DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice on Prior Art Rejections
2. 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 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.
Status of Claims
3. This Office Action is in response to the applicant's arguments/remarks filed October 14, 2025. Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, and 14-15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
4. 35 USC § 112 rejection. Applicant's arguments/amendments filed October 14, 2025 regarding the 35 USC § 112 rejection have been fully considered. Applicant's arguments/amendments are persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 USC § 112 rejection is withdrawn.
5. 35 USC § 103 rejection. Applicant's arguments/amendments filed October 14, 2025 regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection have been fully considered. Applicant's arguments/remarks are not persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 USC § 103 rejection is maintained.
The applicant argues that “Romanov is in fact silent on determining "a constant difference in angular velocities between the first and second drive wheels." Romanov's lone disclosure of "angular velocity" is in 1 [0189], at best disclosing "angular rotation" of the entire robot as detected by a gyroscope, and "determining whether the angular velocity [again of the entire robot] is greater than at or near zero," to determine whether the robot has been picked up off the floor. Romanov at [0189]. As disclosed in Romanov at [0186], "The gyroscope 137 may sense changes in the robotic cleaner's orientation." Thus, the gyroscope is not even able to sense angular velocities of the wheels” and “Amended claim 4 recites, "a difference in heading between the first point and the second point is not a multiple of 27r, such that as the robot moves between the first point of the series of points and the second point of the series of points, a movement of the at least one non- driven caster wheel is continuous." Support at least at [0055]. As with the independent claims, Romanov and Xu, alone and in combination fail to disclose each and every element of claim 4 and therefore the claim is allowable over the cited art, well as due to its dependence on allowable claim 1.”
Pursuant to MPEP 2144 Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103, I. RATIONALE MAY BE IN A REFERENCE, OR REASONED FROM COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN THE ART, SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES, ART-RECOGNIZED EQUIVALENTS, OR LEGAL PRECEDENT, “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992)”
Regarding claims 1-20, the prior art is expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art. For example, regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 14; the limitation of “determining, based at least in part on a constant difference in angular velocities between the first and second drive wheels” is a conventional and known limitation used in the art and commonly used in vehicles to allow for smooth and stable turn by allowing the drive wheels to rotate at different speeds. This feature is also presented in Romanov to generate smooth and stable turns and to determine when the vehicle has been lifted (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 149, 186, 187, 188, 126, 18, 4, “Two independently controlled drive wheels are set within the circle on opposite sides of the robot”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 149, 186, 187, 188, 126, 4, 18, 143, “when the cleaning robot makes contact with the wall, turns in one direction, and then drives with slightly more speed on the wheel opposite the wall”). Therefore, utilizing a constant difference in angular velocities between the first and second drive wheels is expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is a well-known feature utilized for improving degree of movement in vehicles. Accordingly, the limitations argued by the applicant are expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art as shown. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Regarding amended claim 4, where “the robot moves between the first point of the series of points and the second point of the series of points, a movement of the at least one non-driven caster wheel is continuous.”. it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to program a robot to move in a specific way to accomplish a task. Since the applicant has not disclosed that controlling the movement of the robot in a specific way solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any other pattern movement, the 35 USC § 103 rejection is maintained. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Accordingly, the limitations argued by the applicant are expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art as shown. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Therefore, for the above reasons, the examiner maintains rejection over claims 1-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Romanov et al, US 2011/0202175, in view of Xu et al. US 2022/0197295, hereinafter referred to as Romanov and Xu, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Romanov discloses a method for motion planning comprising:
receiving a path for movement of a body of a wheeled robot having first and second drive wheels and at least one non-driven caster wheel, the path defined by a series of points (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 11, 117, 119, 120, 126, 128, 5, “the mobile robot platform has one or more caster wheels for support at the forward and/or rear ends of the robot to provide lateral stability and act as part of the robot's suspension”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 139, 216, 260, 386, 404, 407, 417, “a) Paths involving one or more rectilinear patterns, which could include but are not limited to where a robot cleans as it travels in a row-like pattern from one side of the room to the other”);
determining, based at least in part on a constant difference in angular velocities between the first and second drive wheels, a set of control torques for the first and second drive wheels to control the wheeled robot to move between a first point of the series of points and a second point of the series of points (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 189, “the drive system when the drop off sensors are activated and determines whether the angular velocity is greater than at or near zero”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 149, 186, 187, 188, 126 “a robotic cleaner drive system including the two wheels is designed to move independently relative to the cleaning assembly and the shell. This configuration allows the wheels to maintain contact with the floor regardless of the cleaning assembly position”); and
applying the set of control torques to the first and second drive wheels (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 189, claim 1 “turning the first wheel, proximate to the surface, with a first angular velocity…turning the second wheel, further from the surface, with a second angular velocity”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 149, 186, 187, 188, 126, claim 2, “wherein the first angular velocity is greater than 80 percent of the second angular velocity.”).
Romanov fails to explicitly disclose the path defined by a series of points.
However, Xu teaches the path defined by a series of points (See at least fig 1-51, ¶ 184, 188, 190, 191, 257, “a path from the point Pl to the point P2 is a straight line path, at this time only the manual mode is needed, so as to reduce an amount of data while meeting demands. As shown in FIG. 23, when the path information is a curved path, it is determined that the position collection working mode is the fixed period collection mode. For example, the curved path from a point P6 to a point Pn-1 in FIG. 22 is a curved path”), (See at least fig 1-51, ¶ 180, 183, 178, 179, “the path planning unit 232 is further configured to calibrate a marking reference in the path map and set marked reference coordinates…the path planning unit 232 can further set a boundary of the working area and/or a path for the robotic mower 1 to return to a charger station for charging on the path map”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Romanov and include the path defined by a series of points as taught by Xu because it would allow judging whether the mower deviates from the path map according to the current position information and the selected path map, and determining a deviation between the current position and the path map (Xu ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 2, Romanov discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the set of control torques comprises: determining a first trajectory to cause the wheeled robot to move from the first point to a third point; and determining a second trajectory to cause the wheeled robot to move from the third point to the second point, wherein the first and second trajectory are used to constrain at least one of a translational change between the first and second points, a directional change between the first and second points, or a velocity of the robot at the first point (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 11, 117, 119, 120, 126, 407, 255, 216 “Wheel or motor encoders that track the movement of each wheel on the robot and use that information to help control its path and calculate its movement”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 139, 216, 260, 386, 404, 407, 435, “One embodiment can include but is not limited to a device and/or configuration which enables the user to control the movement and/or other actions of the robot during the training period, where the robot records the positioning information and/or other user input related to the desired cleaning behavior for those locations”).
Regarding claim 3, Romanov discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a magnitude of the difference in angular velocity between the first and second drive wheels is greater than 0 (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 189, “the drive system when the drop off sensors are activated and determines whether the angular velocity is greater than at or near zero”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 149, 186, 187, 188, 126 “a robotic cleaner drive system including the two wheels is designed to move independently relative to the cleaning assembly and the shell. This configuration allows the wheels to maintain contact with the floor regardless of the cleaning assembly position”).
Regarding claim 4, Romanov discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a difference in heading between the first point and the second point is not a multiple of 2Π such that as the robot moves between the first point of the series of points and the second point of the series of points, a movement of the at least one non-driven caster wheel is continuous. (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 11, 117, 119, 120, 126, 6, 164, 154, 6 “the robot can effectively turn in place to change its heading without the sides of the robot hitting any exterior obstacles”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 139, 216, 260, 386, 404, 407, 143, 153, “a position estimation unit maintains an estimate of the robotic cleaner location and heading using information from sensors including wheel encoders and a gyroscope. Motion commands are computed based on the current position estimation and the desired robot trajectory.”).
Regarding claim 5, Romanov discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving additional paths at a frequency; and repeating, for an additional path, the determining the set of control torques, wherein the set of control torques are determined at a frequency greater than the frequency of receiving additional paths (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 11, 117, 119, 120, 126, 128, 5, “the mobile robot platform has one or more caster wheels for support at the forward and/or rear ends of the robot to provide lateral stability and act as part of the robot's suspension”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 139, 216, 260, 386, 404, 407, 417, “a) Paths involving one or more rectilinear patterns, which could include but are not limited to where a robot cleans as it travels in a row-like pattern from one side of the room to the other”).
Regarding claim 6, Romanov discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the set of control torques comprises solving a system of equations to determine constants of a temporally linear function, and wherein an angular velocity of the first drive wheel is based at least in part on the temporally linear function plus a difference and an angular velocity of the second drive wheel is based at least in part on the temporally linear function minus the difference (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 189, “the drive system when the drop off sensors are activated and determines whether the angular velocity is greater than at or near zero”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 149, 186, 187, 188, 126 “a robotic cleaner drive system including the two wheels is designed to move independently relative to the cleaning assembly and the shell. This configuration allows the wheels to maintain contact with the floor regardless of the cleaning assembly position”).
Regarding claim 7, Romanov discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the difference is an angular velocity of the body of the wheeled robot throughout a trajectory from the first point to the second point (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 189, claim 1 “turning the first wheel, proximate to the surface, with a first angular velocity…turning the second wheel, further from the surface, with a second angular velocity”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 149, 186, 187, 188, 126, claim 2, “wherein the first angular velocity is greater than 80 percent of the second angular velocity.”).
Regarding claim 8, Romanov discloses a system configured to generate a motion plan, the system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer readable media having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving a path for movement of a body of a wheeled robot having first and second drive wheels and at least one non-driven caster wheel, the path defined by a series of points comprising a first point and a second point (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 11, 117, 119, 120, 126, 128, 5, “the mobile robot platform has one or more caster wheels for support at the forward and/or rear ends of the robot to provide lateral stability and act as part of the robot's suspension”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 139, 216, 260, 386, 404, 407, 417, “a) Paths involving one or more rectilinear patterns, which could include but are not limited to where a robot cleans as it travels in a row-like pattern from one side of the room to the other”);
determining, based at least in part on a constant difference in angular velocities between the first and second drive wheels, a set of control torques for the first and second drive wheels to control the wheeled robot to move between the first point and the second point (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 189, “the drive system when the drop off sensors are activated and determines whether the angular velocity is greater than at or near zero”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 149, 186, 187, 188, 126 “a robotic cleaner drive system including the two wheels is designed to move independently relative to the cleaning assembly and the shell. This configuration allows the wheels to maintain contact with the floor regardless of the cleaning assembly position”); and
applying the set of control torques to the first and second drive wheels (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 189, claim 1 “turning the first wheel, proximate to the surface, with a first angular velocity…turning the second wheel, further from the surface, with a second angular velocity”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 149, 186, 187, 188, 126, claim 2, “wherein the first angular velocity is greater than 80 percent of the second angular velocity.”).
Romanov fails to explicitly disclose the path defined by a series of points.
However, Xu teaches the path defined by a series of points (See at least fig 1-51, ¶ 184, 188, 190, 191, 257, “a path from the point Pl to the point P2 is a straight line path, at this time only the manual mode is needed, so as to reduce an amount of data while meeting demands. As shown in FIG. 23, when the path information is a curved path, it is determined that the position collection working mode is the fixed period collection mode. For example, the curved path from a point P6 to a point Pn-1 in FIG. 22 is a curved path”), (See at least fig 1-51, ¶ 180, 183, 178, 179, “the path planning unit 232 is further configured to calibrate a marking reference in the path map and set marked reference coordinates…the path planning unit 232 can further set a boundary of the working area and/or a path for the robotic mower 1 to return to a charger station for charging on the path map”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Romanov and include the path defined by a series of points as taught by Xu because it would allow judging whether the mower deviates from the path map according to the current position information and the selected path map, and determining a deviation between the current position and the path map (Xu ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 9, Romanov discloses the system of claim 8, wherein determining the set of control torques comprises: determining a third point; determining a first trajectory to cause the wheeled robot to move from the first point to the third point; and determining a second trajectory to cause the robot to move from the third point to the second point, wherein the first and second trajectory are used to constrain at least one of a translational change between the first and second points, a directional change between the first and second points, or a velocity of the robot at the first point (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 11, 117, 119, 120, 126, 407, 255, 216 “Wheel or motor encoders that track the movement of each wheel on the robot and use that information to help control its path and calculate its movement”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 139, 216, 260, 386, 404, 407, 435, “One embodiment can include but is not limited to a device and/or configuration which enables the user to control the movement and/or other actions of the robot during the training period, where the robot records the positioning information and/or other user input related to the desired cleaning behavior for those locations”).
Regarding claim 10, Romanov discloses the system of claim 8, wherein a magnitude of the difference in angular velocity between the first and second drive wheels is greater than 0 (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 189, “the drive system when the drop off sensors are activated and determines whether the angular velocity is greater than at or near zero”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 149, 186, 187, 188, 126 “a robotic cleaner drive system including the two wheels is designed to move independently relative to the cleaning assembly and the shell. This configuration allows the wheels to maintain contact with the floor regardless of the cleaning assembly position”).
Regarding claim 11, Romanov discloses the system of claim 8, wherein a difference in heading between the first point and the second point is not a multiple of 2Π (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 11, 117, 119, 120, 126, 6, 164, 154, 6 “the robot can effectively turn in place to change its heading without the sides of the robot hitting any exterior obstacles”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 139, 216, 260, 386, 404, 407, 143, 153, “a position estimation unit maintains an estimate of the robotic cleaner location and heading using information from sensors including wheel encoders and a gyroscope. Motion commands are computed based on the current position estimation and the desired robot trajectory.”).
Regarding claim 12, Romanov discloses the system of claim 8, further comprising: receiving additional paths at a frequency; and repeating, for each additional path, the determining the set of control torques, wherein the set of control torques are determined at a frequency greater than the frequency of receiving additional paths (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 11, 117, 119, 120, 126, 128, 5, “the mobile robot platform has one or more caster wheels for support at the forward and/or rear ends of the robot to provide lateral stability and act as part of the robot's suspension”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 139, 216, 260, 386, 404, 407, 417, “a) Paths involving one or more rectilinear patterns, which could include but are not limited to where a robot cleans as it travels in a row-like pattern from one side of the room to the other”).
Regarding claim 13, Romanov discloses the system of claim 8, wherein determining the set of control torques comprises solving a system of equations to determine constants of a temporally linear function, and wherein an angular velocity of the first drive wheel is based at least in part on the temporally linear function plus a difference and an angular velocity of the second drive wheel is based at least in part on the temporally linear function minus the difference (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 189, “the drive system when the drop off sensors are activated and determines whether the angular velocity is greater than at or near zero”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 149, 186, 187, 188, 126 “a robotic cleaner drive system including the two wheels is designed to move independently relative to the cleaning assembly and the shell. This configuration allows the wheels to maintain contact with the floor regardless of the cleaning assembly position”).
Regarding claim 14, Romanov discloses One or more non-transitory computer readable media having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving a path for movement of a body of a wheeled robot having first and second drive wheels and at least one non-driven caster wheel, the path defined by a series of points (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 11, 117, 119, 120, 126, 128, 5, “the mobile robot platform has one or more caster wheels for support at the forward and/or rear ends of the robot to provide lateral stability and act as part of the robot's suspension”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 139, 216, 260, 386, 404, 407, 417, “a) Paths involving one or more rectilinear patterns, which could include but are not limited to where a robot cleans as it travels in a row-like pattern from one side of the room to the other”);
determining, based at least in part on a constant difference in angular velocities between the first and second drive wheels, a set of control torques for the first and second drive wheels to control the wheeled robot to move between a first point of the series of points and a second point of the series of points (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 189, “the drive system when the drop off sensors are activated and determines whether the angular velocity is greater than at or near zero”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 149, 186, 187, 188, 126 “a robotic cleaner drive system including the two wheels is designed to move independently relative to the cleaning assembly and the shell. This configuration allows the wheels to maintain contact with the floor regardless of the cleaning assembly position”); and
applying the set of control torques to the first and second drive wheels (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 189, claim 1 “turning the first wheel, proximate to the surface, with a first angular velocity…turning the second wheel, further from the surface, with a second angular velocity”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 149, 186, 187, 188, 126, claim 2, “wherein the first angular velocity is greater than 80 percent of the second angular velocity.”).
Romanov fails to explicitly disclose the path defined by a series of points.
However, Xu teaches the path defined by a series of points (See at least fig 1-51, ¶ 184, 188, 190, 191, 257, “a path from the point Pl to the point P2 is a straight line path, at this time only the manual mode is needed, so as to reduce an amount of data while meeting demands. As shown in FIG. 23, when the path information is a curved path, it is determined that the position collection working mode is the fixed period collection mode. For example, the curved path from a point P6 to a point Pn-1 in FIG. 22 is a curved path”), (See at least fig 1-51, ¶ 180, 183, 178, 179, “the path planning unit 232 is further configured to calibrate a marking reference in the path map and set marked reference coordinates…the path planning unit 232 can further set a boundary of the working area and/or a path for the robotic mower 1 to return to a charger station for charging on the path map”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Romanov and include the path defined by a series of points as taught by Xu because it would allow judging whether the mower deviates from the path map according to the current position information and the selected path map, and determining a deviation between the current position and the path map (Xu ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 15, Romanov discloses the non-transitory computer readable media of claim 14, wherein determining the set of control torques comprises: determining a first trajectory to cause the wheeled robot to move from the first point to a third point; and determining a second trajectory to cause the robot to move from the third point to the second point, wherein the first and second trajectory are used to constrain at least one of a translational change between the first and second points, a directional change between the first and second points, or a velocity of the robot at the first point (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 11, 117, 119, 120, 126, 407, 255, 216 “Wheel or motor encoders that track the movement of each wheel on the robot and use that information to help control its path and calculate its movement”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 139, 216, 260, 386, 404, 407, 435, “One embodiment can include but is not limited to a device and/or configuration which enables the user to control the movement and/or other actions of the robot during the training period, where the robot records the positioning information and/or other user input related to the desired cleaning behavior for those locations”).
Regarding claim 16, Romanov discloses the non-transitory computer readable media of claim 14, wherein a magnitude of the difference in angular velocity between the first and second drive wheels is greater than 0 (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 189, “the drive system when the drop off sensors are activated and determines whether the angular velocity is greater than at or near zero”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 149, 186, 187, 188, 126 “a robotic cleaner drive system including the two wheels is designed to move independently relative to the cleaning assembly and the shell. This configuration allows the wheels to maintain contact with the floor regardless of the cleaning assembly position”).
Regarding claim 17, Romanov discloses the non-transitory computer readable media of claim 14, wherein a difference in heading between the first point and the second point is not a multiple of 2Π (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 11, 117, 119, 120, 126, 6, 164, 154, 6 “the robot can effectively turn in place to change its heading without the sides of the robot hitting any exterior obstacles”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 139, 216, 260, 386, 404, 407, 143, 153, “a position estimation unit maintains an estimate of the robotic cleaner location and heading using information from sensors including wheel encoders and a gyroscope. Motion commands are computed based on the current position estimation and the desired robot trajectory.”).
Regarding claim 18, Romanov discloses the non-transitory computer readable media of claim 14, further comprising: receiving additional paths at a frequency; and repeating, for each additional path, the determining the set of control torques, wherein the set of control torques are determined at a frequency greater than the frequency of receiving additional paths (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 11, 117, 119, 120, 126, 128, 5, “the mobile robot platform has one or more caster wheels for support at the forward and/or rear ends of the robot to provide lateral stability and act as part of the robot's suspension”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 139, 216, 260, 386, 404, 407, 417, “a) Paths involving one or more rectilinear patterns, which could include but are not limited to where a robot cleans as it travels in a row-like pattern from one side of the room to the other”).
Regarding claim 19, Romanov discloses the non-transitory computer readable media of claim 14, wherein determining the set of control torques comprises solving a system of equations to determine constants of a temporally linear function, and wherein an angular velocity of the first drive wheel is based at least in part on the temporally linear function plus a difference and an angular velocity of the second drive wheel is based at least in part on the temporally linear function minus the difference (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 189, “the drive system when the drop off sensors are activated and determines whether the angular velocity is greater than at or near zero”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 149, 186, 187, 188, 126 “a robotic cleaner drive system including the two wheels is designed to move independently relative to the cleaning assembly and the shell. This configuration allows the wheels to maintain contact with the floor regardless of the cleaning assembly position”).
Regarding claim 20, Romanov discloses the non-transitory computer readable media of claim 19, wherein the difference is an angular velocity of the body of the wheeled robot throughout a trajectory from the first point to the second point (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 189, “the drive system when the drop off sensors are activated and determines whether the angular velocity is greater than at or near zero”), (See at least fig 1-67A, ¶ 4, 149, 186, 187, 188, 126 “a robotic cleaner drive system including the two wheels is designed to move independently relative to the cleaning assembly and the shell. This configuration allows the wheels to maintain contact with the floor regardless of the cleaning assembly position”).
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 extension fee 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 LUIS MARTINEZ whose email is luis.martinezborrero@uspto.gov and telephone number is (571)272-4577. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, HUNTER LONSBERRY can be reached on (571)272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665