DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16 are indefinite because of the following:
The claims are indefinite because it appears that some text is missing in claim 1 in the clause “a memory storing suction pressure values and brush motor load values that are presentable a two-dimensional graph”.
Claims 6-7, 9-11 and 13-14 are further indefinite and could not be properly understood because claim 6 recites: “the memory is configured to store previously determined suction pressures, previously determined loads of the brush motor, and previously determined cleaner states based on the previously determined loads of the brush motor and the previously determined suction pressures as they are determined”,
but fails to recite any structure to obtain/determine the referenced “previously determined suction pressures, previously determined loads of the brush motor, and previously determined cleaner states based on the previously determined loads of the brush motor and the previously determined suction pressures”.
The claims are further indefinite because it is not clear from claim 6 whether or not “previously determined suction pressures, previously determined loads of the brush motor, and previously determined cleaner states based on the previously determined loads of the brush motor and the previously determined suction pressures” are actually stored in the memory and, thus, parts of the claimed structure of the vacuum cleaner, or what is recited by claim 6 is mere ability of the recited “memory”.
The claims are further indefinite because claim 6 recites: “the at least one processor is configured to use the previously determined suction pressures, the previously determined loads of the brush motor, and the previously determined cleaner states
to determine the current cleaner state information corresponding to the determined suction pressure and the determined load of the brush motor”.
It appears that claim 6 contradicts to the parent claim 1.
Claims 7, 9-11 and 13-14 are further indefinite because it is not clear from claim 7 whether or not the memory is actually stores the SVM.
The claims are further indefinite because it is not clear from claim 7 whether or not the SVM is a part of the claimed vacuum cleaner.
The claims are further indefinite because it appears that some text is missing in the clause “the at least one processor is configured to use to determine the plurality of hyperplanes” in claim 7.
Claims 7, 9-11 and 13-14 are further indefinite because it is not clear how what is recited by the referenced claims is related to what is recited by the parent claim 1.
Claim 16 is further indefinite because the term “the subsequent cleaner state information” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The claim is further indefinite because it requires “further considering rpm of the suction motor” but fails to recite any structure to determine the referenced rpm.
Claims 18-22 are indefinite because it appears that some text is missing in claim 18 in the clause “a memory storing suction pressure values and brush motor load values that are presentable a two-dimensional graph”.
Claims 21 and 22 are further indefinite because it appears that claims 21 and 22 contradict to claim 18.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16 and 18-22 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.
The applicants amended claim 1 to recite:
a memory storing suction pressure values and brush motor load values that are presentable a two-dimensional graph having the suction pressure values as a first axis and the brush motor load values as a second axis, and storing a plurality of hyperplanes that are presentable on the two-dimensional graph to delineate a plurality of regions on the two- dimensional graph indicating cleaner state information; and
at least one processor configured to:
determine suction pressure based on the measured atmospheric pressure and the measured pressure at the suction port,
determine a load of the brush motor based on the measured current,
determine current cleaner state information by identifying a region among the plurality of regions to which the determined suction pressure and the determined load of the brush motor belong, and
after determining the current cleaner state information, control an output of at least one of the brush motor and the suction motor based on the determined current cleaner state information,
wherein the cleaner state information of each region among the plurality of regions is indicative of a different cleaner state among a plurality of cleaner states, and
wherein the current cleaner state information includes at least one of current operation state information indicating whether the cleaner is in a lift state, and information of a type of floor surface on which the cleaner is operating.
The applicants similarly amended claim 18.
The original disclosure does not support referenced limitations.
The original disclosure does not support non-specified hyperplanes.
The original disclosure does not support a plurality of non-specified regions separated by non-specified hyperplanes.
The applicants have not indicated which part of the original disclosure supports the referenced limitations.
The examiner was not able to find the support for the referenced limitations in the original disclosure.
The original disclosure merely states at [0085], which was previously cited by the applicants:
“Specifically, the controller 140 may identify a region to which the current suction pressure and the load of the brush motor 150 belong among a plurality of regions separated by the hyperplane determined by the SVM to determine the cleaner state information”.
The original disclosure does not support a plurality of non-specified regions separated by non-specified hyperplanes.
At best, the original disclosure may support the regions of diagrams shown on Figures 5 and 6 and the hydroplanes determined by the SVM, which utilizes training data.
Please, note that the applicants themselves argue in the Remarks filed 12/05/2025 that the hyper planes 530 and 540 are determined by the SVM and that the referenced SVM uses the previously determined data as training data and that “a present invention adopts a supervised learning-based classification model”.
Further, the applicants amended claim 21 to recite:
“storing, in the memory, each determined suction pressure, each determined load of the brush motor, and a cleaner state determined based on each determined suction pressure and each determined load of the brush motor as the determined suction pressures, the determined loads of the brush motor, and the cleaner states are determined, and using, by the at least one processor, a support vector machine (SVM) stored in the memory to determine the plurality of hyperplanes by inputting the determined suction pressures and the determined loads of the brush motor stored in the memory as training data”.
The applicants have not indicated which part of the original disclosure supports the referenced limitations.
The examiner was not able to find the support for the referenced limitations in the original disclosure.
Further, the applicants amended claim 22 to recite:
the determining of the current cleaner state information includes;
identifying, each time the suction pressure and the load of the brush motor are determined, a region among the plurality of regions separated by the plurality of hyperplanes to which the determined suction pressures and the determined loads of the brush motor belong,
comparing the identified region with a region identified immediately before,
determining that a transition of cleaner state has occurred when the identified region is different from the region identified immediately before a preset number of times or more, and
updating the current cleaner state information based on a cleaner state associated with the identified region.
The applicants have not indicated which part of the original disclosure supports the referenced limitations.
The examiner was not able to find the support for the referenced limitations in the original disclosure.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-14, and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara et al (US 5,255,409) in view of FR 2590471.
Fujiwara et al teach a vacuum cleaner and a method of its use.
The vacuum cleaner comprises a suction head (17), a brush (18), a brush motor (19), a suction motor (7), a pressure sensor (34), a load detection sensor (35), a processor (microcomputer 38), a memory (a memory part of microcomputer 38), a voltage sensor (a variable resistor).
The microcomputer is disclosed as obtaining data from the pressure and the load sensors, applying AI model (readable on “fuzzy inference procedure” recited by Fujiwara et al), identifying operation state information and state (conditions) of the floors and supplying power to the suction motor based on identified conditions of the floors.
The disclosed method comprises obtaining data from the pressure and the load sensors, applying AI model (readable on “fuzzy inference procedure” recited by Fujiwara et al), identifying operation state information and state (conditions) of the floors and supplying power to the suction motor based on identified conditions of the floors.
See at least Figures 1-6, 9-10 and the related description and the description at columns 2, 4-6.
In view of the indefiniteness of the claims, the “fuzzy inference procedure” recited by Fujiwara et al is readable on the “determining” step recited by the claims or the referenced “determining” step is obvious over the “fuzzy inference procedure” recited by Fujiwara et al.
It is also noted that what is disclosed by Fujiwara et al at Figure 12 and described at column 9, line 1 – column 12, line 66 appears to be readable on what is claimed since the table shown on the Figure 12 is readable on the claimed graph and because the borders between disclosed very small, medium, large current and pressure are readable on the recited hyperplanes.
Thus, Fujiwara et al teach a method and apparatus as claimed except for the specific recitation that the pressure sensor is configured to measure not only pressure at the suction port, but also atmospheric pressure and to determine the suction pressure based on the pressure at the suction port and the atmospheric pressure.
However, FR 2590471 teaches that it was known and beneficial to determine suction pressure based on the difference between the atmospheric pressure and the pressure at the suction port. See at least Figure 1 and the related description.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to incorporate determining suction pressure based on the pressure at the suction port and the atmospheric pressure in Fujiwara et al since FR 2590471 suggest such to improve control of the vacuum cleaner.
As to claims 2, 3, 19 and 20:
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use in the modified Fujiwara et al either one or two pressure sensors depending from specifics of the construction of the cleaner.
As to claim 7, 9-11, 13-14, 21 and 22:
Fujiwara et al does not specify which type of the fuzzy inference procedure (AI) is used. Thereby it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use any of conventional AI models including the ones recited by the claims in order to use a known technics for their known purpose.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara et al (US 5,255,409) in view of FR 2590471, and further in view of Reindle et al (US 2006/0085095).
The claim is indefinite and could not be properly understood because of the reasons provided above.
Modified Fujiwara et al, as applied above, teaches a vacuum cleaner as claimed except for the specific recitation of the use of the RPM of the suction motor in determining the cleaner state information.
However, Reindle et al teach that it was known to determine the cleaner state information including a lift state based on the suction motor speed of the suction motor together with other parameters. See at least [0131], [0151].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to configure the processor in Fujiwara et al to determine suction motor RPM and use it in the automation process of the cleaning to provide better cleaning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants amended the claims and argue that the claims correspond to the requirements of the 35 USC 112.
This is not persuasive for the reasons provided above.
With respect to the art rejection, the applicants allege that “the present invention uses previously determined cleaner state information and corresponding suction pressure and brush motor load values as training data to train a Support Vector Machine (SVM), thereby determining hyperplanes that delineate regions and classifying states by identifying which region the input values belong to. The present invention adopts a supervised learning-based classification model, clearly distinguished from fuzzy rule-based systems.”
The applicants further allege:
“Fujiwara applies preset fuzzy rules according to pressure and brush motor current to calculate control values. Fujiwara's [Column 2, Lines 38-43] discloses the following rule: [Rule 1] If pressure is small and current is somewhat small, then input is about medium.
Fujiwara's fuzzy inference operates according to predefined membership functions and conditions, with no data-based learning performed.
By way of contrast, the present invention uses previously determined cleaner state information and corresponding suction pressure and brush motor load values as training data to train a Support Vector Machine (SVM), thereby determining hyperplanes that delineate regions and classifying states by identifying which region the input values belong to. The present invention adopts a supervised learning-based classification model, clearly distinguished from fuzzy rule-based systems.”
The applicants further allege:
“Fujiwara outputs the blower (fan) motor duty cycle (i.e., control signal value) as a result of fuzzy inference. This is a continuous numerical value used directly to control actuators.
By way of contrast, the present invention derives cleaner state information (e.g.,
whether cleaning, in lift state, or if cleaning, what type of floor surface) as the SVM classification result. This state is defined not as a single numerical value but as a multidimensional region containing multiple suction pressure and brush load values, with each state separated by mutually distinct boundaries (hyperplanes).
That is, Fujiwara's fuzzy inference operates based on predefined membership functions and conditions, and does not perform data-driven learning.”
The applicants conclude:
“Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 patentably distinguishes over the cited references for at least these reasons discussed herein.”
The applicants also argue that “Claim 18 of the present application has been amended and recites similar features to those discussed above in regard to claim 1, and which are not disclosed or suggested by the cited references.”
This is not persuasive at least because the argued claims are not even limited to recite the argued SVM, “a supervised learning-based classification model”, training data, etc.
Neither claim 1, nor claim 18 is limited to recite the argued SVM, “a supervised learning-based classification model”, etc.
The arguments made with respect to the dependent claims are not found persuasive because the applicants rely on the arguments made with respect to claims 1 and 18.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711