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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 8/12/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the claim objection of record detailed in the Office Action dated 5/12/2026. These/this objection have/has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 8/12/2026, with respect to 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of 5/12/2026 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 lines 36-37 read "based on at least either a contamination level indicating an extent of dirtiness of the cleaning required region, or a length of a pre-cleaning movement route" which appears to be a punctuation error. The comma after "region" makes it confusing whether the based on clause ends after "region" or not. Thus, this should read "based on at least a contamination level indicating an extent of dirtiness of the cleaning required region or a length of a pre-cleaning movement route" to improve clarity, reduce confusion, and maintain continuity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
“Processing unit” as utilized within the claims is interpreted under ordinary skill in the art as a processor, microprocessor, GPU, CPU, TPU, or other processing circuitry as well known in the art.
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:
In claim(s) 1, the “position information reading sections” in the limitation “one or more position information reading sections configured to read position information held by position information holders disposed at a plurality of locations on the rails” invokes 112(f) as “section” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables reading position information.
In claim(s) 1, the “position information holders” in the limitation “position information held by position information holders” invokes 112(f) as “holder” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the holding of position information.
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.
Regarding the position information reading sections and position information holders, a review of the specification (paragraph 0029) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
“Note that the position information holders M can be configured using a barcode or a wireless tag, for example. If the position information holders M are configured by a barcode, the first position information reading section 45 and the second position information reading section 16 may be configured as a barcode reader. On the other hand, if the position information holders M are configured by a wireless tag, the first position information reading section 45 and the second position information reading section 16 may be configured as a tag reader.”
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 § 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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 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.
Claim 1 reads "based on at least either a contamination level indicating an extent of dirtiness of the cleaning required region, or a length of a pre-cleaning movement route" which appears to be a continuity error. Since both the contamination level and length are required in determination of a target region later in the claim, the optional language provides unnecessary confusion as both options must be selected to perform the entirety of the claimed limitations. As written, the claim is contradictory and thus indefinite. For the purpose of examination, this will be read as "based on at least a contamination level indicating an extent of dirtiness of the cleaning required region and a length of a pre-cleaning movement route".
Claim(s) 2-8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim 5 recites executing “the cleaning control in a cleaning required region having a highest contamination level.” This appears to ignore the following amended limitation of claim 1: “wherein the control device determines, as the target region, the cleaning required region having the highest total value of the pre-cleaning movement determination value and the contamination level.” Thus, claim 5 contradicts the limitations of claim 1 which it depends upon by instead setting the target region based on a region with the highest contamination level alone rather than a region with the highest total value of the pre-cleaning movement determination value and the contamination level. Since the claim is contradictory, it is rejected under 112(b).
Similarly, claim 7 is contradictory to claim 1. Claim 7 recites executing “the cleaning control with respect to a cleaning required region closest to a point where the inspection control and the specification control ended.” This appears to ignore and contradict the above cited limitation of determining a target region as a region having the highest total value of the pre-cleaning movement determination value and the contamination level by instead determining the target region purely based on relative distance. Since the claim is contradictory, it is rejected under 112(b).
Claim 11 appears to provide a contradictory optional statement. Claim 11 recites that “the control device determines, as the target region, the cleaning required region having the highest total value or product value of the first weight and the second weight.” This contradicts claim 1 which claim 11 depends upon since claim 1 recites that the target region must be determined based on the highest total value. Selecting only the highest product value option thus ignores the limitations of claim 1. Since the claim is contradictory, it is rejected under 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is allowed.
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, none of the prior art of record teaches that “the control device determines, as the target region, the cleaning required region having the highest total value of the pre-cleaning movement determination value and the contamination level”. While Bonaccorsi et al. IT 202000013975 A1 (hereinafter Bonaccorsi) teaches selecting a cleaning region with a highest contamination level and Chen et al. US 20120291810 A1 (hereinafter Chen) teaches selecting a cleaning region as a closest region, none of the prior art of record teaches determining “as the target region, the cleaning required region having the highest total value of the pre-cleaning movement determination value and the contamination level.” Therefore, the claimed invention appears to be novel and non-obvious.
Claims 2-8 and 10-11 contain the allowable subject matter of claim 1 due to matters of dependency.
Regarding claim 12, Tadayon US 20120152877 A1 in view of Morimoto et al. US 20120312327 A1 appears to be the closest prior art to teach the amended limitations that “the travel route includes a loop route, and [that], in response to the number of times cleaning of a target region, which is the cleaning required region in which the cleaning vehicle is to perform cleaning the soonest at the present time, being less than a set cleaning count, after cleaning of the target region is completed, the control device causes the cleaning vehicle to travel around the travel route so as to again arrive at the target region, and executes the cleaning control in the target region.” Morimoto teaches a robot cleaner that can travel on loop routes (see Figure 1 for example). Tadayon teaches repeatedly cleaning a soiled area up to a maximum of N times (see ¶ 0077 for example). While applying the number based cleaning of Tadayon on a track would result in the limitations of claim 12 since traveling and cleaning are performed simultaneously as taught by Morimoto and thus would require looping back around to perform subsequent cleanings according to the teachings of Tadayon, a combination with Tadayon, Morimoto, and the remainder of the prior art used to teach the rest of the claim as detailed in the Office Action dated 5/12/2026 would require significant hindsight reasoning. Tadayon is merely an arm robot cleaner that travels between solar panels to clean them. Applying the limitations of Tadayon to an on-rail system that cleans the rails would thus require significant modification of the teaching of Tadayon to be applied alongside other references which all teach significantly different contexts that would require inappropriate hindsight reconstruction using the prior art of record. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be unlikely to arrive at such a combination organically without using the inventor’s own invention as a blueprint. Thus, the claim appears to be non-obvious in light of the prior art of record.
Examiner understands that the applicant may have different reasons for indicating allowable subject matter.
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 Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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 Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights