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 Application
This final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment received by the Office on 05-FEB-2026. Claims 1-5, and 8-29 have been presented in the application, of which, 2-5, 9-29 are original or previously presented. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 6 and 7 are cancelled. Accordingly, pending claims 1-5, and 8-29 are addressed herein.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05-FEB-2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05-FEB-2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, and 8-29 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05-FEB-2026, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 15 and 25 under 102 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 15 on page 3, that Daum does not teach determining a position of the vehicle with respect to one or more robotic arms because the arms are not considered. The examiner disagrees. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “with respect to” the robotic arms include registering the shape of the vehicle so that the robotic arm can move and clean the vehicle, as described by Daum, “Paragraph [87], “The sensors 124 and the cameras 126 characterize controlled with software the topography and the environment of the cleaning tool in order to recognize for example threatening collisions in time and to control the robot arm 12 correspondingly. The software can register the shape of the vehicle 4 before beginning of the cleaning program course so that the type and model of the vehicle 4 is recognize in order to control the movements of the robot arm 12 for the carrying out of the cleaning program”. Just within this step in Daum, the method must inherently account for the location of the vehicle with respect to the arms for the arms to clean the vehicle. The citation in the below rejection has been streamlined to reflect this clarification.
On page 4 regarding claim 15, Applicant continues to argue that Daum does not teach “scanning a configuration of the vehicle to yield a configuration scan”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the scanning step, as it is not further defined, is merely taking images of the vehicle, which is taught by Daum. The configuration scan is not further defined by the claims. The claim limitations do not exclude the geometrical information being stored for reference, and language in the specification cannot be claimed. The citations in the below rejection have been updated to reflect this further clarification The same arguments are upheld for claim 25 in response to argument made by Applicant on page 4.
In light of this, the 102 rejection is being upheld below.
The amendment to claim 1 added change the scope of the invention so a new 103 rejection has been made below in light of Edwards et al. (US 2022/0050934 A1). Therefore, the arguments made against the previous 103 rejection are moot.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: "communication system…” of claims 2 and 3, and “state machine…” of claim 14 as the communication system nor the state machine have sufficient structure in the claims for performing the functions claimed.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The applicant’s specification states, with regard to the communication system, Paragraph [59], “communications device including, e.g., a server, a network appliance, a personal computer, a workstation, a phone, a handheld PC, a personal digital assistant, a thin client, a fat client, an Internet browser, or other device. The device also may be a mobile device; for example, a mobile device may include an iPhone, iPod, iPad from Apple or any other mobile device running Apple's iOS operating system, any device running Microsoft's Windows 18”. The applicant’s specification states, with regard to the state machine, Paragraph [59], “The processor may be part of a device, such as a network-enabled computer”, and Paragraph [60], “processing circuitry may contain additional components, including … anticollision algorithms.”
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations
recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. If applicant does not intend to have these
limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(1) amend the claim limitations 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 limitations 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-22, 25, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daum (US 20020121291 A1)
Regarding claim 15, Daum teaches: An automated method for cleaning an interior of a vehicle comprising: determining a position of the vehicle with respect to one or more robotic arms positioned exterior to the vehicle (Paragraph [87], “The sensors 124 and the cameras 126 characterize controlled with software the topography and the environment of the cleaning tool in order to recognize for example threatening collisions in time and to control the robot arm 12 correspondingly. The software can register the shape of the vehicle 4 before beginning of the cleaning program course so that the type and model of the vehicle 4 is recognize in order to control the movements of the robot arm 12 for the carrying out of the cleaning program”); scanning a configuration of the vehicle to yield a configuration scan (Paragraph [30], “picture recognition of all sides, from above as well as from behind and in front. The motor vehicle type and the coordinates of the windows are defined”, Paragraph [40], “Through picture recognition a further measurement of the vehicle is carried out with opened doors and opened trunk”); identifying surfaces to be cleaned (Paragraph [30], "The coordinates are used to define the location of the cleaning zones"); creating and/or modifying a plurality of tool paths for the one or more robotic arms to clean the identified surfaces (Paragraph [87]); and controlling the one or more robotic arms to move along the created and/or modified plurality of tool paths and execute a cleaning operation in the interior of the vehicle (Paragraph [41])
Regarding claim 16, Daum teaches: The method of claim 15, further comprising, prior to scanning the configuration of the vehicle, acquiring information about the vehicle by retrieving master data (Paragraph [30], "Step 3… Alternatively, the car can carry a bar code like coding to be defined or simply the customer enters the exact car type by means of a keyboard or automatic identification card insertion into the system”; Paragraph [40], "Step 6: Through picture recognition a further measurement of the vehicle is carried out") from a database (Paragraph [25], "existing car types stored in the system").
Regarding claim 17, Daum teaches: The method of claim 16, further comprising aligning data from the configuration scan with the master data (Paragraph [25], "Sensors will not only detect environmental changes of the interior of the car, compared to the stored data of the car type, but will also detect if for instance the car door to insert the robot arm is opened or closed")
Regarding claim 18, Daum teaches: The method of claim 16, further comprising detecting obstacles based on discrepancies between the configuration scan and the aligned master data (Paragraph [46], "Obstacles that can not be assigned to the expected vehicle geometry lead the robot to avoid that particular zone")
Regarding claim 19, Daum teaches: The method of claim 18, wherein the plurality of tool paths are created and/or modified to avoid the detected obstacles by a predetermined distance (Paragraph [87], "controlled with software the topography and the environment of the cleaning tool in order to recognize for example threatening collisions in time and to control the robot arm 12 correspondingly")
Regarding claim 20, Daum teaches: The method of claim 16, wherein scanning the configuration of the vehicle includes scanning a doorjamb, and wherein the scanned doorjamb configuration (Paragraph [40], "With that information the system recognizes cleaning positions to be excluded (Doors in front, to the right and/or to the left; Doors behind, to the right and/or to the left of; Trunk)") is aligned with corresponding doorjamb data stored in the master data (Paragraph [25], "Sensors will not only detect environmental changes of the interior of the car, compared to the stored data of the car type, but will also detect if for instance the car door to insert the robot arm is opened or closed")
Regarding claim 21, Daum teaches: The method of claim 15, wherein scanning the configuration of the vehicle includes capturing a plurality of exterior images (Paragraph [30], "picture recognition of all sides, from above as well as from behind and in front") and interior images of the vehicle (Paragraph [40], "Step 6: Through picture recognition a further measurement of the vehicle is carried out with opened doors and opened trunk"; Paragraph [25], "In addition sensors record the environment of the cleaning tool and the robot arm. Sensors will not only detect environmental changes of the interior of the car, compared to the stored data of the car type…")
Regarding claim 22, Daum teaches: The method of claim 15, further comprising creating optimized tool paths by running the created tool paths through at least one of a free space motion system or a cartesian motion planning system (Paragraph [87], "controlled with software the topography and the environment of the cleaning tool in order to recognize for example threatening collisions in time and to control the robot arm 12 correspondingly")
Regarding claim 25, Daum teaches: An automated method for cleaning an interior of a vehicle comprising: storing a plurality of images for a plurality of vehicles in a database to create a master data package (Paragraph [25], "Topographical and geometrical information of existing car types stored in the system "); acquiring vehicle specific data from the master data package (Paragraph [25], "Sensors will not only detect environmental changes of the interior of the car, compared to the stored data of the car type"); scanning a configuration of the vehicle (Paragraph [30], “picture recognition of all sides, from above as well as from behind and in front. The motor vehicle type and the coordinates of the windows are defined”, Paragraph [40], “Through picture recognition a further measurement of the vehicle is carried out with opened doors and opened trunk”); aligning the acquired vehicle specific data with the scanned configuration (Paragraph [25], "Sensors will not only detect environmental changes of the interior