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 .
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 02/03/2026, claims 1, 3, 8, and 15 have been amended, claims 2 and 10-14 are cancelled, and new claims 21-25 are added. Claims 1, 3-9, and 15-25 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/11/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a pad drive system” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 8 and 9 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.
In claim 8, the phrase “wherein spraying liquid on the flooring surface during moving forward along the cleaning rank includes spraying the liquid a spray distance less than the first distance, the second distance, and the third distance” renders claim vague and indefinite. Because the second distance is the shortest distance among the first, second, and third distances, it is redundant to state the spray distance less than the first and third distances. On the other hand, the amended claim states spraying the liquid during moving forward, however, the second distance is associated with moving rearward. Thus, the second distance appears to be irrelevant. For examination purposes the examiner has interpreted each spray distance for each motion is less than the first distance, the second distance, or the third distance.
Claim limitation “moving the cleaning pad relative to a body of the mobile cleaning robot using a pad drive system” in claim 9 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specification discloses the pad drive system the same way as claim 9 (¶ 00102). On the other hand, specification discloses the mopping system 104 can include arms 106 (¶ 0026), however, it is uncertain whether the arms 106 are intended to be the pad drive system. Thus, it is not clear how the pad drive system moves the cleaning pad. For examination purpose the examiner has interpreted any component enables moving the cleaning pad satisfies the claim limitations.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Regarding claim 9, lines 2-3, the phrase “moving the cleaning pad relative to a body of the mobile cleaning robot using a pad drive system” lacks written description requirement. Specification of the instant application does not describe what the pad drive system is. Therefore, the phrase lacks the written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley et al. (US 9,179,813, cited on 04/01/2025 IDS, hereinafter Dooley), in view of Xiao et al. (CN 110522362A, hereinafter Xiao).
Regarding claim 1, Dooley discloses a method of operating a mobile cleaning robot, the method comprising:
engaging a flooring surface of an environment with a cleaning pad of the mobile cleaning robot (col. 1:44-46, a mobile robot travels across a surface while cleaning the surface with a cleaning pad);
operating at least one wheel of the mobile cleaning robot to move the mobile cleaning robot forward relative to the flooring surface a first time along a cleaning rank while the cleaning pad is engaged with the flooring surface (col. 2:53-64, figs. 1A, the robot 100 comprises a drive system/wheel 110 to move the robot; Fig. 1B, the cleaning assembly/pad 120 engages the surface when the robot moves forward; fig. 7 and col. 6:20-33, the robot moves forward while scrubbing a floor along a cleaning rank in a first motion as represented by the arrow 1);
operating, after moving forward, the at least one wheel of the mobile cleaning robot to move the mobile cleaning robot rearward relative to the flooring surface along the cleaning rank while the cleaning pad is engaged with the flooring surface (fig. 7 and col. 6:20-33, the robot moves rearward while scrubbing the floor in a second motion as represented by the arrow 2); and
operating, after moving rearward, the at least one wheel of the mobile cleaning robot to move the mobile cleaning robot forward a second time relative to the flooring surface along the cleaning rank while the cleaning pad is engaged with the flooring surface (fig. 7 and col. 6:20-33, the robot moves forward a second time while scrubbing the floor in a third motion as represented by the arrow 3),
wherein the mobile cleaning robot moves forward a first distance when the mobile cleaning robot moves forward the first time, wherein the mobile cleaning robot moves rearward a second distance when the mobile cleaning robot moves rearward, wherein the mobile cleaning robot moves forward a third distance when the mobile cleaning robot moves forward the second time (figs. 3-7, in scrubbing the floor, the robot 100 moves forward, rearward, and then forward again. The three motions are represented by the arrows 1, 2, and 3 in fig. 7), and wherein the third distance is greater than the second distance (col. 6:4-14, each forward distance is approximately 1.5 times with width of the cleaning assembly and rearward distance is approximately 0.75 times the width of the cleaning assembly. Thus, Dooley discloses the third distance is greater than the second distance), but does not disclose the third distance is greater than the first distance.
