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 .
Objections to the Abstract
1. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains 263 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Rejections Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 24 and 25 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 57 of copending Application No. 18/444,134. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because elements of claims 1, 24, and 25 of the present application are encompassed by claim 57 of ‘134.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 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 20, 21, and 22 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 particular, each of these claims require a storage unit, which is already present in independent claim 1 from which all these claims depend. It is not clear whether this another storage unit are the same as presented in claim 1.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103
4. 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-17 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Publication (10,125,469) to Hako (cited by Applicant) in view of Japanese Patent Publication (2020098404) to Makishima et al. (cite by Applicant).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hako teaches most of the elements of claim 1 including, a self-propelled and self-steering floor cleaning apparatus (3) for cleaning a floor surface; at least one controllable display unit (not shown);
and at least one storage unit (data memory; See paragraph [0036] of Hako), wherein the floor cleaning apparatus (3) comprises a running gear (chassis; See paragraph [0006] of Hako) for traveling on the floor surface, a control unit (processor; See paragraph [0012] of Hako), a sensor unit (ultrasonic sensor; See paragraph [0030] of Hako),
at least one cleaning unit (a cleaning device; See paragraph [0038] of Hako), and an operating unit (map; See paragraph [0027] of Hako) with surroundings are detectable by means of the sensor unit (ultrasonic sensor; See paragraph [0030] of Hako) in order to locate and/or navigate the floor cleaning apparatus (3),
in particular during movement, wherein at least one cleaning path (first learning path) on the floor surface (1) is storable or stored in the at least one storage unit (data memory; See paragraph [0036] of Hako),
the floor cleaning apparatus (3) is designed and configured to create a cleaning path, which is storable in the storage unit (data memory; See paragraph [0036] of Hako), in a teaching mode of operation (determining a first working area; See claim1 of Hako) while being guided by an operator at the operating unit, and wherein at least one cleaning event (reaching a first obstacle; see claim 1 of Hako) relating to the at least one cleaning unit (cleaning device; See paragraph [0038] of Hako), and/or at least one interaction event relating to an interaction of the floor cleaning apparatus with the surroundings is storable or stored in the cleaning path in a position-specific manner,
Except, Hako is silent regarding at least one controllable display unit and wherein the cleaning path is displayable on the at least one display unit in a manner that is associated with the at least one cleaning event and/or the at least one interaction event. However, Makishima et al. teaches an autonomous vacuum cleaner (1) having a remote a control terminal (5) and a server (4). Makishima et al. teaches a display unit (53) that informs the user of appropriate information (See paragraph [0042] of Makishima et al.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hako with Makishma et al. to include a display on the robot (3) in order to inform the user of appropriate information.
Regarding claim 2, Hako as modified with Makishma et al. teaches that the cleaning path (first learning path) is displayable on the at least one display unit (5) while the floor cleaning apparatus (3) is being guided by the operator in the teaching mode of operation. As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hako with Makishma et al. to include a display on the robot (3) in order to inform the user of appropriate information.
Regarding claim 3, Hako as modified with Makishma et al. teaches that the operating unit (map; See paragraph [0027] of Hako) includes at least one operating element (encountering obtascle) for triggering the at least one cleaning event and/or the at least one interaction event by the operator in the teaching mode of operation (See claim 1 of Hako).
Regarding claim 4, Makishma et al. as modified with Hako teaches a map (map; See paragraph [0027] of Hako) of the surroundings is displayable on the at least one display unit (53), and wherein the cleaning path (see claim 1) is displayable in the map (map; See paragraph [0027] of Hako). As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hako with Makishma et al. to include a display on the robot (3) in order to inform the user of appropriate information.
Regarding claim 5, Hako as modified with Makishma teaches that the at least one cleaning event is at least one of the following: switching on or off a cleaning operation; switching on, switching off, and/or changing the operating state of at least one cleaning unit; switching on, switching off, and/or changing a cleaning mode of the floor cleaning apparatus (See claim 1 of Hako); setting a dosing of a cleaning liquid and/or of a cleaning chemical; setting and/or changing a traveling speed of the floor cleaning apparatus on the floor surface, in particular during cleaning of the floor surface.
Regarding claim 7, Hako as modified with Makishma et al. teaches that the cleaning path (first learning path) is displayable during and/or upon completion of a cleaning process automatically carried out by the floor cleaning apparatus (3), while covering a previously stored cleaning path. As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hako with Makishma et al. to include a display on the robot (3) in order to inform the user of appropriate information.
Regarding claim 9, Hako as modified with Makishma et al. teaches a previously stored cleaning path (first path) together with the cleaning path (second cleaning path) actually covered during the cleaning process is displayable by the control unit (processor). As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hako with Makishma et al. to include a display on the robot (3) in order to inform the user of appropriate information.
Regarding claim 10, Hako as modified with Makishma et al. teaches any deviations between the cleaning paths are visualizable on the display unit (53). As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hako with Makishma et al. to include a display on the robot (3) in order to inform the user of appropriate information.
Regarding claim 11, Hako as modified with Makishma et al. teaches a match between the actually covered cleaning path (seconde path) and the previously stored cleaning path (first path) is calculable by the control unit (processing unit).
Regarding claim 12, Hako as modified with Makishma et al. teaches that the cleaning path is displayable on the display unit (53) in a manner such that the at least one cleaning event and/or the at least one interaction event is optionally displayable. As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hako with Makishma et al. to include a display on the robot (3) in order to inform the user of appropriate information.
Regarding claim 13, Hako as modified with Makishma et al. teaches the cleaning path (first cleaning path) is displayed on the display unit (53) in a manner such that at least one of the following is highlighted: a section of the cleaning path along which a cleaning operation is or was performed; a section of the cleaning path along which at least one cleaning unit is or was in operation.) As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hako with Makishma et al. to include a display on the robot (3) in order to inform the user of appropriate information.
Regarding claim 14, Hako as modified with Makishma et al. teaches the cleaning path is displayable on the display unit (53) in a manner such that a region of the floor surface (1) covered by the at least one cleaning unit (53) is highlighted. As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hako with Makishma et al. to include a display on the robot (3) in order to inform the user of appropriate information.
Regarding claim 15, Hako as modified with Makishma et al. teaches that at least one display unit (53) is a touch-sensitive display unit. As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hako with Makishma et al. to include a display on the robot (3) in order to inform the user of appropriate information.
Regarding claim 16, Hako as modified with Makishma et al. teaches that the cleaning path (first path) is displayable on the display unit (53) in an enlarged and/or reduced manner (controllable either way). As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hako with Makishma et al. to include a display on the robot (3) in order to inform the user of appropriate information.
Regarding claim 17, Hako as modified with Makishma et al. teaches that the floor cleaning apparatus (3) includes at least one display unit (53). As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hako with Makishma et al. to include a display on the robot (3) in order to inform the user of appropriate information.
Regarding claim 23, Hako as modified with Makishma et al. teaches that the floor cleaning apparatus (3) is designed as a scrubber vacuum (See claim of Hako).
Regarding independent claim 24, Hako teaches most of the elements of claim 24including, a running gear (chassis; See paragraph [0006] of Hako) for traveling on the floor surface, a control unit (processor; See paragraph [0012] of Hako), a sensor unit (ultrasonic sensor; See paragraph [0030] of Hako),
at least one cleaning unit (a cleaning device; See paragraph [0038] of Hako), and an operating unit (map; See paragraph [0027] of Hako) with surroundings are detectable by means of the sensor unit (ultrasonic sensor; See paragraph [0030] of Hako) in order to locate and/or navigate the floor cleaning apparatus (3),
in particular during movement, wherein at least one cleaning path (first learning path) on the floor surface (1) is storable or stored in the at least one storage unit (data memory; See paragraph [0036] of Hako),
the floor cleaning apparatus (3) is designed and configured to create a cleaning path, which is storable in the storage unit (data memory; See paragraph [0036] of Hako), in a teaching mode of operation (determining a first working area; See claim1 of Hako) while being guided by an operator at the operating unit, and wherein at least one cleaning event (reaching a first obstacle; see claim 1 of Hako) relating to the at least one cleaning unit (cleaning device; See paragraph [0038] of Hako), and/or at least one interaction event relating to an interaction of the floor cleaning apparatus with the surroundings is storable or stored in the cleaning path in a position-specific manner,
Except, Hako is silent regarding at least one controllable display unit and wherein the cleaning path is displayable on the at least one display unit in a manner that is associated with the at least one cleaning event and/or the at least one interaction event. However, Makishima et al. teaches an autonomous vacuum cleaner (1) having a remote a control terminal (5) and a server (4). Makishima et al. teaches a display unit (53) that informs the user of appropriate information (See paragraph [0042] of Makishima et al.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hako with Makishma et al. to include a display on the robot (3) in order to inform the user of appropriate information.
Regarding independent claim 25, Hako teaches most of the elements of claim 25 including, a self-propelled and self-steering floor cleaning apparatus (3) for cleaning a floor surface; at least one controllable display unit (not shown);
and at least one storage unit (data memory; See paragraph [0036] of Hako), wherein the floor cleaning apparatus (3) comprises a running gear (chassis; See paragraph [0006] of Hako) for traveling on the floor surface, a control unit (processor; See paragraph [0012] of Hako), a sensor unit (ultrasonic sensor; See paragraph [0030] of Hako),
at least one cleaning unit (a cleaning device; See paragraph [0038] of Hako), and an operating unit (map; See paragraph [0027] of Hako) with surroundings are detectable by means of the sensor unit (ultrasonic sensor; See paragraph [0030] of Hako) in order to locate and/or navigate the floor cleaning apparatus (3),
in particular during movement, wherein at least one cleaning path (first learning path) on the floor surface (1) is storable or stored in the at least one storage unit (data memory; See paragraph [0036] of Hako),
the floor cleaning apparatus (3) is designed and configured to create a cleaning path, which is storable in the storage unit (data memory; See paragraph [0036] of Hako), in a teaching mode of operation (determining a first working area; See claim1 of Hako) while being guided by an operator at the operating unit, and wherein at least one cleaning event (reaching a first obstacle; see claim 1 of Hako) relating to the at least one cleaning unit (cleaning device; See paragraph [0038] of Hako), and/or at least one interaction event relating to an interaction of the floor cleaning apparatus with the surroundings is storable or stored in the cleaning path in a position-specific manner,
Except, Hako is silent regarding at least one controllable display unit and wherein the cleaning path is displayable on the at least one display unit in a manner that is associated with the at least one cleaning event and/or the at least one interaction event. However, Makishima et al. teaches an autonomous vacuum cleaner (1) having a remote a control terminal (5) and a server (4). Makishima et al. teaches a display unit (53) that informs the user of appropriate information (See paragraph [0042] of Makishima et al.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hako with Makishma et al. to include a display on the robot (3) in order to inform the user of appropriate information.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 6, 8, 18 and 19 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.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D. JENNINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30pm. EST.
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, Monica S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
MICHAEL DEANGILO. JENNINGS
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MICHAEL D JENNINGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723