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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A2 and B2 in the reply filed on February 17, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the restriction requirement have been considered but are moot based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claims 1-18 will be examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN111060129A to Hu et al. (see machine translation) in view of JPH11-102220A to Nukutsuma et al. (see machine translation).
As to claims 1 and 12, Hu discloses a floor material recognition method for an autonomous mobile device comprising instructing the autonomous mobile device to rotate at the same location for a predetermined rotation angle; determining that the floor material is a high-resistance material when the an absolute value of a difference between the actual rotation angle and the predetermined rotation angle is greater than a first predetermined angle difference (see Hu paragraphs [0007]-[0010] and [0031]-[0032]).
Hu does not explicitly disclose obtaining an actual rotation angle of the autonomous device and comparing the actual rotation angle with the predetermined rotation angle to determine the floor material. Nukutsuma discloses a similar floor recognition method wherein the actual rotation angle is compared with the predetermined rotation angle (see Nukutsuma paragraph [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the actual rotation angle and comparing it with the predetermined rotation angle as disclosed by Nukutsuma and the results would have been predictable (use of rotational angles to determine the floor surface type and better control the autonomous mobile device) (see Nukutsuma paragraphs [0003] and [0007]). Furthermore, with respect to the transmission of control instructions including commands instructing the autonomous device and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable program instructions, which when executed by a processor of an autonomous mobile device causes the processor to perform the method, said use of control instructions and transmission of the control instructions and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are well known in the art and does not provide patentable significance (see, e.g., Nukutsuma paragraphs [0007]-[0008], [0018]-[0019] disclosing the use of a control unit, composed of a CPU and the like and a memory for storing programs, to control the robot using control instructions).
As to claims 2 and 13, since the combination of Hu and Nukutsuma discloses that high-resistance material is determined when the an absolute value of a difference between the actual rotation angle and the predetermined rotation angle is greater than a first predetermined angle difference, it would have been obvious that the converse would be true that when the actual rotation angle is smaller than the predetermined rotation angle and the absolute value of the difference between the actual rotation angle and the predetermined rotation angle is smaller than the first predetermined angle difference.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN111060129A to Hu et al. (see machine translation) in view of JPH11-102220A to Nukutsuma et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 2, 12 and 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0047141 to Xu et al.
Hu and Nukutsuma are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 12 and 13.
As to claims 6, 7, 17 and 18, the combination of Hu and Nukutsuma does not explicitly disclose based on a determination that the floor material is a high-resistance material, shutting off a wet-mopping function or disabling start of the wet-mopping function and raising a mopping plate, or based on a determination that the floor material is the low-resistance material, starting or allowing start of a wet-mopping function. Xu discloses that it is known in the art to start mopping on a floor surface and stopping the mopping function when on carpet (see Xu paragraph [0134]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to stop mopping when on carpet as disclosed by Xu in order to ensure that the carpet is not wetted by the mop (see Xu paragraph [0134]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 are allowed.
Claims 3-5 and 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is CN111060129A to Hu et al., JPH11-102220A to Nukutsuma and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0047141 to Xu et al.
Hu, Nukutsuma and Xu are discussed in the above rejections to claims 1, 2, 12 and 13. The cited prior art does not disclose that based on a determination that the floor material is the high-resistance material, configuring a set velocity of the autonomous mobile device as: Vset=K×Vtarget, wherein, Vset is the set velocity, Vtarget is a target velocity, K is a coefficient, and K>1, wherein the target velocity is a moving velocity for the autonomous mobile device to reach when moving on a floor as required by the control instructions, wherein the set velocity is a velocity for a motion assembly of the autonomous mobile device to reach, as required by the control instructions, in order for the autonomous mobile device to reach the target velocity.
No other prior art that anticipates or suggests fairly the instant claims has been located as of the date of this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714