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 Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Response filed on December 23rd, 2025. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-15, and 17-23 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s Response filed on December 23rd, 2025, Examiner withdraws the previous claim objections; withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 23rd, 2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the Applicant’s response with regards to the claim objection for claim 1 on page 6, Examiner asserts that the Applicant’s amendments resolve the claim objection and it is therefore withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments provided for the rejections of claims 1, 6, 7, and 9-13 as put forth on pages 6 and 7 of Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues claims 1 and 14 “Applicant submits that unlike Sandin, the processor makes an automatic decision based upon the intent of the user. On the contrary, in Sandin, when the handle is unfolded, the circuitry is configured such that the user is required to squeeze and hold the handle to make the mower run. If the user releases the handle, the cutter turns off… With the present invention, based upon user interaction with the device, the processor, based on intent selects manual mode or autonomous mode. As the situation changes, i.e., the user steps away, or stops pushing or moving the device, the processor will on its own determine intent and determine to return to autonomous mode. This does not require any intervention by the user, and occurs, again automatically. Applicant has amended the independent claims 1 and 14 so as to further specify that the movement between autonomous and manual mode occurs automatically based upon a determined intent of the user by the processor” (from remarks pgs. 6-7).
As to point (b), Examiner partially agrees. Examiner asserts that a user intent can be determined in various ways, including but not limited to pressing a button, detecting a user’s presence, etc. Sandin discloses switching the mower to a manual mode when the grasp of a handle is no longer detected, this can correspond to a user intending to no longer automatically operate the mower. In view of the new amendments, applicant clarifies that a robot is switched to manual mode when a grasp on the handle is detected. This newly added limitation is not taught by Sardin. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US-20190246868 (hereinafter, “Karasikov”)
Regarding the arguments provided for the dependent claims as put forth on page 7 of Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “claims 1 and 14 should be deemed allowable at the present time. Applicant submits that the remaining claims, which depend, ultimately from one of claim 1 or claim 14, should be deemed allowable based upon their dependency”.
As to point (c), see point (b).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20190246868 (hereinafter, “Karasikov”) in view of US-20220063758 (hereinafter, “Corbett”).
Regarding claim 1 Karasikov discloses a mixed mode robot (see at least [0001]; “the present invention relates to cleaning devices. More particularly, the present invention relates to a cleaning robot with an arm and tool receptacles”) having an autonomous mode, wherein the robot moves autonomously (see at least [0059]; “a control system may be configured to autonomously control operation of the propulsion system”), and a manual mode, wherein the robot is passive and allows manual manipulation by a user (see at least [0194]; “Cleaning robot 10 may be configured to enable an operator to manually guide cleaning robot 10…when in a moving mode, drive wheels 26 may be disconnected (e.g., by turning off a drive motor or by operating a clutch to disable a transmission) such that cleaning robot 10 may be pushed or pulled by a human operator (e.g., by pushing or pulling on an appropriate handle)”), the mixed mode robot comprising:
a robot base (see at least fig. 1; robot base 16) having a plurality of wheels associated therewith (see at least Fig. 1; wheels 26a and 26b), and with each of at least two wheels having coupled thereto a direct drive…motor to drive the robot when in the autonomous mode (see at least [0082]; “robot base 16 may enclose a propulsion system that may be operated to enable self-propulsion of cleaning robot 10. The propulsion system may include one or more propulsion motors that may be configured to operate one or more drive wheels 26. For example, each drive wheel 26 may be operated by a separate motor, e.g., via a separate transmission assembly.”);
one or more handholds connected to the robot base and adapted for use by a user to move the robot when the robot is in the manual mode (see at least [0194]; “Cleaning robot 10 may be configured to enable an operator to manually guide cleaning robot 10…when in a moving mode, drive wheels 26 may be disconnected (e.g., by turning off a drive motor or by operating a clutch to disable a transmission) such that cleaning robot 10 may be pushed or pulled by a human operator (e.g., by pushing or pulling on an appropriate handle)”); and