Xiao teaches, in an analogous mobile cleaning robot field of endeavor, the third distance is greater than the first distance (Xiao English translation, p. 3:9-30, a mopping robot moves forward and backward to clean a floor; fig. 7, considering that a vertical distance of a path from point C to point D is the recited first distance, a vertical distance of a path from point D to point E is the recited second distance, and a vertical distance of a path from point E to point F is the recited third distance, the third distance is greater than the first distance. Although the moving path of the Xiao’s robot includes a curvilinear path, the robot eventually moves forward, and the recited third forward distance can be greater than the recited first forward distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating method of Dooley to provide its third distance is greater than the first distance as taught by Xiao so that in overall the robot advances to complete the cleaning job in a reasonably short time.
Regarding claim 3, Dooley as modified by Xiao teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein second distance is smaller than the first distance and the third distance (Dooley, col. 6:4-14, each forward distance is approximately 1.5 times with width of the cleaning assembly and rearward distance is approximately 0.75 times the width of the cleaning assembly. Thus, Dooley discloses the second distance is smaller than the first and third distances).
Regarding claim 4, Dooley as modified by Xiao teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 3, but does not disclose the third distance is 1.5 times a diameter of the mobile cleaning robot.
However, Dooley discloses, in fig. 7 and col. 6:20-32, the cleaning robot’s forward displacement exceeds the backward displacement in order for the robot to advance in a generally forward direction. Although Dooley does not disclose an actual displacement for the floor scrubbing with the straight travel motion, the cleaning robot advances forward in general. In order to advance forward in general, the third distance must be determined appropriately, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cleaning robot of Dooley to provide its third distance to be 1.5 times the diameter of the robot. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(III).
Regarding claim 5, Dooley as modified by Xiao teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 4, but does not disclose the second distance is 0.77 times a diameter of the mobile cleaning robot.
However, Dooley discloses, in fig. 7 and col. 6:20-32, the cleaning robot’s backward displacement is less than the forward displacement in order for the robot to advance in generally forward direction. Although Dooley does not disclose an actual displacement for the floor scrubbing with the straight travel motion, the cleaning robot advances forward in general. In order to advance forward in general, the second/backward distance must be determined appropriately, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cleaning robot of Dooley to provide its second distance to be 0.77 times the diameter of the robot. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(III).
Regarding claim 6, Dooley as modified by Xiao teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 3, further comprising: spraying liquid on the flooring surface during moving forward along the cleaning rank (Dooley, col. 4:31-34, the robot sprays cleaning solution on the floor surface in front of the cleaning assembly. Although Dooley does not state explicitly, it would be reasonable to spray the solution in front of the pad during the forward motion of the robot so that the solution is soaked into the pad as the pad moves over the solution on the floor, and the pad can be used for wet cleaning of the floor).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley in view of Xiao, as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Liu et al. (CN 114794981B, hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 7, Dooley as modified by Xiao teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 6, but does not disclose the method further comprises interrupting spraying liquid during moving forward and before moving backward.
Liu teaches, in an analogous cleaning device field of endeavor, the method further comprises interrupting spraying liquid during moving forward and before moving backward (Liu English translation, p. 6:7-10, a cleaning machine can select to spray water when moving forward and not to spray water when moving backward. Thus, the cleaning machine would stop spraying during moving forward and before moving backward).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Dooley as modified by Xiao to interrupt spraying liquid before moving backward as taught by Liu. A surface to be cleaned during backward motion would be already wetted during a prior forward motion. Thus, interrupting spraying water before backward motion would save the cleaning water, and it would extend the wet cleaning distance and time.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley in view of Xiao, as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Song et al. (CN 116138649A, hereinafter Song ‘649).
Regarding claim 8, Dooley as modified by Xiao teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 6, but does not disclose spraying liquid on the flooring surface during moving forward along the cleaning rank includes spraying the liquid a spray distance is less than first distance, the second distance, and the third distance. As discussed in claim 6, Dooley teaches the robot sprays cleaning solution on the floor surface in front of the cleaning assembly during the forward motion.
Song ‘649 teaches, in an analogous cleaning device field of endeavor, a cleaner sprays cleaning liquid, and it can control cleaning liquid spraying interval time and distance (Song ‘649 English translation, p. 9:27-31). Although Song ‘649 does not disclose explicitly the spray distance is less than the travel distance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cleaning method of Dooley as modified by Xiao to provide the spray distance to be less than the travel distance as taught by Song ‘649. As discussed in claim 6 above, Dooley teaches cleaning liquid is sprayed in front of the cleaning assembly. If the spray distance is the same as the robot’s travel distance, the sprayed cleaning liquid at the end of travel would not be soaked into the pad for wet cleaning because the liquid is sprayed at a further location where the pad does not reach. Thus, the cleaning liquid would be wasted. If the cleaning liquid of the robot is depleted early, the cleaning operation may be interrupted in order to refill the liquid and continue the cleaning operation. Therefore, the spray distance needs to be shorter than the robot’s travel distance.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley in view of Xiao, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Afrouzi et al. (US 11,274,929, hereinafter Afrouzi).
Regarding claim 9, Dooley as modified by Xiao teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the method comprises moving the cleaning pad relative to a body of the mobile cleaning robot using a pad drive system (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), but specification of the instant application does not describe what components make the pad drive system in ¶ 00102) of the mobile cleaning robot at least one of when the mobile cleaning robot moves forward the first time, moves backward, and moves forward the second time.
Afrouzi teaches, in an analogous cleaning device field of endeavor, the method comprises moving the cleaning pad relative to a body of the mobile cleaning robot using a pad drive system of the mobile cleaning robot at least one of when the mobile cleaning robot moves forward the first time, moves backward, and moves forward the second time (col. 18:2-6 and fig. 16B, a wet mop cloth of a robot moves back and forth while the robot drives).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cleaning method of Dooley as modified by Xiao to provide the method of moving the cleaning pad as taught by Afrouzi. It helps cleaning the floor surface thoroughly.
Claims 15 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afrouzi et al. (US 11,274,929, hereinafter Afrouzi), in view of Sack et al. (US 2022/0104677, hereinafter Sack).
Regarding claim 15, Afrouzi discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium including instructions, for operating a mobile cleaning robot (col. 11:30-32, an example of a robot is a robotic cleaner; col. 193:38-59, function may be provided by non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions), which when executed by a machine, cause the machine to:
engage the flooring surface of the environment with the cleaning pad (col. 18:6-8, a dry cloth 1610 dries the driving surface that has been cleaned by wet mop cloth 1609, thus the mop cleans a floor surface);
operate one or more of a pair of drive wheels of the mobile cleaning robot to move the mobile cleaning robot along a cleaning rank (fig. 2 and 11:30-33 and 18:2-3, the robot comprises drive wheels 201 to move the robot in a direction);
operate the actuator to move the cleaning pad forward and backward when the cleaning pad is at least partially underneath the body to scrub the flooring surface as the mobile cleaning robot is moving along the cleaning rank (fig. 16B and col. 17:63-18:8, while driving, the wet mop cloth 1609 moves back and forth on the floor surface), but does not disclose explicitly disclose the machine operates an actuator connected to a cleaning pad assembly to move a cleaning pad of the cleaning pad assembly from a stored position opposite a flooring surface of an environment relative to a body of the mobile cleaning robot to a deployed position proximate the flooring surface and at least partially below the body.
Sack teaches, in an analogous mobile cleaning robot field of endeavor, the machine operates an actuator connected to a cleaning pad assembly to move a cleaning pad of the cleaning pad assembly from a stored position opposite a flooring surface of an environment relative to a body of the mobile cleaning robot to a deployed position proximate the flooring surface and at least partially below the body (¶ 0085 and 0146, a mobile cleaning robot comprises a pad motor 238 [corresponds to the recited actuator] to move a cleaning pad assembly 2108 between a cleaning position and a stored position; in the stored position, the pad assembly 2108 is at a position opposite a flooring surface relative to a body of the robot as shown in fig. 21A and in the cleaning position [corresponds to the recited deployed position], the pad assembly is at a position proximate to the flooring surface and at least partially below the body as shown in fig. 21C. The mop cloth assembly of Afrouzi can be combined with Sack to allow it move between the stored position and the deployed position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cleaning robot of Afrouzi to provide the cleaning pad assembly to have the stored position and the deployed position as taught by Sack. This configuration allows the robot to vacuum carpeted surface and both vacuum and mop hard floor surfaces without requiring user intervention (Sack ¶ 0004).
Regarding claim 16, Afrouzi as modified by Sack teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium as in the rejection of claim 15, wherein the actuator is operated to move the cleaning pad forward and backward repeatedly as the mobile cleaning robot moves along the cleaning rank (Afrouzi, col. 18:2-6 and fig. 16B, a wet mop cloth of a robot moves back and forth while the robot drives).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afrouzi in view of Sack, as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Dooley.
Regarding claim 17, Afrouzi as modified by Sack teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium as in the rejection of claim 15, the instructions to further cause the machine to:
engage a flooring surface of an environment with a cleaning pad of the mobile cleaning robot (Afrouzi, col. 17:63-18:15, the robot comprises the wet mop cloth 1609 and the dry mop cloth 1610 and moves the mop while the robot moves or pauses); but does not disclose operate at least one wheel of the mobile cleaning robot to move the mobile cleaning robot forward relative to the flooring surface a first time along a cleaning rank while the cleaning pad is engaged with the flooring surface; operate, after moving forward, the at least one wheel of the mobile cleaning robot to move the mobile cleaning robot rearward relative to the flooring surface along the cleaning rank while the cleaning pad is engaged with the flooring surface; and operate, after moving rearward, the at least one wheel of the mobile cleaning robot to move the mobile cleaning robot forward a second time relative to the flooring surface along the cleaning rank while the cleaning pad is engaged with the flooring surface.
Dooley teaches, in an analogous cleaning robot device field of endeavor, the machine operates at least one wheel of the mobile cleaning robot to move the mobile cleaning robot forward relative to the flooring surface a first time along a cleaning rank while the cleaning pad is engaged with the flooring surface (col. 2:53-64, figs. 1A, the robot 100 comprises a drive system/wheel 110 to move the robot; Fig. 1B, the cleaning assembly/pad 120 engages the surface when the robot moves forward; fig. 7 and col. 6:20-33, the robot moves forward while scrubbing a floor along a cleaning rank in a first motion as represented by the arrow 1);
operates, after moving forward, the at least one wheel of the mobile cleaning robot to move the mobile cleaning robot rearward relative to the flooring surface along the cleaning rank while the cleaning pad is engaged with the flooring surface (fig. 7 and col. 6:20-33, the robot moves rearward while scrubbing the floor in a second motion as represented by the arrow 2); and
operates, after moving rearward, the at least one wheel of the mobile cleaning robot to move the mobile cleaning robot forward a second time relative to the flooring surface along the cleaning rank while the cleaning pad is engaged with the flooring surface (fig. 7 and col. 6:20-33, the robot moves forward a second time while scrubbing the floor in a third motion as represented by the arrow 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the machine of Afrouzi as modified by Sack to provide the machine to move forward, rearward, and forward as taught by Dooley. The repeated floor scrubbing leaves the floor free of steak marks (Dooley col. 1:36-40).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afrouzi in view of Sack and Dooley, as applied to claim 17 above, and in further view of Xiao.
Regarding claim 18, Afrouzi as modified by Sack and Dooley teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium as in the rejection of claim 17, wherein the mobile cleaning robot moves forward a first distance when the mobile cleaning robot moves forward the first time, wherein the mobile cleaning robot moves rearward a second distance when the mobile cleaning robot moves rearward, wherein the mobile cleaning robot moves forward a third distance when the mobile cleaning robot moves forward the second time (Dooley, figs. 3-7, in scrubbing the floor, the robot 100 moves forward, rearward, and then forward again. The three motions are represented by the arrows 1, 2, and 3 in fig. 7), and wherein the third distance is greater than the second distance (Dooley, col. 6:4-14, each forward distance is approximately 1.5 times with width of the cleaning assembly and rearward distance is approximately 0.75 times the width of the cleaning assembly. Thus, Dooley discloses the third distance is greater than the second distance), but does not disclose the third distance is greater than the first distance.
Xiao teaches, in an analogous mobile cleaning robot field of endeavor, the third distance is greater than the first distance (Xiao English translation, p. 3:9-30, a mopping robot moves forward and backward to clean a floor; fig. 7, considering that a vertical distance of a path from point C to point D is the recited first distance, a vertical distance of a path from point D to point E is the recited second distance, and a vertical distance of a path from point E to point F is the recited third distance, the third distance is greater than the first distance. Although the moving path of the Xiao’s robot includes a curvilinear path, the robot eventually moves forward, and the recited third forward distance can be greater than the recited first forward distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the movement of the mobile cleaning robot of Afrouzi as modified by Sack and Dooley to provide its third distance is greater than the first distance as taught by Xiao so that in overall the robot advances to complete the cleaning job in a reasonably short time.
Regarding claim 19, Afrouzi as modified by Sack, Dooley, and Xiao teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium as in the rejection of claim 18, wherein second distance is smaller than the first distance and the third distance (Dooley, col. 6:4-14, each forward distance is approximately 1.5 times with width of the cleaning assembly and rearward distance is approximately 0.75 times the width of the cleaning assembly. Thus, Dooley discloses the second distance is smaller than the first and third distances).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating method of Afrouzi as modified by Sack, Dooley, and Xiao to provide the second distance to be smaller than the first and third distances as taught by Dooley so that the robot advances forward in general (Dooley col. 5:63-6:3).
Regarding claim 20, Afrouzi as modified by Sack, Dooley, and Xiao teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium as in the rejection of claim 19, but does not disclose the third distance is 1.5 times a diameter of the mobile cleaning robot.
However, Dooley discloses, in fig. 7 and col. 6:20-32, the cleaning robot’s forward displacement exceeds the backward displacement in order for the robot to advance in a generally forward direction. Although Dooley does not disclose an actual displacement for the floor scrubbing with the straight travel motion, the cleaning robot advances forward in general. In order to advance forward in general, the third distance must be determined appropriately, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating method of Afrouzi as modified by Sack, Dooley, and Xiao to provide its third distance to be 1.5 times the diameter of the robot. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(III).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley et al. (US 9,179,813, cited on 04/01/2025 IDS, hereinafter Dooley), in view of Pan et al. (CN 108814446A, hereinafter Pan).
Regarding claim 21, Dooley discloses a method of operating a mobile cleaning robot, the method comprising: engaging a flooring surface of an environment with a cleaning pad of the mobile cleaning robot (col. 1:44-46, a mobile robot travels across a surface while cleaning the surface with a cleaning pad);
operating at least one wheel of the mobile cleaning robot to move the mobile cleaning robot forward relative to the flooring surface along a centerline of a cleaning rank (col. 2:53-64, figs. 1A, the robot 100 comprises a drive system/wheel 110 to move the robot; fig. 7 and col. 6:20-33, the robot moves forward while scrubbing a floor along a centerline of a cleaning rank);
operating a first wheel of the at least one wheel of the mobile cleaning robot and operating a second wheel of the at least one wheel of the mobile cleaning robot to move the mobile cleaning robot laterally to a first side of the centerline of the cleaning rank; operating the second wheel and operating the first wheel to move the mobile cleaning robot laterally to a second side of the centerline; and operating the first wheel and operating the second wheel to move the mobile cleaning robot laterally to the centerline. (figs. 1, 3, 4A, 4C, the robot operates a first and second wheels 110 such that the robot moves laterally to a first side of a center line, laterally to the centerline, and laterally to a second side of the centerline), but does not disclose explicitly the method comprises operating a first wheel of the mobile cleaning robot at a first speed and operating a second wheel of the mobile cleaning robot at a second speed that is lower than the first speed, operating the second wheel of the mobile cleaning robot at the first speed and operating the first wheel of the mobile cleaning robot at the second speed, and operating the first wheel at the first speed and operating the second wheel at the second speed.
Pan teaches, in an analogous cleaning robot field of endeavor, the method comprises operating a first wheel of the mobile cleaning robot at a first speed and operating a second wheel of the mobile cleaning robot at a second speed that is lower than the first speed, operating the second wheel of the mobile cleaning robot at the first speed and operating the first wheel of the mobile cleaning robot at the second speed, and operating the first wheel at the first speed and operating the second wheel at the second speed (Pan English translation, p. 3:3-5 and fig. 1, a robot comprises a dust mop and further comprises left and right driving wheels 3; Pan English translation, p. 6:38-40, motor controllers adjust the speed of the two driving wheels 3 and the controller make the speed of the two driving wheels different to change a travelling direction. Thus, the wheels of Pan can be driven at different speeds to move forward and laterally as recited. The different wheel speeds enable the robot to move forward and backward along curvilinear paths as taught by Dooley. See Dooley figs. 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating method of Dooley to provide different wheel speeds as taught by Pan so that the robot can timely adjust the travel direction during automatic cleaning mode such as an obstacle avoidance with assistance of sensors (Pan English translation, p. 3:18-22).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley in view of Pan, as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Song et al. (KR 20150126209A, hereinafter Song ‘209).
Regarding claim 22, Dooley as modified by Pan teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 21, comprising: operating at least one wheel of the mobile cleaning robot to move the mobile cleaning robot forward relative to the flooring surface along the centerline of a cleaning rank and operating the first wheel at the first speed and operating the second wheel at the second speed to move the mobile cleaning robot laterally to the centerline (Dooley, figs. 3 and 7, the robot can move laterally to the centerline and forward along the centerline; Pan English translation, p. 6:38-40, motor controllers adjust the speed of the two driving wheels 3 and the controller make the speed of the two driving wheels different to change a travelling direction. Thus, the wheels of Pan can be driven at different speeds to move laterally and forward as recited), but does not disclose the mobile cleaning robot moves forward along the centerline of the cleaning rank after moving laterally to the centerline.
Song ‘209 teaches, in an analogous robot cleaner field of endeavor, the mobile cleaning robot moves forward along the centerline of the cleaning rank after moving laterally to the centerline (fig. 5, the robot may move straight forward along the centerline after moving laterally to the centerline).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating method of Dooley as modified by Pan to make the robot to move forward after moving laterally as taught by Song ‘209 so that the robot also cleans side area while cleaning forward area.
Regarding claim 23, Dooley as modified by Pan and Song ‘209 teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 22, wherein the mobile cleaning robot moves sinusoidally about the centerline (Song ‘209 English translation, p. 4:25-30 and fig. 1, a robot cleaner 100 includes a cleaning attaching module 102 which may be a mop; fig. 4, the robot may move sinusoidally about a centerline).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating method of Dooley as modified by Pan and Song ‘209 to make to robot to move sinusoidally as taught by Song ‘209 so that the robot cleans more area while moving forward.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley in view of Pan, as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Peng et al. (WO 2018053983A1, hereinafter Peng).
Regarding claim 24, Dooley as modified by Pan teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 21, but does not disclose explicitly the second speed is zero.
Peng teaches, in an analogous cleaning robot field of endeavor, the second speed is zero (Peng English translation, p. 10:5-7, it can be set one wheel to rotate forward and one wheel to stop rotating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation method of Dooley as modified by Pan to make the second speed zero as taught by Peng so that the robot can turn with a small turning radius for effective move in a small space (Peng English translation, p. 10:5-7).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley in view of Pan, as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Jun et al. (US 2017/0332862, hereinafter Jun).
Regarding claim 25, Dooley as modified by Pan teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 21, wherein the method includes operating the first wheel of the at least one wheel of the mobile cleaning robot at the first speed and operating the second wheel of the at least one wheel of the mobile cleaning robot at the second speed that is lower than the first speed to move the mobile cleaning robot laterally to the first side of the centerline of the cleaning rank (Dooley, fig. 3, the robot operates a first and second wheels 110 such that the robot moves laterally to a first side of a center line; Pan English translation, p. 3:3-5 and fig. 1, a robot comprises a dust mop and further comprises left and right driving wheels 3; Pan English translation, p. 6:38-40, motor controllers adjust the speed of the two driving wheels 3 and the controller make the speed of the two driving wheels different to change a travelling direction. Thus, the wheels of Pan can be driven at different speeds to move laterally as recited), but does not disclose operating the first wheel in a first rotational direction; and operating the second wheel in a second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction.
Jun teaches, in an analogous mobile cleaning robot field of endeavor, operating the first wheel in a first rotational direction; and operating the second wheel in a second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction (¶ 0041, a controller of a robot may rotate a left wheel and a right wheel in opposite directions to each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation method of Dooley as modified by Pan to make the wheels to rotate in opposite rotational directions as taught by Jun so that the robot can turn with zero turning radius for effective move in a small area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §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 Xiao.
Applicant argues Dooley does not disclose the claim limitations of amended claim 1 that the third distance is greater than the first distance. Applicant further argues Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness in the rejection.
Dooley teaches the robot moves forward and rearward wherein the rearward moving distance is less than the forward moving distance. In order for the robot to proceed forward after all, the third distance cannot be less than the second distance, and the third distance must be at least the same as the first distance or greater than the first distance. The determination of choosing either greater or same third distance compared with the first distance depends on whether the robot needs to clean a floor fast or thoroughly. As specification of the instant application does not provide reason why the third distance has to be greater than the first distance, there is no better choice between the same and greater third distance compared with the first distance.
Nevertheless, Xiao teaches various forward and backward paths for the mopping robot’s movement. A portion of the movement includes the second forward moving distance being greater than the first forward moving distance as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, Xiao teaches the amended claim limitations.
Applicant argues Afrouzi and Sack do not teach or suggest the claim limitations of claim 15 that an actuator connected to a cleaning pad assembly to move a cleaning pad from a stored position to a deployed position. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant asserts Afrouzi discloses the cleaning pad 1609 and moving the cleaning pad to a position opposite the flooring surface would destabilize and hinder the movement of the robot. Applicant continues asserting that modification of the Afrouzi’s robot with the Sack’s pad moving system would render the Afrouzi’s robot no longer be able to move.
However, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2145 III). The Afrouzi’s robot does not have a system for moving the pad between the stored position and the deployed position. Sack teaches the surface cleaning robot can have the system for moving the pad between the stored position and the deployed position.
Applicant argues the term “pad drive system” in claim 9 does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the term “drive system” clearly connotes structure. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although the phrase does not use the words “means” or “step”, the term “pad drive system” is a generic place holder for moving the cleaning pad relative to a body of the mobile cleaning robot when the mobile cleaning robot moves forward the first time, moves backward, or moves forward the second time. There can be numerous components such as an actuator, a frame, links, a pad holder, etc. to move the cleaning pad relative to the body of the mobile cleaning robot. Thus, the term “drive system” itself does not explain what components are involved with the system. Therefore, the term “pad drive system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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.
/SUKWOO JAMES CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights