The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
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 use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control system” in Claims 4, 5, and 20, and “processing device” in Claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 13-19, and 4-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 1-3 and 13-19, and 4-12 and 20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-3 and 13-19, and 4-12 and 20, recites at least one step or instruction for identifying a floor surface, objects on the floor surface, and providing a warning that the objects will be potentially a trip hazard or interfere with navigation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-3 and 13-19, and 4-12 and 20 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
1. A method performed by an autonomous mobile robot, the method comprising:
identifying a first position on a workpiece for the autonomous mobile robot to perform an operation (merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f) -observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
defining a safety field by a second position relative to the first position, wherein the safety field comprises an area or a volume in which a presence of an object triggers a safety response by the autonomous mobile robot (merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f) -observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and
triggering the safety response in response to detecting the presence of the object in the safety field (merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f) -observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Specifically, Claim 4 recites:
4. An autonomous mobile robot comprising:
a body (Schneider et al. US 2022/0104675 discloses a conventional robot (robot 100) with a body (housing infrastructure 108), sensor (image capture device 101), and control system (controller 109));
at least one sensor (Schneider et al. US 2022/0104675 discloses a conventional robot (robot 100) with a body (housing infrastructure 108), sensor (image capture device 101), and control system (controller 109)) configured to detect one or more aspects of an environment of the autonomous mobile robot; and
a control system (Schneider et al. US 2022/0104675 discloses a conventional robot (robot 100) with a body (housing infrastructure 108), sensor (image capture device 101), and control system (controller 109)) configured to
process data received from the at least one sensor to (merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f) -observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG)
identify a first position of a workpiece associated with the autonomous mobile robot and to (merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f) -observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG)
define a safety field based on a second position relative to the first position, wherein the safety field comprises an area or a volume in which a presence of an object (merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f) -observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG)
triggers a safety response by the autonomous mobile robot (merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f) -observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial LLC (Fed Cir., 2016) tells us that the inventive concept of step 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis cannot be supplied by the abstract idea. The inventive concept necessary at step two of the Mayo/Alice analysis cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself. That is, under the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; see also Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2117; Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-3 and 13-19, and 5-12 and 20, merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 4 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-3 and 13-19, and 5-12 and 20) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 4), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: an autonomous mobile robot and control system are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1 and 4 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 4 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., using a controller to incorporate a sensor providing visual detection as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 4 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 4 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-3 and 13-19, and 4-12 and 20, include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: an autonomous robot controlled by a control system without any other novel structural robot function.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the control unit includes hardware and software components that can include control circuitry, data processors, and data storage. Either analog or digital processing can be performed.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term control system is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the control system. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-3 and 13-19, and 4-12 and 20, amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the method of Claims 1-3 and 13-19, and control system of Claims 4-12 and 20, are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-3 and 13-19, and 4-12 and 20, provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 4 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-3 and 13-19, and 4-12 and 20, merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-3 and 13-19, and 4-12 and 20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1-3 and 13-19, and 4-12 and 20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schneider et al. US 2022/0104675 (hereafter Schneider et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Schneider et al. anticipates:
1. A method performed by an autonomous mobile robot (robot 100), the method comprising:
identifying a first position (current location of robot 100 designated for cleaning operation) on a workpiece (floor surface 10 of a room including objects such as furniture, rugs, cords, socks, etc. as shown in Figure 1A) for the autonomous mobile robot (robot 100) to perform an operation (Figure 1A);
defining a safety field (first area 25A or other areas surrounding objects on floor surface) by a second position (position of first area 25A, shown in Figure 1A) relative to the first position, wherein the safety field comprises an area or a volume in which a presence of an object (sock 35) triggers a safety response by the autonomous mobile robot (Paragraph [0041] – “in response to detecting a potential obstacle, the robot can change its behavior (e.g., shut off a vacuum, slow down, turn on a light to indicate that an obstacle has been detected, etc.). The robot 100 can send information about the areas 25, the potential obstacles associated with the areas 25, etc. to a mobile computing device of a user”); and
triggering the safety response in response to detecting the presence of the object in the safety field (Paragraph [0042] - “The mobile computing device can present, on a display, affordances corresponding to user-selectable options for each of the areas 25. The user-selectable options (further described in relation to FIGS. 9A-9D) enable the user to provide feedback to the robot 100 about each of the areas 25 and/or the potential obstacles detected in the areas 25. … Alternatively, if the user in unable or unwilling to pick up the sock 35 prior to the start of a second cleaning mission, the user can provide feedback to cause the robot 100 to avoid the area 25A during the second cleaning mission. In the case of more permanent obstacles, the user may provide feedback to the robot 100 to set up a keep-out zone. For example, if the user does not intend to move the cord 45 for a substantial period of time, the user can provide feedback to set up a keep-out zone around area 25B, causing the robot 100 to avoid the area 25B not only during the second cleaning mission but also during cleaning missions subsequent to the second cleaning mission.”)
Regarding Claim 2, Schneider et al. anticipates:
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
disengaging at least a portion of a protective field (previously defined keep-out zone) of the autonomous mobile robot (robot 100) prior to performing the operation on the workpiece (floor surface 10 of a room including objects such as furniture, rugs, cords, socks, etc. as shown in Figure 1A) such that the workpiece does not trigger the protective field (Paragraph [0042] - The user-selectable options (further described in relation to FIGS. 9A-9D) enable the user to provide feedback to the robot 100 about each of the areas 25 and/or the potential obstacles detected in the areas 25. For example, if the user has picked up the sock 35, the user can provide feedback to cause the robot to clean the area 25A during a second cleaning mission).
Regarding Claim 3, Schneider et al. anticipates:
3. The method of claim 2, wherein a size of the at least a portion of the protective field (previously defined keep-out zone in the first cleaning mission) changes as the autonomous mobile robot (robot 100) approaches the workpiece (floor surface 10 of a room including objects such as furniture, rugs, cords, socks, etc. as shown in Figure 1A)(previously defined keep-out zone is removed by user after removal of the sock 35 allowing the area of the keep-out zone to be eliminated as the robot approaches during a second cleaning mission).
Regarding Claim 4, Schneider et al. anticipates:
4. An autonomous mobile robot (robot 100) comprising:
a body (housing infrastructure 108);
at least one sensor (image capture device 101) configured to detect one or more aspects of an environment (environment 20) of the autonomous mobile robot; and
a control system (controller 109) configured to process data received from the at least one sensor to identify a first position (current location of robot 100 designated for cleaning operation) of a workpiece (floor surface 10 of a room including objects such as furniture, rugs, cords, socks, etc. as shown in Figure 1A) associated with the autonomous mobile robot and to define a safety field (first area 25A or other areas surrounding objects on floor surface) based on a second position (position of first area 25A, shown in Figure 1A) relative to the first position, wherein the safety field comprises an area or a volume in which a presence of an object (sock 35) triggers a safety response by the autonomous mobile robot (Paragraph [0041] – “in response to detecting a potential obstacle, the robot can change its behavior (e.g., shut off a vacuum, slow down, turn on a light to indicate that an obstacle has been detected, etc.). The robot 100 can send information about the areas 25, the potential obstacles associated with the areas 25, etc. to a mobile computing device of a user”).
Regarding Claim 5, Schneider et al. anticipates:
5. The autonomous mobile robot of claim 4, wherein the control system (controller 109) comprises memory (memory storage element 144) that stores a different definitions of safety fields, wherein the different definitions of safety fields are defined for different workpieces (Paragraph [0045] - For example, the imagery can be used as input to an object detection module 190 (shown in FIG. 4A) that processes the imagery (e.g., executes image processing operations on data representing the imagery) to identify potential obstacles on the floor surface 10 such as clothing, electrical cords, backpacks, etc.).
Regarding Claim 6, Schneider et al. anticipates:
6. The autonomous mobile robot of claim 5, wherein the memory (memory storage element 144) stores different definitions of safety fields (first area 25A or other areas surrounding objects on floor surface) for a first workpiece (floor surface 10 of a room including objects such as furniture, rugs, cords, socks, etc. as shown in Figure 1A) of the different workpieces (multiple rooms comprising floor surface 10 and including objects such as furniture, rugs, cords, socks, etc. as shown in Figure 1A).
Regarding Claim 7, Schneider et al. anticipates:
7. The autonomous mobile robot of claim 4, wherein the safety field (first area 25A or other areas surrounding objects on floor surface) comprises one or more cutouts (uncleanable area under dining table 60 identified by robot 100 and selected by user to not create future alarms) defined to accommodate a geometry of the workpiece (geometry of dining table 60) such that the workpiece does not trigger the safety response (Paragraph [0041] – “In some cases, the robot can send information about only certain types of potential obstacles (e.g., small obstacles, obstacles that are likely to cause error conditions, obstacles easily removable from the floor surface 10 by the user, etc.). For example, the robot 100 may send information about a sock 35, but not about a dining table 60, even though the dining table 60 may also prevent the robot 100 from cleaning a portion of the floor surface 10”).
Regarding Claim 8, Schneider et al. anticipates:
8. The autonomous mobile robot of claim 4, wherein the safety field (first area 25A or other areas surrounding objects on floor surface) comprises one or more cutouts defined to accommodate the one or more objects (sock 35 or other similar foreign objects) at one or more positions near or around the workpiece (floor surface 10 of a room including objects such as furniture, rugs, cords, socks, etc. as shown in Figure 1A).
Regarding Claim 9, Schneider et al. anticipates:
9. The autonomous mobile robot of claim 4, wherein the safety response is comprises one of:
a stop of motion of the autonomous mobile robot; or
a visual or audible alarm (at least a visual alert - Paragraph [0042] - “The mobile computing device can present, on a display, affordances corresponding to user-selectable options for each of the areas 25. The user-selectable options (further described in relation to FIGS. 9A-9D) enable the user to provide feedback to the robot 100 about each of the areas 25 and/or the potential obstacles detected in the areas 25.); or
a visual or audible warning.
Regarding Claim 10, Schneider et al. anticipates:
10. The autonomous mobile robot of claim 4, wherein, when operating on the workpiece (floor surface 10 of a room including objects such as furniture, rugs, cords, socks, etc. as shown in Figure 1A), the autonomous mobile robot (robot 100) is configured to move toward the workpiece (autonomous navigation of room).
Regarding Claim 11, Schneider et al. anticipates:
11. The autonomous mobile robot of claim 4, wherein a size of the safety field (first area 25A or other areas surrounding objects on floor surface) depends upon a position (size would be affected by size of object and adjacent entities such as a wall. For example, if the sock were located next to a wall, the size of the first area would not need to include extra area beyond the sock) of the workpiece (floor surface 10 of a room including objects such as furniture, rugs, cords, socks, etc. as shown in Figure 1A) in a facility.
Regarding Claim 12, Schneider et al. anticipates:
12. The autonomous mobile robot of claim 4, wherein an orientation of the safety field (first area 25A or other areas surrounding objects on floor surface) is referenced to an orientation of the workpiece (floor surface 10 of a room including objects such as furniture, rugs, cords, socks, etc. as shown in Figure 1A)(allows the map to be created as shown in Figure 1A).
Regarding Claim 13, Schneider et al. anticipates:
13. At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (non-volatile memory 1404 including magnetic or optical disk, Paragraph [0119] and USB flash drive, Paragraph [0117]) encoded with executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processing device (computing device 1400), cause the at least one processing device to perform operations comprising the method of claim 1 (see Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 14, Schneider et al. anticipates:
14. The method of claim 1, wherein the safety field (first area 25A or other areas surrounding objects on floor surface) includes one or more cutouts (uncleanable area under dining table 60 identified by robot 100 and selected by user to not create future alarms) defined to accommodate the workpiece such that the workpiece does not trigger the safety response (Paragraph [0041] – “In some cases, the robot can send information about only certain types of potential obstacles (e.g., small obstacles, obstacles that are likely to cause error conditions, obstacles easily removable from the floor surface 10 by the user, etc.). For example, the robot 100 may send information about a sock 35, but not about a dining table 60, even though the dining table 60 may also prevent the robot 100 from cleaning a portion of the floor surface 10”).
Regarding Claim 15, Schneider et al. anticipates:
15. The method of claim 1, wherein the safety field (first area 25A or other areas surrounding objects on floor surface) includes one or more cutouts defined to accommodate presence of the one or more objects (sock 35 or other similar foreign objects) at one or more positions in proximity of the workpiece (floor surface 10 of a room including objects such as furniture, rugs, cords, socks, etc. as shown in Figure 1A).
Regarding Claim 16, Schneider et al. anticipates:
16. The method of claim 1, wherein the safety response is one of: a stop of motion of the autonomous mobile robot; or a visual or audible alarm; or a visual or audible warning (at least a visual alert - Paragraph [0042] - “The mobile computing device can present, on a display, affordances corresponding to user-selectable options for each of the areas 25. The user-selectable options (further described in relation to FIGS. 9A-9D) enable the user to provide feedback to the robot 100 about each of the areas 25 and/or the potential obstacles detected in the areas 25.).
Regarding Claim 17, Schneider et al. anticipates:
17. The method of claim 1, wherein, when performing the operation on the workpiece (floor surface 10 of a room including objects such as furniture, rugs, cords, socks, etc. as shown in Figure 1A), the autonomous mobile robot (robot 100) moves toward the workpiece (moves toward other areas of the floor surface with objects).
Regarding Claim 18, Schneider et al. anticipates:
18. The method of claim 1, wherein a size of the safety field (first area 25A or other areas surrounding objects on floor surface) depends upon a position (size would be affected by size of object and adjacent entities such as a wall. For example, if the sock were located next to a wall, the size of the first area would not need to include extra area beyond the sock) of the workpiece (floor surface 10 of a room including objects such as furniture, rugs, cords, socks, etc. as shown in Figure 1A) in a facility.
Regarding Claim 19, Schneider et al. anticipates:
19. The method of claim 1, wherein an orientation of the safety field (first area 25A or other areas surrounding objects on floor surface) is referenced to an orientation of the workpiece (floor surface 10 of a room including objects such as furniture, rugs, cords, socks, etc. as shown in Figure 1A)(allows the map to be created as shown in Figure 1A).
Regarding Claim 20, Schneider et al. anticipates:
20. The autonomous mobile robot of claim 4, wherein the control system (controller 109) is configured to receive instructions from an external source (mobile computing device 1450) and to execute the instructions to process the data and to define the safety field (first area 25A or other areas surrounding objects on floor surface) (Paragraph [0041] – “in response to detecting a potential obstacle, the robot can change its behavior (e.g., shut off a vacuum, slow down, turn on a light to indicate that an obstacle has been detected, etc.). The robot 100 can send information about the areas 25, the potential obstacles associated with the areas 25, etc. to a mobile computing device of a user”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of robot cleaners with obstacle detection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723