a processor (see at least [0054]; “Some embodiments of the invention may include an article such as a computer or processor readable medium, or a computer or processor non-transitory storage medium, such as for example a memory, a disk drive, or a USB flash memory, encoding, including or storing instructions, e.g., computer-executable instructions, which when executed by a processor or controller, carry out methods disclosed herein”) configured to place the robot in a selected one of the autonomous mode and the manual mode (see at least [0120]; “Control unit 20 may include one or more user controls 25 (e.g., pushbutton, touch screen, switch, keyboard, keypad, knob, pointing device, microphone, or other user operable control) to enable a human operator to manually control one or more operations of cleaning robot 10. For example, user controls 25 may enable the operator to tum electrical power to cleaning robot 10 on or off, to abort, pause, or start an operation, or otherwise control operation. User controls 25 may enable an operator to disable autonomous operation of cleaning robot 10 in case of an emergency situation (e. g., a panic or abort button or switch) in order to manually transport cleaning robot 10 to another room (e.g., using a handle that is attached to arm base 18, robot base 16, or elsewhere on cleaning robot 10 in FIG. 1).”), to navigate the robot via the direct drive…motors in the autonomous mode (see at least [0082]; “robot base 16 may enclose a propulsion system that may be operated to enable self-propulsion of cleaning robot 10. The propulsion system may include one or more propulsion motors that may be configured to operate one or more drive wheels 26. For example, each drive wheel 26 may be operated by a separate motor, e.g., via a separate transmission assembly”), and to depower the direct drive…motors in the manual mode to allow the user to easily move the robot using the at least two wheels having coupled thereto the direct drive hub motor (see at least [0194]; “Cleaning robot 10 may be configured to enable an operator to manually guide cleaning robot 10…when in a moving mode, drive wheels 26 may be disconnected (e.g., by turning off a drive motor or by operating a clutch to disable a transmission) such that cleaning robot 10 may be pushed or pulled by a human operator (e.g., by pushing or pulling on an appropriate handle)”),
wherein the processor is further configured to automatically place the robot in a selected one of the autonomous mode and the manual mode, without the user having to actively select one of the autonomous mode and the manual mode, based on a sensor suite comprising at least one of a proximity sensor, a touch sensor indicative to the processor that a user has grasped the handle causing the robot to automatically switch to manual mode, a wheel torque sensor and an inertial measurement unit (see at least [0189]; “Navigation subunit 88, operation subunit 90, or another unit of processing unit 81 or control unit 20 may be configured to apply various pedestrian and face detection techniques or motion detection techniques to input from sensors 21 to detect the presence of any people within room 100,” [0200-0201]; “Cleaning robot 10 may operate one or more sensors 21 (e.g., a motion, thermal, or imaging sensor) to determine if there are any people in room 100 (block 22). If a human presence is detected, cleaning robot 10 may stop operation (block 225),” the sensors 21 correspond to the proximity sensor, if a person is detected the cleaning robot stops operation this would constitute stopping the propulsion system (depowering the motors) which would coincide with a manual mode).
Karasikov does not disclose wherein the direct drive motor is a direct drive hub motor.
Corbett, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the direct drive motor is a direct drive hub motor (see at least [0022]; “The autonomous electronic bicycle 100 (also referred to herein as the AEB 100) can include one or more “direct drive” electric motors operating various components of the autonomous electronic bicycle 100. As used herein, a direct drive motor is an electric motor mounted to the autonomous electronic bicycle 100 such that the shaft of the electric motor forms or is part of the axle on which the moveable component of the autonomous electronic bicycle 100 rotates. One characteristic of systems using direct drive motors is the lack of an intermediate mechanical power transmission system between the direct drive motor and the moving component. As the direct drive motor directly rotates the axle where the moving component is mounted, a system using a direct drive motor does not require the use of gears, transmissions, belt or chain drives, or other mechanical power transmission systems to transmit the force of the direct drive motor to the axle of the moveable component.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the robot of Karasikov with the direct drive motor of Corbett. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving durability of the vehicle by reducing break or wear (see at least Corbett; [0022]).
Regarding claim 6 Karasikov in view of Corbett renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Karasikov, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein placing the robot in a selected one of the autonomous mode and the manual mode comprises determining based on data from the sensor suite whether the user is attempting to manually move the robot, and placing the robot in the manual mode if it is determined that the user is trying to manually move the robot (see at least [0120]; “Control unit 20 may include one or more user controls 25 (e.g., pushbutton, touch screen, switch, keyboard, keypad, knob, pointing device, microphone, or other user operable control) to enable a human operator to manually control one or more operations of cleaning robot 10. For example, user controls 25 may enable the operator to tum electrical power to cleaning robot 10 on or off, to abort, pause, or start an operation, or otherwise control operation. User controls 25 may enable an operator to disable autonomous operation of cleaning robot 10 in case of an emergency situation (e. g., a panic or abort button or switch) in order to manually transport cleaning robot 10 to another room (e.g., using a handle that is attached to arm base 18, robot base 16, or elsewhere on cleaning robot 10 in FIG. 1),” an indication of a user touching the screen to switch modes would constitute a user trying to manually move the robot, the detection of a touch screen can be done using various types of sensors).
