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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are persuasive only in part.
First, applicant’s arguments regarding the specification objections, related to the specification not providing antecedent basis for the new claim terminology, are not convincing. In this respect, applicant apparently argues:
See MPEP § 2164.05(a) ("The specification need not disclose what is well-known to those skilled in the art and preferably omits that which is well-known to those skilled and already available to the public [as of the filing date] (emphasis added); In re Myers, 410 F.2d 420, 424, 161 USPQ 668, 671 (CCPA 1969) ("A specification is directed to those skilled in the art and need not teach or point out in detail that which is well-known in the art.") (emphasis added); see also Phillips V. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); In re Wolfensperger, 302 F.2d 950 (C.C.P.A. 1962); MPEP § 2111; and MPEP § 2163.
If applicant is arguing that the new claim terminology is well-known to those skilled in the art, he should make this clear on the record. The examiner does not believe, on the current record, that the new claim terminology (as particularly quoted in the Specification section of this Office action) is well-known to those skilled in the art, with this being one apparent reason that the examiner believes that applicant is seeking additional patent protection based on the new claim terminology.
Second, applicant’s arguments regarding the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are not convincing.
In this respect, applicant argues:
As demonstrated in Section I, supra, the amended claim terms, read in light of the specification and associated figures, are readily understandable to a POSA. The Examiner's concern that the claimed "hypotheses" would encompass near-infinite features overlooks well-established principles of real-world sensor detection and robotic programming. The specification identifies "obstacles" as non-movable objects larger than the robot, since moveable obstacles are disregarded, and obstacles smaller than the robot are avoided (See [0013], [0042], and [0058]). The sensors are therefore constrained to real-world parameters, including width, depth, height, and acceleration. The type of obstacle (e.g., a door frame, a door, a chair, a sofa, etc.) is immaterial to the sensor, which merely captures data across a plurality of aspects, data that a POSA readily interprets to program robotic movement accordingly. Contrary to the Examiner's apprehension, a POSA is not paralyzed by data volume, nor by the task of programming threshold metrics based on disclosed probability and stochastic calculation models. Rather, like any adept programmer, a POSA simply limits the data to fields relevant to the robot's movement, enabling proper correlation of sensor data and associated point threshold metrics using models well-understood in the art ( [0033], [0035], and 1[0037]). See MPEP § 2164.05(a); In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947 (1987); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463, 221 USPQ 481, 489 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Myers, 410 F.2d 420, 424, 161 USPQ 668, 671 (CCPA 1969)).
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections.
The examiner responds in two parts:
I. Regarding the enablement rejection, see MPEP 2161.01, I. and LizardTech Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) cited therein ("Whether the flaw in the specification is regarded as a failure to demonstrate that the applicant possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the claim] or a failure to enable the full breadth of that claim, the specification provides inadequate support for the claim under [§ 112(a)]"). See also MPEP 2163.02. The examiner believes that applicant has thus failed to enable the full scope of claim 1, e.g., generating and testing all hypotheses that might possibly be generated based on the indefinitely recited claim limitations and tested in the manner claimed.
II. Regarding the description requirement rejection and applicant’s arguments concerning “any adept programmer”, see MPEP 2161.01, I. and the 2019 35 U.S.C. 112 Compliance Federal Register Notice (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, Monday, January 7, 2019, pages 57 to 63, which indicates:
It is not enough that one skilled in the art could theoretically write a program to achieve the claimed function, rather the specification itself must explain how the claimed function is achieved to demonstrate that the applicant had possession of it. See, e.g., Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682–83.
It is thus the scope/breadth of the claimed invention, e.g., that covers the generation of literally any hypothesis imaginable based on the indefinitely recited claim limitations in claim 1 (i.e., “based on the determined size and position of the detected obstacles, including distances between at least two boundary lines, relative orientations of the at least two boundary lines, and spatial densities of the detected obstacles”, which phrase cannot even be reasonably parsed by the examiner in an attempt to figure out what that limitation might cover) and the subsequent testing of those imaginable hypotheses in the manner claimed, which is precipitating rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in this respect.
Third, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), applicant’s argument that the claims “have been amended” is not sufficient to overcome the indefiniteness in the claims, as set forth previously and below.
Fourth, applicant’s amendment to claim 1 overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, which is withdrawn
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are only persuasive in part.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1)1 and MPEP § 608.01(o)2. Correction of the following is required: antecedent basis should be provided in the specification for the following new claim terminologies, without adding new matter:
● “generating [] hypotheses based on the determined size and position of the detected obstacles, including distances between at least two boundary lines, relative orientations of the at least two boundary lines, and spatial densities of the detected obstacles”,
● “based on a determination that the tested generated hypotheses exceed a predetermined point threshold, maintaining the boundary lines of the individual zones and/or the at least one computed geometric feature of the individual detected obstacle”, and
● “based on a determination that the tested generated hypotheses do not exceed a predetermined point threshold, adjusting, in real-time, at least one boundary line of the individual zones and/or the at least one computed geometric feature”.
In this respect, the examiner emphasizes that he has found no terminology in the specification that would support the “maintaining” or “adjusting, in real time” of the particularly recited claim elements, as is now claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant has not enabled the full breadth3 of generating any or all hypotheses that might possibly be “based on the determined size and position of the detected obstacles, including distances between at least two boundary lines, relative orientations of the at least two boundary lines, and spatial densities of the detected obstacles”, whatever that might indefinitely mean (e.g., for examples only, possibly generating hypotheses concerning/about i) the price/cost of the obstacles and/or the area of operation, ii) the age of the obstacles and/or the area of operation, iii) the animate nature or weight of the obstacle(s), iv) the possibility of extra-terrestrial life, v) the risk of earthquakes or water damage in the area of operation, vi) the effect on property value or occupant safety of new carpeting or floorboards, vii) the value or efficacy of a robotic vacuum cleaner for the property owner, viii) the price of tea in China, etc.).
Here, the examiner believes that the number of possibly generated “hypotheses” that might be based on the indefinitely recited claim limitations (i.e., “based on the determined size and position of the detected obstacles, including distances between at least two boundary lines, relative orientations of the at least two boundary lines, and spatial densities of the detected obstacles”) which the claim would cover and encompass is near infinite, beyond the examiner’s (or any PHOSITA’s[4]) imagination, with indeterminate metes and bounds, and applicant has only described in the specification a small number of (partial) examples of hypotheses as are known to him, which are not properly representative of the entire genus of any or all possible generated hypotheses based on the indefinitely recited claim limitations. (Regarding representative species for a genus, see e.g., MPEP 2163, II., A., 3., (a), ii), and (b).)
For example, the specification teaches this at published paragraphs [0034], [0037], and [0040]:
In order to solve the above mentioned problems and to allow for an automated sectoring of the area of robot operation into various zones (e.g. rooms), the robot generates, based on the sensor data, “hypotheses” about its environment that can be tested using various methods. If a hypothesis can be proved false, it is rejected. If two boundary lines (e.g. the lines A-A′ and O-O′ in FIG. 1) are more or less parallel and are at a distance to each other that corresponds to the common clear width of a door frame (for this there are standardized values), then the robot will generate the hypothesis “door frame” and conclude from this that the two lines separate two different rooms. In the simplest case, the robot can test an automatedly generated hypothesis by “asking” the user, i.e. by requesting the user's feedback. The user can then either confirm or reject the hypothesis. A hypothesis can also be tested automatedly, however, in which case the plausibility of the conclusions drawn from the hypothesis is tested. If the rooms detected by the robot (e.g. by means of detection of the door thresholds) include a central room that, e.g., is smaller than one square meter, then the hypothesis that ultimately led to this small central room is probably false. A further automated test may consist in testing whether or not conclusions drawn from two hypotheses contradict each other. If, for example, six hypotheses indicating a door can be generated and the robot can only detect a door threshold (a small step) in the case of five of the assumed doors, then this may be an indication that the hypothesis that indicates a door without a threshold is false.
To test and evaluate hypotheses, a degree of plausibility may be assigned to them. In one simple embodiment, a hypothesis is credited with a previously specified number of points for every confirming sensor measurement. When, in this manner, a certain hypothesis achieves a minimum number of points, it is regarded as plausible. A negative total number of points could result in the hypothesis being rejected. In a further developed embodiment, a probability of being correct is assigned to a certain hypothesis. This requires a probability model that takes into account the correlation between various sensor measurements but also allows complex probability statements to be generated with the aid of stochastic calculation models, thus resulting in a more reliable prediction of the user's expectations. For example, in certain regions (i.e. countries) in which the robot is operated, the width of doors may be standardized. If the robot measures such a standardized width, then this most probably relates to a door. Deviations from the standard widths reduce the probability that they relate to a door. For this purpose, for example, a probability model based on a standard distribution may be used. A further possibility for the generation and evaluation of hypotheses is the use of “machine learning” to generate suitable models and measurement functions (see, e.g. Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, Jerome Friedman: “The Elements of Statistical Learning”, 2nd edition, Springer Publishing House, 2008). For this purpose, for example, map data is gathered by one or more robots in various living environments. The data can then be supplemented with floor plans or further data input by the user (e.g. regarding the run of doors or doorways or regarding a desired sectoring) and can then be evaluated by a learning algorithm.
Based on the assumption that rooms are generally rectangular, the robot can supplement the outer boundary lines of the map of boundary lines (see FIG. 1) to form a rectilinear polygon. The result of this is shown in FIG. 2. It is also possible to place a rectangle through the outer boundary lines of the apartment (see FIG. 2, rectangle that encompasses the apartment W and the inaccessible area X) and to remove from them inaccessible areas (see FIG. 2, area X). Based on detected doors (see FIG. 1, door threshold between the points O and A, as well as between P′ and P″) and inner walls (see FIG. 1, antiparallel boundary lines in the distance d m), the apartment can be automatedly sectored into three rooms 100, 200 and 300 (see FIG. 3). When doing so, areas determined to be walls are extended to a door or to the outer boundary of the apartment. Inaccessible areas within the rooms can be interpreted by the robot to be pieces of furniture or other obstacles and can be correspondingly designated on the map (see FIG. 4). For example, the piece of furniture 101 may even, based on its dimensions (distances separating the boundary lines), be identified as a bed (beds have standardized sizes) and consequently, room 100 can be identified as a bedroom. The area 102 is identified as a chest of drawers. However, it may also be a shaft or a chimney.
The specification teaches this at published paragraph [0036]:
However, additional objects (obstacles) such as, for example, wardrobes, shelves, flower pots, etc. may also be standing against a wall and may be able to be identified with the aid of hypotheses. One hypothesis may rest upon another hypothesis. For example, a door is a discontinuation of a wall; so when reliable hypotheses about the run of walls in the area of robot operation can be generated, these may be used to identify doors and to thus simplify the automated sectoring of the area of robot operation.
Published paragraph [0071] teaches this:
If the user furnishes a zone recognized as a room with the designation “bedroom”, various criteria—in particular the probability models used to generate hypotheses—can be adapted to those of a typical bedroom during the further automated sectoring of the bedroom. In this manner, an object found in the bedroom having the dimensions of one by two meters may with relative reliability be interpreted to be a bed. In a room designated as a “kitchen”, an object of similar dimensions might possibly be determined to be a kitchen island.
However, these and other specification passages do not apparently enable the generation of any or all hypotheses, commensurate with the full breadth of the claim scope, based on the indefinitely recited claim limitations (e.g., “based on the determined size and position of the detected obstacles. . .” as opposed to generated based on the or functions of obstacles or positions of zone borders, as described at published paragraphs [0008], [0044], etc. of the specification). For example, generating a hypothesis as to whether extra-terrestrial life exists, or a recession is coming, based on sensed obstacles in the robot’s area of operation. Accordingly, the examiner believes applicant has not enabled those skilled in the art to make and use the full breadth of the claimed invention.
Because the breadth of the claims is so large as to cover the generation of any or all hypotheses based on the indefinitely recited claim limitations, even hypotheses which applicant has not envisioned nor demonstrated possession of, because the nature of the invention (generating hypotheses based on the claimed size, position, distances, orientations, and densities) is by nature highly complex, because the state of the prior art is not well-developed, because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art cannot make up for the lack of teaching in the disclosure to enable all generation of the full breadth of all such hypotheses, since these would be nearly infinite, because the level of predictability in the art is implicitly low since in as much as the generated hypotheses are being tested and may result in opposite determinations regarding the threshold ( e.g., plausibility), because the amount of direction and/or working examples provided by the inventor is minimal (e.g., hypotheses for determining a bed in a bedroom and an island in a kitchen or a door frame are provided in the specification, while millions/billions of generated hypotheses, limited only by imagination, may be covered by the claim of which these three examples are not representative) or non-existent for most hypotheses, the examiner believes that undue experimentation on the part of the public would be required to implement the full breadth5 of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2164.01(a).
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant has apparently not enabled the full breadth of testing any or all of the generated hypotheses using any or all probability models and correlated data collected from the robot obstacle detection sensors.
Here, the examiner believes that there are apparently a near infinite number of generated “hypotheses” that the claim covers and encompasses, and there are a similarly large number of probability models executed by a processor and tests that might be conducted (e.g., using the correlated sensor data) for such hypotheses, in order to test them, while applicant has only described in the specification a small number of (partial) examples of tests, which are not representative of the entire genus of any or all possible tests for hypotheses as are covered by the claim.
For example, the specification teaches this at published paragraph [0034], [0035], and [0037]:
[0034] In order to solve the above mentioned problems and to allow for an automated sectoring of the area of robot operation into various zones (e.g. rooms), the robot generates, based on the sensor data, “hypotheses” about its environment that can be tested using various methods. If a hypothesis can be proved false, it is rejected. If two boundary lines (e.g. the lines A-A′ and O-O′ in FIG. 1) are more or less parallel and are at a distance to each other that corresponds to the common clear width of a door frame (for this there are standardized values), then the robot will generate the hypothesis “door frame” and conclude from this that the two lines separate two different rooms. In the simplest case, the robot can test an automatedly generated hypothesis by “asking” the user, i.e. by requesting the user's feedback. The user can then either confirm or reject the hypothesis. A hypothesis can also be tested automatedly, however, in which case the plausibility of the conclusions drawn from the hypothesis is tested. If the rooms detected by the robot (e.g. by means of detection of the door thresholds) include a central room that, e.g., is smaller than one square meter, then the hypothesis that ultimately led to this small central room is probably false. A further automated test may consist in testing whether or not conclusions drawn from two hypotheses contradict each other. If, for example, six hypotheses indicating a door can be generated and the robot can only detect a door threshold (a small step) in the case of five of the assumed doors, then this may be an indication that the hypothesis that indicates a door without a threshold is false.
[0035] Various sensor measurements are combined when a hypothesis is tested by the robot. In the case of a doorway, for example, the tested measurements include the passage width, the passage depth (given by the thickness of the wall), the existence of a wall to the right and to the left of the doorway or of an open door extending into the room. All this information can be detected, for example, by the robot with the aid of a distance sensor. By means of an acceleration sensor or of a position sensor (e.g. a gyroscopic sensor), the possible existence of a door threshold can be detected when the robot passes over it. With the use of image processing and by measuring the height of the ceiling, additional information can be gathered.
[0037] To test and evaluate hypotheses, a degree of plausibility may be assigned to them. In one simple embodiment, a hypothesis is credited with a previously specified number of points for every confirming sensor measurement. When, in this manner, a certain hypothesis achieves a minimum number of points, it is regarded as plausible. A negative total number of points could result in the hypothesis being rejected. In a further developed embodiment, a probability of being correct is assigned to a certain hypothesis. This requires a probability model that takes into account the correlation between various sensor measurements but also allows complex probability statements to be generated with the aid of stochastic calculation models, thus resulting in a more reliable prediction of the user's expectations. For example, in certain regions (i.e. countries) in which the robot is operated, the width of doors may be standardized. If the robot measures such a standardized width, then this most probably relates to a door. Deviations from the standard widths reduce the probability that they relate to a door. For this purpose, for example, a probability model based on a standard distribution may be used. A further possibility for the generation and evaluation of hypotheses is the use of “machine learning” to generate suitable models and measurement functions (see, e.g. Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, Jerome Friedman: “The Elements of Statistical Learning”, 2nd edition, Springer Publishing House, 2008). For this purpose, for example, map data is gathered by one or more robots in various living environments. The data can then be supplemented with floor plans or further data input by the user (e.g. regarding the run of doors or doorways or regarding a desired sectoring) and can then be evaluated by a learning algorithm.
However, these and other specification passages do not enable the full breadth of any or all testing (e.g., near infinite testing) of any or all hypotheses (that were generated based on the indefinitely recited claim limitations) based on any or all probability models and correlated sensor data from the sensors. Accordingly, the examiner believes applicant has not enabled those skilled in the art to make and use the full breadth of the claimed invention.
Because the breadth of the claims is so large as to cover any or all testing of any or all of the generated hypotheses using a probability model and correlated data collected from the sensors, because the nature of the invention (testing generated hypotheses using probability models and sensor data) is by nature highly complex, because the state of the prior art is not well-developed, because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art cannot make up for the lack of teaching in the disclosure to enable the full breadth of the testing of generated hypotheses, since these hypotheses would be nearly infinite, because the level of predictability in the art is implicitly low since any tested hypotheses may or may not be determined to exceed the threshold (e.g., be or not be implausible), because the amount of direction and/or working examples provided by the inventor for testing is minimal (e.g., no explicit testing hypotheses for determining a bed in a bedroom and an island in a kitchen is apparently provided, while millions/billions of hypotheses to be tested, limited only by imagination, may be covered by the claim of which these two hypotheses examples are not representative) and/or non-existent for most hypotheses, the examiner believes that undue experimentation on the part of the public would be required to implement the full breadth of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2164.01(a).
Claims 1, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 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.
[This part of the page intentionally left blank.]
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant has apparently not described, in sufficient detail, by what algorithm(s)6, or by what steps or procedure7, he generated any or all hypotheses based on the determined size and position of the detected obstacles, including distances between at least two boundary lines, relative orientations of the at least two boundary lines, and spatial densities of the detected obstacles, whatever that indefinitely means. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope8 of the now claimed invention.
For example, applicant discloses generating “hypotheses concerning possible zone borders and/or the function of individual detected obstacles” or “hypotheses concerning the[] positions” of zone borders or “hypotheses concerning the run of the inner walls and wardrobes standing against them”, whatever that may mean, yet claims generating any or all possible hypotheses, even those that do not concern zone borders of the functions of individual detected obstacles or the run of inner walls and wardrobes or even the environment of the robot. The examiner believes that no algorithm(s) or steps/procedure for generating the full scope of any or all hypotheses, of the near unlimited number of hypotheses that the claim covers and encompasses, based on the indefinitely recited claim limitations that apparently include “size and position of the obstacles” (rather than, as disclosed, the positions of zone borders and/or the function of individual detected obstacles, as indicated in the specification at published paragraphs [0008], [0044], etc.), are described, in sufficient detail, in the specification. In this respect, only a very few examples of or allusions to what a generated hypothesis might be or relate to are provided in the specification (see e.g., published paragraphs [0034], [0071], [0078], etc. for possible hypotheses), and these few examples are not representative of the entire genus of any or all possible (boundless/near infinite) hypotheses that might be generated, as covered by the claim. See MPEP 2163, II., A., 3., (a), ii), and (b). Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the now claimed invention, but only now describes a “desired result”.
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant has apparently not described, in sufficient detail, by what algorithm(s), or by what steps or procedure, he tested any or all of the generated hypotheses using any or all probability models and correlated data collected from the sensors. No algorithm(s) that would test the full scope of any or all generated hypotheses as claimed, commensurate with the full scope of the claim, is/are apparently described, in sufficient detail, and examples representative of the entire genus of testing the hypotheses are not apparently described in the specification, in sufficient detail. (See MPEP 2163, II., A., 3., (a), ii), and (b).) Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the now claimed invention, but only now describes a “desired result”.
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant has apparently not described, in sufficient detail, by what algorithm(s), or by what steps or procedure, he sectored the map area of robot operation into zones by maintaining or adjusting in real-time the boundary line(s) and/or at least one computed geometric feature based on the determination that the hypotheses exceed or do not exceed “a predetermined point threshold” (which is indefinite in the claim). No such algorithm(s) that would sector the map area into zones in the manner claimed based on e.g., any or all tested generated hypotheses regarding geometric features of individual detected obstacles, etc., commensurate with the full scope of the claim, is/are apparently described, in sufficient detail, and examples representative of the entire genus of sectoring the map area based on the tested generated hypotheses are not apparently described in the specification, in sufficient detail. (See MPEP 2163, II., A., 3., (a), ii), and (b).). For example, no “maintaining” or “adjusting in real-time” of the boundary lines or a boundary line or of the at least one computed geometric feature based on the tested generated hypothesis exceeding or not exceeding the/any predetermined point threshold9 is apparently described, in sufficient detail, in the specification. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the now claimed invention, but only now describes a “desired result”.
Claims 1, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 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 1, lines 8ff, “generating [] hypotheses based on the determined size and position of the detected obstacles, including distances between at least two boundary lines, relative orientations of the at least two boundary lines, and spatial densities of the detected obstacles” is fully indefinite and not reasonably certain[10] i) grammatically (e.g., is it the hypotheses or the detected obstacles that “includ[e]” the distances, etc. in the claim limitation, and does the “including” only relate to the distances, or does it conjunctively distribute to the “relative orientations” and/or the “spatial densities” as well?[11]), ii) from the teachings of the specification (that does not clarify the metes and bounds of this phrase or how it should be interpreted, or clarify that hypotheses are generated “based on the determined size and position of the detected obstacles. . .” as opposed to generated based on the functions of obstacles or positions of zone borders, as described at published paragraphs [0008], [0044], etc. of the specification), and iii) in the claim context (e.g., that does not apparently provide any context or limits [metes and bounds] on what the “at least two boundary lines” might possibly relate to or be boundary lines of[12]), and which does not provide reasonably certain metes and bounds of what the “hypotheses” might possibly be or relate to (e.g., possibly hypotheses about extra-terrestrial life, hypotheses about property values of the area, or hypotheses about the value or efficacy of a robotic vacuum cleaner for the property owner?)
For example, the Free Dictionary defined hypothesis as:
hy·poth·e·sis (hī-pŏth′ĭ-sĭs) n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sēz′)
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.
. . .
[From: American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Retrieved 23 May 2025.]
However, the metes and bounds of any or all generated “tentative explanation[s] for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation”, a.k.a. hypotheses, are unclear in the claim context, and from the teachings of the specification, especially when no limits on what the hypotheses might possibly be or cover or relate to are apparently claimed (e.g., they could literally cover anything, even extra-terrestrial things), with the examiner being unwilling to read limitations from the specification into the claim (see MPEP 2111.01, II.)
In claim 1, line 15, “correlated data collected from the sensors” is indefinite and unclear from the teachings of the specification (e.g., correlated13 in what way or how, particularly?).
In claim 1, lines 18 to 23 are unclear in their entireties, e.g., for lacking apparent clarifying/antecedent basis in the specification and for lacking sufficient support in the specification, even when considering clearly equivalent terms14, for interpreting the claim language “in light of the specification” (MPEP 2111). See also 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
In this respect, in claim 1, “exceed a predetermined point threshold” (in lines 18ff and in lines 21ff) is vague and indefinite in the claim context (e.g., which predetermined “point threshold” defined particularly how in the claim so as to have reasonably certain metes and bounds?), with the examiner being unwilling to import claim limitations from specification’s published paragraphs [0037], [0039], [0040], etc. regarding the metes and bounds of the claimed “a predetermined point threshold”. See MPEP 2111.01, II.
Similarly, in claim 1, “maintaining the boundary lines . . . and/or the at least one computed geometric feature” in lines 19ff is indefinite (e.g., “maintaining” in what particularly and in what way particularly, for how long, etc.?) with the specification apparently not clarifying how or that either boundary lines and/or geometric feature[s] would be “maintain[ed]” based on the claimed condition.
In claim 1, line 19, “the boundary lines of the individual zones” apparently has insufficient antecedent basis (since no boundary lines of individual zones have been previously recited) and is unclear.
In claim 1, lines 19ff, and in claim 1, lines 23ff, “the at least one computed geometric feature” apparently has insufficient antecedent basis (since plural geometric features are now computed earlier in the claim) and is unclear.
In claim 1, line 20, “the individual detected obstacle” (singular) apparently has insufficient antecedent basis and is unclear.
In claim 1, lines 22ff, “at least one boundary line of the individual zones” is unclear in the claim context (e.g., is this boundary line one of the previously recited “two boundary lines” or is this another boundary line, and what does it mean than “one” “boundary line” is “of the [plural] individual zones”?)
Similarly, in claim 1, lines 22ff, “adjusting in real-time, at least one boundary line . . . and/or the at least one computed geometric feature” in lines 23ff is indefinite (e.g., “adjusting” in what particularly, what does “real-time” mean in this context since the specification apparently describes no such real-time adjusting, etc.) with the specification apparently not clarifying how or that either boundary lines and/or geometric feature[s] would be “adjust[ed] in real-time” based on the claimed condition.
In claim 13, line 2, “the boundary lines of the individual zones” is indefinite with insufficient antecedent basis.
In claim 13, line 3, “the human machine information” has insufficient antecedent basis and is unclear.
In claim 14, lines 2ff, “the step of, assigning, using a calendar function of the processor, an identity to each of the individual zones” is indefinite, with the “calendar function” being indefinite both in the claim context (e.g., what characteristics must a function have to be considered a “calendar function”?) and from the teachings of the specification (which does not clarify the calendar function with metes and bounds or indicate particularly how such a “calendar function” might assign an “identity to each of the individual zones”.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David A Testardi whose telephone number is (571)270-3528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 8:30am - 5:30pm E.T., and Friday, 8:30 am - 12:30 pm E.T.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/DAVID A TESTARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
1 Quoting the rule section, “(d)(1) The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description. (See § 1.58(a).)
2 Quoting the MPEP:
New claims, including claims first presented after the application filing date where no claims were submitted on filing, and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification. See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01 and § 2103. Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner’s amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced.
3 See MPEP 2161.01, I. and LizardTech Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) cited therein ("Whether the flaw in the specification is regarded as a failure to demonstrate that the applicant possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the claim] or a failure to enable the full breadth of that claim, the specification provides inadequate support for the claim under [§ 112(a)]").
4 Person having ordinary skill in the art.
5 See MPEP 2161.01, I. and LizardTech Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) cited therein ("Whether the flaw in the specification is regarded as a failure to demonstrate that the applicant possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the claim] or a failure to enable the full breadth of that claim, the specification provides inadequate support for the claim under [§ 112(a)]").
6 See the 2019 35 U.S.C. 112 Compliance Federal Register Notice (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, Monday, January 7, 2019, pages 57 to 63). See also https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019_112_guidance_initiative.pptx . Quoting the FR Notice at pages 61 and 62, "The Federal Circuit emphasized that ‘‘[t]he written description requirement is not met if the specification merely describes a ‘desired result.’ ’’ Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682 (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349). . . . When examining computer-implemented, software-related claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm(s) that achieve the claimed function in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as 'a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.' Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may 'express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.' Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340 (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could theoretically write a program to achieve the claimed function, rather the specification itself must explain how the claimed function is achieved to demonstrate that the applicant had possession of it. See, e.g., Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682–83. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm(s) in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention that achieves the claimed result, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made. See MPEP § 2161.01, subsection I."
7 See http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fnctnllnggcmptr.pptx at page 29.
8 See MPEP 2161.01, I. and LizardTech Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) cited therein ("Whether the flaw in the specification is regarded as a failure to demonstrate that the applicant possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the claim] or a failure to enable the full breadth of that claim, the specification provides inadequate support for the claim under [§ 112(a)]").
9 For example, published paragraph [0037] of the specification indicates this:
[0037] To test and evaluate hypotheses, a degree of plausibility may be assigned to them. In one simple embodiment, a hypothesis is credited with a previously specified number of points for every confirming sensor measurement. When, in this manner, a certain hypothesis achieves a minimum number of points, it is regarded as plausible. A negative total number of points could result in the hypothesis being rejected. In a further developed embodiment, a probability of being correct is assigned to a certain hypothesis. This requires a probability model that takes into account the correlation between various sensor measurements but also allows complex probability statements to be generated with the aid of stochastic calculation models, thus resulting in a more reliable prediction of the user's expectations. For example, in certain regions (i.e. countries) in which the robot is operated, the width of doors may be standardized. If the robot measures such a standardized width, then this most probably relates to a door. Deviations from the standard widths reduce the probability that they relate to a door. For this purpose, for example, a probability model based on a standard distribution may be used. A further possibility for the generation and evaluation of hypotheses is the use of “machine learning” to generate suitable models and measurement functions (see, e.g. Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, Jerome Friedman: “The Elements of Statistical Learning”, 2nd edition, Springer Publishing House, 2008). For this purpose, for example, map data is gathered by one or more robots in various living environments. The data can then be supplemented with floor plans or further data input by the user (e.g. regarding the run of doors or doorways or regarding a desired sectoring) and can then be evaluated by a learning algorithm.
10 See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) which held, "A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed.Cir.2014)(“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”) and Ex Parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416 (PTAB, Aug. 25, 2017, Precedential) (“Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim, then, the Office establishes a prima facie case of indefiniteness with a rejection explaining how the metes and bounds of a pending claim are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”)
11 See MPEP 2173.02, I., “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.”
12 Perhaps boundary lines in the map, boundary lines between zones, boundary lines of the obstacles, or something else entirely?
13 cor•re•late (v., adj.)
adj., n. v.t.
1. to place in or bring into mutual or reciprocal relation; establish in orderly connection: to correlate expenses and income.
v.i.
2. to have a mutual or reciprocal relation; stand in correlation.
adj.
3. mutually or reciprocally related.
n.
4. either of two related things, esp. when one implies the other.
[From: Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved. Retrieved 26 February 2026.]
14 See flowchart in MPEP 2111.01, V.
Prosecution Insights