Ing 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/22/2024 and 3/12/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 9 of claim 1 currently reads “classification of a detected obstacle”, examiner assumes this should read “classification of the detected obstacle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Similarly, claim 23 is also objected to because of the following informalities: Line 10 of claim 23 currently reads “classification of a detected obstacle”, examiner assumes this should read “classification of the detected obstacle”. Appropriate correction is required.
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” or “step” 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: means of evasive movements” in claim 21.
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 § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12, 16-19, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. [Kim] (US PGPub 2019/0332119).
As to claim 1
Kim discloses a self-propelled and self-steering floor cleaning apparatus (mobile robot 100, see Fig. 1) comprising at least one functional unit (main body of the mobile robot; see paragraph 0068, lines 2-3) and a control unit (controller 110, see Fig. 2) for controlling at least one functional unit, wherein the at least one functional unit comprises a running gear (travel unit 160, see Fig. 2) for traveling on a floor surface (floor; see paragraph 0070, line 6) (see paragraph 0068, lines 1-7), at least one cleaning tool (cleaning unit 150, see Fig. 2) for cleaning the floor surface (see paragraphs 0069-0071) and a sensor unit (obstacle sensing unit 120, see Fig. 2) for detecting the surroundings of the floor cleaning apparatus (see paragraphs 0073-0078), and wherein the control unit determines, depending on at least one signal of the sensor unit, that an obstacle (obstacles 11,12; see Fig. 1) is located on or at the floor surface (see paragraphs 0088-0090), wherein the control unit classifies (determines type of obstacle and categorizes obstacle types; see paragraph 0093, line 3 and paragraph 0094, lines 1-6) the obstacles with respect to persons (human; see paragraph 0094, line 1) and objects (object; see paragraph 0094, line 2) (see paragraph 0094, lines 1-6), and wherein the control unit controls at least one functional unit depending on the classification of a detected obstacle (see paragraph 0096, lines 1-5 and paragraph 0097, lines 1-6).
As to claim 2
Kim discloses the floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control unit controls the running gear to maintain a predetermined safety distance from the person or increase the existing distance when a person is detected (see paragraph 0097, lines 1-6).
As to claim 3
Kim discloses the floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control unit controls the running gear to reduce a travel speed or stop the floor cleaning apparatus when a person is detected (see paragraph 0097, lines 1-6).
As to claim 4
Kim discloses the floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 3, wherein the control unit controls the running gear to stop for a predetermined duration when a person is detected (see paragraph 0097, lines 1-6).
As to claim 5
Kim discloses the floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein, when an object (object) is detected, the control unit controls the running gear to travel up to the object, at least up to within a maximum distance from the object, with regard to cleaning the floor surface close to the object (see paragraph 0006, lines 1-8).
As to claim 6
Kim discloses the floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the at least one functional unit comprises an indicator unit (input unit 171/display unit 172/speaker 173, see Fig. 2) having at least one visual and/or acoustic actuator, and wherein the control unit controls the indicator unit, to provide at least one indicator when the person is detected (see paragraphs 0064-0067).
As to claim 7
Kim discloses the floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 6, wherein the at least one indicator is indicative of a person being detected (see paragraph 0094, lines 1-2 and paragraph 0096, lines 1-9).
As to claim 8
Kim discloses the floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control unit controls at least one cleaning tool for reducing the power when the person is detected (see paragraphs 0196 and 0197).
As to claim 9
Kim discloses the floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 8, wherein the control unit, in particular when the running gear is at a standstill, switches off the cleaning tool or temporarily deactivates its operation (see paragraph 0097, lines 1-3).
As to claim 10
Kim discloses the floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control unit determines, depending on the at least one signal of the sensor unit, whether the obstacle is static or moving relative to the floor surface, and wherein the control unit controls at least one functional unit depending on whether the obstacle is static or moving (see paragraphs 0197 and 0198).
As to claim 11
Kim discloses the floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the floor cleaning apparatus comprises an operating unit via which the type of control of the at least one functional unit is configurable by an operator depending on the classification of the obstacle and/or a movement of the obstacle (see paragraph 0030, lines 1-5).
As to claim 12
Kim discloses the floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control unit controls the running gear, when a distance from an obstacle which lies within a maximum distance is present, to reduce the travel speed of the floor cleaning apparatus (see paragraph 0081, lines 4-8 and paragraph 0084, lines 1-3).
As to claim 16
Kim discloses the floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the floor cleaning apparatus comprises a storage unit (data unit 130, see Fig. 2), in which at least one travel path to be traveled by the floor cleaning apparatus is stored, and wherein the control unit determines, on the basis of at least one signal of the sensor unit, that the floor cleaning apparatus is not able to follow the travel path due to an obstacle, wherein the control unit controls at least one functional unit in this case to carry out an alternative behavior (see paragraph 0006, lines 1-8; paragraph 0015, lines 1-9; paragraph 0080, lines 1-7; and paragraph 0105, lines 5-8).
As to claim 17
Kim discloses the floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 16, wherein the alternative behavior comprises carrying out an evasive movement, wherein the floor cleaning apparatus preferably heads toward a position on the travel path which is upstream or downstream of the current position on the travel path (see paragraph 0134, lines 4-11).
As to claim 18
Kim discloses the floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 17, wherein the at least one evasive movement comprises at least one of the following:
- traveling away from the obstacle, backward or forward and/or sideways,
- rotating in place away from the obstacle (see paragraph 0097, lines 1-6).
As to claim 19
Kim discloses the floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 16, wherein the alternative behavior comprises providing an indicator via an indicator unit having at least one visual and/or acoustic actuator (see paragraph 0064, lines 1-6 and paragraph 0134, lines 4-11).
As to claim 21
Kim discloses the floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 16, wherein the floor cleaning apparatus comprises a communication unit (communication unit 140, see Fig. 2), which is configured to provide a message to a spatially remote receiver if the floor cleaning apparatus is not able to follow the travel path and/or if the floor cleaning apparatus is not able to free itself from its position by means of evasive movements (see paragraph 0083, lines 1-8).
As to claim 22
Kim discloses the floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 16, wherein the floor cleaning apparatus comprises a communication unit (communication unit 140, see Fig. 2), which is configured to allow a spatially remote operator to enter into a communication connection with the floor cleaning apparatus, with regard to checking the surroundings by the operator and/or freeing the floor cleaning apparatus from its position by the operator (see paragraph 0083, lines 1-8).
As to claim 23
Kim discloses a method for controlling a self-propelled and self-steering floor cleaning apparatus (mobile robot 100, see Fig. 1), comprising:
- detecting, by means of a sensor unit (obstacle sensing unit 120, see Fig. 2), the surroundings of the floor cleaning apparatus, during movement over a floor surface (floor; see paragraph 0070, line 6) (see paragraphs 0073-0078);
- determining, by means of a control unit (controller 110, see Fig. 2), that an obstacle (obstacles 11,12; see Fig. 1) is located on or at the floor surface (see paragraphs 0088-0090);
- classifying (determines type of obstacle and categorizes obstacle types; see paragraph 0093, line 3 and paragraph 0094, lines 1-6), by means of the control unit, obstacles with respect to persons (human; see paragraph 0094, line 1) and objects (object; see paragraph 0094, line 2) (see paragraph 0094, lines 1-6); and
- controlling at least one functional unit (main body of the mobile robot; see paragraph 0068, lines 2-3/travel unit 160 and cleaning unit 150, see Fig. 2) of the floor cleaning apparatus depending on the classification of a detected obstacle (see paragraph 0096, lines 1-5 and paragraph 0097, lines 1-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 and 20 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: Kim, along with any other identified prior art, fails to specifically teach the floor cleaning apparatus, wherein different spatial resolutions of the surroundings of the floor cleaning apparatus are achievable via the sensor unit, wherein the control unit controls the sensor unit, when a distance from an obstacle which is within a maximum distance is present, to increase a spatial resolution of the surroundings (in regards to dependent claim 13). Accordingly, dependent claims 13-15 include allowable subject matter. Similarly, dependent claim 20 includes allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J. Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571)272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael J Brown/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115