DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “obtaining, by the processor, a cleaning start time of the cleaning device”, “obtaining, by the processor, a cleaning duration of a cleaning mechanism”, “determining, by the processor, a cleaning time of the cleaning mechanism based on the cleaning start time and the cleaning duration, the cleaning time being before the cleaning start time”, and “controlling the cleaning mechanism to clean a work area when the time reaches the cleaning time”.
The limitations of “obtaining, by the processor, a cleaning start time of the cleaning device”, “obtaining, by the processor, a cleaning duration of a cleaning mechanism”, and “determining, by the processor, a cleaning time of the cleaning mechanism based on the cleaning start time and the cleaning duration, the cleaning time being before the cleaning start time” are limitations that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Applicant’s “processor” is an example of generic computer components.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites a method step of “controlling the cleaning mechanism to clean a work area when the time reaches the cleaning time”, but applicant’s step of “controlling the cleaning mechanism to clean a work area when the time reaches the cleaning time” is so broad that it doesn’t amount to a particular practical application. How a judicial exception can be integrated into a practical application is discussed, for example, in MPEP 2106.05(f), and that section of the MPEP argues that “the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception” is one of things to consider when trying to determine if a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, and in the examiner’s opinion, applicant’s limitation to “controlling the cleaning mechanism to clean a work area when the time reaches the cleaning time” is so broad that it doesn’t amount to a particular practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Although the claim recites a cleaning mechanism installed on a cleaning device, this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The claim recites using a cleaning mechanism “to clean a work area”, but using a cleaning mechanism to clean a work area is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Claim 2 is also rejected under 5 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and merely recites that receiving the cleaning start time involves receiving the start time “from another device”, wherein the “another device” is “communicatively connected” with the cleaning device. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The idea of receiving information from another device such that communication between devices is occurring is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Claim 3 is also rejected under 5 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and merely recites the abstract concepts of obtaining historical information and making a predication based on said historical information.
Claim 4 is also rejected under 5 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and merely recites detail about the abstract concept of determining the cleaning start time according to historical information.
Claim 5 is also rejected under 5 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and merely recites the abstract concepts of obtaining historical information and making a predication based on said historical information.
Claim 6 is also rejected under 5 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and merely recites the abstract concepts of obtaining information about a degree of contamination (which could involve a person simply looking at contamination on the cleaning mechanism) a determining a duration value according to that information.
Claim 7 is also rejected under 5 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and merely recites detail concerning the abstract concept of obtaining information about a degree of contamination.
Claim 8 is also rejected under 5 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and merely recites the abstract concepts of “determining, by the processor, whether the cleaning mechanism is cleaned after a last work” and “triggering…a step of determining the cleaning time”.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 10 recites that a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” with a program thereon, wherein the program, when executed by a processor, implements a cleaning method. For that method, claim 10 recites “obtaining, by the processor, a cleaning start time of a cleaning device”, “obtaining, by the processor, a cleaning duration of the cleaning mechanism”, “determining, by the processor, a cleaning time of the cleaning mechanism based on the cleaning start time and the cleaning duration, the cleaning end time being before the cleaning start time”, and “controlling, by the processor, the cleaning device to clean the cleaning mechanism when the time reaches the cleaning time”.
The limitations of “obtaining, by the processor, a cleaning start time of a cleaning device”, “obtaining, by the processor, a cleaning duration of the cleaning mechanism”, and “determining, by the processor, a cleaning time of the cleaning mechanism based on the cleaning start time and the cleaning duration, the cleaning time being before the cleaning start time” are limitations that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 10 recites a method step of “controlling, by the processor, the cleaning device to clean the cleaning mechanism when the time reaches the cleaning time”, but applicant’s step of “controlling the cleaning device to clean the cleaning mechanism when the time reaches the cleaning time” is so broad that it doesn’t amount to a particular practical application. How a judicial exception can be integrated into a practical application is discussed, for example, in MPEP 2106.05(f), and that section of the MPEP argues that “the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception” is one of things to consider when trying to determine if a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, and in the examiner’s opinion, applicant’s limitation to “controlling, by the processor, the cleaning device to clean the cleaning mechanism when the time reaches the cleaning time” is so broad that it doesn’t amount to a particular practical application.
Claim 10 recites that “the cleaning mechanism cleans a work area under control of the cleaning device”, but applicant’s limitation specifying that “the cleaning mechanism cleans a work area under control of the cleaning device” is so broad that it doesn’t amount to a particular practical application. How a judicial exception can be integrated into a practical application is discussed, for example, in MPEP 2106.05(f), and that section of the MPEP argues that “the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception” is one of things to consider when trying to determine if a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, and in the examiner’s opinion, applicant’s limitation to “the cleaning mechanism cleans a work area under control of the cleaning device” is so broad that it doesn’t amount to a particular practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Although the claim recites a cleaning mechanism installed on a cleaning device, this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Claim 11 is also rejected under 5 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 11 depends from claim 4 and merely recites detail about the abstract concept of determining the cleaning start time according to historical information.
Claim 12 is also rejected under 5 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 12 depends from claim 4 and merely recites detail about the abstract concept of determining the cleaning start time according to historical information.
Claim 13 is also rejected under 5 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 13 depends from claim 3 and merely recites detail about predicting a cleaning start time based on historical information.
Claim 14 is also rejected under 5 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 14 depends from claim 5 and merely recites detail about obtaining historical information.
Claim 15 is also rejected under 5 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 15 depends from claim 6 and merely recites using a sensor to obtain a degree of contamination, this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See, for example, Par. [0058] of 2015/0197012 by Schnittman and Par. [0019] of U.S. 2014/0124004 by Rosenstein.
Claim 16 is also rejected under 5 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 16 depends from claim 6 and merely recites detail about determining a cleaning duration.
Claim 18 is also rejected under 5 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 18 depends from claim 1 and merely recites moving the cleaning device to a water tank such that the mechanism can be cleaned. See, for example, CN109199255 by Zhang (Par. 0072-0075 of translation).
Claim 19 is also rejected under 5 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 19 depends from claim 1 and merely recites having a water tank on the cleaning device, wherein water is thus pumped onto the cleaning mechanism. See, for example, CN109875464 by Qian (pages 2-4 of translation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 11-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “controlling the cleaning mechanism to clean a work area when the time reaches the cleaning time”. This limitation, in the context of the rest of claim 1, recites “new matter” that was not described in the originally-filed specification. Firstly, it is noted that the examiner suspects that applicant may merely have made a typographical mistake and intended to write “controlling the cleaning mechanism to clean a work area when the time reaches the cleaning start time”. For purposes of doing the below obviousness rejections, it was presumed that applicant intended to write “controlling the cleaning mechanism to clean a work area when the time reaches the cleaning start time” in claim 1. In applicant’s specification, the cleaning device cleans the cleaning mechanism “when the time reaches the cleaning time” (see, for example, Par. 0028 of applicant’s specification). In applicant’s specification, the “work area” is not what is cleaned at the “cleaning time”, but the cleaning mechanism itself is what is cleaned at the cleaning time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 8, 11-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109199255 by Zhang in view of JP2018206761 by Erkek.
With regard to claim 1, Zhang teaches a method for controlling a floor-cleaning robot (reads on cleaning device), wherein the robot uses a roller brush (item 12 in Figure 4; reads on cleaning mechanism) to clean floor surfaces in an automated manner (Abstract; par. 0055-0082 of translation). Zhang teaches using a base station (illustrated with the robot in Figure 5) to charge the robot, and Zhang teaches that the robot’s roller brush can be cleaned by that same base station used to charge the robot (Abstract; par. 0055-0086 of translation). Zhang teaches that the roller brush 12 is cleaned for a predetermined cleaning duration such that the robot can be controlled (by its control module) to automatically begin a cleaning session in response to the predetermined cleaning duration finishing (par. 0078-0081). In the method of Zhang, the roller brush is installed on the floor-cleaning robot, and the roller brush cleans a floor area (reads on work area) under control of said robot (Abstract; par. 0055-0082 of translation). Zhang teaches that the robot comprises a computer processor for controlling operations of the robot, including operations relating to cleaning of the roller brush 12 via the base station (par. 0070-0086). Zhang teaches that the robot also comprises a memory module for storing data generated by the processor (par. 0071).
Zhang does not teach that a cleaning start time is obtained and that a cleaning time (of the roller brush) is determined based on said cleaning start time.
Erkek teaches that when using a base station to perform a maintenance service (in Erkek’s case, charging the robot’s battery) for a cleaning robot, the robot can be advantageously programmed to have the maintenance service started such that the predetermined duration of that service has time to complete prior to a previously-scheduled cleaning start time, wherein the previously-scheduled cleaning start time can be found in a stored calendar that informs the robot about when the human(s) wants the robot to perform its floor-cleaning job (Abstract; pages 1-3 of translation).
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 method of Zhang such that the robot’s computer processor has access to a schedule of cleaning start times (programmed by the human(s) for the desired cleaning times) such that, while the robot’s processor is informed of its next cleaning start time and waiting for said next cleaning start time to commence, the robot’s processor (obtaining from its memory the duration length of the roller brush cleaning process) picks a cleaning time for starting the duration of the roller brush cleaning such that the cleaning end time (the “cleaning end time” being the endpoint time of the cleaning of the roller brush) will occur soon before the commencing of the next previously-scheduled start time, wherein the cleaning of the roller brush advantageously ensures that the next round of floor cleaning is performed with a clean brush. In the method of Zhang in view of Erkek, the robot starts using its roller brush to clean the floor area once the next cleaning start time is reached. The motivation for having such a schedule and for timing a maintenance service (in this case, cleaning of the roller brush) in response to that schedule was provided by Erkek, who teaches that when using a base station to perform a maintenance service for a cleaning robot, the robot can be advantageously programmed to have the maintenance service started such that the predetermined duration of that service has time to complete prior to a previously-scheduled cleaning start time, wherein the previously-scheduled cleaning start time can be found in a stored calendar that informs the robot about when the human(s) wants the robot to perform its floor-cleaning job.
The combination of Zhang in view of Erkek does not explicitly teach that, after the robot’s processor has picked a cleaning time, that cleaning time is stored in memory. However, in the art of robotics, it well known for a robot to have instruction(s) stored in memory such that the instruction(s) can be available for controlling the robot. Since the picked cleaning time is a particular time for starting the duration of the roller brush cleaning, 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 method of Zhang in view of Erkek such that the picked cleaning time is stored in the memory module of the robot – the motivation being that that cleaning time information is needed by the robot such that the robot can know when exactly to start the cleaning of the roller brush.
The combination of Zhang in view of Erkek does not specify how the cleaning time is determined. The combination of Zhang in view of Erkek does not specify the amount of time between the endpoint time of the cleaning of the roller brush and the start time for the robot’s next floor cleaning. However, the method of Zhang in view of Erkek cleans the roller brush with cleaning liquid (Par. 0077-0082 of Zhang), and the method of Zhang in view of Erkek then uses the cleaned roller brush to clean the floor. In the art of cleaning a floor surface with a brush, it is well-known that the wetness of the brush can affect the ability of the brush to remove contaminants from the floor (MPEP 2144.03, Official Notice). In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 method of Zhang in view of Erkek such that the amount of time between the end of the wet-cleaning of the roller brush and the start time of the robot’s next floor cleaning performance is optimized (and thus, the amount of time between the “cleaning time” – which is the particular time for starting the duration of the roller brush cleaning – is also optimized), as that time affects how long the brush has to dry out prior to starting the next floor cleaning and the wetness/dryness of the brush affects the ability of the brush to remove contaminants from the floor.
With regard to claim 2, in the developed combination of Zhang in view of Erkek, the robot receives its next cleaning start time before the next cleaning start time occurs.
The combination of Zhang in view of Erkek does not teach that the next cleaning start time is sent to the robot from another device that is communicatively connected to the robot.
Erkek teaches that a floor-cleaning robot can successfully receive scheduling information from a mobile phone (item 5 in Figure 1 of Erkek; pages 1-3 of Erkek).
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 method of Zhang in view of Erkek such that the robot’s processor receives its next cleaning start time from a mobile phone that is communicatively connected with the robot. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Erkek, who teaches that a floor-cleaning robot can successfully receive scheduling information from a mobile phone.
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Zhang in view of Erkek, as developed thus far, does not teach that the next cleaning start time is predicted based on a historical cleaning start time.
Erkek teaches that when attempting to schedule operations of a floor-cleaning robot, a pattern of past cleaning start times obtained from memory storage can be successfully used to predict and schedule a future operation of the robot (pages 2-3 of Erkek).
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 method of Zhang in view of Erkek such that a pattern of past cleaning start times of the robot obtained from memory storage is used to predict and schedule the next cleaning start time for the robot. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Erkek, who teaches that when attempting to schedule operations of a floor-cleaning robot, a pattern of past cleaning start times obtained from memory storage can be successfully used to predict and schedule a future operation of the robot.
With regard to claim 4, in the combination of Zhang in view of Erkek, the past cleaning start times that form the pattern of past cleaning start times all must have occurred with some time range, and the number of past cleaning start times (plural) within said time range must have been more than one (reads on applicant’s preset number) in order to be a plurality of past cleaning start times.
With regard to claim 8, in the combination developed combination of Zhang in view of Erkek, the robot determines whether the brush roller is cleaned in preparation for a next floor cleaning by the robot. The developed combination of Zhang in view of Erkek teaches performing the floor cleaning at times dictated by a schedule, and thus the determination of whether brush-roller cleaning occurs in preparation for a next floor cleaning can occur after a last work. In the developed combination of Zhang in view of Erkek, the step of determining the cleaning time occurs before cleaning of the roller brush has commenced – that is, when brush roller is not being cleaned.
With regard to claim 11, in the combination of Zhang in view of Erkek, the past cleaning start times that form the pattern of past cleaning start times all must have occurred with some time range, and the number of past cleaning start times (plural) within said time range must have been more than one (reads on applicant’s preset number) in order to be a plurality of past cleaning start times. The combination of Zhang in view of Erkek teaches creating the cleaning schedule for the robot based on past cleaning times for the robot to clean the floor. The combination of Zhang in view of Erkek does not teach averaging those past cleaning start times together to determine the next cleaning time. However, since it is well known that people often live repetitive lives (go to work at a certain time, come home at a certain time, etc.), 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 method of Zhang in view of Erkek such that the next scheduled cleaning time is found by averaging together past cleaning start times, as the times of day a human owner of the robot last had the robot perform cleanings is a good guess for when said human will want a future cleaning to be performed – this due to the often repetitive schedule of human lives.
With regard to claim 12, the combination of Zhang in view of Erkek teaches creating the cleaning schedule for the robot based on past cleaning times for the robot to clean the floor. The combination of Zhang in view of Erkek does not teach determining the next cleaning time via a weighted average. However, since it is well known that people often live repetitive lives (go to work at a certain time, come home at a certain time, etc.), 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 method of Zhang in view of Erkek such that the next scheduled cleaning time is found by the processor doing a weighted average of past cleaning start times, as the times of day a human owner of the robot last had the robot perform cleanings is a good guess for when said human will want a future cleaning to be performed – this due to the often repetitive schedule of human lives. A “weighted average” is a well-known concept, and the motivation for doing a weighted average would be to allow more weight to be given to common cleaning times selected by a human, as such human-preferred times should be given more weight when attempting to predict and schedule the next cleaning.
With regard to claim 13, the combination of Zhang in view of Erkek teaches creating the cleaning schedule for the robot based on past cleaning times for the robot to clean the floor. The combination of Zhang in view of Erkek does not teach basing the next cleaning time on the last cleaning start time. However, since it is well known that people often live repetitive lives (go to work at a certain time, come home at a certain time, etc.), 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 method of Zhang in view of Erkek such that the next scheduled cleaning time is found by the processor by simply repeating the time of day of the last floor cleaning, as the times of day a human owner of the robot last had the robot perform cleanings is a good guess for when said human will want a future cleaning to be performed – this due to the often repetitive schedule of human lives.
With regard to claim 18, in the combination of Zhang in view of Erkek, a water tank (item 82 in Figure 5 of Zhang) is what cleans the roller brush, and the water tank 82 is not carried by the robot (par. 0055-0082 of translation of Zhang). In the combination of Zhang in view of Erkek, the robot’s processor controls the robot to move to a position of the water tank (the robot is illustrated in Zhang’s Figure 5 as being positioned above the water tank) so that the robot can clean the roller brush by rotating the roller brush (par. 0055-0082 of translation of Zhang).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109199255 by Zhang in view of JP2018206761 by Erkek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2000342497 by Ichijo.
With regard to claim 5, in the combination of Zhang in view of Erkek, when the duration for the roller brush cleaning is obtained (see Par. 0081 of Zhang), this duration can be considered a historical cleaning duration because this is the duration of time the robot uses to clean the roller brush and a previous iteration of the roller brush cleaning would have used said duration.
The combination of Zhang in view of Erkek does not teach predicting the cleaning duration of the roller brush based on the duration that reads on applicant’s a historical cleaning duration.
Ichijo teaches that anticipated durations of a cleaning robot’s activities can be displayed (Abstract; page 14 of translation).
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 method of Zhang in view of Erkek such that the anticipated duration of the cleaning of the roller brush is displayed to a human user. Ichijo teaches that anticipated durations of a cleaning robot’s activities can be displayed, and the motivation for performing the modification would be to keep a human user informed as to the functioning of their robot. In this combination of Zhang in view of Erkek in view of Ichijo, the act of displaying the anticipated roller-brush-cleaning duration to a user corresponds to applicant’s predicts step.
Claims 6, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109199255 by Zhang in view of JP2018206761 by Erkek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2021/0386263 by Cheng.
With regard to claims 6, 15, and 16, the combination of Zhang in view of Erkek teaches that the cleaning duration of the roller brush may need to be lengthened when the roller brush is especially dirty (Par. 0082 of Zhang).
The combination of Zhang in view of Erkek does not teach that the obtaining of the roller brush cleaning duration involves obtaining a degree of contamination of the roller brush.
In the context of floor-cleaning robots, Cheng teaches that when trying to determine how long to clean a surface, an imaging sensor on a robot can successfully be used to determine how dirty a to-be-cleaned surface is such that the duration of cleaning can be appropriately selected via an established table that has mapped the relationship between dirtiness level and needed cleaning duration (Abstract; Par. 0071).
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 method of Zhang in view of Erkek such that the robot comprises an imaging sensor for sensing how dirty the to-be-cleaned roller brush is, wherein the duration of the cleaning of the roller brush is thus selected by the robot’s processor via an established table that has mapped the relationship between dirtiness level and needed cleaning duration. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Cheng, who teaches that when trying to determine how long to clean a surface, an imaging sensor on a robot can successfully be used to determine how dirty a to-be-cleaned surface is such that the duration of cleaning can be appropriately selected via an established table that has mapped the relationship between dirtiness level and needed cleaning duration.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109199255 by Zhang in view of JP2018206761 by Erkek in view of JP2000342497 by Ichijo as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. 2021/0373558 by Schneider.
With regard to claim 14, the combination of Zhang in view of Erkek in view of Ichijo does not recite that the anticipated duration of the cleaning of the roller brush displayed to a human user is attained by averaging past instances of cleaning the roller brush.
In the context of floor-cleaning robots, Schneider teaches that an anticipated cleaning duration can be successfully estimated by averaging together past instances of performing the cleaning (Par. 0106).
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 method of Zhang in view of Erkek in view of Ichijo by basing the anticipated duration of the roller brush cleaning on an average of past instances of performing that cleaning. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Schneider, who teaches that an anticipated cleaning duration can be successfully estimated by averaging together past instances of performing the cleaning.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109199255 by Zhang in view of JP2018206761 by Erkek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN109875464 by Qian.
With regard to claim 19, the combination of Zhang in view of Erkek does not recite that the robot carries a water tank. The combination of Zhang in view of Erkek is silent as to whether or not the robot carries a water tank.
Qian teaches that a floor cleaning robot a carry a water tank and a pump such that pumped water can advantageously be sprayed to wet a brush of the robot in order to optimize the cleaning ability of the robot’s brush (Abstract; pages 2-4 of translation).
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 method of Zhang in view of Erkek such that the robot carries and water tank and a pump such that water can be sprayed onto the brush during floor cleaning in order to enhance the cleaning ability of the robot’s brush. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Qian, who teaches that a floor cleaning robot a carry a water tank and a pump such that pumped water can advantageously be used to wet a brush of the robot in order to optimize the cleaning ability of the robot’s brush.
The combination of Zhang in view of Erkek in view of Qian, as developed thus far, does not recite that, during the cleaning of the brush at the base station (illustrated with the robot in Figure 5), the pump pumps water from the tank onto the brush. However, in the method of Zhang in view of Erkek in view of Qian, the cleaning of the brush at the base station involves treating the brush with water (Par. 0073-0078 of Zhang), and therefore, 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 method of Zhang in view of Erkek in view of Qian such that the processor controls the pump to pump water from the water tank onto the brush during the water-washing of the brush at the base station, as this pumped water could advantageously aid the water-washing of the brush.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109199255 by Zhang in view of JP2018206761 by Erkek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2021/0386263 by Cheng.
With regard to claims 6 and 7, the combination of Zhang in view of Erkek teaches that the cleaning duration of the roller brush may need to be lengthened when the roller brush is especially dirty (Par. 0082 of Zhang). Zhang teaches that the dirtiness of a floor-cleaning component of a floor-cleaning robot is affected by how much time the floor-cleaning component has been in cleaning use (Par. 0072 of Zhang).
The combination of Zhang in view of Erkek does not teach that the obtaining of the roller brush cleaning duration involves obtaining a degree of contamination of the roller brush.
In the context of floor-cleaning robots, Cheng teaches that when trying to determine how long to clean a surface, the duration of cleaning can be appropriately selected via an established table that has mapped the relationship between dirtiness level and needed cleaning duration (Abstract; Par. 0071).
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 method of Zhang in view of Erkek such that the cleaning duration of the cleaning of the roller brush is obtained by the robot’s processor by having a mapped relationship between how long the brush was used to perform floor cleaning and how long the cleaning duration for the brush needs to be (in order to rejuvenate the brush), wherein longer use times (for floor cleaning) of the brush correlate with the brush needing to be cleaned for a longer duration (due to presumably being dirtier as a result of longer use time). Motivation for using a mapped relationship between dirt level and cleaning duration was provided by Cheng, who teaches that when trying to determine how long to clean a surface, the duration of cleaning can be appropriately selected via an established table that has mapped the relationship between dirtiness level and needed cleaning duration. The motivation for presuming that longer use time (for floor cleaning) would correlate with a dirtier cleaning component was provided by Zhang, who teaches that the dirtiness of a floor-cleaning component of a floor-cleaning robot is affected by how much time the floor-cleaning component has been in cleaning use (Par. 0072 of Zhang).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109199255 by Zhang in view of JP2018206761 by Erkek.
With regard to claim 10, Zhang teaches a computer-readable storage medium with a program stored thereon, wherein when the program is executed by a processor, a method is performed, wherein the method is a method for controlling a floor-cleaning robot (reads on cleaning device), wherein the robot uses a roller brush (item 12 in Figure 4; reads on cleaning mechanism) to clean floor surfaces in an automated manner (Abstract; par. 0055-0082 and 0120-0122 of translation). Zhang teaches that the robot comprises a computer controller for controlling the operations of the robot (Par. 0070). Zhang teaches using a base station (illustrated with the robot in Figure 5) to charge the robot, and Zhang teaches that the robot’s roller brush can be cleaned by that same base station used to charge the robot (Abstract; par. 0055-0086 of translation). Zhang teaches that the roller brush 12 is cleaned for a predetermined cleaning duration such that the robot can be controlled (by its control module) to automatically begin a cleaning session in response to the predetermined cleaning duration finishing (pages 0078-0081). In the method of Zhang, the roller brush is installed on the floor-cleaning robot, and the roller brush cleans a floor area (reads on work area) under control of said robot (Abstract; par. 0055-0082 of translation).
Zhang does not teach that a cleaning start time is obtained and that a cleaning end time (at which cleaning of the roller brush ends) is determined based on said cleaning start time.
Erkek teaches that when using a base station to perform a maintenance service (in Erkek’s case, charging the robot’s battery) for a cleaning robot, the robot can be advantageously programmed to have the maintenance service started such that the predetermined duration of that service has time to complete prior to a previously-scheduled cleaning start time, wherein the previously-scheduled cleaning start time can be found in a stored calendar that informs the robot about when the human(s) wants the robot to perform its floor-cleaning job (Abstract; pages 1-3 of translation).
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 computer-readable storage medium of Zhang such that, in the method resulting from execution of the program by the processor, the robot has access to a schedule of cleaning start times (programmed by the human(s) for the desired cleaning times) and such that, while the robot is informed of its next cleaning start time and waiting for said next cleaning start time to commence, the robot (obtaining from its memory the duration length of the roller brush cleaning process) picks a cleaning time for starting the duration of the roller brush cleaning such that the cleaning end time (the “cleaning end time” being the endpoint time of the cleaning of the roller brush) will occur soon before the commencing of the next previously-scheduled start time, wherein the cleaning of the roller brush advantageously ensures that the next round of floor cleaning is performed with a clean brush. The motivation for having such a schedule and for timing a maintenance service (in this case, cleaning of the roller brush) in response to that schedule was provided by Erkek, who teaches that when using a base station to perform a maintenance service for a cleaning robot, the robot can be advantageously programmed to have the maintenance service started such that the predetermined duration of that service has time to complete prior to a previously-scheduled cleaning start time, wherein the previously-scheduled cleaning start time can be found in a stored calendar that informs the robot about when the human(s) wants the robot to perform its floor-cleaning job.
The combination of Zhang in view of Erkek does not specify how the cleaning time is determined. The combination of Zhang in view of Erkek does not specify the amount of time between the endpoint time of the cleaning of the roller brush and the start time for the robot’s next floor cleaning. However, the method of Zhang in view of Erkek cleans the roller brush with cleaning liquid (Par. 0077-0082 of Zhang), and the method of Zhang in view of Erkek then uses the cleaned roller brush to clean the floor. In the art of cleaning a floor surface with a brush, it is well-known that the wetness of the brush can affect the ability of the brush to remove contaminants from the floor (MPEP 2144.03, Official Notice). In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 method of Zhang in view of Erkek such that the amount of time between the end of the wet-cleaning of the roller brush and the start time of the robot’s next floor cleaning performance is optimized (and thus, the amount of time between the “cleaning time” – which is the particular time for starting the duration of the roller brush cleaning – is also optimized), as that time affects how long the brush has to dry out prior to starting the next floor cleaning and the wetness/dryness of the brush affects the ability of the brush to remove contaminants from the floor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 27, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, applicant points out that “claim 1 is amended to clarify that the method is implemented by a processor of a cleaning device, and that the cleaning mechanism is controlled based on time-based instructions executed by the processor. The amended claim ties the steps directly to machine-executed operations, rather than mental steps or general instructions.” This line of argument is not persuasive because applicant’s “processor” is an example of generic computer components. Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. Mental Process, A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. As discussed in the MPEP:
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
Applicant argues that “the claim method solves a technical problem” – namely, “by scheduling cleaning before work begins, using a processor and memory…improves cleaning efficiency”. However, improving a scheduling of operations is a process that could be performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant argues that “the method is not directed merely to an abstract idea, but rather to a practical application involving real-time control of a physical device. Furthermore, the use of a processor, memory, and a scheduled control sequence provides significantly more than a judicial exception”. However, as discussed, improving a scheduling of operations is a process that could be performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. With regard to applicant pointing out the presence of a “physical device”, although claim 1 recites a cleaning mechanism installed on a cleaning device, this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claim 1 recites using a cleaning mechanism “to clean a work area”, but using a cleaning mechanism to clean a work area is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 10, applicant points out that “claim 10 is amended to clarify that the method is executed by a processor from a program stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The recited steps (e.g., obtaining time data and controlling cleaning) are now explicitly performed by the processor, not mentally.” However, this line of argument is not persuasive because applicant’s “processor” and non-transitory computer-readable medium are examples of generic computer components. Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. Mental Process, A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. As discussed in the MPEP:
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
Applicant argues that “these amendments integrate the abstract idea into a practical application involving automated control of a physical cleaning device” and that the claim thus recites “significantly more than a judicial exception”. This line of argument is not persuasive. As discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 10, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 10 recites a method step of “controlling, by the processor, the cleaning device to clean the cleaning mechanism when the time reaches the cleaning time”, but applicant’s step of “controlling the cleaning device to clean the cleaning mechanism when the time reaches the cleaning time” is so broad that it doesn’t amount to a particular practical application. How a judicial exception can be integrated into a practical application is discussed, for example, in MPEP 2106.05(f), and that section of the MPEP argues that “the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception” is one of things to consider when trying to determine if a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, and in the examiner’s opinion, applicant’