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: “self-steering floor cleaning apparatus” in Claims 1-31, “cleaning device” in Claim 1, “control device” in Claim 1, “sensor device” in Claims 1, 6, 13, 15, 17, 22, and 27, “first distance measuring unit” in Claims 1, 5-7, 10-14, 21, 29, and 30, “stereo camera system” in Claims 1, 8, and 20, “second distance measuring unit” in Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 21, and 29, “scanning unit” in Claims 1, 2, 13, 15, and 16, “laser scanning unit” in Claim 2, “multi-layer scanning unit” in Claim 2, “radar scanning unit” in Claim 2, “third distance measuring unit” in Claims 6-12, “fourth distance measuring unit” in Claims 13 and 14, “further distance measuring unit” in Claims 15 and 17-21, “ultrasound measuring unit” in Claims 22-26, “time-of-flight (TOF) distance measuring unit” in Claim 27, “connecting element” in Claims 28-31, “floor cleaning system” in Claim 31, and “consumption component” in Claims 28 and 31.
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
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.
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, 2, 4, 5, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanaoka et al. US 2015/0362921 (hereafter Hanaoka et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Hanaoka et al. anticipates:
1. Self-propelled and self-steering floor cleaning apparatus (cleaning robot 1) comprising a running gear for traveling on the floor surface (using two drive wheels 2), at least one cleaning device (cleaning brush 9) for cleaning the floor surface, a control device (calculation device 30), and a sensor device (distance image sensor 20 and laser range finder 22), wherein the control device is formed and configured to locate and/or navigate the floor cleaning apparatus in an environment depending on at least one signal from the sensor device, wherein the sensor device comprises on a front side of the floor cleaning apparatus with respect to its forward direction (best shown in Figure 1(b)), a first distance measuring unit (distance image sensor 20), which is configured as or comprises a stereo camera system (stereo camera, Paragraph [0097]), and a second distance measuring unit (laser range finder 22), which is configured as or comprises a scanning unit with structured light (laser), wherein viewing areas of the first distance measuring unit and of the second distance measuring unit are directed in the forward direction of the floor cleaning apparatus and overlap (shown in Figure 3(a) and 3(b)), and wherein the second distance measuring unit is arranged with respect to a height direction above the first distance measuring unit on the floor cleaning apparatus (shown in Figure 3(b)).
Regarding Claim 2, Hanaoka et al. anticipates:
2. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 1, wherein the scanning unit (laser range finder 22) is a laser scanning unit or a radar scanning unit (uses laser to scan area in front of device).
Regarding Claim 4, Hanaoka et al. anticipates:
4. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 1, wherein a viewing plane of the second distance measuring unit is directed obliquely downward onto the floor surface and/or wherein a viewing plane of the second distance measuring unit (laser range finder 22) is oriented parallel to the floor surface (as shown in Figure 3(b)).
Regarding Claim 5, Hanaoka et al. anticipates:
5. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 1, wherein at least one optical axis of the first distance measuring unit is aligned parallel to the floor surface and/or wherein a viewing plane of the first distance measuring unit (distance image sensor 20) is oriented parallel to the floor surface (“In the case of the distance image sensor 20 used in the first embodiment, the horizontal field angle is about 70 deg and the vertical field angle is about 55 deg. Field of view projected on the floor surface F in the range of trapezoidal AS BS CS DS in FIG. 3 (a)” – therefore, the viewing plane is parallel to the floor surface as shown in Figure 3(a)) or perpendicular to the floor surface.
Regarding Claim 27, Hanaoka et al. anticipates:
27. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 1, wherein the sensor device (distance image sensor 20 and laser range finder 22) comprises at least one time-of-flight (TOF) distance measuring unit which is arranged on the front side and has a viewing area oriented in the forward direction (“In the first to third embodiments, the distance image sensor 20 of the infrared pattern light projection method is used as the distance sensor used in the surrounding environment recognition device. However, other methods such as a stereo method and a TOF method are used”).
Regarding Claim 28, Hanaoka et al. anticipates:
28. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 1, wherein the floor cleaning apparatus (cleaning robot 1) comprises at least one connecting element (cleaning liquid tank 5) for supplying a consumption component (cleaning liquid) for the floor cleaning apparatus required for carrying out a cleaning task, wherein the at least one connecting element is arranged on the front side (shown in Figure 1b).
Regarding Claim 29, Hanaoka et al. anticipates:
29. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 28, wherein the at least one connecting element (cleaning liquid tank 5) is arranged in the height direction between (shown in Figure 1b) the first distance measuring unit (distance image sensor 20) and the second distance measuring unit (laser range finder 22).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanaoka et al. US 2015/0362921 (hereafter Hanaoka et al.) in view of Kato et al. WO 2018212294 A1 (hereafter Kato et al.).
Regarding Claim 3, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
3. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 1, wherein the scanning unit (laser range finder 22) is a multi-layer scanning unit which is formed to emit structured light in a plurality of different viewing planes (see discussion below).
Hanaoka et al. discloses the use of a laser range finder 22 to emit structured light with an angular field of view and detect objects by light reflection. Unfortunately, Hanaoka et al. does not specifically describe how the laser range finder 22 actually operates. The reference Kato et al. discloses a laser scanning LIDAR that scans an angular field of view by breaking the field into a plurality of vertical planes as shown in Figure 8(A) to measure obstacle distance and shape. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the laser range finder 22 on the Hanaoka et al. device to employ the technique of breaking the field into a plurality of vertical planes as taught by Kato et al. with the motivation to improve the scanning of object heights for navigational decision-making.
Claims 6-21 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanaoka et al. US 2015/0362921 (hereafter Hanaoka et al.) in view of Shen et al. CN 212569543 U (hereafter Shen et al.).
Regarding Claim 6, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
6. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 1, wherein the sensor device (distance image sensor 20 and laser range finder 22) comprises a third distance measuring unit (second distance image sensor 20. Alternately a second laser range finder 22 – see note below) on the front side which comprises a viewing area oriented in the forward direction and overlapping with the viewing area of the first distance measuring unit and/or with the viewing area of the second distance measuring unit (laser range finder 22)(Note: “The arrangement and the number of the distance image sensor 20 and the laser range finder 22 are not limited to the above, and a plurality of the distance image sensor 20 and the laser range finder 22 may be arranged side by side” – therefore, a second distance image sensor 20, resulting in a third sensor, is a disclosed embodiment).
Hanaoka et al. discloses a robot with obstacle avoidance with the use of a plurality of distance image sensors 20 and laser range finders 22 arranged “side by side”. However, Hanaoka et al. does not specifically show an embodiment where the plurality are located on the robot cleaner body. The reference Shen et al. discloses a robot with obstacle avoidance with the use of a plurality of laser scanning devices 30 arranged side by side. In Figure 6, Shen et al. discloses a top view of the device with an arrangement of laser scanning devices on the front, back, left and right sides of the robot allowing simultaneous obstacle detection in all directions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Hanaoka et al. device to include distance image sensors 20 and laser range finders 22 arranged side by side on all four sides (front, back, left, and right) of the device as taught by Shen et al. with the motivation to allow for simultaneous obstacle detection.
Regarding Claim 7, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
7. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 6, wherein the third distance measuring unit (second distance image sensor 20 – see note below) is arranged, with respect to the height direction, below the second distance measuring unit (laser range finder 22) and/or above the first distance measuring unit (distance image sensor 20).
Hanaoka et al. discloses “The arrangement and the number of the distance image sensor 20 and the laser range finder 22 are not limited to the above, and a plurality of the distance image sensor 20 and the laser range finder 22 may be arranged side by side”. Shen et al. discloses a top view of the device with an arrangement of laser scanning devices on the front, back, left and right sides of the robot allowing simultaneous obstacle detection in all directions. Therefore, the arrangement and number of the distance image sensors 20 and laser range finders 22 are not limited to the embodiments. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a desired number and locations of the sensors on the housing. Therefore, arranging the third distance measuring unit which can be either a second distance image sensor 20 or alternately a second laser range finder 22 below the cited second distance measuring unit or above the cited first distance measuring unit would merely be an obvious design choice to achieve a desired obstacle detection surrounding the device. For example, obstacle detection to the sides of the device, therefore not in the direct direction of motion, could obviously require a different positioning/angular setting since they are less critical to device movement.
Regarding Claim 8, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
8. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 6, wherein the third distance measuring unit (second distance image sensor 20) is configured as a stereo camera system (stereo cameras).
Regarding Claim 9, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
9. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 6, wherein at least one optical axis of the third distance measuring unit (Claim 6 alternate - laser range finder 22) is aligned parallel to the floor surface (shown in Figure 1b) and/or wherein a viewing plane of the third distance measuring unit is oriented perpendicular to the floor surface or parallel to the floor surface (shown in Figure 1b).
Regarding Claim 10, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
10. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 6, wherein the first distance measuring unit (distance image sensor 20) and the third distance measuring unit (second distance image sensor 20) each comprise a stereo base (stereo cameras), wherein the stereo bases forms an angle relative to one another of 450 or more, 900 or substantially 900 (when modified as taught by Shen et al. – see Claim 6 – to locate the third distance measuring unit on a right or left side relative to the front creating substantially a 900 angle).
Regarding Claim 11, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
11. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 6, wherein the first distance measuring unit (distance image sensor 20) and the third distance measuring unit (second distance image sensor 20) have a T-arrangement or an arrangement of an inverted T in the viewing direction toward the front side (when modified as taught by Shen et al. – see Claim 6 – to locate the third distance measuring unit on a right or left side relative to the front creating an inverted T in the view direction because of a substantially a 900 angle).
Regarding Claim 12, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
12. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 6, wherein a viewing plane of the first distance measuring unit (distance image sensor 20) or a viewing plane of the third distance measuring unit coincides with a central longitudinal plane (located on the centerline of the device) of the floor cleaning apparatus (cleaning robot 1)(shown in Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 13, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
13. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 6, wherein the sensor device (distance image sensor 20 and laser range finder 22) on the front side comprises a fourth distance measuring unit (second laser range finder 22 – see note below), which fourth distance measuring unit is arranged below the first distance measuring unit (distance image sensor 20) with respect to the height direction (shown in Figure 3(b)), and is configured as or comprises a scanning unit with structured light (laser), wherein a viewing area of the fourth distance measuring unit overlaps with a viewing area of the first distance measuring unit (distance image sensor 20) and/or a viewing area of the second distance measuring unit (Note: “The arrangement and the number of the distance image sensor 20 and the laser range finder 22 are not limited to the above, and a plurality of the distance image sensor 20 and the laser range finder 22 may be arranged side by side”)(also taught by Shen et al. as discussed in Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 14, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
14. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 13, wherein, with respect to the height direction, a distance of the first distance measuring unit (distance image sensor 20) from the second distance measuring unit (laser range finder 22) is approximately equal to a distance of the first distance measuring unit from the fourth distance measuring unit (second laser range finder 22).
Regarding Claim 15, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
15. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 13, wherein the sensor device comprises at least one further distance measuring unit (third laser range finder 22 – see note below) which is configured as or comprises a scanning unit with structured light (laser range finder 22), and which is arranged on a rear side of the floor cleaning apparatus (obvious location on the rear side as taught by Shen et al. Figure 6 – see Claim 6 discussion) with respect to the forward direction (Note: “The arrangement and the number of the distance image sensor 20 and the laser range finder 22 are not limited to the above, and a plurality of the distance image sensor 20 and the laser range finder 22 may be arranged side by side”).
Regarding Claim 16, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
16. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 15, wherein the scanning units (laser range finder 22) are arranged on the front side and the rear side (obvious locations on the front/back/right and left sides as taught by Shen et al. Figure 6 – see Claim 6 discussion) diametrically opposite one another on the floor cleaning apparatus, and/or that viewing areas of the scanning units enable a 3600 or substantially 3600 all-round monitoring of the floor cleaning apparatus.
Regarding Claim 17, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
17. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 1, wherein the sensor device (distance image sensor 20 and laser range finder 22) comprises at least one further distance measuring unit (distance image sensor 20 – see note below) which is arranged on the left side or right side of the floor cleaning apparatus (obvious locations on the front/back/right and left sides as taught by Shen et al. Figure 6 – see Claim 6 discussion) with respect to the forward direction and comprises a viewing area which is directed to the left side or to the right side of the floor cleaning apparatus and to the floor surface (Note: “The arrangement and the number of the distance image sensor 20 and the laser range finder 22 are not limited to the above, and a plurality of the distance image sensor 20 and the laser range finder 22 may be arranged side by side”).
Hanaoka et al. discloses a robot with obstacle avoidance with the use of a plurality of distance image sensors 20 and laser range finders 22 arranged “side by side”. However, Hanaoka et al. does not specifically show an embodiment where the plurality are located on the robot cleaner body. The reference Shen et al. discloses a robot with obstacle avoidance with the use of a plurality of laser scanning devices 30 arranged side by side. In Figure 6, Shen et al. discloses a top view of the device with an arrangement of laser scanning devices on the front, back, left and right sides of the robot allowing simultaneous obstacle detection in all directions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Hanaoka et al. device to include distance image sensors 20 and laser range finders 22 arranged side by side on all four sides (front, back, left, and right) of the device as taught by Shen et al. with the motivation to allow for simultaneous obstacle detection.
Regarding Claim 18, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
18. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 17, wherein two further distance measuring units (two additional distance image sensors 20 – see note below) are provided (Note: “The arrangement and the number of the distance image sensor 20 and the laser range finder 22 are not limited to the above, and a plurality of the distance image sensor 20 and the laser range finder 22 may be arranged side by side”).
Regarding Claim 19, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
19. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 18, wherein the two further distance measuring units (two additional distance image sensors 20 – see Claim 18) are formed symmetrically relative to one another with respect to a central longitudinal plane (obvious locations on the front/back/right and left sides as taught by Shen et al. Figure 6 – see Claim 6 discussion) of the floor cleaning apparatus (cleaning robot 1).
Regarding Claim 20, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
20. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 17, wherein the at least one further distance measuring unit (additional distance image sensor 20) is formed as a stereo camera system (stereo camera).
Regarding Claim 21, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
21. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 17, wherein a viewing area of the at least one further distance measuring unit (additional distance image sensor 20) overlaps with a viewing area of the first distance measuring unit (distance image sensor 20) and/or the second distance measuring unit (obvious locations on the front/back/right and left sides show overlapping viewing areas as taught by Shen et al. Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 30, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
30. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 28, wherein at least the first distance measuring unit (distance image sensor 20) is arranged in a sensor region (top region of housing 11 – see discussion below) arranged on the front side (shown in Figures 1a and 1b), and wherein the at least one connecting element (cleaning liquid tank 5) is arranged on the front side in a connection region (region around location of cleaning liquid tank 5 shown in Figure 1a and 1b), wherein the sensor region is arranged offset to the rear relative to the connection region on the front side (see discussion below).
Hanaoka et al. discloses a cleaning liquid tank 5 that would obviously need to be periodically refilled. As shown in Figures 1a and 1b, the cleaning liquid tank is arranged on the front side of the device which provides unobstructed access. Hanaoka et al. elected to offset the cleaning liquid tank to the rear relative to the frontmost distance image sensor 20 as shown.
Hanaoka et al. discloses a robot with obstacle avoidance with the use of a plurality of distance image sensors 20 and laser range finders 22 arranged “side by side”. However, Hanaoka et al. does not specifically show an embodiment where the plurality are located on the robot cleaner body. The reference Shen et al. discloses a robot with obstacle avoidance with the use of a plurality of laser scanning devices 30 arranged side by side. In Figure 6, Shen et al. discloses a top view of the device with an arrangement of laser scanning devices on the front, back, left and right sides of the robot allowing simultaneous obstacle detection in all directions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Hanaoka et al. device to include distance image sensors 20 and laser range finders 22 arranged side by side on all four sides (front, back, left, and right) of the device as taught by Shen et al. with the motivation to allow for simultaneous obstacle detection.
With this obvious modification, the sensor region of the distance image sensor 20 would extend around the perimeter of the top of the device “to the rear of the cited connection region of the cleaning liquid tank 5” with the motivation to allowing multiple distance image sensors 20 to provide substantially 360 degree coverage.
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanaoka et al. US 2015/0362921 (hereafter Hanaoka et al.) in view of Shitamoto et al. US 2013/0116880 (hereafter Shitamoto et al.).
Regarding Claim 22, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
22. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 1, wherein the sensor device (distance image sensor 20 and laser range finder 22) comprises at least one ultrasound measuring unit (see discussion below).
Hanaoka et al. discloses the use of distance image sensor 20 and laser range finder 22 for measuring distances to objects. Shitamoto et al. discloses obstacle sensors such as laser range finder 12, an ultrasonic sensor 13, and a stereo camera 14. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Hanaoka et al. device to include an ultrasonic sensor in addition to, the laser radar sensor with the motivation to perform ultrasonic distance measurements to verify or complement the laser measurements with the motivation to improve measurement accuracy or in an environment where the laser would be less optimal, since Shitamoto et al. discloses that the selection of ultrasonic sensors in combination with laser sensors would merely be a designer’s choice.
Regarding Claim 23, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
23. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 22, wherein an ultrasound measuring unit (taught by Shitamoto et al.) with an ultrasound sensor emitting in the forward direction is arranged on the front side (it would have been obvious that an ultrasonic sensor, in view of Shitamoto et al., would have been mounted in the forward direction as shown in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 24, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
24. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 22, wherein at least one ultrasound measuring unit (taught by Shitamoto et al.) is provided which comprises two ultrasound sensors arranged next to one another (Hanaoka et al. - “The arrangement and the number of the distance image sensor 20 and the laser range finder 22 are not limited to the above, and a plurality of the distance image sensor 20 and the laser range finder 22 may be arranged side by side”)(see discussion below).
As presented in Claim 22, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Hanaoka et al. device to include multiple ultrasonic sensors as taught by Shitamoto et al. That being said, it would have additionally been obvious to add a plurality of ultrasonic sensors in the embodiment where more than one sensor is arranged next to one another.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanaoka et al. US 2015/0362921 (hereafter Hanaoka et al.) in view of Shitamoto et al. US 2013/0116880 (hereafter Shitamoto et al.) as presented in Claim 22 in further view of Shen et al. CN 212569543 U (hereafter Shen et al.).
Regarding Claim 25, Hanaoka et al. in view of Shitamoto et al. teaches:
25. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 22, wherein ultrasound measuring units (taught by Shitamoto et al.) are arranged on the front side and/or on a left side and/or on the right side of the floor cleaning apparatus (obvious location on the rear side as taught by Shen et al. Figure 6 – see discussion below), in the region of front side wall portions of the floor cleaning apparatus and/or on a rear side of the floor cleaning apparatus (obvious location on the rear side as taught by Shen et al. Figure 6 – see Claim 6 discussion).
Hanaoka et al. discloses a robot with obstacle avoidance with the use of a plurality of distance image sensors 20 and laser range finders 22 arranged “side by side”. However, Hanaoka et al. does not specifically show an embodiment where the plurality are located on the robot cleaner body. As presented in Claim 22, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include multiple ultrasonic sensors as taught by Shitamoto et al. That being said, it would have additionally been obvious to add a plurality of ultrasonic sensors in the embodiment where more than one sensor is arranged next to one another.
The reference Shen et al. discloses a robot with obstacle avoidance with the use of a plurality of laser scanning devices 30 arranged side by side. In Figure 6, Shen et al. discloses a top view of the device with an arrangement of laser scanning devices on the front, back, left and right sides of the robot allowing simultaneous obstacle detection in all directions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined Hanaoka et al./ Shitamoto et al. device to include ultrasonic sensors arranged side by side on all four sides (front, back, left, and right) of the device as taught by Shen et al. with the motivation to allow for simultaneous obstacle detection.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanaoka et al. US 2015/0362921 (hereafter Hanaoka et al.) in view of Shitamoto et al. US 2013/0116880 (hereafter Shitamoto et al.) as presented in Claim 22 in further view of Song et al. US 2002/0091466 (hereafter Song et al.).
Regarding Claim 26, Hanaoka et al. in view of Shitamoto et al. teaches:
26. Floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 22, wherein emission directions of ultrasound sensors (taught by Shitamoto et al.) of the at least one ultrasound measuring unit are oriented obliquely upward away from the floor surface (see discussion below).
As presented in Claim 22, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Hanaoka et al. device to include multiple ultrasonic sensors as taught by Shitamoto et al. That being said, it would have additionally been obvious to add a plurality of ultrasonic sensors in the embodiment where more than one sensor is arranged next to one another.
That being said, the reference Song et al. discloses, in the Abstract, a sensor directed upward toward the ceiling of a room to identify a base mark to establish it position. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined Hanaoka et al. and Shitamoto et al. device to include an ultrasonic sensor directed upward toward the ceiling of a room to identify a base mark if the robot cleaner is operated in an environment where the obstacles are frequently moved or changed making it challenging for the onboard navigation to determine its location based on previously stored data.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanaoka et al. US 2015/0362921 (hereafter Hanaoka et al.) as presented in Claim 28 in view of Knutson et al. US 2020/0288936 (hereafter Knutson et al.).
Regarding Claim 31, Hanaoka et al. teaches:
31. Floor cleaning system comprising a floor cleaning apparatus in accordance with Claim 28, and a docking station (see discussion below) for this purpose, comprising at least one connecting element (cleaning liquid tank 5) for supplying a consumption component (cleaning liquid) for the floor cleaning apparatus, wherein, in a docking position of the floor cleaning apparatus at the docking station, the at least one connecting element of the floor cleaning apparatus and the at least one connecting element of the docking station couple to one another (see discussion below).
Hanaoka et al. discloses a cleaning robot 1 with a cleaning liquid tank 5 that would obviously need to be periodically refilled. Hanaoka et al. does not disclose a docking station that would allow for an autonomous refill operation. The reference Knutson et al. discloses, in Paragraph [0072], a robotic floor cleaning machine 10 that can park itself on a docking station that can be configured autonomously fill the solution tank, drain recovery tank, recharge the battery, and perform several other maintenance or diagnostic procedures without user interaction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Hanaoka et al. device to connect with and include a docking station configured to supply cleaning liquid as taught by Knutson et al. with the motivation to eliminate the reliance on a user to periodically perform those operations.
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 automated robots 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
Prosecution Insights