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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 13-15, and 17 have been amended. Claim 20 has been newly canceled. No claims have been newly added. Claims 1-7 and 10-17 remain pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the limitations of newly amended claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues that 1) Sinyavskiy does not teach GUI-based localized video help, 2) Brown is non-analogous and teaches away, and 3) Williams focuses on remote monitoring. Further, Applicant argues that “the prior art must suggest the desirability of the proposed combination.” The examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the examiner notes that Applicant has not refuted the motivations to combine previously set forth by the examiner. Hence, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant claims: “resuming operation of the apparatus only upon verification that all detected faults are resolved.” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “resuming operation of the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus only upon verification that all detected faults are resolved.”
Regarding claim 5, Applicant claims: “wherein the menu options further comprises:…” The examiner notes, however, that none of the “menu options” are described in claim 1, but for them being described as “contextual.” The examiner recommends amending this to recite: “wherein the menu options
Further regarding claim 5, Applicant claims: “in manual mode, displaying,” and “in auto mode, displaying….” The examiner notes that no “manual mode” or “auto mode” have been previously claimed, and recommends amending these limitations to recite “in a manual mode, displaying,” and “in an automatic mode, displaying…,” respectively.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is similarly objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-7 and 15-17 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.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant claims: “displaying a list of incidents….” The examiner notes that it is unclear if this “list of incidents” is the “list of faults” as claimed in claim 1. Specifically, the examiner notes that Applicant’s specification does not necessarily draw a distinction between a “fault” and an “incident,” and the terms appear to be used interchangeably. For the sake of examination, the examiner is interpreting the “list of faults” and the “list of incidents” to be the same list.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is similarly rejected. Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on their rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinyavskiy (US 20180215039 A1), hereafter Sinyavskiy, in view of Williams (US 20180361583 A1), hereafter Williams, and further in view of King (US 20210393097 A1), hereafter King.
Regarding claim 1, Williams discloses a computer-implemented method for providing an incident notification for a cleaning apparatus, the method comprising the steps of:
Detecting a fault at the cleaning apparatus (0047, Fig. 1, Block 104 includes an detecting an error and/or assist event during the performance of the task);
In response to the detected fault, placing the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus in a transition state wherein all active cleaning components are deactivated (0085, if robot 200 detects an obstacle, robot 200 can stop, if robot 200 determines there is no other course of action that robot 200 determines robot 200 can take, robot 200 can stay in a stopped position, and robot 200 can detect an error and/or assist event if, for example, the obstacle persists, 0086, robot being stopped includes stopping performance of a task, stopping can include activating an actuator to lift the brush deck and/or stopping the brush from revolving);
Performing a self-diagnostic check without user intervention (0120, Fig. 5, block 510 can include a recovery by robot 200, robot 200 can reboot, calibrate, relocalize, and/or perform processes to reset errors in the workings of the robot);
Displaying an incident notification screen via a graphical user interface (GUI) (0096, Figs. 6A-6C, Display 600 shows that an assist is needed, 0099, panel 612 can display a direction for an operator, 0129, Fig. 10, block 1008 includes displaying on the user interface an assist view comprising an alert indicative at least in part of the detected obstacle and one or more selectable positions of the robot), the screen comprising:
A list of detected faults (0097-0098, Display 600 can have panel 602, which displays that an assist is needed. Panel 602 can also be used to display other text, such as “error detected,” “assist requested,” and/or other text indicative at least in part of an error and/or assist event… Panel 614 can display further clarification of why there is an error and/or assist event. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 6A, panel 614 indicates that robot 200 is off path and that the path has an obstacle. A person having ordinary skill in the art, given the contents of the present disclosure, would appreciate that panel 614 can display any text indicative at least in part of the error and/or assist event that has occurred. For example, panel 614 can display information indicative at least in part of fatal errors, internal errors, failure of the robot to proceed with tasks, a robot getting stuck, and/or any other event that can give rise to an error and/or assist event.); and
Contextual menu options based on the detected fault types (0099, Panel 612 can display a direction for an operator and/or any other user. In some cases, the direction can be contextual based at least in part on the error and/or assist event.);
Receiving user input selecting one of the menu options (0099, button can be a digital button and/or other input mechanism to robot 200, such as input through user interface unit 318, 0129, Fig. 10, block 1010 includes receiving through the interface a selected one of the one or more selectable positions of the robot);
Executing, via a processor, instructions corresponding to the user-selected option (0129, Fig. 10, Block 1010 includes receiving through the user interface a selected one of the one or more selectable positions of the robot. Block 1012 includes actuating the actuators based at least in part on a selected one of the one or more selectable positions); and
Resuming operation of the cleaning apparatus only upon verification that all detected faults are resolved (0113, Fig. 5, if robot 200 determines that the error and/or assist event has been resolved, robot 200 can continue operation 0129, Fig. 10, after the actuators are actuated, a task substantially similar to the first robotic task is performed).
Sinyavskiy fails to explicitly disclose, however, wherein the cleaning apparatus is a semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus.
Williams, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the cleaning apparatus is a semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus (0056, functions of the robotic platform 100 may be automatic where the robotic platform 100 performs some aspect of the function without user support, assisted where the robotic platform 100 performs some aspect of the function but with user support, or manual where the robot platform 100 returns to the service robot resource facility 110 for user execution of the function).
Sinyavskiy and Williams are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., cleaning device control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the semi-autonomous device of Williams in order to provide a means of expanding the capabilities of the cleaning device. The motivation to combine is to allow the cleaning device to be able to perform a greater amount of functions, including those that might require the assistance of a user.
The combination of Sinyavskiy and Williams fails to teach, however, wherein each fault is linked via a fault-specific hyperlink to a locally stored contextual help video configured to assist in fault resolution.
King, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein each fault is linked via a fault-specific hyperlink to a locally stored contextual help video configured to assist in fault resolution (0087, As discussed above, the controller 101 displays information to the user on the screen 100. More particularly, it displays video instructions for normal operation of the vacuum cleaner 2 and video instructions for problem-solving when the vacuum cleaner 2 has a fault.).
Sinyavskiy, Williams, and King are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., cleaning device fault resolution systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the locally stored instructional videos of King in order to provide a more streamlined means of instructing a user to clear a fault. The motivation to combine is to ensure that a user is better able to clear a fault condition.
Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sinyavskiy, Williams, and King teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Williams teaches it further comprising the step of detecting whether the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus is operating in an automatic or a manual mode (0056, functions of the robotic platform 100 may be automatic where the robotic platform 100 performs some aspect of the function without user support, assisted where the robotic platform 100 performs some aspect of the function but with user support, or manual where the robot platform 100 returns to the service robot resource facility 110 for user execution of the function).
Sinyavskiy, Williams, and King are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., cleaning device control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the mode detection of Williams in order to provide a means of determining the capabilities of the cleaning device. The motivation to combine is to ensure that information relevant to the operation of the cleaning device is able to be relayed properly to the user (see at least 0056 of Williams).
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sinyavskiy, Williams, and King teaches the system of claim 10, and Sinyavskiy teaches it further comprising a wireless receiver and transmitter to support cellular or Wi-Fi communication (0067, communications unit can include one or more receivers, transmitters, and/or transceivers, can be configured to send/receive a transmission protocol, including wi-fi).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sinyavskiy, Williams, and King teaches the system of claim 10, and Sinyavskiy further teaches wherein the display screen further comprises a dashboard configured to manage simultaneous faults in a single screen (0097, display 600 can have panel 602, which displays that an assist is needed, can also be used to display other text, such as “error detected,” Fig. 6A, assist screen indicating that “robot is off path” and “path has obstacle”).
Claims 3, 4, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinyavskiy in view of Williams and King, and further in view of Kim (US 20160144512 A1), hereafter Kim.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sinyavskiy, Williams, and King teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but fail to explicitly teach it further comprising the step of displaying a message that a diagnostic check is in progress.
Kim, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach displaying a message that a diagnostic check is in progress (0037, when performing the diagnosis and auto-correction, the output unit 400 may output a voice message, or display a message on the screen).
Sinyavskiy, Williams, King, and Kim are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., cleaning device control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the diagnostic message of Kim in order to provide a means for a user to monitor the status of the robot. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the user is better able to determine the operating status of the robot.
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sinyavskiy, Williams, King, and Kim teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 3, and Kim further teaches wherein the message for the diagnostic check displays a message that a self-health check is in progress (0037, when performing the diagnosis and auto-correction, the output unit 400 may output a voice message, or display a message on the screen).
Sinyavskiy, Williams, King, and Kim are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., cleaning device control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the diagnostic message of Kim in order to provide a means for a user to monitor the status of the robot. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the user is better able to determine the operating status of the robot.
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinyavskiy in view of Williams and King, and further in view of Han (US 20180373242 A1), hereafter Han.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sinyavskiy, Williams, and King teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Williams further teaches wherein the menu options further comprises:
Displaying a list of incidents (0096, Fig. 21, tool change required screen 2100, Examiner's note: the examiner is interpreting the indication that a tool needs to be changed as an "incident," as it is an instance where the robot would both send an alert/indication and would require intervention);
Displaying instructions for each incident (0096, Fig. 22, alert screen 2300, Examiner's note: the examiner is interpreting the indication that a tool needs to be changed as an "incident," as it is an instance where the robot would both send an alert/indication and would require intervention);
In auto mode, displaying "cancel cleaning" and "resume cleaning" buttons or "cancel" and "resume" buttons (Fig. 20, screen having cancel and resume buttons); and
Displaying a "manual drive" button (0097, Fig. 32, manual control screen 3200 provided to initiate or cancel manual control of the platform).
Sinyavskiy, Williams, and King are analogous because they in a similar field of endeavor e.g., cleaning device control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the menu options of Williams in order to provide specific means of interacting with the cleaning device. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the cleaning device is able to display information relevant to its operation
The combination of Sinyavskiy, Williams, and King fails to explicitly teach, however, in manual mode, displaying a "back" or "hide" button.
Han, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach, in manual mode, displaying a "back" or "hide" button (0205, Referring to FIG. 9, a “home screen” icon 190a and a “previous screen” icon 190b for returning to the previous screen may be displayed at the top of the remote device UI 110 according to one embodiment. That is, when the “previous screen” icon 190b is selected, the screen may be switched back to the previous screen.).
Sinyavskiy, Williams, King, and Han are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., cleaning device control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the back button of Han in order to provide a means of returning to the initial screen. The motivation to combine is to allow the user to better control the operation of the robot.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sinyavskiy, Williams, King, and Han teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 5, and Williams further teaches wherein if the “manual drive” option is selected, the apparatus displays the gear shifter icon and allows manual drive (0097, Fig. 32, manual control screen 3200 provided to initiate or cancel manual control of the platform).
Sinyavskiy, Williams, King, and Han are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., cleaning device control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the back button of Han in order to provide a means of returning to the initial screen. The motivation to combine is to allow the user to better control the operation of the robot.
The combination of Sinyavskiy, Williams, King and Han fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the apparatus then returns to the fault screen if faults remain. The examiner asserts, however, that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to have returned to the fault screen, as to do so would have been obvious to try. Specifically, the examiner asserts that there is both a design need (i.e., to view the fault screen) as well as a finite number of solutions (returning to the fault screen automatically or manually).
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinyavskiy in view of Williams, King, and Han, and further in view of Fisher (US 20170355081 A1), hereafter Fisher.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sinyavskiy, Williams, King, and Han teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 5, but fails to explicitly teach wherein if the "resume cleaning" option is selected, the apparatus checks to see if the faults are still active and returns to the fault screen if faults remain.
Kim, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein if the "resume cleaning" option is selected, the apparatus checks to see if the faults are still active (0095, option 512 can be an ignore option where the user tells the robot to continue operation and ignore spill 306).
Sinyavskiy, Williams, King, Han, and Fisher are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., cleaning device control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the ignore option of Fisher in order to provide a means of indicating that an incident is irrelevant. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the cleaning device is able to operate to the user’s liking.
The combination of Sinyavskiy, Williams, King, Han, and Fisher fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the apparatus then returns to the fault screen if faults remain. The examiner asserts, however, that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to have returned to the fault screen, as to do so would have been obvious to try. Specifically, the examiner asserts that there is both a design need (i.e., to view the fault screen) as well as a finite number of solutions (returning to the fault screen automatically or manually).
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/BLAKE A WOOD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3658