DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims dated 11/20/2025 are being examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Recitation of “Bluetooth ®” in the specification:
Applicant has included the registered trademark symbol ® in the specification and the claims. The objections are withdrawn.
Recitation of “Bluetooth ®” in the claims:
MPEP 608.01(v)(I) states:
A mark as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1127 (i.e., trademark, service mark, collective mark, or certification mark) or trade name may be used in a patent application to identify an article or product, service, or organization if:
(A) its meaning is established by an accompanying definition in the specification which is sufficiently descriptive, enabling, precise and definite such that a claim including the mark or trade name complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, or
(B) its meaning is well-known to one skilled in the relevant art and is satisfactorily defined in the literature.
In this case for claims 2, 10, and 18, condition (B) is met. Further, Examiner understands Bluetooth ® is a well-known, industry-standard communication protocol as found in the prior art and cited art in the non-final rejection. The Examiner understands with reasonable clarity what is being claimed, when viewed in light of the specification. If the scope of the claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the aet, then the claim is not indefinite. Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The trademark is not used in claims 2, 10, and 18 to identify a material or product, but to describe, in an industry-standard manner, a communication scheme. Therefore, Examiner finds there is no 112(b) rejection regarding the recitation of Bluetooth ® in the claims.
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended claim recites limitations of identifying distances and locations. The identifying limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of being “based on processing the UWB signals”.
That is, other than reciting the use of UWB, nothing in the claim element precludes the identifying step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the use of UWB, the claim encompasses a person using triangulation in a 2D plane to determine a location. Using triangulation to determine a location is generally considered an abstract idea. The mere nominal recitation of the hardware used, UWB, does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping, especially given that when evaluated under Step 2A and 2B, the hardware used (communication protocol(s) and UWB sensor(s)) is well-known, routine, and conventional.
The Examiner suggests to incorporate amended claim 8 to overcome the 101 rejections, as these claimed steps integrate the identifying limitations into a practical application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are objected to because of the following informality: After the first recitation of “based on processing UWB signals”, the subsequent recitations should be “based on processing the UWB signals”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 is objected to because of the following informality: The last paragraph “accuracy” is suggested to be “an accuracy”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informality: “wherein the method further comprising” should be “wherein the method further comprises”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 11, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 3 will be used as the representative claim as claims 11 and 18 are similar. Claim 1 recites “a first electronic device capable of UWB communication”. Claim 3 recites “the first electronic device being an electronic device capable of UWB communication”. The underlined appears to be redundant information and deletion would have no change in the scope of the limitation. The same goes for claim 3 describing the “second electronic device being an electronic device capable of UWB communication”. Regardless, claim 3 also states “identify that the first electronic device is an electronic device capable of UWB communication” and “identify that the second electronic device is an electronic device capable of wireless communication”. Appropriate correction is required for proper antecedent basis on “an electronic device capable of UWB communication” and “an electronic device capable of wireless communication”.
Claims 5-6 and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informality: “distance” should be “a distance”. 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 1-20 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 1, the last paragraph recites the limitation “accuracy of the distance between the robot cleaner and the charging station”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 15 identifies “a third distance” which is between the charging station and robot cleaner. Line 23 identifies “distances between the charging station and the robot cleaner”. Because there is a plurality of different identified distances between the robot cleaner and the charging station in the claim, it is not clear which the above bolded is referring to. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as “accuracy of the identified distances between the robot cleaner and the charging station”.
Claims 2-8 are similarly rejected, because of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation of “identifying that the electronic device capable of the wireless communication is not present” is not clear because claim 1 recites “at least one electronic device capable of wireless communication”. There is confusion when there is more than one electronic device as to which is “the electronic device” or if this should refer to the “first electronic device”. For examination purposes, this is interpreted as “the at least one electronic device capable of the wireless communication”.
Regarding claim 6, the recitation of “identifying that the electronic device capable of the wireless communication is not present” is not clear because claim 1 recites “at least one electronic device capable of wireless communication”. There is confusion when there is more than one electronic device as to which is “the electronic device” or if this should refer to the “first electronic device”. For examination purposes, this is interpreted as “the at least one electronic device capable of the wireless communication”.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation of “the electronic device capable of the UWB communication” and “the electronic device capable of the wireless communication” is not clear because claim 1 recites “at least one electronic device capable of UWB communication” and “at least one electronic device capable of wireless communication”. There is confusion when there is more than one electronic device as to which is “the electronic device” or if this should refer to the “first and second electronic device”. For examination purposes, this is interpreted as “the at least one electronic device capable of the UWB communication” and “the at least one electronic device capable of the wireless communication”.
Regarding claim 9, the last paragraph recites the limitation “accuracy of the distance between the robot cleaner and the charging station”. Similar to the reasoning in claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as “accuracy of the identified distances between the robot cleaner and the charging station”.
Claims 10-16 are similarly rejected, because of their dependencies on rejected claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, the recitation of “identifying that the electronic device capable of the wireless communication is not present” is not clear because claim 9 recites “at least one electronic device capable of wireless communication”. There is confusion when there is more than one electronic device as to which is “the electronic device” or if this should refer to the “first electronic device”. For examination purposes, this is interpreted as “the at least one electronic device capable of the wireless communication”.
Regarding claim 14, the recitation of “identifying that the electronic device capable of the wireless communication is not present” is not clear because claim 9 recites “at least one electronic device capable of wireless communication”. There is confusion when there is more than one electronic device as to which is “the electronic device” or if this should refer to the “first electronic device”. For examination purposes, this is interpreted as “the at least one electronic device capable of the wireless communication”.
Regarding claim 15, the recitation of “the electronic device capable of the UWB communication” and “the electronic device capable of the wireless communication” is not clear because claim 9 recites “at least one electronic device capable of UWB communication” and “at least one electronic device capable of wireless communication”. There is confusion when there is more than one electronic device as to which is “the electronic device” or if this should refer to the “first and second electronic device”. For examination purposes, this is interpreted as “the at least one electronic device capable of the UWB communication” and “the at least one electronic device capable of the wireless communication”.
Regarding claim 17, the last paragraph recites the limitation “accuracy of the distance between the robot cleaner and the charging station”. Similar to the reasoning in claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as “accuracy of the identified distances between the robot cleaner and the charging station”.
Claims 18-20 are similarly rejected, because of their dependencies on rejected claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1:
Independent claim 9 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 9 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Claim 9 recites:
(Claim 9) A location identification method of a robot cleaner comprising a ultra wideband (UWB) communication module comprising UWB circuitry and a wireless communication module comprising wireless communication circuitry, the method comprising:
identifying whether at least one electronic device capable of UWB communication and at least one electronic device capable of wireless communication are present in a space where the robot cleaner is located;
based on the presence of a first electronic device capable of UWB communication and a second electronic device capable of wireless communication being identified, identifying a first distance between the first electronic device and the robot cleaner based on processing UWB signals of the UWB communication module, and identifying a second distance between the second electronic device and the robot cleaner based on processing signals of the wireless communication module;
identifying a third distance between a charging station, located in the space and capable of UWB communication, and the robot cleaner based on signals transmitted and received using the UWB communication module; and
identifying the location of the robot cleaner based on the first distance, the second distance, the third distance, the location of the first electronic device, the location of the second electronic device, and the location of the charging station,
wherein the wireless communication includes a communication scheme different from the UWB communication,
wherein the method further comprising:
identifying distances between the charging station and the robot cleaner based on processing UWB signals of the UWB communication module while the robot cleaner is located at different locations; and identifying the location of the charging station based on the identified distances, wherein the different locations are determined based on accuracy of the distance between the robot cleaner and the charging station identified based on the UWB communication.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute “mental processes” – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Specifically, the limitation: “identifying whether at least one electronic device capable of UWB communication and at least one electronic device capable of wireless communication are present in a space where the robot cleaner is located” in the context of this claim encompasses mental observation. In light of Applicant’s drawings FIG. 4, the electronic device capable of UWB communication is a speaker and the electronic device capable of wireless communication is a refrigerator. A human cleaner or robot operator can mentally identify the location of a speaker and refrigerator in the room.
The limitation: “based on the presence of a first electronic device capable of UWB communication and a second electronic device capable of wireless communication being identified, identifying a first distance between the first electronic device and the robot cleaner” in the context of this claim encompasses mental evaluation and judgement. In light of Applicant’s drawings FIG. 4, this distance is shown as D2. A person can mentally determine a linear distance between two objects, i.e., in this case a distance between the speaker and robot.
The limitation: “identifying a second distance between the second electronic device and the robot cleaner” in the context of this claim encompasses mental evaluation and judgement. In light of Applicant’s drawings FIG. 4, this distance is shown as D3. A person can mentally determine a linear distance between two objects, i.e., in this case a distance between the refrigerator and robot.
The limitation: “identifying a third distance between a charging station, located in the space and capable of UWB communication, and the robot cleaner” in the context of this claim encompasses mental evaluation and judgement. In light of Applicant’s drawings FIG. 4, this distance is shown as D1. A person can mentally determine a linear distance between two objects, i.e. in this case a distance between the charging station and robot.
The limitation: “identifying the location of the robot cleaner based on the first distance, the second distance, the third distance, the location of the first electronic device, the location of the second electronic device, and the location of the charging station” in the context of this claim encompasses mental evaluation and judgement. In light of Applicant’s drawings FIG. 4, a respective circle is formed where each respective device is the center with a respective radius being a distance from the robot. A point at which an intersection point of these three circles is identified as the location of the robot. A person (with the aid of pen and paper) can mentally determine an intersection of three circles. The claim encompasses simple distance measurements and triangulation, able to be performed with the aid of pen and paper, utilizing the intersection of circles to pinpoint a location.
The limitation” identifying distances between the charging station and the robot cleaner while the robot cleaner is located at different locations; and identifying the location of the charging station based on the identified distances, wherein the different locations are determined based on accuracy of the distance between the robot cleaner and the charging station identified in the context of this claim encompasses mental evaluation and judgement similar to the above reasoning where the claim encompasses distance measurements line of sight references.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional” limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
(Claim 9) A location identification method of a robot cleaner comprising a ultra wideband (UWB) communication module comprising UWB circuitry and a wireless communication module comprising wireless communication circuitry, the method comprising:
identifying whether at least one electronic device capable of UWB communication and at least one electronic device capable of wireless communication are present in a space where the robot cleaner is located;
based on the presence of a first electronic device capable of UWB communication and a second electronic device capable of wireless communication being identified, identifying a first distance between the first electronic device and the robot cleaner based on processing UWB signals of the UWB communication module, and identifying a second distance between the second electronic device and the robot cleaner based on processing signals of the wireless communication module;
identifying a third distance between a charging station, located in the space and capable of UWB communication, and the robot cleaner based on signals transmitted and received using the UWB communication module; and
identifying the location of the robot cleaner based on the first distance, the second distance, the third distance, the location of the first electronic device, the location of the second electronic device, and the location of the charging station,
wherein the wireless communication includes a communication scheme different from the UWB communication,
wherein the method further comprising:
identifying distances between the charging station and the robot cleaner based on processing UWB signals of the UWB communication module while the robot cleaner is located at different locations; and identifying the location of the charging station based on the identified distances, wherein the different locations are determined based on accuracy of the distance between the robot cleaner and the charging station identified based on the UWB communication.
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations in the preamble and being “based on processing UWB signals of the UWB communication module” and “based on processing signals of the wireless communication module”, and “wherein the wireless communication includes a communication scheme different from the UWB communication” to determine distances, these modules act merely as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea of identifying distances. These modules are part of a generic computer component (see FIG. 2 processor 130). These devices do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component/tool cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the additional limitations amount to mere data gathering of acquiring first, second, and third distances via wireless communication for use in the “identify the location of the robot” step which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. It has been held that limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The Examiner takes Official Notice that wireless communication schemes like UWB and Bluetooth for collecting or receiving data are well-known in the art. Further, while the claim defines using 2 different wireless communications schemes, this additional limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in view of the cited art. For example:
US-20190212730-A1 (hereinafter “Jones”) describes the interchangeability of using different types of communication schemes in [0023].
US-20220377752-A1 (hereinafter “Zhbankov”) describes use of both UWB radio and Bluetooth in [0114].
US-20190387945-A1 (hereinafter “Kim”) describes home appliances that communicate with a mobile robot uses any type of wireless communication scheme such as “Bluetooth, Zigbee, Wi-FI…” in [0125].
As both UWB and Bluetooth are well-known in the art, and the prior arts teach/suggest the interchangeability of using one and/or the other, the use of these communication schemes are insignificant extra-solution activity, acting only to collect and transmit distance information.
Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 10-15, do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, specifically only reciting/elaborating on the additional activities in the detecting and generating steps that may also be reasonably performed in the human mind (claims 11-15 “identifying…”), and reciting/elaborating on additional insignificant extra-solution activities (generally linking the technology (to a well-known, routine, and conventional communication scheme) – claim 10: defining the communication scheme as Bluetooth).
Independent claim 1 is directed towards an apparatus but substantially recites the same limitations as the representative independent method claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons as disclosed above. Independent claim 17 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable recording medium but substantially recites the same limitations as the representative independent method claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons as disclosed above. The dependent claims of claim 1 and claim 17 (claims 2-7 and 18-20) substantially recite the same limitations as the dependent claims of claim 9 and are rejected for the same reasons as disclosed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b), set forth in this Office Action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While use of navigation and location determination techniques like triangulation in a 2D plane are well-known to identify a more precise/accurate location, regarding claims 8 and 16, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole, specifically “wherein the method further comprising: identifying distances between the charging station and the robot cleaner based on processing UWB signals of the UWB communication module while the robot cleaner is located at different locations; and identifying the location of the charging station based on the identified distances. wherein the different locations are determined based on accuracy of the distance between the robot cleaner and the charging station identified based on the UWB communication”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN-112518757-A: Huang discloses a triangulation technique to determine a robot location using intersection of 3 circles see drawings.
US-20210100160-A1: Kang also discloses a triangulation technique to determine a robot location using intersection of 3 circles see FIG. 7.
US-20200206921-A1: Xiong discloses calculating a distance between a robot and each UWB base station; configuring an internal coordinate system according to a preset position of the UWB base station, and calculating a coordinate of the robot in the internal coordinate system according to a distance between the UWB base station and the robot; and combining the coordinate of the robot in the internal coordinate system with localization information of an odometer provided on the robot to obtain a combined robot coordinate.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662