of the car, compared to the stored data of the car type, but will also detect if for instance the car door to insert the robot arm is opened or closed "); creating a process plan for execution of a plurality of cleaning operations based on the scanned configuration (Paragraph [30], “Step 3: An electronic monitoring system registers the precise vehicle position and vehicle geometry and car type by means of picture recognition of all sides, from above as well as from behind and in front. The motor vehicle type and the coordinates of the windows are defined. The coordinates are used to define the location of the cleaning zones.”; Paragraph [45]); sending instructions to a robot to execute the plurality of cleaning operations based on the process plan; and executing the plurality of cleaning operations in accordance with the instructions (Paragraph [41])
Regarding claim 26, Daum teaches: The method of claim 25, wherein the master data package includes at least one of vehicle make and model data, vehicle year data, or vehicle class data (Paragraph [6], "So cars of arbitrary types can be cleaned automatically, controlled by corresponding procedure programming considering model-particular topography or geometry dates. The model of the vehicle whose interior is supposed to be cleaned is identified by a picture identification system"; Paragraph [25], "existing car types stored in the system")
Regarding claim 28, Daum teaches: The method of claim 25, further comprising providing feedback on a quality of the executed plurality of cleaning operations (Paragraph [7], "The cleaning procedure can be repeated, until for example depending on the degree of the pollution and the diversity of his surfaces the interior is cleaned with different or variously suitable cleaning tools")
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:
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-13, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daum (US 20020121291 A1) in view of Edwards et al. (US 2022/0050934 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Daum teaches: A system for cleaning an interior of a vehicle comprising: a robotic arm (element 12) positioned outside of the vehicle (Figure 1), the robotic arm including an end effector configured as a cleaning implement for cleaning a surface in the interior of the vehicle (element 14); a camera (element 126) configured to scan the interior of the vehicle (Paragraph [40], "Step 6: Through picture recognition a further measurement of the vehicle is carried out with opened doors and opened trunk"; Paragraph [25], "In addition sensors record the environment of the cleaning tool and the robot arm. Sensors will not only detect environmental changes of the interior of the car, compared to the stored data of the car type…"), the camera being positioned outside of the vehicle (Figure 21; element 126); and a first controller (element 122) configured to create and/or modify a tool path to execute a cleaning operation, based on the scan (Paragraph [87]), and to send instructions to the robotic arm to execute the cleaning operation in accordance with the created and/or modified tool path (Paragraph [41]).
While Daum teaches the limitations as stated above, it does not expressly disclose:
a camera mechanically coupled to the robotic arm
However, Edwards et al. discloses: a camera mechanically coupled to the robotic arm (Figure 1A; element 102)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cleaning robot with a robot arm for cleaning the interior of a car while avoiding collisions by using sensors and cameras of Daum, to include the camera being attached to the arm, as taught by Edwards et al. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a cleaning robot with a robot arm for cleaning the interior of a car while avoiding collisions by using sensors and cameras, wherein one camera is attached the robotic arm.
Regarding claim 2, Daum teaches: The system of claim 1, further comprising a communication system (Paragraph [87], "The software…”) coupled to the controller (Paragraph [87], "… of the operation unit 122 will contain image recognition in order to define the car type and any changes of this")
Regarding claim 3, Daum teaches: The system of claim 2, wherein the communication system includes a quality assurance feedback loop (Paragraph [7])
Regarding claim 5, Daum teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the camera is configured to detect at least one of a seat position, a steering wheel position, or an object present in the vehicle (Paragraph [46-47])
Regarding claim 6, Daum teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the camera is positioned outside of the vehicle (Figure 21; element 126)
Regarding claim 9, Daum teaches: The system of claim 1, further comprising a database of a plurality of stored vehicle configurations (Paragraph [25], "Topographical and geometrical information of existing car types stored in the system")
Regarding claim 10, Daum teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the robotic arm or the end effector includes a sensor to detect objects present in the vehicle (Figure 21; element 124; Paragraph [87], "The sensors 124 and the cameras 126 characterize controlled with software the topography and the environment of the cleaning tool in order to recognize for example threatening collisions in time")
Regarding claim 12, Daum teaches: The system of claim 1, further comprising a linear rail located above the vehicle, the robot arm movable along the linear rail (Paragraph [21], "In order to reach the different interior fields of the various vehicle types the robot arm is arranged at a trolley appliance in the ceiling field of the cleaning-garage")
Regarding claim 13, Daum teaches: The system of claim 12, further comprising a conveyor upon which the vehicle is carried (element 8; Paragraph [29], "The car can by a mechanical control system be guided through the machine on special lanes"), and wherein the robot is configured to move along the linear rail in coordination with a motion of the conveyor (Paragraph [73], "After completion of the cleaning course of the cleaning process, which is carried out from a robot arm 12 with a cleaning tool 14, shown in this FIG. 1 in the trunk of the car 4, the car is automatically guided by tracks 8 to a reworking site 16").
Regarding claim 29, Daum teaches: The system of claim 1, further comprising another camera (Paragraph [87], "as well as with at least one camera 126… cameras 126") configured to determine a position of the vehicle with respect to a reference point (Paragraph [30], “Step 3: An electronic monitoring system registers the precise vehicle position … by means of picture recognition of all sides.”)
Regarding claim 11, Daum teaches: The system of claim 29, wherein the another camera is located at a position above a roof of the vehicle (Figure 21; element 126; Paragraph [30], "picture recognition of all sides, from above")
Claims 4, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daum (US 20020121291 A1) in view of Edwards et al. (US 2022/0050934 A1) in further view Yako (US 20170297537 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Daum teaches: configured to receive data from one or more sensors to mitigate collision (Paragraph [47], "The remote sensing avoids collisions of the robot mechanism with the vehicle interior. A camera observes the vehicle and robot environment. Near objects in motion cause the robot to break off. The robot arm itself might comprise many tough sensors along its arm structure"; Paragraph [87], "The sensors 124 and the cameras 126 characterize controlled with software the topography and the environment of the cleaning tool in order to recognize for example threatening collisions in time and to control the robot arm 12 correspondingly ")
While Daum teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not expressly teach:
A second controller
However, Yako teaches: The system of claim 1, further comprising a second controller (Paragraph [17], "The system 100 may include a plurality of data collectors 110. The data collectors 110 may include a variety of devices. For example, various controllers in a vehicle may operate as data collectors 110 to provide data 115")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cleaning robot with a robot arm for cleaning the interior of a car while avoiding collisions by using sensors and cameras, a camera being on a robotic arm, of Daum and Edwards et al., to include the various controllers, and the controller operating as a data collector, as taught by Yako. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a cleaning robot with a robot arm for cleaning the interior of a car while avoiding collisions by using sensors and cameras, a camera being on a robotic arm, and various controllers including one for data collecting.
Regarding claim 14, Daum teaches: he system of claim 1, further comprising a state machine configured to manage timing (Paragraph [87], "The sensors 124 and the cameras 126 characterize controlled with software the topography and the environment of the cleaning tool in order to recognize for example threatening collisions in time and to control the robot arm 12 correspondingly")
While Daum teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not expressly teach:
and coordination of a plurality of cleaning implements associated with a plurality of robotic arms
However, Yako teaches: and coordination of a plurality of cleaning implements associated with a plurality of robotic arms (element 170; Paragraph [12], "The system can include a bar and/or cleaning arms that push trash off a vehicle seat and onto a vehicle floor")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cleaning robot with a robot arm for cleaning the interior of a car while avoiding collisions by using sensors and cameras, a camera being on a robotic arm, of Daum and Edwards et al., to include the multiple arms for cleaning the vehicle, as taught by Yako. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a cleaning robot with multiple robot arms for cleaning the interior of a car that avoiding collisions in time.
Regarding claim 8, while Daum teaches the limitations set forth above, including a robot arm for cleaning a vehicle interior, it does not expressly teach:
wherein at least one of the first camera and the second camera comprises a 3D camera
However, Yako teaches: The system of claim 29, wherein at least one of the another camera or the camera comprises a 3D camera (Paragraph [17], "Sensor data collectors 110 could include mechanisms such as RADAR, LIDAR, sonar, etc. sensors that could be deployed to determine location of an object, e.g., trash")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cleaning robot with a robot arm for cleaning the interior of a car while avoiding collisions by using sensors and cameras, a camera being on a robotic arm, of Daum and Edwards et al., to include the use of LIDAR sensors, as taught by Yako. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a cleaning robot with a robot arm for cleaning the interior of a car while utilizing cameras, including LIDAR sensors.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daum (US 20020121291 A1) in view Lin (CN 113427490 A).
Regarding claim 23, while Daum teaches the limitations set forth above, including a method for a robot arm for cleaning a vehicle interior, it does not expressly teach:
creating the plurality of tool paths includes implementing an algorithm to plan trajectories for the robot using a sampler-based approach
However, Lin teaches: The method of claim 15, wherein creating the plurality of tool paths includes implementing an algorithm to plan trajectories for the robot using a sampler-based approach (Paragraph [17], "DWA local path planning algorithm is sampling multiple groups of speed in the speed space, and simulating the track of the robot in a certain time under the multiple groups of speed, and evaluating the track, selecting the speed corresponding to the optimal track to drive the movement of the robot")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cleaning robot with a robot arm for cleaning the interior of a car utilizing sensors and cameras to register the exact car type and cleaning zones, as well as avoiding collisions in the interior of the car of Daum, to include utilizing DWA local path planning for movements of the robot, as taught by Lin. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: with a robot arm for cleaning the interior of a car utilizing sensors and cameras to register the exact car type and cleaning zones, as well as avoiding collisions in the interior of the car, utilizing DWA local path planning for movements of the robot.
Claims 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daum (US 20020121291 A1) in view of Ahmad (US 20110155192 A1).
Regarding claim 24, while Daum teaches the limitations set forth above, including a method for a robot arm for cleaning a vehicle interior, it does not expressly teach:
optimizing a sequencing of tasks relative to a time permitted for each task
However, Ahmad teaches: The method of claim 15, further comprising optimizing a sequencing of tasks relative to a time permitted for each task (Paragraph [264], "activating one or more wash cycles, sub-cycles and/or phases according to pre-determined timing").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cleaning robot with a robot arm for cleaning the interior of a car of Daum, to include activating wash sub-cycles and/or phases according to pre-determined timing, as taught by Ahmad. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a cleaning robot with a robot arm for cleaning the interior of a car, activating wash sub-cycles and/or phases according to pre-determined timing.
Regarding claim 27, while Daum teaches the limitations set forth above, including a method for a robot arm for cleaning a vehicle interior, it does not expressly teach:
wherein a cycle time between a start of the scanning the configuration of the vehicle and an end of the execution of cleaning operations is less than five minutes
However, Ahmad teaches: The method of claim 25, wherein a cycle time between a start of the scanning the configuration of the vehicle and an end of the execution of cleaning operations is less than five minutes (Paragraph [12], “Timers (and/or controllers) and solenoid valves to turn on and off all pre-programmed cycles to wash vehicles”; Paragraph [264], "activating one or more wash cycles, sub-cycles and/or phases according to pre-determined timing"; It is reasonable to ascertain to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the pre-determined timing can be five minutes and the timer may turn off the pre-programmed cycle before five minutes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cleaning robot with a robot arm for cleaning the interior of a car of Daum, to include activating wash cycles according to pre-determined timing, as taught by Ahmad. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a cleaning robot with a robot arm for cleaning the interior of a car, activating wash cycles according to pre-determined timing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSE TRAMANH TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5879. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at 571-272-6919. 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.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights