Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that Lawrence does not disclose the two-stage processing pipeline of pre-processing + classification nor the specific form of pre-processing and control signaling recited.
Applicant argues that while Lawrence associates a time signal with detected sensor signals, this is not the same as performing a pre-processing step that filters the sensor signals, and performing a subsequent classification step that process the pre-processed signals to generate a plurality of control signals that represent usage-related states, specifically, Applicant argues “Lawrence’s description of detecting signals and associating them with time values is simple thresholding and time-based logic, not a distinct preprocessing state involving filtering followed by a classification stage. Lawrence does not disclose any filtering of sensor signals as part of pre-processing nor any explicit classification step operation on filtered features to produce control signals”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, Claim 1 as amended in the instant application requires “wherein the first module is configured to process the generated sensor signals by performing a pre-processing step and a classification step and wherein the pre-processing step comprises filtering the sensor signals”. This claim requires a controller module that is configured to perform a pre-processing step comprising filtering sensor signals, and to perform a classification step. Claims limitations are given their broadest reasonable interpretation based upon the plain meaning of the claim language. As there is no limitation in the claim other than the limitation regarding the pre-processing comprising filtering of sensor signals, there is nothing else in the claim language further defining what constitutes a pre-processing step nor a classification step, nor is there an explicit order stated in the claim to which these steps are performed.
When looking to the specification to further elaborate on what constitutes these respective steps, the specification only states that the pre-processing step comprises extracting features from time portions of the sensor signals or filtering the signals. With the classification step comprising processing the signals using a machine learning classifier, Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As such the controller needs to be capable of doing an initial processing of a sensor signal via applying a filter, and to in some way classify the signals, such as classifying the signals based on if they represent the cleaner is on or off.
As such Examiner maintains that Lawrence’s description of detecting signals and associating them with time values constitutes a pre-processing step and classifying these signals to a first – forth signal and to indicate if the cleaner is in use or not constitutes a classification step.
While Examiner concedes to Applicants assertion that Lawrence does not disclose filtering of sensor signals, Examiner does not rely on Lawrence to disclose this feature but instead relies on Brown.
In response to applicant's argument that Brown is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Brown, Lawrence and The instant application are all pointed towards signal processing and control of an electronic device.
Additionally, the processing of Sound signals as described in brown is analogous to the processing of control signals, with the microphone, detecting the microphone signal being analogous to a sound sensor.
In response to applicant's argument that if one were to import Browns analog audio filter into Lawrence the resulting system would still not preform the pre-processing step, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill in the art in would understand that applying signal filters as suggested would eliminate noise and outlier signals, and improve the accuracy of a following classification step.
Applicants’ arguments regarding Claims 4, 7, 9, 12, 13 and 15 are nor found persuasive for the same reasons as above.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 3 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lawrence (GB 2490256 A) and Brown (US 20140008087 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of USSELMAN (US 20140261551 A1)
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 11, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 11 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lawrence (GB 2490256 A) and Brown (US 20140008087 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Hong (US 20190343354 A1).
Regarding Applicants arguments pointed towards claim 5, Applicant argues
In response to applicant's argument that there is no teaching nor suggest in Lawrence or Kim to replace Lawrence’s rule/time-based logic with a trained classifier operating on pre-processed features to produce a plurality of control signals, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Lawrence discloses a sensing and control system for determining the use state of a cleaner motor, and to determine whether or not to power up or down said motor based on the determined use state. While Kim discloses a similar system to derive the minimum power of a motor based on input factors such as sensors, and in Para [0116]- [0118] while discussing machine learning discusses machine learning classifiers ““Learning paradigms, in which an artificial neural network operates, may be classified into supervised learning, unsupervised learning, semi-supervised learning, and reinforcement learning.
Supervised learning is a machine learning method that derives a single function from the training data.
Among the functions that may be thus derived, a function that outputs a continuous range of values may be referred to as a regressor, and a function that predicts and outputs the class of an input vector may be referred to as a classifier.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand based on the disclosure of Kim and Lawrence that a machine learning classifier could be used/derived to provide a plurality of control signals. As such Examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments pointed towards claim 6 is not found persuasive for the same reason.
Regarding Applicants argument pointed towards Claim 8, Applicant argues that “the output signal is generated by the second module based on a plurality of control signals produced by a pre-processing and classification pipeline and generates an output signal which activates or deactivates the vacuum motor” arguing that the binary signal is not merely a trivial on/off control line but the output of the previously described decision process. Examiner respectfully disagrees, the factors if a signal is on or off do not change the fact that it is a binary on or off signal, as claimed in claim 8, The output signal is a binary signal that turns activates or deactivates the motor based on that output signal. While as stated in the office action Lawrence does not explicitly state the output signal is binary, the power management system is arranged to power up the motor and power down the motor, based on the sensed signals. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand this is a binary on or off signal as an output, turning the motor on or off, or absent said understanding, would at least find it obvious to make such an output signal resulting from the previously described decision process.
In response to applicant's argument that Hird is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Hird is pointed towards utilizing a sensor to control the output of a suction motor, which is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem to which the instant application is pointed towards, as the instant application is pointed towards utilizing sensors to generator signals, which are the processed via a controller into an output signal which determines the state of the vacuum motor, Examiner does not rely on Hird to disclose the usage state detection pipeline but only a proximity sensor that can be used to control a suction motor, and instead relies on Lawrences as addressed above to disclose the usage-stage detection pipeline.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lawrence (GB 2490256 A).
Regarding Claim 16, Lawrence discloses
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising a set of instructions, which, when executed by a computerized device, cause the computerized device to perform a method of operating a vacuum cleaner, the method comprising (See Page 7 Line 1-7 “The main body 3 further comprises a control PCB 25, for controlling at least some of the electric functions of the vacuum cleaner 1, a clock 26 and an indicator 29. The control PCB 25 comprises a processor/receiver 27 for receiving wireless signals transmitted by one or other, or both, of the first wireless transmitter 19 and the second wireless transmitter 23. in this embodiment, the processor/receiver 27 is shown as one device integral with the control PCB 25.”):
generating sensor signals by a plurality of sensors of the vacuum cleaner (See Page 4 Lines 4-8 “Preferably, the first sensor is a motion sensor and the second sensor is a touch sensor. Thus the signals output from the first and second sensors may indicate different states of the machine, i.e. whether it is in the first use state or the second non-use state. Both sensors may be touch sensors, or both sensors may be motion sensors.”);
at a first module of a controller, processing the sensor signals to generate a plurality of control signals (See Page 7 Line 9-13 “The processor/receiver 27 may be two devices: a receiving device for receiving the transmitted signals and a processing device for processing the received signals, both of which devices may be integral with the control PCB 25. The processor/receiver 27 and the receiving device and/or processing device may be separate from the control PCB 25.”)
at a second module of the controller, processing the plurality of control signals to generate an output signal indicating that the vacuum cleaner is currently being used (See Fig. 10 “On detection of either the first signal (step 9) or the second signal (step 10), or both of the first and second signals (step 11), the power management system is powers up the motor, stops outputting the indicator signal such that the LED 29 turns off and resets the power management system, such that the stored value of the first time period is removed from the power management system (step 12). The automatic powering up of the motor avoids the user having to take any additional steps, such as pressing a button, before they begin to use the vacuum cleaner 1.””); and
activating or deactivating a vacuum motor of the vacuum cleaner in dependence on the output signal (Page 9-10,
“On entering the idle mode, the power management system outputs an indicator signal to the LED 29 (step 8) causing the LED 29 to flash I0 intermittently. The LED 29 may light continuously instead. The LED indicates to the user that the vacuum cleaner 1 is in the idle mode. When the vacuum cleaner us left unattended and has entered the idle mode, a user may pick up the wand 13 or may begin moving the vacuum cleaner I with or without holding the upper portion 14 of the wand 13. A user picking up the upper portion 14 of the wand 13 so as to touch the touch sensor 17 will cause the touch sensor I 7 to output the second signal indicating that the vacuum cleaner Us in use. Movement of the vacuum cleaner I will cause the motion sensor 21 to output the first signal indicating that the vacuum cleaner I is in use.
On detection of either the first signal (step 9) or the second signal (step 10), or both of the first and second signals (step 11), the power management system is powers up the motor, stops outputting the indicator signal such that the LED 29 turns off and resets the power management system, such that the stored value of the first time period is removed from the power management system (step 12). The automatic powering up of the motor avoids the user having to take any additional steps, such as pressing a button, before they begin to use the vacuum cleaner 1.”).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, and 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence (GB 2490256 A) and Brown (US 20140008087 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lawrence discloses:
A vacuum cleaner comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to generate sensor signals (See Page 4 Lines 4-8 “Preferably, the first sensor is a motion sensor and the second sensor is a touch sensor. Thus the signals output from the first and second sensors may indicate different states of the machine, i.e. whether it is in the first use state or the second non-use state. Both sensors may be touch sensors, or both sensors may be motion sensors.”);
a vacuum motor (24); and
a controller (processor 27 and “power management system”) comprising first (processor and receiver portions described below in citation from page 7) and second modules (clock 26 and indicator 29), wherein (See Page 7 Line 9-13 “The processor/receiver 27 may be two devices: a receiving device for receiving the transmitted signals and a processing device for processing the received signals, both of which devices may be integral with the control PCB 25. The processor/receiver 27 and the receiving device and/or processing device may be separate from the control PCB 25.”):
the first module is configured to process the generated sensor signals to generate a plurality of control signals (receiving part of processor, See citation from page 7 above. And Page 7 Line 24 “The power management system is arranged to output an indicator signal”), wherein the first module is configured to process the generated sensor signals by performing a pre-processing step and a classification step (See Page 4, cited below, Showing the processor classifying the signals to first second third and fourth signal, and preprocessing by associating a time signal with each signal.
“The processor may be arranged to detect the first, the second, the third and the fourth signals, and the power management system may be arranged to control power to the motor in dependence on the detected signals.
The processor may be arranged to associate the time signal with the or each is detected signal, and the power management system may be arranged to power down the motor when a predetermined time period has elapsed after detection of the second signal and the fourth signal. Thus, the power management system may be arranged to power down the motor a certain time period after a user stops using the machine.
The power management system may be arranged such that, on detection of the first signal or the third signal, the power management system powers up the motor.”);
the second module is configured to process the plurality of control signals to generate an output signal indicating that the vacuum cleaner is currently being used (See Page 3 “The power management system may comprise a clock which outputs a time signal, and the processor may be arranged to detect the time signal and to associate the time signal with the signal from the sensor, the power management system being arranged to power down the motor after a predetermined time period has elapsed after detection that the machine goes from being in the first use state to being in the second non-use state.”); and
the vacuum motor is configured to activate or deactivate in dependence on the output signal (Page 9-10,
“On entering the idle mode, the power management system outputs an indicator signal to the LED 29 (step 8) causing the LED 29 to flash intermittently. The LED 29 may light continuously instead. The LED indicates to the user that the vacuum cleaner 1 is in the idle mode. When the vacuum cleaner us left unattended and has entered the idle mode, a user may pick up the wand 13 or may begin moving the vacuum cleaner I with or without holding the upper portion 14 of the wand 13. A user picking up the upper portion 14 of the wand 13 so as to touch the touch sensor 17 will cause the touch sensor I 7 to output the second signal indicating that the vacuum cleaner is in use. Movement of the vacuum cleaner I will cause the motion sensor 21 to output the first signal indicating that the vacuum cleaner I is in use.
On detection of either the first signal (step 9) or the second signal (step 10), or both of the first and second signals (step 11), the power management system is powers up the motor, stops outputting the indicator signal such that the LED 29 turns off and resets the power management system, such that the stored value of the first time period is removed from the power management system (step 12). The automatic powering up of the motor avoids the user having to take any additional steps, such as pressing a button, before they begin to use the vacuum cleaner 1.”).
but does not disclose wherein the pre-processing step comprises filtering the sensor signals.
However, Brown discloses a cleaner that with a controller that utilizes filters in a pre-processing step (See Para [0097] “To make the digital signal received by the processor 51 more in order, a filter circuit 53 can be arranged between the sound sensor 41 and the analog-digital conversion circuit 48. The filter circuit 53 can filter the analogue signal generated by the sound sensor 41 such that the analogue signal entering the analog-digital conversion circuit 48 is more in order and that the digital signal which is converted by the analog-digital conversion circuit 48 and enters the processor 51 is more in order. In this embodiment, the filter circuit 53 is electrically connected between the signal amplification circuit 42 and the analog-digital conversion circuit 48.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the to apply filters to a signal to cut out noise from the sensor and to prevent accidental activation/deactivations of the motor.
Regarding Claim 7, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the second module comprises a finite state machine (Examiner first notes for the clarity of record that the second module comprises a finite state machine is being interpreted as requiring that the second module can only have 1 output state at a given time. Then, see See Page 4, cited below, showing that output either powers the motor up or powers the motor down, having only 2 states
“The processor may be arranged to detect the first, the second, the third and the fourth signals, and the power management system may be arranged to control power to the motor in dependence on the detected signals.
The processor may be arranged to associate the time signal with the or each is detected signal, and the power management system may be arranged to power down the motor when a predetermined time period has elapsed after detection of the second signal and the fourth signal. Thus, the power management system may be arranged to power down the motor a certain time period after a user stops using the machine.
The power management system may be arranged such that, on detection of the first signal or the third signal, the power management system powers up the motor.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition Suggests but does not explicitly discloses wherein the output signal is a binary signal
“The processor may be arranged to detect the first, the second, the third and the fourth signals, and the power management system may be arranged to control power to the motor in dependence on the detected signals.
The processor may be arranged to associate the time signal with the or each is detected signal, and the power management system may be arranged to power down the motor when a predetermined time period has elapsed after detection of the second signal and the fourth signal. Thus, the power management system may be arranged to power down the motor a certain time period after a user stops using the machine.
The power management system may be arranged such that, on detection of the first signal or the third signal, the power management system powers up the motor.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Lawrence to ensure the signal is a binary on or off signal, as doing so would simplify the operation of the cleaner for the user, and would protect against unintentional firings of the motor.
Regarding Claim 12, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the plurality of sensors comprises a capacitive sensor located in proximity to a handle of the vacuum cleaner and configured to generate sensor signals dependent on whether a user is gripping the handle (see Page 5 Line 32- Page Line 5 “The sensor may be a touch sensor. The touch sensor may be one of a capacitance sensor and a pressure sensor.”).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence (GB 2490256 A) and Brown (US 20140008087 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of USSELMAN (US 20140261551 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 2 and in addition discloses wherein the pre-processing step comprises extracting features from time portions of the generated sensor signals (See Page 4 citation cited in the rejection of claim 2 showing the processor associating time signals with the sensor generated signals, additionally see page 7, line 29- Page 8 Line 2 “The embodiment shown in Figures 1 and 2 will now be further described with reference to Figure 3. Initially, a user will switch on the vacuum cleaner 1 (step 1), the power management system will detect that the vacuum cleaner 1 is switched on and will monitor the signals received from the motion sensor 21 and the touch sensor 17 (step 2). The power management system also detects the time signal received from the clock 26 and associates the time signal with signals received from the motion sensor 21 and touch sensor 17 respectively.”).
But does not disclose the pre-processing step further comprises band-pass and low-pass filters.
However, USSELMAN discloses a system utilizing a sensor utilizing conditioning circuits for a pre-processing step comprising band-pass and low-pass filters (See Para [0036] “The sensors 200 provide the sensor signals to conditioning circuits 204-1, 204-2, 204-3, and 204-4 (collectively, conditioning circuits 204), respectively. The conditioning circuits 204 create conditioned signals by amplifying the respective sensor signals from the sensors 200. In various implementations, the conditioning circuits 204 also apply various analog processing, such as low-pass, high-pass, or band-pass filtering.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify controller module to include band-pass and low-pass filtering during the preprocessing step as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that doing so would allow for the removal of undesirable signals, such as an accidental impact of the cleaner triggering the motion sensor, or electrical interference, increasing the accuracy of the following classification and additional processing
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence (GB 2490256 A) and Brown (US 20140008087 A1) and USSELMAN (US 20140261551 A1) as modified in claim 3 and in further view of Kim (US 20190387943 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 3 and in addition discloses, wherein the classification step comprises processing the extracted features to provide the plurality of control signals (See Page 9
“The power management system detects the third and fourth signals from the motion sensor 21 and the touch sensor 17, respectively, and associates the third and fourth signals with the time signal. On detection of both of the third and fourth signals, the power management system stores the time signal as a first time signal (step 5). The power management system does not immediately power down the motor 24. Rather, the power management system continues to detect the third and fourth signals from the motion sensor 21 and the touch sensor 17. As long as both of the third and fourth signals are detected, the time signal associated with the most recently detected third and fourth signals is compared to the first time signal to determine an elapsed time period between the first time signal and the (current) time signal (step 6). If the elapsed time period is less than 20 seconds, the power management system continues to detect the third and fourth signals. If the elapsed time period is equal to, or greater than, 20 seconds, the power management system powers down the motor (step 7).” The processor associates a time signal with the sensor signal, then classifies those signals as into the binary of “is the motor in use”, and then controls the motor based upon the received signal).
But does not disclose this classification step is performed using a machine learning classifier
However, Kim discloses a similar cleaner that utilizing a controller to determine the power provided to a motor via machine learning, (See Para [0078] “the controller 600 may be connected with a processor 700 that derives the minimum power of the motor 400. The processor 700 can derive the minimum power of the motor 400 by learning an artificial intelligence model. The processor has an artificial intelligence neural network, receives input factors, and can derive the minimum power of the motor 400 by learning an artificial intelligence model on the basis of the input factors.”) and further provides that a machine learning algorithm can be trained to derive a classifier in order to predict and output the class of an input (See Para [0116]-[0118]
“Learning paradigms, in which an artificial neural network operates, may be classified into supervised learning, unsupervised learning, semi-supervised learning, and reinforcement learning.
Supervised learning is a machine learning method that derives a single function from the training data.
Among the functions that may be thus derived, a function that outputs a continuous range of values may be referred to as a regressor, and a function that predicts and outputs the class of an input vector may be referred to as a classifier.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the controller of Lawrence to utilize machine learning as it is an art recognized equivalent for determining the power to be provided to a motor based on different input factors such as sensor signals. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claim 6, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 5 and in addition discloses wherein the machine learning classifier comprises one or more of: an artificial neural network, a random forest and a support- vector machine (See Kim Para [0095] “Numerous machine learning algorithms have been developed for data classification in machine learning. Representative examples of such machine learning algorithms for data classification include a decision tree, a Bayesian network, a support vector machine (SVM), an artificial neural network (ANN), and so forth.”).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence (GB 2490256 A) and Brown (US 20140008087 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Gangon (US 20180078107 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of sensors comprises a tool switch sensor configured to generate a sensor signal dependent on the installation of a removable tool on the vacuum cleaner.
However, Gangon does discloses a cleaning system that utilizes a sensor to detect if a cleaning attachment or tool is installed (See Para [0033] “In this configuration, the contact sensor can also detect attachment of the central vacuum tools and accessories to the remote intake port 54 and signal the central vacuum 52 to create the central airflow. In certain examples, the contact sensor can determine if the autonomous vacuum system 20 is coupled to the remote intake port 54 or other tools and accessories are coupled to the remote intake port 54.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cleaner of Lawrence to have a sensor that generates a signal based on the attachment of a tool, as doing so would allow for the cleaner to power down the motor if the tool isn’t attached or power up when it is as suggested by Gangon in para [0033].
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence (GB 2490256 A) and Brown (US 20140008087 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Hong (US 20190343354 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Lawrence discloses all the limitation of the claim 1 and suggests but does not explicitly disclose the plurality of sensors comprises an inertial measurement unit, IMU, configured to generate sensor signals based on sensed motion and orientation of the vacuum cleaner (See Page 3 Line 11-12 “The or another sensor may be a motion sensor. The motion sensor may be one of a force sensor and an acceleration sensor.”).
However, Hong explicitly discloses a cleaner with a with an IMU, configured to generate sensor signals based on sensed motion and orientation of the vacuum cleaner (See Para [0160] “The IMU 216 may be a combination of sensors for detecting changes in locations and/or orientations of the cleaning apparatus 1000 based on inertial acceleration. For example, a combination of sensors may include accelerometers and gyroscopes.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the sensor of Lawrence to be an IMU, as Lawrence states the motion sensor may be one of a force sensor and an acceleration sensor (See page 3 Line 11-12 “The or another sensor may be a motion sensor. The motion sensor may be one of a force sensor and an acceleration sensor.”), and Hong discloses that an IMU is a known equivalent for to a force or acceleration sensor, and includes a plurality of sensors for detecting information and includes and IMU for detecting a location and orientation of the cleaner. And is has been held to substituting equivalents known for the same purpose would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, See MPEP 2144.06 II.
Regarding Claim 11, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 10 and in addition discloses wherein the sensor signals generated by the IMU are based only on sensed motion of the vacuum cleaner or only on sensed orientation of the vacuum cleaner. (See Hong Para [0160] “The IMU 216 may be a combination of sensors for detecting changes in locations and/or orientations of the cleaning apparatus 1000 based on inertial acceleration. For example, a combination of sensors may include accelerometers and gyroscopes.” Hong states that the IMU is capable of detecting changes in location (sense motion) and/or (orientation), the “and/or” indicating that the IMU may be configured to sense only sensed motion, only sense orientation or both).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the IMU of Lawrence as modified to generate sensor signals based on a single modality (motion or orientation) as doing so would minimize undesirable noise and would prevent unintentional starts of the cleaner if the undesired parameter changes.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence (GB 2490256 A) and Brown (US 20140008087 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Hird (US 20190099051 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of sensors comprises a proximity sensor configured to generate sensor signals dependent on the proximity of an object to the proximity sensor.
However, Hird discloses a vacuum cleaner utilizing a proximity sensor in order to detect a surface and modulate the suction power of the cleaner in dependence on the signal from the proximity sensor (See Para [0005] “a proximity sensor for detecting a surface; and a controller configured to change the suction power of the suction device in dependence on a signal from the proximity sensor and in dependence on the position of the extendable inlet nozzle.”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the sensors of Lawrence to include a proximity sensor as they are both art recognized equivalents for the same purpose of generating a signal to control the output of a motor. (See MPEP 2144.06 II).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence (GB 2490256 A) and Brown (US 20140008087 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Tsuboi (US 20150000068 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second modules comprise first and second software modules.
However, Tsuboi discloses a cleaner utilizing a controller that utilizes software (See Para [0314] “Lastly, the control section 52 of the self-propelled cleaner 1 can be configured by hardware with the use of a logic circuit formed on an integrated circuit (IC chip) or by software with the use of CPU.”
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the controller of Lawrence to be a CPU running software as it is well known in the art that a CPU running software is an equivalent for the same purpose of controlling a cleaner and its functions as a controller is. (See MPEP 2144.06 II).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence (GB 2490256 A) in view of Xue (US 20180289228 A1)
Regarding Claim 15, Lawrence discloses A method of operating a vacuum cleaner comprising:
generating sensor signals by a plurality of sensors of the vacuum cleaner (See Page 4 Lines 4-8 “Preferably, the first sensor is a motion sensor and the second sensor is a touch sensor. Thus, the signals output from the first and second sensors may indicate different states of the machine, i.e. whether it is in the first use state or the second non-use state. Both sensors may be touch sensors, or both sensors may be motion sensors.”);
at a first module of a controller, processing the sensor signals to generate a plurality of control signals (See Page 7 Line 9-13 “The processor/receiver 27 may be two devices: a receiving device for receiving the transmitted signals and a processing device for processing the received signals, both of which devices may be integral with the control PCB 25. The processor/receiver 27 and the receiving device and/or processing device may be separate from the control PCB 25.” And Page 7 Line 24 “The power management system is arranged to output an indicator signal”)
wherein the first module is configured to process the generated sensor signals by performing a pre-processing step and a classification step (See Page 4, cited below, Showing the processor classifying the signals to first second third and fourth signal, and preprocessing by associating a time signal with each signal.
“The processor may be arranged to detect the first, the second, the third and the fourth signals, and the power management system may be arranged to control power to the motor in dependence on the detected signals.
The processor may be arranged to associate the time signal with the or each is detected signal, and the power management system may be arranged to power down the motor when a predetermined time period has elapsed after detection of the second signal and the fourth signal. Thus, the power management system may be arranged to power down the motor a certain time period after a user stops using the machine.
The power management system may be arranged such that, on detection of the first signal or the third signal, the power management system powers up the motor.”);
at a second module of the controller, processing the plurality of control signals to generate an output signal indicating that the vacuum cleaner is currently being used (See Page 3 “The power management system may comprise a clock which outputs a time signal, and the processor may be arranged to detect the time signal and to associate the time signal with the signal from the sensor, the power management system being arranged to power down the motor after a predetermined time period has elapsed after detection that the machine goes from being in the first use state to being in the second non-use state.”); and
activating or deactivating a vacuum motor of the vacuum cleaner in dependence on the output signal (Page 9-10,
“On entering the idle mode, the power management system outputs an indicator signal to the LED 29 (step 8) causing the LED 29 to flash I0 intermittently. The LED 29 may light continuously instead. The LED indicates to the user that the vacuum cleaner 1 is in the idle mode. When the vacuum cleaner us left unattended and has entered the idle mode, a user may pick up the wand 13 or may begin moving the vacuum cleaner I with or without holding the upper portion 14 of the wand 13. A user picking up the upper portion 14 of the wand 13 so as to touch the touch sensor 17 will cause the touch sensor I 7 to output the second signal indicating that the vacuum cleaner Us in use. Movement of the vacuum cleaner I will cause the motion sensor 21 to output the first signal indicating that the vacuum cleaner I is in use.
On detection of either the first signal (step 9) or the second signal (step 10), or both of the first and second signals (step 11), the power management system is powers up the motor, stops outputting the indicator signal such that the LED 29 turns off and resets the power management system, such that the stored value of the first time period is removed from the power management system (step 12). The automatic powering up of the motor avoids the user having to take any additional steps, such as pressing a button, before they begin to use the vacuum cleaner 1.”).
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the pre-processing step comprises filtering the sensor signals.
However, Xue discloses a similar cleaning method including a data preprocessing step (See Para [0007] “a data pre-processing step of using a pre-processing unit to pre-process the pre-set environment parameter and provide the pre-set environment parameter after pre-processing to a central processing unit”) wherein the pre-processing step comprises filtering the sensor signals (See Para [0026] “For example, the pre-processing unit 30 may include a digital signal processor (DSP) which performs the pre-processing on the pre-set environment parameter collected by the sensor system 10, such as data format conversion, integration and cleaning, thereby facilitating the GPU 202 to perform final processing on the pre-set environment parameter.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that data cleaning would include filtering anomalous signals or noise).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to include data cleaning, or filtering during a pre-processing step as doing so would eliminate noise and undesirable signal data to increase accuracy of the output signal following the processing step.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/T.J.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723