Regarding claim 7 Karasikov in view of Corbett renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Karasikov discloses further comprising a user interface (see at least [0120]; “Control unit 20 may include one or more user controls 25 (e.g., pushbutton, touch screen, switch, keyboard, keypad, knob, pointing device, microphone, or other user operable control) to enable a human operator to manually control one or more operations of cleaning robot 10. For example, user controls 25 may enable the operator to tum electrical power to cleaning robot 10 on or off, to abort, pause, or start an operation, or otherwise control operation,” the touch screen and/or the buttons both constitute a user interface).
wherein the processor is further configured to place the robot in a selected one of the autonomous mode and the manual mode based on a user action relative to the user interface (see at least [0120]; “Control unit 20 may include one or more user controls 25 (e.g., pushbutton, touch screen, switch, keyboard, keypad, knob, pointing device, microphone, or other user operable control) to enable a human operator to manually control one or more operations of cleaning robot 10. For example, user controls 25 may enable the operator to tum electrical power to cleaning robot 10 on or off, to abort, pause, or start an operation, or otherwise control operation. User controls 25 may enable an operator to disable autonomous operation of cleaning robot 10 in case of an emergency situation (e. g., a panic or abort button or switch) in order to manually transport cleaning robot 10 to another room (e.g., using a handle that is attached to arm base 18, robot base 16, or elsewhere on cleaning robot 10 in FIG. 1),” an indication of a user touching the screen to switch modes would constitute a user trying to manually move the robot, the detection of a touch screen can be done using various types of sensors).
Regarding claim 9 Karasikov in view of Corbett renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Karasikov discloses all of the limitations mentioned above except for wherein the mass of the robot is less than 200 kg. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the weight of the robot for the benefit of easier manipulation, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the device. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10 Karasikov in view of Corbett renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Corbett, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising at least one projection on the base to prevent over-center tipping of the robot while being moved by the user or actuated by the processor autonomously (see at least [0036]; “In some implementations, the autonomous electronic bicycle 100 can include an actuated kickstand 170 which may enable the bike to stop and start in autonomous mode without falling over. For example, the actuated kickstand 170 can comprise a linear actuator or electronic motor used to extend and retract the kickstand depending on the current situation. For example, the autonomous electronic bicycle 100 can retract the actuated kickstand 170 in response to transitioning (or preparing to transition) from a stop to movement and can extend the actuated kickstand 170 in response to transitioning from autonomous movement to an inactive state (for example, when parking or otherwise indefinitely stopping autonomous motion”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the robot of Ramanand as modified by Karasikov with the kickstand of Corbett. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing the vehicle from falling over (see at least Corbett; [0036]).
Regarding claim 11 Karasikov in view of Corbett renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Corbett, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one projection is configured such that the user can press the projection with their foot while pulling the robot towards them via the handle to tilt the robot (see at least [0036]; “In some implementations, the autonomous electronic bicycle 100 can include an actuated kickstand 170 which may enable the bike to stop and start in autonomous mode without falling over. For example, the actuated kickstand 170 can comprise a linear actuator or electronic motor used to extend and retract the kickstand depending on the current situation. For example, the autonomous electronic bicycle 100 can retract the actuated kickstand 170 in response to transitioning (or preparing to transition) from a stop to movement and can extend the actuated kickstand 170 in response to transitioning from autonomous movement to an inactive state (for example, when parking or otherwise indefinitely stopping autonomous motion”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the robot of Ramanand as modified by Karasikov with the kickstand of Corbett. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing the vehicle from falling over (see at least Corbett; [0036]).
Regarding claim 12 Karasikov in view of Corbett renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Corbett, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one projection is foldable or removable by the user (see at least [0036]; “In some implementations, the autonomous electronic bicycle 100 can include an actuated kickstand 170 which may enable the bike to stop and start in autonomous mode without falling over. For example, the actuated kickstand 170 can comprise a linear actuator or electronic motor used to extend and retract the kickstand depending on the current situation. For example, the autonomous electronic bicycle 100 can retract the actuated kickstand 170 in response to transitioning (or preparing to transition) from a stop to movement and can extend the actuated kickstand 170 in response to transitioning from autonomous movement to an inactive state (for example, when parking or otherwise indefinitely stopping autonomous motion”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the robot of Ramanand as modified by Karasikov with the kickstand of Corbett. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing the vehicle from falling over (see at least Corbett; [0036]).
Regarding claim 13 Karasikov in view of Corbett renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Karasikov discloses wherein the robot is configured to allow a line of sight from the user through the robot from front to back while the user is moving the robot in manual mode (see at least Fig. 1; the height of the robot of Karasikov relative to a person is unknown; however, it would be an obvious matter of design choice to change the height of the robot in order to provide a better line of sight around the vehicle).
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasikov in view of Corbett, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US-20190262485 (hereinafter, “Ramanand”).
Regarding claim 2 Karasikov in view of Corbett renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Karasikov does not disclose wherein the robot is a UVC site disinfection robot further comprising one or more UVC lights for site disinfection.
Ramanand, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an ultraviolet floor curing device, wherein the robot is a UVC site disinfection robot further comprising one or more UVC lights for site disinfection (see at least [0035]; “the MUFC device 10 may represent a wide variety of devices configured to emit or facilitate emission of the UV light at a high intensity towards surfaces proximate to the ground (e.g., floor surface, baseboards, etc.) as well as those at a significant height from the ground (e.g., walls, roofs, ceilings, objects such as drawers, storage cabinets, door knobs, and bathroom sinks, etc.), where the intensity may be adapted to induce an intended effect (e.g., curing, disinfection, sintering, etc.),” and Fig. 11 and [0063]; “The UV tower 290 may include a transparent housing 300 enclosing a radiation source 310 such as a UV lamp configured to project the UV light exterior to the UV tower 290”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the robot of Karasikov as modified by Corbett with the UV lighting implement of Ramanand. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing effective disinfection of a room/floor (see at least Ramanand; [0003]).
Regarding claim 3 Karasikov in view of Corbett and Ramanand renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Ramanand, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more UVC lights for site disinfection are supported in a tower connected to the robot base (see at least and Fig. 11 and [0063]; “The UV tower 290 may include a transparent housing 300 enclosing a radiation source 310 such as a UV lamp configured to project the UV light exterior to the UV tower 290”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the robot of Karasikov as modified by Corbett with the UV lighting implement of Ramanand. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing effective disinfection of a room/floor (see at least Ramanand; [0003]).
Regarding claim 4 Karasikov in view of Corbett and Ramanand renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Ramanand, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the tower is connected to the robot base in a user-removable manner (see at least [0075]; “Once secured, the radiation units 70 may not be removable from the UV panel 60 unless the disinfection mode is changed, the MUFC device 10 is turned off, or any similar accessory such as the UV tower 290 capable of providing area UV disinfection is disabled or not connected to the MUFC device 10” the UV tower is an accessory capable of being removed/disconnected from the device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the robot of Karasikov as modified by Corbett with the UV lighting implement of Ramanand. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing effective disinfection of a room/floor (see at least Ramanand; [0003]).
Claim(s) 14-15, 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanand in view of Karasikov and Corbett.
Regarding claim 14 Ramanand discloses a mixed mode UVC site disinfection robot having an autonomous mode, wherein the robot moves autonomously, and a manual mode, wherein the robot is passive and allows manual manipulation by a user (see at least [0038]; “The mobile carriage 15 may be manually maneuvered or operate autonomously for designated movements or operation within a defined space.”), the mixed mode robot comprising:
a robot base (see at least Fig. 1; mobile carriage 15) having a plurality of wheels associated therewith (see at least Fig. 1; wheels 80-1, 80-2, and 80-3), and with each of at least two wheels having coupled thereto a…motor to drive the robot when in autonomous mode (see at least [0038]; “For example (FIG. 2), the mobile carriage 15 may include omnidirectional wheels such as wheels 80-1, 80-2, 80-3 (collectively, wheels 80) for navigating the MUFC device 10 to a desired position within a designated space such as a room. The mobile carriage 15 may be manually maneuvered or operate autonomously for designated movements or operation within a defined space,”)
…one or more UVC lights attached to the robot base for site disinfection (see at least Fig. 11 and [0063]; “The UV tower 290 may include a transparent housing 300 enclosing a radiation source 310 such as a UV lamp configured to project the UV light exterior to the UV tower 290”);
one or more handholds connected to the robot base and adapted for use by a user to move the robot when the robot is in the manual mode (see at least fig. 1; handle 30 and [0040]; “The handle 30 may refer to any structure capable of assisting an operator to maneuver the MUFC device 10 from one point in space to another”).
Ramanand does not disclose wherein the motor is a direct drive hub motor…
…a processor configured to place the robot in a selected one of the autonomous mode and the manual mode to navigate the robot via the direct drive hub motors in the autonomous mode and to depower the direct drive hub motors in the manual mode to allow the user to easily move the robot using the at least two wheels having coupled thereto the direct drive hub motor,
wherein the processor is further configured to automatically place the robot in a selected one of the autonomous mode and the manual mode, without the user having to actively select one of the autonomous mode and the manual mode, based on a sensor suite comprising at least one of a proximity sensor, a touch sensor indicative to the processor that a user has grasped the handle causing the robot to automatically switch to manual mode, a wheel torque sensor and an inertial measurement unit.
Karasikov, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a processor (see at least [0054]; “Some embodiments of the invention may include an article such as a computer or processor readable medium, or a computer or processor non-transitory storage medium, such as for example a memory, a disk drive, or a USB flash memory, encoding, including or storing instructions, e.g., computer-executable instructions, which when executed by a processor or controller, carry out methods disclosed herein”) configured to place the robot in a selected one of the autonomous mode and the manual mode (see at least [0120]; “Control unit 20 may include one or more user controls 25 (e.g., pushbutton, touch screen, switch, keyboard, keypad, knob, pointing device, microphone, or other user operable control) to enable a human operator to manually control one or more operations of cleaning robot 10. For example, user controls 25 may enable the operator to tum electrical power to cleaning robot 10 on or off, to abort, pause, or start an operation, or otherwise control operation. User controls 25 may enable an operator to disable autonomous operation of cleaning robot 10 in case of an emergency situation (e. g., a panic or abort button or switch) in order to manually transport cleaning robot 10 to another room (e.g., using a handle that is attached to arm base 18, robot base 16, or elsewhere on cleaning robot 10 in FIG. 1).”), to navigate the robot via the direct drive…motors in the autonomous mode (see at least [0082]; “robot base 16 may enclose a propulsion system that may be operated to enable self-propulsion of cleaning robot 10. The propulsion system may include one or more propulsion motors that may be configured to operate one or more drive wheels 26. For example, each drive wheel 26 may be operated by a separate motor, e.g., via a separate transmission assembly”), and to depower the direct drive…motors in the manual mode to allow the user to easily move the robot using the at least two wheels having coupled thereto the direct drive hub motor (see at least [0194]; “Cleaning robot 10 may be configured to enable an operator to manually guide cleaning robot 10…when in a moving mode, drive wheels 26 may be disconnected (e.g., by turning off a drive motor or by operating a clutch to disable a transmission) such that cleaning robot 10 may be pushed or pulled by a human operator (e.g., by pushing or pulling on an appropriate handle)”),
wherein the processor is further configured to automatically place the robot in a selected one of the autonomous mode and the manual mode, without the user having to actively select one of the autonomous mode and the manual mode, based on a sensor suite comprising at least one of a proximity sensor, a touch sensor indicative to the processor that a user has grasped the handle causing the robot to automatically switch to manual mode, a wheel torque sensor and an inertial measurement unit (see at least [0189]; “Navigation subunit 88, operation subunit 90, or another unit of processing unit 81 or control unit 20 may be configured to apply various pedestrian and face detection techniques or motion detection techniques to input from sensors 21 to detect the presence of any people within room 100,” [0200-0201]; “Cleaning robot 10 may operate one or more sensors 21 (e.g., a motion, thermal, or imaging sensor) to determine if there are any people in room 100 (block 22). If a human presence is detected, cleaning robot 10 may stop operation (block 225),” the sensors 21 correspond to the proximity sensor, if a person is detected the cleaning robot stops operation this would constitute stopping the propulsion system (depowering the motors) which would coincide with a manual mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the robot of Ramanand with the manual and autonomous mode activation of Karasikov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of easier movement between rooms (see at least Karasikov; [0120]).
Ramanand in view of Karasikov does not explicitly disclose wherein the motor is a direct drive hub motor.
Corbett, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the motor is a direct drive hub motor (see at least [0022]; “The autonomous electronic bicycle 100 (also referred to herein as the AEB 100) can include one or more “direct drive” electric motors operating various components of the autonomous electronic bicycle 100. As used herein, a direct drive motor is an electric motor mounted to the autonomous electronic bicycle 100 such that the shaft of the electric motor forms or is part of the axle on which the moveable component of the autonomous electronic bicycle 100 rotates. One characteristic of systems using direct drive motors is the lack of an intermediate mechanical power transmission system between the direct drive motor and the moving component. As the direct drive motor directly rotates the axle where the moving component is mounted, a system using a direct drive motor does not require the use of gears, transmissions, belt or chain drives, or other mechanical power transmission systems to transmit the force of the direct drive motor to the axle of the moveable component.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the robot of Ramanand as modified by with the direct drive motor of Corbett. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving durability of the vehicle by reducing break or wear (see at least Corbett; [0022]).
Regarding claim 15 Ramanand in view of Karasikov and Corbett renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, Ramanand discloses wherein the one or more UVC lights for site disinfection are supported in a removable tower connected to the robot base (see at least and Fig. 11 and [0063]; “The UV tower 290 may include a transparent housing 300 enclosing a radiation source 310 such as a UV lamp configured to project the UV light exterior to the UV tower 290,” and [0075]; “Once secured, the radiation units 70 may not be removable from the UV panel 60 unless the disinfection mode is changed, the MUFC device 10 is turned off, or any similar accessory such as the UV tower 290 capable of providing area UV disinfection is disabled or not connected to the MUFC device 10” the UV tower is an accessory capable of being removed/disconnected from the device).
Regarding claim 17 Ramanand in view of Karasikov and Corbett renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, Karasikov, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein placing the robot in a selected one of the autonomous mode and the manual mode comprises determining based on data from the sensor suite whether the user is attempting to manually move the robot, and placing the robot in the manual mode if it is determined that the user is trying to manually move the robot (see at least [0120]; “Control unit 20 may include one or more user controls 25 (e.g., pushbutton, touch screen, switch, keyboard, keypad, knob, pointing device, microphone, or other user operable control) to enable a human operator to manually control one or more operations of cleaning robot 10. For example, user controls 25 may enable the operator to tum electrical power to cleaning robot 10 on or off, to abort, pause, or start an operation, or otherwise control operation. User controls 25 may enable an operator to disable autonomous operation of cleaning robot 10 in case of an emergency situation (e. g., a panic or abort button or switch) in order to manually transport cleaning robot 10 to another room (e.g., using a handle that is attached to arm base 18, robot base 16, or elsewhere on cleaning robot 10 in FIG. 1),” an indication of a user touching the screen to switch modes would constitute a user trying to manually move the robot, the detection of a touch screen can be done using various types of sensors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the robot of Ramanand with the manual and autonomous mode activation of Karasikov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of easier movement between rooms (see at least Karasikov; [0120]).
Regarding claim 18 Ramanand in view of Karasikov and Corbett renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, Ramanand discloses further comprising a user interface (see at least [0041]; “The display unit 40 may be in communication with a user interface (not shown) indicating information pertaining to the operation of MUFC device 10. Different types of user interfaces, including those, which are touch controlled, key-controlled, joystick-controlled, motion-controlled, voice-controlled, and so on may be employed.”).
Ramanand does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to place the robot in a selected one of the autonomous mode and the manual mode based on a user action relative to the user interface, wherein the user interface is one of a manual interface and a graphical user interface (GUI).
Karasikov, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to place the robot in a selected one of the autonomous mode and the manual mode based on a user action relative to the user interface, wherein the user interface is one of a manual interface and a graphical user interface (GUI) (see at least [0120]; “Control unit 20 may include one or more user controls 25 (e.g., pushbutton, touch screen, switch, keyboard, keypad, knob, pointing device, microphone, or other user operable control) to enable a human operator to manually control one or more operations of cleaning robot 10. For example, user controls 25 may enable the operator to tum electrical power to cleaning robot 10 on or off, to abort, pause, or start an operation, or otherwise control operation. User controls 25 may enable an operator to disable autonomous operation of cleaning robot 10 in case of an emergency situation (e. g., a panic or abort button or switch) in order to manually transport cleaning robot 10 to another room (e.g., using a handle that is attached to arm base 18, robot base 16, or elsewhere on cleaning robot 10 in FIG. 1),” an indication of a user touching the screen to switch modes would constitute a user trying to manually move the robot, the detection of a touch screen can be done using various types of sensors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the robot of Ramanand with the manual and autonomous mode activation of Karasikov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of easier movement between rooms (see at least Karasikov; [0120]).
Regarding claim 19 Ramanand in view of Karasikov and Corbett renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 14. Ramanand in view of Karasikov and Corbett renders obvious all of the limitations mentioned above except for wherein the mass of the robot is less than 200 kg. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the weight of the robot for the benefit of easier manipulation, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the device. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20 Ramanand in view of Karasikov and Corbett renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, Corbett, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising at least one projection on the base to prevent over-center tipping of the robot while being moved by the user or actuated by the processor autonomously (see at least [0036]; “In some implementations, the autonomous electronic bicycle 100 can include an actuated kickstand 170 which may enable the bike to stop and start in autonomous mode without falling over. For example, the actuated kickstand 170 can comprise a linear actuator or electronic motor used to extend and retract the kickstand depending on the current situation. For example, the autonomous electronic bicycle 100 can retract the actuated kickstand 170 in response to transitioning (or preparing to transition) from a stop to movement and can extend the actuated kickstand 170 in response to transitioning from autonomous movement to an inactive state (for example, when parking or otherwise indefinitely stopping autonomous motion”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the robot of Ramanand as modified by Karasikov with the kickstand of Corbett. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing the vehicle from falling over (see at least Corbett; [0036]).
Regarding claim 21 Ramanand in view of Karasikov and Corbett renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 20. Additionally, Corbett, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one projection is configured such that the user can press the projection with their foot while pulling the robot towards them via the handle to tilt the robot (see at least [0036]; “In some implementations, the autonomous electronic bicycle 100 can include an actuated kickstand 170 which may enable the bike to stop and start in autonomous mode without falling over. For example, the actuated kickstand 170 can comprise a linear actuator or electronic motor used to extend and retract the kickstand depending on the current situation. For example, the autonomous electronic bicycle 100 can retract the actuated kickstand 170 in response to transitioning (or preparing to transition) from a stop to movement and can extend the actuated kickstand 170 in response to transitioning from autonomous movement to an inactive state (for example, when parking or otherwise indefinitely stopping autonomous motion”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the robot of Ramanand as modified by Karasikov with the kickstand of Corbett. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing the vehicle from falling over (see at least Corbett; [0036]).
Regarding claim 22 Ramanand in view of Karasikov and Corbett renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 20. Additionally, Corbett, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one projection is foldable or removable by the user (see at least [0036]; “In some implementations, the autonomous electronic bicycle 100 can include an actuated kickstand 170 which may enable the bike to stop and start in autonomous mode without falling over. For example, the actuated kickstand 170 can comprise a linear actuator or electronic motor used to extend and retract the kickstand depending on the current situation. For example, the autonomous electronic bicycle 100 can retract the actuated kickstand 170 in response to transitioning (or preparing to transition) from a stop to movement and can extend the actuated kickstand 170 in response to transitioning from autonomous movement to an inactive state (for example, when parking or otherwise indefinitely stopping autonomous motion”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the robot of Ramanand as modified by Karasikov with the kickstand of Corbett. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing the vehicle from falling over (see at least Corbett; [0036]).
Regarding claim 23 Ramanand in view of Karasikov and Corbett renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, Ramanand discloses wherein the robot is configured to allow a line of sight from the user through the robot from front to back while the user is moving the robot in manual mode (see at least Fig. 11; user has an unobstructed line of sight when operating the robot in manual mode).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20220152237A1 teaches a method for projecting UV light towards surfaces across a path for realizing surface disinfection wherein the device for the method can be configured for wither automatic or manual operation.
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 ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
2/19/26