DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to an application filed February 16th, 2024. Claims 35-74 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 21st, 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on February 16th, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
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 is 251 words long which is over the 150 word limit. 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).
Claim Objections
Claims 37, 44, 48, and 67 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 37, 48, and 67 have a comma as their end punctuation which is poor grammar and should be a period.
Claim 44 does not have end punctuation which is poor grammar and should end with a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The 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.
Claims 35 and 73 recite the limitations “wherein an environment is detectable by means of the sensor unit in order to locate and/or navigate the floor cleaning apparatus during movement” and “wherein at least one characteristic landmark that is detectable by means of the sensor unit is stored in the storage unit” which uses the term “means” and is modified by the functional language of “detectable by” and “in order to locate and/or navigate the floor cleaning apparatus during movement”. The specification recites sufficient structure for the sensor unit in page 21 lines 14-15 which recites that the sensor unit “may comprise, for example, at least one stereo camera system, a lidar system, and/or an ultrasound system”.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a selection of the cleaning paths associated with the respective landmark is providable to the user on the at least one display unit” in claims 35 and 73,
“a graphical user interface is providable to the user on the display unit for seeking a stored landmark and/or a stored cleaning path; a map of the environment is displayable to the user on the display unit for selecting a landmark shown therein and/or a stored cleaning path” in claim 47,
“a graphical user interface is providable to the user on the display unit for showing information relating to a landmark and/or a stored cleaning path” in claim 48,
“a notification is providable to the user on the at least one display unit…” in claim 56, “a notification is outputtable to the user on the at least one display unit to recognizably position the floor cleaning apparatus” in claim 58, and
“image information is transmittable from the floor cleaning apparatus to the display unit via a communications unit” (emphasis added) in claim 72.
The display unit has the structure of “a touch-sensitive display unit. For example, a touchscreen is used here for receiving entries from the user” in the specification in page 10 lines 17-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 72 recites the limitation “communication unit” which is interpreted under 112(f) but the specification lacks sufficient structure to define what the communication unit is.
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.
Claim 72 is 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.
Claim limitation “communication unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The closest the specification gets to inferring what the communication unit is can be located in page 21 lines 22-24 which recites “The floor cleaning apparatus 10 can also comprise a communications unit 42 via which information can be transmitted in a wireless and/or wired manner from the floor cleaning apparatus 10 and to the floor cleaning apparatus 10”. This shows that the communication unit is capable of communicating both through wired and wireless means to/from the cleaning apparatus; however, this does not teach what the structure of the communication unit is as wireless communication and wired communications are both very distinct and wireless communications encompass a wide variety of communication types such as Bluetooth®, Wi-Fi, optical signals, audio messages, and every other conceivable form of communication that does not require a direct connection between the objects that are communicating. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 35, 36, 40-45, 47-49, 51-55, 59, 69, 70, and 72-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kearns et al. (US Pub. No. 20220080600 A1), herein after Kearns.
Regarding claim 35, Kearns teaches [a] floor cleaning system comprising a self-propelled and self-steering floor cleaning apparatus, at least one controllable display unit and at least one storage unit (Kearns: Para. 0019, teaching a mobile cleaning robot that is self-propelled; Para. 0031, teaching a memory storage in the cleaning robot; and Para. 0053, teaching a display), wherein the floor cleaning apparatus comprises a running gear for traveling on a floor surface, a control unit, a sensor unit, at least one cleaning unit, and an operating unit, wherein an environment is detectable by means of the sensor unit in order to locate and/or navigate the floor cleaning apparatus during movement (Kearns: Para. 0020, teaching a drive system in the cleaning robot for self-propelling the robot; Para. 0023, teaching a cleaning head for cleaning floors; and Para. 0031, teaching sensors that are used to detect the environment for the sake of navigation), wherein cleaning paths for the floor cleaning apparatus are stored in the at least one storage unit with respective information about a route and/or the use of at least one cleaning unit (Kearns: Para. 0042, teaching storing the map and sensor data used in the route as well as data on the mission the robot is to perform), wherein a cleaning task is specifiable by a user on the operating unit by linking two or more cleaning paths to be processed successively, and the cleaning task is automatically processable by the floor cleaning apparatus (Kearns: Para. 0054, teaching that a user can create, select, modify, and cancel a cleaning route for the robot to follow on a map stored when performing their cleaning tasks using a display that shows routes the robot can take), wherein at least one characteristic landmark that is detectable by means of the sensor unit is stored in the storage unit and is associated with two or more cleaning paths, wherein a start position and/or an end position of a respective cleaning path is located on or at the landmark (Kearns: Para. 0062, teaching detecting landmarks in the environment and creating a cleaning route based on segments that are created in between identified landmarks and that the landmarks can be used as the start of a route), and wherein a selection of the cleaning paths associated with the respective landmark is providable to the user on the at least one display unit (Kearns: Para. 0054, teaching that a user can create, select, modify, and cancel a cleaning route for the robot to follow on a map stored when performing their cleaning tasks using a display that shows routes the robot can take).
Regarding claim 36, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein two or more characteristic landmarks detectable by means of the sensor unit are stored in the storage unit, wherein two or more cleaning paths are associated with at least one landmark (Kearns: Para. 0062, teaching detecting landmarks in the environment and creating a cleaning route based on segments that are created in between identified landmarks and that the landmarks can be used as the start of a route).
Regarding claim 40, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein the cleaning task is storable in the at least one storage unit (Kearns: Para. 0042, teaching storing the map and sensor data used in the route as well as data on the mission the robot is to perform).
Regarding claim 41, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein a map of the environment is stored in the storage unit associated with at least one landmark, cleaning paths associated with the landmark being stored in the map (Kearns: Para. 0042, teaching storing the map data which includes data on the environment used to generate the routes).
Regarding claim 42, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein a combined map is stored in the storage unit, with the at least one landmark and the cleaning paths associated with these landmarks are stored being stored in the storage unit (Kearns: Para. 0042, teaching storing the map data which includes data on the environment used to generate the routes).
Regarding claim 43, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein cleaning paths are provided and associated with the at least one landmark, the cleaning paths having a start position and an end position at the landmark, and/or wherein cleaning paths are provided which have a start position at one landmark and an end position at another landmark (Kearns: Para. 0066, teaching that a wall can be used as the start position of a new route where it follows the wall; and Para. 0071, teaching that the wall is used as a landmark to define a wall following route with the end of a wall segment being the end of the segment of the wall following route).
Regarding claim 44, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein the floor cleaning apparatus is hand-guided by a user (Kearns: Para. 0101, teaching that a user may position the robot to a start location or a landmark such as a dock for the robot).
Regarding claim 45, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 44 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 44, wherein at least one of the following applies: the floor cleaning apparatus is guidable by the user from a current start position to a landmark, starting from which the cleaning task is initiated; the floor cleaning apparatus is guidable by the user from a landmark to a parking position after completion of the cleaning task; the floor cleaning apparatus is guidable by the user from a first landmark at which a cleaning path ends up to another landmark at which another cleaning path begins (Kearns: Para. 0101, teaching that a user may position the robot to a start location or a landmark such as a dock for the robot).
Regarding claim 47, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein at least one of the following applies: a graphical user interface is providable to the user on the display unit for seeking a stored landmark and/or a stored cleaning path; a map of the environment is displayable to the user on the display unit for selecting a landmark shown therein and/or a stored cleaning path (Kearns: Para. 0054, teaching that a user can create, select, modify, and cancel a cleaning route for the robot to follow on a map stored when performing their cleaning tasks using a display that shows routes the robot can take).
Regarding claim 48, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein a graphical user interface is providable to the user on the display unit for showing information relating to a landmark and/or a stored cleaning path (Kearns: Para. 0054, teaching that a user can create, select, modify, and cancel a cleaning route for the robot to follow when performing their cleaning tasks using a display that shows routes the robot can take).
Regarding claim 49, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 48 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 48, wherein the information depends upon a preceding search and/or selection in a map (Kearns: Para. 0054, teaching that a user can create, select, modify, and cancel a cleaning route for the robot to follow when performing their cleaning tasks using a display that shows routes the robot can take).
Regarding claim 51, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claims 35, wherein the cleaning paths are displayable linked to a selected landmark (Kearns: Para. 0062, teaching detecting landmarks in the environment and creating a cleaning route based on segments that are created in between identified landmarks and that the landmarks can be used as the start of a route).
Regarding claim 52, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 51 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 51, wherein cleaning paths that are not associated with the selected landmark are hidden or are displayed as non-selectable (Kearns: Para. 0062, teaching detecting landmarks in the environment and creating and displaying a cleaning route only based on segments that are created in between identified landmarks and that the landmarks can be used as the start of a route).
Regarding claim 53, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein the at least one cleaning path is creatable by a user on a data processing device external to the floor cleaning apparatus and is storable in the at least one storage unit (Kearns: Para. 0054, teaching that a user can create, select, modify, and cancel a cleaning route for the robot to follow when performing their cleaning tasks using a display that shows routes the robot can take).
Regarding claim 54, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein the floor cleaning apparatus is designed and configured to create and store at least one cleaning path, under guidance of the user on the operating unit in a teach-in operating mode (Kearns: Para. 0042, teaching creating and storing the route on the robot; and Para. 0054, teaching that a user can create, select, modify, and cancel a cleaning route for the robot to follow on a map stored when performing their cleaning tasks using a display that shows routes the robot can take).
Regarding claim 55, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 54 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 54, wherein a section of the floor surface recognized by the floor cleaning apparatus and/or a section of the floor surface traversed by the user along a circumference are automatically assignable a route of the cleaning path, in particular, so as to cover the entire area (Kearns: Para. 0043, teaching that the navigation of the robot is based on data on the floor surface that is detected).
Regarding claim 59, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein at least one of the following applies in the event of the detection of at least one landmark: information about the cleaning paths associated with the at least one landmark is displayable on the display unit (Kearns: Para. 0054, teaching that the display includes a map of the robot's environment and the route the robot will take; and Para. 0059, teaching that the information of the environment includes information landmarks that are detected); the processing of a cleaning task beginning at the at least one landmark is triggerable (Kearns: Para. 0066, teaching that a wall can be used as the start position of a new route where it follows the wall; and Para. 0071, teaching that the wall is used as a landmark to define a wall following route with the end of a wall segment being the end of the segment of the wall following route).
Regarding claim 69, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein the floor cleaning apparatus comprises at least one storage unit (Kearns: Para. 0031, teaching that the cleaning robot has a memory storage element).
Regarding claim 70, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein at least one storage unit is positioned remote from the floor cleaning apparatus, wherein information that is to be stored or is stored is transmittable from the floor cleaning apparatus to the storage unit and/or vice versa via a communications unit (Kearns: Para. 0053, teaching that the mobile device stores information including images on the environment which is transmitted to and from the cleaning robot).
Regarding claim 72, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein at least one display unit is positioned remote from the floor cleaning apparatus, wherein image information is transmittable from the floor cleaning apparatus to the display unit via a communications unit (Kearns: Para. 0053, teaching that the mobile device stores information including images on the environment which is transmitted to and from the cleaning robot).
Regarding claim 74, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35 and goes on to further teach [a] method for operating a floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein at least one characteristic landmark is stored in the storage unit, to which landmark are associated two or more cleaning paths, wherein a start position and/or an end position of a respective cleaning path is located on or at the landmark (Kearns: Para. 0062, teaching detecting landmarks in the environment and creating a cleaning route based on segments that are created in between identified landmarks and that the landmarks can be used as the start of a route), and wherein a cleaning task is specified by a user on the operating unit by linking two or more cleaning paths to be processed successively, and the cleaning task is automatically processed by the floor cleaning apparatus (Kearns: Para. 0054, teaching that a user can create, select, modify, and cancel a cleaning route for the robot to follow on a map stored when performing their cleaning tasks using a display that shows routes the robot can take).
Regarding claim 73, Kearns teaches [a] floor cleaning apparatus comprising a running gear for traveling on a floor surface, a control unit, a sensor unit, at least one cleaning unit, and an operating unit, wherein an environment is detectable by means of the sensor unit in order to locate and/or navigate the floor cleaning apparatus during movement (Kearns: Para. 0020, teaching a drive system in the cleaning robot for self-propelling the robot; Para. 0023, teaching a cleaning head for cleaning floors; and Para. 0031, teaching sensors that are used to detect the environment for the sake of navigation), wherein cleaning paths for the floor cleaning apparatus are stored in at least one storage unit with respective information about a route and/or the use of at least one cleaning unit (Kearns: Para. 0042, teaching storing the map and sensor data used in the route as well as data on the mission the robot is to perform), wherein a cleaning task is specifiable by a user on the operating unit by linking two or more cleaning paths to be processed successively, and the cleaning task is automatically processable by the floor cleaning apparatus (Kearns: Para. 0054, teaching that a user can create, select, modify, and cancel a cleaning route for the robot to follow on a map stored when performing their cleaning tasks using a display that shows routes the robot can take), wherein at least one characteristic landmark that is detectable by means of the sensor unit is stored in the storage unit and is associated with two or more cleaning paths, wherein a start position and/or an end position of a respective cleaning path is located on or at the landmark (Kearns: Para. 0062, teaching detecting landmarks in the environment and creating a cleaning route based on segments that are created in between identified landmarks and that the landmarks can be used as the start of a route), and wherein a selection of the cleaning paths associated with the respective landmark is providable to the user on at least one display unit (Kearns: Para. 0054, teaching that a user can create, select, modify, and cancel a cleaning route for the robot to follow on a map stored when performing their cleaning tasks using a display that shows routes the robot can take).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kearns as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Romano et al. (US Patent No. 9665095 B1), herein after Romano.
Regarding claim 37, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35, however Kearns is silent to [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, comprising at least one landmark which is configured as a marker element which is visually and/or electrically and/or electromagnetically detectable by the sensor unit.
In a similar field, Romano teaches [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, comprising at least one landmark which is configured as a marker element which is visually and/or electrically and/or electromagnetically detectable by the sensor unit (Romano: Page 26 col. 8 lines 35-56, teaching using visual markers like bar codes or RFID tags as landmarks for a robot to use in routing) for the benefit of defining the route the robot can take in a consistent manner across multiple trips.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the robot pathing using landmarks from Kearns to utilize floor markers such as bar codes as landmarks, as taught by Romano, for the benefit of defining the route the robot can take in a consistent manner across multiple trips.
Regarding claim 38, Kearns and Romano remain as applied as in claim 37, and Romano goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 37, wherein the marker element is a matrix code or a barcode (Romano: Page 26 col. 8 lines 35-56, teaching using visual markers like bar codes or RFID tags as landmarks for a robot to use in routing).
Regarding claim 39, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35, however Kearns is silent to [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein at least one characteristic feature of an environment of the floor cleaning apparatus is usable as a landmark.
In a similar field, Romano teaches [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein at least one characteristic feature of an environment of the floor cleaning apparatus is usable as a landmark (Romano: Page 26 col. 8 lines 35-56, teaching using visual markers like bar codes or RFID tags as landmarks for a robot to use in routing) for the benefit of defining the route the robot can take in a consistent manner across multiple trips.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the robot pathing using landmarks from Kearns to utilize floor markers such as bar codes as landmarks, as taught by Romano, for the benefit of defining the route the robot can take in a consistent manner across multiple trips.
Claims 46, 57, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kearns as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Cui et al. (US Patent No. 9665095 B1), herein after Cui.
Regarding claim 46, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35, however Kearns is silent to [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein, in the at least one storage unit, at least one transport path without use the at least one cleaning unit is stored linked to at least one landmark, which landmark is specifiable by the user as a component of the cleaning task.
In a similar field, Cui teaches [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein, in the at least one storage unit, at least one transport path without use the at least one cleaning unit is stored linked to at least one landmark, which landmark is specifiable by the user as a component of the cleaning task (Cui: Page 9 col. 9 lines 35-44, teaching that the route the cleaning robot follows can include a segment where cleaning is paused) for the benefit of optimizing the cleaning task performed in relation to how much the floor needs to be cleaned.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify cleaning robot path generation from Kearns to have sections where the cleaning is paused, as taught by Cui, for the benefit of optimizing the cleaning task performed in relation to how much the floor needs to be cleaned.
Regarding claim 57, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35 and goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein the cleaning path is adapted to have one or more segments, wherein at least one cleaning unit is activated on at least one segment, wherein at least one of the following applies to the cleaning path (Kearns: Para. 0066, teaching that a wall can be used as the start position of a new route where it follows the wall).
Kearns is silent to wherein at least one of the following applies to the cleaning path: different types of cleaning units are activated or deactivated at different segments of the cleaning path or within a respective segment; there is at least one segment in which no cleaning unit is activated; paths and assignable sections of the floor surface are stored in the cleaning path; at least one interaction event of the floor cleaning apparatus with the environment is stored in the cleaning path, the interaction event comprising an acoustic and/or visual notification to be output by the floor cleaning apparatus.
In a similar field, Cui teaches wherein at least one of the following applies to the cleaning path: different types of cleaning units are activated or deactivated at different segments of the cleaning path or within a respective segment (Cui: Page 8 col. 8 line 50 through page 9 col. 9 line 10, teaching that the route the cleaning robot follows can include multiple segments where different cleaning methods such as sweeping, dusting, and mopping are applied); there is at least one segment in which no cleaning unit is activated (Cui: Page 9 col. 9 lines 35-44, teaching that the route the cleaning robot follows can include a segment where cleaning is paused); paths and assignable sections of the floor surface are stored in the cleaning path (Cui: Page 8 col. 8 line 50 through page 9 col. 9 line 10, teaching that the route the cleaning robot follows can include multiple segments where different cleaning methods such as sweeping, dusting, and mopping are applied); at least one interaction event of the floor cleaning apparatus with the environment is stored in the cleaning path, the interaction event comprising an acoustic and/or visual notification to be output by the floor cleaning apparatus (examiner interprets that the interaction event includes entering areas where the robot will clean) (Cui: Page 12 col. 16 lines 9-14, teaching that the robot sends a warning to the user when the robot enter an underexposure region where it will begin cleaning) for the benefit of optimizing the cleaning task to provide sufficient and relevant cleaning to areas that need cleaning.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the cleaning task routing for a cleaning robot from Kearns to determine when to perform cleaning and what type of cleaning should be performed along segments of the route, as taught by Cui, for the benefit of optimizing the cleaning task to provide sufficient and relevant cleaning to areas that need cleaning.
Regarding claim 58, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35, however Kearns is silent to [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein a notification is outputtable to the user on the at least one display unit to recognizably position the floor cleaning apparatus at a landmark by means of the sensor unit.
In a similar field, Cui teaches [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein a notification is outputtable to the user on the at least one display unit to recognizably position the floor cleaning apparatus at a landmark by means of the sensor unit (Cui: Page 12 col. 16 lines 9-14, teaching that the robot sends a warning to the user when the robot enter an underexposure region where it will begin cleaning) for the benefit of ensuring that a user is aware of when the robot enters into an area of concern.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify cleaning robot pathing from Kearns to alert the user when the robot approaches a recognizable location, as taught by Cui, for the benefit of ensuring that a user is aware of when the robot enters into an area of concern.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kearns as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Sinyavskiy et al. (US Patent No. 10293485 B2), herein after Sinyavskiy.
Regarding claim 50, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35, however Kearns is silent to [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein cleaning paths are selectable on the user interface using names and/or symbols and are displayable in a manner linkable to the cleaning task.
In a similar field, Sinyavskiy teaches [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein cleaning paths are selectable on the user interface using names and/or symbols and are displayable in a manner linkable to the cleaning task (Sinyavskiy: Page 37 col. 32 lines 11-27, teaching displaying multiple routes for a robot to take to a user in a selectable format for the user to manipulate) for the benefit of improving the user experience in remotely operating the robot.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the display of routes to a user from Kearns with symbols that represent the route that are selectable to the user, as taught by Sinyavskiy, for the benefit of improving the user experience in remotely operating the robot.
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kearns as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of White et al. (US Pub. No. 20220015596 A1), herein after White.
Regarding claim 56, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35, however Kearns is silent to [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein a notification is providable to the user on the at least one display unit, as to the quantity of a consumable component required to clean the section, and/or whether the quantity of an existing consumable component carried by the floor cleaning appliance is sufficient to clean the section.
In a similar field, White teaches [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein a notification is providable to the user on the at least one display unit, as to the quantity of a consumable component required to clean the section, and/or whether the quantity of an existing consumable component carried by the floor cleaning appliance is sufficient to clean the section (White: Para. 0141, teaching warning a user when a cleaning robot is running out of cleaning solution or when a bin is full) for the benefit of allowing the user to know when to resupply cleaning fluids or empty out a dustbin of the cleaning robot without having to manually check.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the cleaning robot with user display device from Kearns to have the robot alert the user of when its cleaning fluids needs to be resupplied or its dustbin needs to be emptied, as taught by White, for the benefit of allowing the user to know when to resupply cleaning fluids or empty out a dustbin of the cleaning robot without having to manually check.
Claims 60 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kearns as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Mattingly et al. (US Pub. No. 20180102128 A1), herein after Mattingly.
Regarding claim 60, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35, however Kearns is silent to [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein, when the floor cleaning apparatus is guided by the user, a notification about the cleaning paths associated with the landmark is providable on the display unit when the at least one landmark is detected by the sensor unit.
In a similar field, Mattingly teaches [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein, when the floor cleaning apparatus is guided by the user, a notification about the cleaning paths associated with the landmark is providable on the display unit when the at least one landmark is detected by the sensor unit (Mattingly: Para. 0029, teaching that when a vehicle controlled by a user detects that it is approaching a POI a notification is sent to the user) for the benefit of ensuring the user is aware of a detected POI.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the robot routing based on landmarks and POIs from Kearns to alert the operator of the robot when a POI is detected, as taught by Mattingly, for the benefit of ensuring the user is aware of a detected POI.
Regarding claim 71, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35, however Kearns is silent to [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein the floor cleaning apparatus comprises at least one display unit.
In a similar field, Mattingly teaches [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein the floor cleaning apparatus comprises at least one display unit (Mattingly: Para. 0019 and 0021, teaching an autonomous ground vehicle configured to perform tasks which has a display integrated into the vehicle) for the benefit of allowing the user to check the condition and route of the robot natively instead of remotely.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the cleaning robot with user display device from Kearns to have the display be integrated into the robot, as taught by Mattingly, f for the benefit of allowing the user to check the condition and route of the robot natively instead of remotely.
Claims 61-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kearns as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (US Pub. No. 20180102128 A1), herein after Ebrahimi Afrouzi.
Regarding claim 61, Kearns remains as applied as in claim 35, however Kearns is silent to [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein the floor cleaning system comprises at least one docking station for the floor cleaning apparatus for assuming a defined position in a docking position.
In a similar field, Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 35, wherein the floor cleaning system comprises at least one docking station for the floor cleaning apparatus for assuming a defined position in a docking position (Ebrahimi Afrouzi: Para. 0863, teaching a docking station that transmits signals to the robot to align itself to the station for the sake of recharging, resupplying water for cleaning, and/or disposing of debris in its dustbin) for the benefit of ensuring that the cleaning robot can be serviced automatically in a variety of ways without issue.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the docking of the cleaning robot during servicing from Kearns to align the robot to the docking station according to the services it requires, as taught by Ebrahimi Afrouzi, for the benefit of ensuring that the cleaning robot can be serviced automatically in a variety of ways without issue.
Regarding claim 62, Kearns and Ebrahimi Afrouzi remain as applied as in claim 61, and Kearns goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 61, wherein the at least one docking station comprises or forms a landmark (Kearns: Para. 0131, teaching that the dock's location can be used to localize where the robot is).
Regarding claim 63, Kearns and Ebrahimi Afrouzi remain as applied as in claim 61, and Ebrahimi Afrouzi goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 61, wherein the floor cleaning apparatus is suppliable, via the at least one docking station, with a consumable component required for processing the cleaning task, and/or a used component of the floor cleaning appliance is able to be picked up (Ebrahimi Afrouzi: Para. 0863, teaching a docking station that transmits signals to the robot to align itself to the station for the sake of recharging, resupplying water for cleaning, and/or disposing of debris in its dustbin).
Regarding claim 64, Kearns and Ebrahimi Afrouzi remain as applied as in claim 61, and Ebrahimi Afrouzi goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 61, wherein the floor cleaning apparatus is designed such that, at a respective docking station, at least one usable component is supplied in a sufficient amount for an upcoming cleaning path, and/or a used component is removed (Ebrahimi Afrouzi: Para. 1255, teaching that the robot is recharged to an amount that is sufficient to complete its task).
Regarding claim 65, Kearns and Ebrahimi Afrouzi remain as applied as in claim 61, and Ebrahimi Afrouzi goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 61, wherein the floor cleaning apparatus is designed to visit the at least one docking station during the processing of the cleaning task in the event that the processing requires the supply of at least one consumable component and/or the discharge of at least one used component (Ebrahimi Afrouzi Para. 0863, teaching a docking station that transmits signals to the robot to align itself to the station for the sake of recharging, resupplying water for cleaning, and/or disposing of debris in its dustbin).
Regarding claim 66, Kearns and Ebrahimi Afrouzi remain as applied as in claim 61, and Ebrahimi Afrouzi goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 61, wherein the at least one docking station is headable for in the cleaning path in accordance with a specification, in order to supply at least one consumable component and/or to discharge at least one used component (Ebrahimi Afrouzi: Para. 1252, teaching that when routing the robot the path is divided so that it can refill its water reservoir).
Regarding claim 67, Kearns and Ebrahimi Afrouzi remain as applied as in claim 61, and Ebrahimi Afrouzi goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 61, wherein the floor cleaning apparatus is designed such that, during the processing of the cleaning task, depending upon a remainder of the cleaning task still to be processed, it automatically determines an amount of a consumable component required for this purpose and, if necessary, picks it up at at least one docking station and/or discharges a consumed component (Ebrahimi Afrouzi Para. 1255, teaching that the robot is recharged to an amount that is sufficient to complete its task).
Regarding claim 68, Kearns and Ebrahimi Afrouzi remain as applied as in claim 67, and Ebrahimi Afrouzi goes on to further teach [t]he floor cleaning system in accordance with claim 67, wherein picking up too much consumable component is avoided (Ebrahimi Afrouzi Para. 0863, teaching the robot goes to the docking station when the dustbin or water reservoir reaches a particular volume instead of when it is full or emptied completely).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Williams et al. (US Pub. No. 20160297072 A1) discloses a cleaning robot that navigates an area or route using visual landmarks and markers which can be defined by a user.
Noh et al. (US Patent No. 10105028 B2) discloses a cleaning robot that navigates through an environment in which it cleans using visual markers and user defined routes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights