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, see 6, filed 03/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 20 and 21 and their dependents 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Conrad (US 20160128531 A1).
The following arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lawrence fails to disclose “a controller configured to retain activation of the vacuum motor regardless of whether the user input device remains activated, one active usage is detected via the sensor signal” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lawrence discloses a user input device, being a touch sensor 17. And then discloses on page 11 “Of course, a user may hold the vacuum cleaner 1 such that the touch sensor 17 is not touched. The touch sensor 17 will output the fourth signal indicating that the vacuum cleaner I is not in use, i.e. it is in the second state. The user may still move the vacuum cleaner I such that the motion sensor 21 outputs the first signal indicating that the vacuum cleaner I is in use, i.e. it is in the first state. The power management system will detect the first signal and the fourth signal and will not power down the motor 24. Should the user then stop moving the vacuum cleaner 1, such that the motion sensor 21 outputs the second signal, the power management signal will detect this, and the associated time signal will be stored as the first time signal. This, in effect, starts running the time period (20 seconds in this embodiment) after which the power management system will power down the motor 24.” Discussing that the motion sensor providing a signal that keeps the motor engaged despite the touch sensor 17 not being engaged. As such Examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
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) 1-5, 10, 11, 15, 16, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence (GB 2490256 A) and Conrad (US 20160128531 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lawrence discloses:
A vacuum cleaner comprising:
a sensor configured to generate sensor signals based on sensed motion of the vacuum cleaner (Motion sensor 21);
a user input device (Touch sensor 17);
a vacuum motor (24); and
a controller (Processor 27 and “power management system”) configured to:
activate the vacuum motor in response to activation of the user input device by a user (See Page 10 Lines 4-18 discussing how picking up the wand causes the power management system to engage the motor);
in response to activation of the vacuum motor, process the generated sensor signals to determine whether the vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user (See Page 10 “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.” And further see Page 7 Lines 29-34 discussing the power management system detecting the cleaner is powered on and monitoring the signals from the motion and touch sensor, With Page 8 Line 11- though Page 11 Line 22 further discussing the how the power management system determines the cleaner is in use); and
in response to determining that the vacuum cleaner is actively being used, retain the vacuum motor in an activated state, regardless of whether the user input device is activated (See Page 11 Lines 5-22 discussing that when the motion sensor detects the cleaner is being used despite the touch sensor 17 not being touched, the motor is not powered down, and instead waiting for 20 seconds of no movement before powering down the motor).
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is configured to generate signals with respect to the orientation of the vacuum cleaner.
However, Conrad discloses a cleaner with a position sensor (901e) which can be an accelerometer and/or gyroscope (See Para [0418] “A position sensor 901e, such as an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope, may be provided in the surface cleaning unit 4 to detect its orientation. If the surface cleaning unit 4 falls over or is dropped the controller 803 may be operable to turn off the suction motor 8 and/or to send out a warning or alarm sound via a speaker transducer 902f.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the invention to include an orientation sensor such as a gyroscope in order to allow for the inclusion of the orientation generation of signals to determine if the cleaner is in use, improving the detection of the cleaner.
Regarding Claim 2, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein determining that the vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user comprises determining that the user is holding and/or maneuvering the vacuum cleaner in manner indicative of a vacuum cleaning operation (See Page 10 Lines 6-11 “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.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the controller is further configured to deactivate the vacuum motor in response to determining that the vacuum cleaner is no longer actively being used by the user (See Page 4 Lines 14-19 “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 stop using the machine.”).
Regarding Claim 4, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 3 and in addition discloses wherein determining that the vacuum cleaner is no longer actively being used by the user comprises determining that the user has not been holding and/or maneuvering the vacuum cleaner in a manner indicative of vacuum cleaning operation for a pre-determined period of time (See Page 4 Lines 14-19 “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 stop using the machine.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 4 and suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein the pre-determined period of time is in the range 0.5 to 5 seconds (See Page 9 line 23-29 “In this embodiment the power management system is arranged to power down the motor if the vacuum cleaner I is not in use for 20 seconds. in alternative embodiments, the time period which is compared to the elapsed time period may be longer or shorter than 20 seconds. It will be appreciated that, in different circumstances, different time periods may be more appropriate. The time period may be adjustable.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the pre-determined time period of Lawrence to be in the range of .5 to 5 seconds as Lawrence states that in different circumstances different pre-determined time periods would be more appropriate than others.
Regarding Claim 10, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the sensor signals are based only on sensed motion of the vacuum cleaner or only on sensed orientation of the vacuum cleaner (See Page 8 Line 11-15 “A user will usually begin using the vacuum cleaner I immediately after switching it on. Thus, the motion sensor 21 will sense the motion of the vacuum cleaner 1 and will output a first signal to indicate that the vacuum cleaner I is in use, i.e. it is in the first state.”).
Additionally, Lawrence discloses an alternate embodiment utilizing only one sensor (See Page 11, Line 24- Page 12 Line 9 “in an alternative embodiment (see Figure 4), the vacuum cleaner I comprises a single sensor 31, and a third wireless transmitter 33 (shown schematically in Figure 4). The third wireless transmitter 33 and the sensor 31 are shown to be adjacent in Figure 4, although this is not necessary. It may be that the third wireless transmitter 33 and the sensor 31 are located apart and are connected by, for example, standard electrical wires.
Of course, the sensor 31 may be connected to the processor/receiver 27 directly This connection may be via standard electrical wires. In such an embodiment, the provision of the third wireless transmitter 33 and the wireless receiver (or wireless receiving portion of the processor/receiver 27) may not be necessary.
The sensor 31 may, for example, be located on an upper portion 14 of the wand 13. The sensor 31 may be one of a touch sensor and a motion sensor, and is arranged to output a fifth signal if the sensor 31 detects that the vacuum cleaner I is in use (as described above), and a sixth signal if the sensor 31 detects that the vacuum cleaner 1 is not in use (again, as described above).”)
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the sensor or Lawrence so that the motion sensor only generates a signal based on the sensed motion or orientation of the cleaner, as doing so would eliminate noise and result in more reliable sensing of movement or orientation and prevent unintended powering up of the vacuum motor and using only a motion sensor is an art recognized equivalent for the purposes of detecting if the cleaner is in use or not, See MPEP 2144.06 II.
Regarding Claim 11, Lawrence discloses all the limitation of the claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the sensor comprises an inertial measurement unit, IMU, (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.”).
Regarding Claim 15, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the controller 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.”)
Regarding Claim 16, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 15 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 15 above, 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 I (step 1), the power management system will detect that the vacuum cleaner I 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.”).
Regarding Claim 20, Lawrence discloses:
A method of operating a vacuum cleaner comprising:
in response to a user activating a user input device of the vacuum cleaner, activating a vacuum motor of the vacuum cleaner (See Page 10 Lines 4-18 discussing how picking up the wand causes the power management system to engage the motor);
in response to activation of the vacuum motor, generating sensor signals based on sensed motion 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.”);
processing the sensor signals to determine whether the vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user (See Page 9 “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.” And further see Page 7 Lines 29-34 discussing the power management system detecting the cleaner is powered on and monitoring the signals from the motion and touch sensor, With Page 8 Line 11- though Page 11 Line 22 further discussing the how the power management system determines the cleaner is in use); and
in response to determining that the vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user, retaining the vacuum motor in an activated state regardless of whether the user input device remains activated (See Page 11 Lines 5-22 discussing that when the motion sensor detects the cleaner is being used despite the touch sensor 17 not being touched, the motor is not powered down, and instead waiting for 20 seconds of no movement before powering down the motor)
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is configured to generate signals with respect to the orientation of the vacuum cleaner.
However, Conrad discloses a cleaner with a position sensor (901e) which can be an accelerometer and/or gyroscope (See Para [0418] “A position sensor 901e, such as an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope, may be provided in the surface cleaning unit 4 to detect its orientation. If the surface cleaning unit 4 falls over or is dropped the controller 803 may be operable to turn off the suction motor 8 and/or to send out a warning or alarm sound via a speaker transducer 902f.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the invention to include an orientation sensor such as a gyroscope in order to allow for the inclusion of the orientation generation of signals to determine if the cleaner is in use, improving the detection of the cleaner.
Regarding Claim 21, 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:
in response to a user activating a user input device of the vacuum cleaner, activating a vacuum motor of the vacuum cleaner (See Page 10 Lines 4-18 discussing how picking up the wand causes the power management system to engage the motor);
in response to activation of the vacuum motor, generating sensor signals based on sensed motion 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.”);
processing the sensor signals to determine whether the vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user (See Page 9 “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.” And further see Page 7 Lines 29-34 discussing the power management system detecting the cleaner is powered on and monitoring the signals from the motion and touch sensor, With Page 8 Line 11- though Page 11 Line 22 further discussing the how the power management system determines the cleaner is in use); and
in response to determining that the vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user, retaining the vacuum motor in an activated state regardless of whether the user input device remains activated (See Page 11 Lines 5-22 discussing that when the motion sensor detects the cleaner is being used despite the touch sensor 17 not being touched, the motor is not powered down, and instead waiting for 20 seconds of no movement before powering down the motor).
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is configured to generate signals with respect to the orientation of the vacuum cleaner.
However, Conrad discloses a cleaner with a position sensor (901e) which can be an accelerometer and/or gyroscope (See Para [0418] “A position sensor 901e, such as an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope, may be provided in the surface cleaning unit 4 to detect its orientation. If the surface cleaning unit 4 falls over or is dropped the controller 803 may be operable to turn off the suction motor 8 and/or to send out a warning or alarm sound via a speaker transducer 902f.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the invention to include an orientation sensor such as a gyroscope in order to allow for the inclusion of the orientation generation of signals to determine if the cleaner is in use, improving the detection of the cleaner.
Claim(s) 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence (GB 2490256 A) and Conrad (US 20160128531 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Thompson (US 20130205538 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 3 and in addition suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein following deactivation of the vacuum motor, the vacuum motor can only be reactivated by the user interacting with at least one of the sensors (See Page 10 Line 4-15 “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,”).
But does not disclose the vacuum motor can only be reactivated by the activation of the user input device.
However, Thompson does disclose a user input device (20) and discloses that such a device can also be a capacitive sensor (See Para [0057] “As an alternative to a mechanically operable switch, it should be noted that other trigger means are viable in the context of this embodiment, for example touch sensitive switches such as light sensors, capacitive sensors or resistive sensors. Such switch arrangements are all operable to act as a `dead man's switch like the specific embodiment described above and therefore achieve the same energy efficiency advantages for cylinder and upright vacuum cleaners. It will also be appreciated that the control process described above with reference to FIGS. 6 and 7 could also be implemented in this embodiment”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the capacitive sensor of Lawrence to be a part of the user input device, and thus the vacuum motor to only be reactivated by the activation of the user input device, as advantageously suggested by Thompson as doing so would allow for the user to have an easier time reactivating the cleaner simply by grabbing the cleaner.
Regarding Claim 7, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the user input device comprises a trigger switch, and
wherein activation of the user input device comprises depressing the trigger switch.
However, Thompson discloses a cleaner (2) that utilizes a trigger (20) as a user input device,
Wherein activation of the user input device comprises depressing the trigger switch (See Para [0041] “In order to operate the vacuum cleaner 2, a user depresses the trigger member 20 to an operating position, which is shown in FIGS. 3 and 4.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the user input device of Lawrence to be a trigger switch as a trigger switch is an art recognized equivalent in the art for the purposes of acting as a power switch for a vacuum cleaner. See Thompson Para [0057] “As an alternative to a mechanically operable switch, it should be noted that other trigger means are viable in the context of this embodiment, for example touch sensitive switches such as light sensors, capacitive sensors or resistive sensors.” And See MPEP 2144.06 II.
Regarding Claim 8, Lawrences as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 7 and in addition discloses wherein activation of the user input device comprises depressing the trigger switch (See Para [0041] “In order to operate the vacuum cleaner 2, a user depresses the trigger member 20 to an operating position, which is shown in FIGS. 3 and 4.”) but does not explicitly disclose depressing the trigger for a duration of less than 0.5 seconds followed by releasing the trigger switch.
However, Lawrence does teach the advantages of adjusting a time period to be appropriate for circumstances, (See Page 9 line 23-29 “In this embodiment the power management system is arranged to power down the motor if the vacuum cleaner I is not in use for 20 seconds. in alternative embodiments, the time period which is compared to the elapsed time period may be longer or shorter than 20 seconds. It will be appreciated that, in different circumstances, different time periods may be more appropriate. The time period may be adjustable.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the activation trigger of Lawrence as modified to only need to be depressed for a duration of .5 seconds or less before releasing to activate the motor, as Lawrence teaches adjusting a time period and Thompson teaches in Para [0042] “During extended periods of cleaning, the requirement to depress a `dead man's trigger` arrangement in order to operate the vacuum cleaner may become tiresome, particularly as the user's finger must adopt a slightly extended position to maintain pressure on a trigger surface that stands proud from the grip during operation.”
Regarding Claim 9, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein a sensor comprises a capacitive sensor located in proximity to a handle of the vacuum cleaner (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.”), and
Wherein the sensor detects a user gripping the handle (Page 10 4-11 “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.”).
But does not disclose the user input device comprises the capacitive sensor is
However, Thompson does disclose a user input device (20) and discloses that such a device can also be a capacitive sensor (See Para [0057] “As an alternative to a mechanically operable switch, it should be noted that other trigger means are viable in the context of this embodiment, for example touch sensitive switches such as light sensors, capacitive sensors or resistive sensors. Such switch arrangements are all operable to act as a `dead man's switch like the specific embodiment described above and therefore achieve the same energy efficiency advantages for cylinder and upright vacuum cleaners. It will also be appreciated that the control process described above with reference to FIGS. 6 and 7 could also be implemented in this embodiment”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the user input device of Lawrence to be a capacitive sensor as advantageously suggested by Thompson as they are recognized as equivalents for the purpose of activating or deactivating a motor.
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence (GB 2490256 A) and Conrad (US 20160128531 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Kim (US 20130030750 A1)
Regarding Claim 12, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses further comprising:
a cleaner head (15)
but does not explicitly disclose comprising the cleaning head comprising an agitator; and
one or more diagnostic sensors configured to generate further sensor signals based on sensed parameters of the cleaner head, wherein the controller is configured to process the generated further sensor signals to determine whether the vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user.
However, Kim discloses a cleaner with an agitator and one or more diagnostic sensors (Sensing unit 100) configured to generate further sensor signals based on sensed parameters of the cleaner head, wherein the controller is configured to process the generated further sensor signals to determine whether the vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user (See Para [0075] “Referring to FIG. 5, the robot cleaner according to embodiments of the present disclosure further comprises a state sensing unit 130 configured to sense a state of each unit of the robot cleaner. The state sensing unit 130 includes a sensor for sensing a main wheel state, a sensor for sensing a wheel drop switch state, a sensor for sensing a suction motor state, a sensor for sensing an agitator state, etc. And, the state sensing unit 130 includes a sensor for sensing a dust box state, a sensor for sensing a battery state, a sensor for sensing a dustcloth state, etc. The controller 200 is configured to check one or more preset execution conditions before executing the self test mode. The one or more preset execution conditions indicate one of a mounted state of a dust box, an attached state of a dustcloth plate and a battery state, or a combination thereof. The controller 200 checks a current operation mode, checks whether a reservation cleaning has been set, and then executes a self test mode.” And Para [0053] “The output unit 400 may output an inner state of the robot cleaner sensed by a sensing unit 100, e.g., current statues of units of the robot cleaner, and a current cleaning state”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the cleaning head of Lawrence to include an agitator in order to assist in the vacuuming of debris from a surface, by dislodging any debris that may be logged in the material of the surface to be cleaned. It would be further obvious to implement a state sensing unit in order to test and monitor the agitator and detect any breakdown or disturbance.
Regarding Claim 13, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 12 and in addition discloses, but does not explicitly disclose
wherein the cleaner head further comprises an agitator motor arranged to rotate the agitator
wherein the sensed parameters of the cleaner head comprise the agitator motor current.
However, Kim does disclose wherein the cleaner head further comprises an agitator motor arranged to rotate the agitator (brush motor 890)
a pair of current sensors (730a and see Paras [0077] and [0080]) for detecting the current in the wheels of the cleaner (discussed in Para [0077]) and the suction motor (discussed in Para [0080]), Further Kim does detects the RPM of the agitator (See Para [0082] “Once a command to execute a self test mode is input, the controller 200 tests a state of the brush motor 890. The controller 200 rotates the agitator 810, and senses an RPM of the agitator 810. Then, the controller 200 compares the sensed RPM with a reference RPM, and tests whether the agitator is in an abnormal state or not based on a comparison result.”) and Finally Kim discloses the robot cleaner can utilize different parameters to test different driving units of the cleaner (See Para [0101] “And, the robot cleaner may test a state of a main wheel, e.g., whether right and left main wheels are in a balanced state, by sensing RPMs of the right and left main wheels with using a wheel sensor. The robot cleaner tests a cliff sensor, a lower camera sensor, etc. installed on a bottom surface of the body, and tests an acceleration sensor based on a speed change. The robot cleaner may test a driving unit or a cleaning unit by sensing a current, a rotation speed, etc. of each motor which constitutes the driving unit or the cleaning unit.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the sensor that detects the RPM of the agitator of Lawrence as modified with a current sensor, as Kim teaches that they are equivalent methods for the detection of foreign materials in, or the operational state of, the sensed components. See MPEP 2144.06 II and additionally, see Kim Para [0077] “Once a command to execute a self test mode is input, the controller 200 tests a state of the wheel motor. The controller 200 is provided with a current sensor 730a to sense a driving current of the wheel motor. Then, the controller 200 compares the sensed driving current with a reference current, and tests a state of the wheel motor based on a comparison result. As the current sensor, a current transducer, etc. may be used. Alternatively, a shunt resistance may be used. When the main wheels are in an abnormal state, the output unit 400 may output a voice message such as "Please check foreign materials on the left main wheel." or "Please check foreign materials on the right main wheel.", or may display the message on a screen.” And See Para [0101] “And, the robot cleaner may test a state of a main wheel, e.g., whether right and left main wheels are in a balanced state, by sensing RPMs of the right and left main wheels with using a wheel sensor. The robot cleaner tests a cliff sensor, a lower camera sensor, etc. installed on a bottom surface of the body, and tests an acceleration sensor based on a speed change. The robot cleaner may test a driving unit or a cleaning unit by sensing a current, a rotation speed, etc. of each motor which constitutes the driving unit or the cleaning unit.” Kim discloses testing the operation state of the drive wheels by either sensing the RPM or the current of the wheel motor, and equates sensing a motor current and a rotation speed as ways to determine the operational state of a motor.
Regarding Claim 14, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 12 and in addition suggests but does not explicitly disclose the sensed parameters of the cleaner head comprise the pressure applied to the cleaner head (See First Page 3 lines 9-16 “The sensor may be a touch sensor. The touch sensor may be one of a capacitance sensor and a pressure sensor. The or another sensor may be a motion sensor. The motion sensor may be one of a force sensor and an acceleration sensor. Two or more sensors may be provided, each of which is capable of indicating that the machine is in the first use state.”, Second See Page 6, 26-27 “Of course, the touch sensor 17 and the motion sensor 21 may be located on any convenient portion of the vacuum cleaner 1.”).
However, It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensors and sensed parameters to sense the pressure applied to the cleaning head, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that doing so could be done in order to sense if the cleaner is in use as a user would apply some level of pressure to the cleaning head during operation of the cleaner.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence (GB 2490256 A) and Conrad (US 20160128531 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Brown (US 20140008087 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 15 but does not disclose wherein the pre- processing step comprises filtering the sensor signals.
However, Brown disclose 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.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence (GB 2490256 A) and Conrad (US 20160128531 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Kim2 (US 20190387943 A1)
Regarding claim 18, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 16 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, Kim2 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 19, Lawrence discloses all the limitations of claim 18 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 Kim2 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.”).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights