this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency.
This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected for the reasons as given above.
Drawings
Drawing 1-7 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show: (a) with respect to Figs. 1-5 details regarding the identifications (i.e., Fig.2 items 1-6, 8-10/10a/10b, 11, 18, and 19 ), as described in the specification, (b) with respect to Figs. 6 details regarding the identifications (e.g., Fig.6 items 101 and 102), as described in the specification and (c) with regard to Figs. 7, details regarding the blocks contained therein (i.e. Fig. 7 items 20), as described by the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, the Applicant will be notified an informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 4 recites the limitation with stored voltage measured values and it is recommended that it should be corrected to with one or more stored voltage measured values to be in proper form;
Claim 9 lines 17-18 contain a typographical error where the range of service functions should be corrected to a range of service functions.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 16-19 is/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.
Claims 1 and 9 (i.e., claim 1 line 16)recite the limitation determined scope of service functions and it is unclear if this is the same as the determination of a range of service functions recited in claim 1 line 15.
Claims 2-8, 10-13 and 16-19 are also rejected as they inherit the rejections of the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 14 is directed to a procedure of controlling a cleaning robot (i.e., process). Therefore, claim 14 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 14 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 14 recites:
A procedure (100) for operating at least one cleaning device (1), that has at least one electrical interface (2) for interacting with an electrical counter-interface (3) of at least one base station (4), with the cleaning device (1) being at least designed and set up to move autonomously in at least one processing environment (7), to carry out cleaning tasks and to move into a service position (8) on the base station (4) for service purposes, and when it is in the service position (8), voltage can be provided via the electrical interface, which comprises at least the following procedural steps:
- determining (101) of at least one measured value of the voltage at the electrical interface (2) of the cleaning device (1) in the service position (8) and/or determining (101) of at least one measured value of a voltage curve (20) at the electrical interface (2) of the cleaning device (1) in the service position (8) as a means of identification [mental process/step], and
- determining (102) of at least one range of service functions (13) of the base station (4) using the means of identification by comparing at least the determined voltage measured value of the voltage and/or the measured value of the voltage curve (20) with voltage measured values held available in at least one storage device [mental process/step] wherein the voltage measured values that are held available in the storage device, are assigned to data on the range of service functions (13) of respective base stations (4),and
- transmitting the determined range of service functions via the communication interface to the cleaning device.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determination…” and “comparing…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A procedure (100) for operating at least one cleaning device (1), that has at least one electrical interface (2) for interacting with an electrical counter-interface (3) of at least one base station (4), with the cleaning device (1) being at least designed and set up to move autonomously in at least one processing environment (7), to carry out cleaning tasks and to move into a service position (8) on the base station (4) for service purposes, and when it is in the service position (8), voltage can be provided via the electrical interface [Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use], which comprises at least the following procedural steps:
- determining (101) of at least one measured value of the voltage at the electrical interface (2) of the cleaning device (1) in the service position (8) and/or determining (101) of at least one measured value of a voltage curve (20) at the electrical interface (2) of the cleaning device (1) in the service position (8) as a means of identification, and
- determining (102) of at least one range of service functions (13) of the base station (4) using the means of identification by comparing at least the determined voltage measured value of the voltage and/or the measured value of the voltage curve (20) with voltage measured values held available in at least one storage device wherein the voltage measured values that are held available in the storage device, are assigned to data on the range of service functions (13) of respective base stations (4) [insignificant extra-solution activity (data source manipulation)],and
- transmitting the determined range of service functions via the communication interface to the cleaning device [insignificant extra-solution activity (transmitting of results)].
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “measured values available in storage…,” “(values) assigned to data…,” and “transmitting the determined range of service functions…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (a data processing device) to perform the process. In particular, the availability of the data and assigning data steps for the range of functions at each base is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of organizing data for future use), and amounts to mere post solution manipulation of a data source, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the transmitting of the determined range of service functions is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data and service functions results from determination and comparing steps), and amounts to mere transmission of results of a mental process, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the description of the system reciting “at least one electrical interface…” and “voltage can be provided…,” is incorporated to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 14 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller to perform the determining or comparing… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “measured values available in storage…,” “(values) assigned to data…,” and “transmitting the determined range of service functions…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Hence, claim 14 is not patent eligible.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a cleaning device (i.e., machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Claim 1 recites:
A cleaning device (1), having at least one electrical interface (2) for interacting
with an electrical counter-interface (3) of at least one base station (4) at least for charging an energy storage device of the cleaning device (1),
wherein the cleaning device (1) is at least designed and set up to move autonomously in at least one processing environment (7), to carry out cleaning tasks and to move into a service position (8) at a base station (4) for service purposes,
wherein the cleaning device (1) is also at least designed and set up in such a way that, at least when it is in the service position (8), at least one measured value of a voltage present at the electrical interface (2) and/or at least one measured value of a voltage curve (20) present at the electrical interface can be determined as a means of identification [mental process/step];
wherein the cleaning device provides the means of identification at at least one communication interface (9) for use in the determination of-a range of service functions (13) [mental process/step] by a spatially separated data processing device (10) and to receive the determined scope of service functions (13) from the spatially separated data processing unit (10) via the communication interface (9).
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determination…” and “identification…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
A cleaning device (1), having at least one electrical interface (2) for interacting
with an electrical counter-interface (3) of at least one base station (4) at least for charging an energy storage device of the cleaning device (1) [Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use],
wherein the cleaning device (1) is at least designed and set up to move autonomously in at least one processing environment (7), to carry out cleaning tasks and to move into a service position (8) at a base station (4) for service purposes [Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use],
wherein the cleaning device (1) is also at least designed and set up in such a way that, at least when it is in the service position (8), at least one measured value of a voltage present at the electrical interface (2) and/or at least one measured value of a voltage curve (20) present at the electrical interface [insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors] can be determined as a means of identification ;
wherein the cleaning device to provides the means of identification at at least one communication interface (9) for use in the determination of-a range of service functions (13) by a spatially separated data processing device (10) and to receive the determined scope of service functions (13) from the spatially separated data processing unit (10) via the communication interface (9) [insignificant extra-solution activity (transmitting of results)].
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “measured values voltage/voltage curve present…,” and “receiving the determined scope of service functions…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (a data processing device) to perform the process. In particular, the measured value being present step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering voltage or voltage curve data for use in the determining and identifying steps step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the receiving of the determined scope of service functions is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data and service functions results from determination and comparing steps), and amounts to mere transmission of results of a mental process, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the description of the system reciting “interacting electrical interface/counter-interface…” and “autonomously… carry out cleaning tasks…,” is incorporated to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller to perform the determining or identifying… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “measured values voltage/voltage curve present…,” and “receiving the determined scope of service functions…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites a cleaning system having substantially the same features of claim 1 above, therefore claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8, 10-11, 13, 16-17, and 19-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they provide for further examples of mental processes such as determining and comparing and additional limitations that also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such as communicating or displaying. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8, 10-11, 13, 16-17, and 19-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 14
However, dependent claims 12, 15, and 18 all recite limitations of controlling either the output of voltage (claim 12) or directing the cleaning device to move based upon the determinations and comparing (claims 15 and 18) which cause the claims to be patent eligible as they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they demonstrate the ability to affect the physical world.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0093342 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jeong, in view of Afrouzi et al. (US Pat. No. 11,657,531), hereinafter referred to as Afrouzi.
Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses:
A cleaning device (1) (see Fig. 1 below which displays a cleaning device and [0123] where a robot cleaner stores a control computer program and an operating system (OS)),
PNG
media_image1.png
393
393
media_image1.png
Greyscale
having at least one electrical interface (2) for interacting with an electrical counter-interface (3) of at least one base station (4) at least for charging an energy storage device of the cleaning device (1) ([0004] The robot cleaner includes a battery and [0006] robot cleaner includes a pair of charging terminals (construed as an electrical interface) exposed to the outside for charging the battery, and the charging device also includes a pair of exposed charging terminals (construed as an electrical counter-interface)), wherein the cleaning device (1) is at least designed and set up to move autonomously in at least one processing environment (7) ([0003] sentence (s.) 1, a robot cleaner is a device that automatically cleans a room by sucking up impurities, such as dust on the floor while autonomously moving about the room without user intervention), to carry out cleaning tasks and to move into a service position (8) at a base station (4) for service purposes (see Fig. 1 and [0004] Electrical energy stored in the battery enables the robot cleaner to move and suck up the dust in the room),
wherein the cleaning device (1) is also at least designed and set up in such a way that, at least when it is in the service position (8), at least one measured value of a voltage present at the electrical interface (2) and/or at least one measured value of a voltage curve (20) present at the electrical interface can be determined as a means of identification ([0157] main processor may measure a voltage output from the divider when the robot cleaner is located at a designated position to dock with the charging device, and identification may be as simple as detecting a voltage output from the divider (i.e., yes or no) AND Fig. 2 below that discloses a docking identifier),
wherein the cleaning device provides the means of identification at at least one communication interface ([0123] storage may store a control program and control data for controlling operation of the robot cleaner and store various application programs and application data for performing various functions in response to inputs from the user, [0157] s. 4, the main processor may close (turn on) or open (turn off) the switch based on the voltage output from the divider, in other words the "range of service functions" is necessarily whether or not charging is available based on said voltage output, such that the vacuum arrives at the dock and identifies the voltage to determine if charging is available, [0075] robot cleaner may include a user interface, and [0077] user interface may include input buttons which could be used for determination and to receive the determined scope of service functions (13) from the spatially separated data processing unit (10) via the communication interface (9) ( [0311-315] transmission and receiving of communication messages that are spatially separated between the cleaner and the charging station).
for use in the determination of a range of service functions (13) by a spatially separated data processing device (10).
However, Afrouzi in column (col) 4 line(s) (ln) 50 to col 5 ln 17 teaches the transmission of task specific information from the cleaning robot to a smartphone, which is construed as a spatially separated data processing device, and vice versa. Furthermore, col 31 ln 50-54 that charging stations may necessarily have different ranges of functions. Furthermore, in col 35 ln 17-23 services are exemplified that may include emptying waste water from the commercial cleaner and adding new water into a fluid reservoir, for a robotic vacuum, it may include emptying the dustbin or for a disinfecting robot, it may include replenishment of supplies such as UV bulbs, scrubbing pad, or liquid disinfectant. These are construed as different ranges of service functions performed at respective base stations that correspond to respective cleaning devices.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of cleaning device controls and data processing before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the cleaning device control system and method of Jeong, by incorporating the operational functions of different base stations teachings of Afrouzi, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of a more efficient fleet system of cleaning robots with specialized base stations, as acknowledged by Afrouzi in col 34 ln 2-4, this allows charging stations achieve maximum throughput and the number of charged robots at any given time is maximized and col 35 ln 12-14 such that it allows that it may be more efficient for servicing to be provided at a station that is different from the charging station.
Claims 9 and 15 recite a system and computer program product, respectively, having substantially the same features of claim 1 above, therefore claims 9 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
[AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
572
411
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jeong discloses:
The cleaning device (1) according to claim 1, wherein the determination of the range of service functions (13) comprises a comparison of the at least one measured value of the voltage present at the electrical interface (2) and/or the voltage curve at the electrical interface with stored voltage measured values kept available in a storage device (11), with different stored voltage measured values being assigned (see [0157] s. 4 as disclosed in claim 1, [0139] the robot controller may open or close switches to induce charging based on a magnitude of voltage output where charging commences only when the applied voltage is equal or greater than a reference voltage or close the switch when lower than the reference voltage).
However, Afrouzi is further relied upon to teach the limitation respective base stations (4) having different ranges of service functions (13) in Figs. 20B and 21, below, and col 31 ln 50-54 that charging stations may necessarily have different ranges of functions. Further in col 33 ln 54-58, Afrouzi teaches that charging stations with unique identifications may be paired with particular robots such that the processor of a robot or a control system of the fleet of robots may choose a charging station for charging. Furthermore in col 34 ln 18-23 different components of the robot may connect with the charging station (or another type of station in some cases) such that the contents of the bin may be emptied into the charging station.
PNG
media_image3.png
328
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
516
425
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 14 recites a system having substantially the same features of claims 1 and 2 above, therefore claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 3, Jeong, as modified by Afrouzi, discloses:
The cleaning device (1) according to claim 2, wherein the cleaning device (1) is designed and set up in such a way that the at least one measured value of the voltage present at the electrical interface (2) and/or at least one measured value of the voltage curve (20) present at the electrical interface is determined immediately after the cleaning device (1) has been situated in the service position (8) and/or that the at least one measured value of the voltage present at the electrical interface (2) and/or the at least one measured value of the voltage curve (20) present at the electrical interface is determined at least at a predetermined point in time and/or that the at least one measured value of the voltage present at the electrical interface (2) and/or the at least one measured value of the voltage curve (20) present at the electrical interface is determined after at least a predetermined elapse of time after the cleaning device (1) has been situated in the service position (8) (see claim 1 where the voltage measurement is communicated while in the service position and also [0310-315] where the cleaning robot and charging device are in communication beforehand which would initiate the charging process which necessarily initiates the output charge voltage from which the identification and range of functions stems from).
Regarding claim 4, Jeong, as modified by Afrouzi, discloses:
The cleaning device (1) according to claim 1, wherein the cleaning device (1) is designed and set up in such a way that the determined range of service functions (13) for each base station (4) is linked to the position data of a respective base station (4) in the processing environment (7).
Afrouzi further teaches in col 98 ln 53-58 that the processor of the robot may provide a unique tag to each subarea and may use the unique tag to order the subareas for coverage by the robot, choose different work functions for different subareas, add restrictions to subareas, set cleaning schedules for different subareas, and the like. Further col 15 ln 22-27 where the robot may include sensors such as a GPS which is a monitors position data that may correlate with which subarea each specific robot is assigned to.
Regarding claim 5, Jeong, as modified by Afrouzi, discloses:
The cleaning device (1) according to claim 4, wherein the cleaning device (1) is also designed and set up in such a way that, using at least one determined range of service functions (13) in conjunction with the position data (15), the respective base station (4) and at least one other item of data is used from the following:
- data about a size of the processing environment (7) (see claim 4 regarding subareas assigned for cleaning),
- data about a status of an energy storage device of the cleaning device (71) ([0080 battery charge state), and/or
- data about regeneration of a wet cleaning pad and/or data about a fill status of a dirt collection container (18),
to determine at least one probable point in time or period of time for a service requirement for the cleaning device (1), with the probable point of time or period of time being used when creating and/or adjusting a navigation and/or cleaning task plan for the cleaning device (1).
- data about a degree of soiling of at least part of the processing environment (7).
Furthermore, Afrouzi teaches in col 32 ln 25-27 where the robotic garbage bin is navigating toward a disposal station to empty it contents, which is interpreted as necessarily pertaining to data of the fill status of a soiled container. Furthermore, in col 177 ln 19-21 the processor may predict a maximum surface coverage of an environment based on historical experiences of the robot which is construed as necessarily comprising of degree of soiling data of a specific subarea and the probabilities of a period of time where a subarea needs cleaning. These would affect the path planning as taught in col 177 ln 22-23 where path planning methods are dynamic and constantly changing.
Regarding claim 6, Jeong, as modified by Afrouzi, discloses:
The cleaning device (1) according to claim 2, wherein the data processing device of the cleaning device (1) is designed and set up in such a way as to determine at a specific point in time a current service requirement for the cleaning device (1) and using the current service requirement of the cleaning device (1), to select one or more of the at least one base station (4) that is at least partially suitable for the current service requirement determined (see claims 2 and 4-5 regarding a cleaning device requiring a service (e.g., charging or disposal) and selecting a base station suitable for said service (i.e., requiring disposal of dirt collected and necessarily selecting the base station with the receptacle over a simple charging station or vice versa)).
Claim 13 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 6 above, therefore claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Jeong, as modified by Afrouzi, discloses:
The cleaning device (1) according to claim 1, wherein the cleaning
device (1) is designed and set up in such a way, using at least the determined range of service functions (13) for at least one base station (4) and using data from at least one of the following additional cleaning features:
- data on a soiling of the processing environment (7) (see claim 5 regarding historical information),
- data on a desired cleaning intensity of the processing environment (7) (see claim 5 regarding historical information and adjusting cleaning tasks according to user preferences (see col 226 ln 59-67 and Fig. 259A below),
[AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image5.png
36
135
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
385
650
media_image6.png
Greyscale
- data on an intake capacity of a dirt collection container (18) (see claim 5 regarding the fill status which necessarily would incorporate intake capacity of the dirt collection container),
- data on regeneration of a wet cleaning pad and/or a maximum running time of an energy storage device (see claim 5 regarding battery state information), and/or
- data on a contamination of the processing environment (7) determined during previous navigation and/or cleaning movements (see claim 5 regarding historical information),
to determine at least one optimized location (17) for at least one base station (4) in the processing environment (7), in order to give at least one determined optimized location (17) to a user via at least one display device (see claim 1 regarding col 33 ln 54-58, Afrouzi teaches that charging stations with unique locations that may be paired with particular robots such that the processor of a robot or a control system of the fleet of robots may necessarily provide a recommendation of a location to a user for efficiency).
Regarding claim 8, Jeong, as modified by Afrouzi, discloses:
The cleaning device (1) according to claim 1, wherein the cleaning device (1) is designed and set up in such a way that it receives data about at least one preferred location of the base station (4) in the processing environment (7) via at least one input device (see claims 5 and 7 regarding user preferences and unique location being paired with particular robots to maximize throughput and efficiency),
wherein the cleaning device uses the data about the preferred location, the determined range of service functions (13) for of the respective base station (4), and using data from at least one of the following additional cleaning characteristics:
- data on a soiling of the processing environment (7) (see claims 5 and 7 regarding user preferences and data collected by the system),
- data on a desired cleaning intensity of the processing environment (7) (see claims 5 and 7 regarding user preferences and data collected by the system),
- data on an intake capacity of a dirt collection container (18) (see claims 5 and 7 regarding user preferences and data collected by the system),
- data on regeneration of a wet cleaning pad and/or the maximum running time of an energy storage device (see claims 5 and 7 regarding user preferences and data collected by the system), and/or
- data on a contamination of the processing environment (7) determined during previous navigation and/or work movements(see claims 5 and 7 regarding user preferences and data collected by the system),
to determine the preferred location for its suitability as a location in the context of a navigation and/or cleaning task plan (see claims 5 and 7 regarding user preferences and data collected by the system as well as unique location being paired with particular robots to maximize throughput and efficiency).
Regarding claim 10, Jeong, as modified by Afrouzi, discloses:
The cleaning system (16) according to claim 9, wherein at least two cleaning devices (1) and/or at least two base stations (4) are present (see claim 2 above regarding a fleet of cleaning robots and different types of base station used in different sub areas within the same area),
wherein that each cleaning device (1) is designed and set up to determine the range of service functions (13) of each base station (4) in the service position (8) or to provide the at least one measured value of the voltage present at the electrical interface (2) and/or the at least one measured value of the voltage curve (20) at at least one communication interface (9) for use in determining the range of service functions (13) by means of a data processing device (10) (see claim 1 regarding providing information to a communication interface or determining a range of functions for a base and see claim 2 regarding a fleet of robot cleaners, each with their processor and in communication with each other, and determining different bases, each with different ranges of functions).
Regarding claim 12, Jeong discloses:
The cleaning system (16) according to claim 9, wherein the base station (4) is designed and set up to control the electrical counter-interface (3) in such a way that the voltage that can be measured by the cleaning device (1) is changed at least temporarily (please see claim 1 regarding voltage measurements and see the reference cited but not used from the website Robot Reviews which discusses that it is known in the art of robotic floor cleaners for an “idle” voltage (e.g., 2V) to help detect contact with the robot and a charging voltage (e.g., 22.6V), which is construed as a measured voltage that is changed at least temporarily).
Regarding claim 16, Jeong, as modified by Afrouzi, discloses:
The cleaning device (1) according to claim 2, wherein the storage device is a database ([0428] incorporates storing information on a database).
Claim 20 recites a procedure having substantially the same features of claim 16 above, therefore claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Jeong, as modified by Afrouzi, discloses:
The cleaning device (1) according to claim 2, wherein the storage device (11) is kept available by a data processing device of the cleaning device (1) or that the storage device (11) is kept available by a spatially separated data processing device (10), such that the storage device (11) is accessed by a data processing device of the cleaning device (10) via the at least one communication interface (9) (see claims 1 and 16, particularly [0428] which discloses a processor communicably coupled to a memory or database and [0148] which discloses the robot controller comprising a main processor and a memory).
Regarding claim 18, Jeong, as modified by Afrouzi, discloses:
The cleaning device (1) according to claim 6, wherein after selection of the at least one base station (4), the data processing device (10) directs the cleaning device (1) to move at least in the direction of a selected base station (4) with a known position data (15), or to direct it to move to any base station (4) to determine the range of service functions (13) (see claim 1 regarding an autonomously mobile cleaning device that moves in the direction of the base station and claim 2 where the system coordinates the movements of a fleet insomuch that a cleaning device may necessarily move to a base with a specific range of functions for servicing (e.g., emptying the dirt collection container into a receptacle)).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Please see:
Michels et al. (US Pat. No. 10,889,196 B2) is directed towards an autonomous vehicle that can be cleaned, repaired, maintained, or otherwise serviced, and charged by autonomous apparatuses of a point of distribution (POD) station; and
Zhang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,812,907 B2) is directed towards a cleaning robot system that is capable of automatically cleaning the mop member with no need for users to change or clean the mop member frequently, based on the base station.
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 KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights