DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 01/13/2026. Claims 1 - 11 were previously pending, of which claims 1 have been amended, claim 11 has been cancelled, and no new claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1 - 10 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 12/03/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The foreign patent document: 102011011852 DE A1 was not found to have an English version in the application content section.
Response to Arguments
5. With respect to the Applicant’s remarks, see pages 7 - 10, filed on 01/13/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
6. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. The argument that claim 1 is not taught by Alexander is not persuasive. Alexander does disclose the self-moving appliance rotating on the spot. Alexander recites this pivot operation as a discrete turn away from the wall edge (a 90-degree angular change) that is enabled only after backing up once it has made contact with the wall ([0045] – [0046] Fig. 8). This is clearly not just a wide sweeping turn; rather, it is a rotation/pivot of the robot about its own axis (pivot on the spot) to align with the next wall before continuing cleaning. A true pivot turn requires the robot to rotate about its own center axis after backing up. Alexander does not define this pivot as a large smooth turning arc. It is a controlled angular change in the robot’s center axis that follows after it has backed up from making contact with the wall.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 7 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20160320778A1 (hereinafter, “Alexander”).
9. Regarding claim 1, Alexander discloses a method for operating a mobile, self-moving appliance, which comprises the following sequential steps performed in a wall following mode [0014], [0028] – [0032]: As the examiner, a “wall following mode” is being interpreted as a state where a robot vacuum cleaner is automatically put into when a wall has been detected. Alexander teaches on a method on how a robot vacuum cleaner will navigate a corner of a wall in a series of sequential steps.
moving the mobile, self-moving appliance along a first wall ([0028] Fig. 4); The robot vacuum cleaner follows the edge of the first wall and moves along the first wall.
detecting a second wall forming a corner with the first wall ([0028] Fig. 4); The robot vacuum cleaner will detect a further wall. This further wall constitutes as a second wall.
moving away from the second wall, until there is a first predetermined distance between a front point of a housing corner of the mobile, self-moving appliance and the second wall [0031]; The robot vacuum will make contact with the further wall in order to determine proximity to that further wall. After the approximation is made, the robot vacuum will then back up until it can turn. Backing up until it can turn can be considered the first predetermined distance due to the robot gauging distance to properly make the turn with consideration of the housing corner of the robot vacuum which we can consider as (160).
rotating the mobile, self-moving appliance on the spot about a center point taking place about an angle smaller than 90 degrees to a parallel alignment to the first wall so that the front point of the housing corner faces the second wall and is at a second predetermined distance therefrom, being a minimal distance from the second wall; and ([0045], [0047] Fig. 8) Once the robot vacuum has gauged distance to properly turn, the robot vacuum will then turn or pivot away from the first wall and follow the further wall (2nd wall) in a way that it follows a center point. Alexander mentions that the robot vacuum backs up after making contact with a wall and then pivots to face and follow the next wall. This pivoting is clearly not a wide sweeping maneuver of some sort. It is a rotation of the robot’s center of axis (on the spot rotation) to align with the further wall ([0045] Fig. 8). The robot vacuum also has the ability to turn and follow the corner, the angle may be greater or less than 90 degrees to the first wall [0047]. After the robot vacuum has made contact with the further wall, it will back up sufficiently in order to enable a 90-degree turn away from the first wall. The backing up sufficiently in order to enable a 90-degree turn constitutes as being at a minimal distance from the second wall. This is the minimal distance that is sufficient for the robot vacuum to properly do a 90-degree turn. Once the robot vacuum has turned alongside the further wall, it keeps a second predetermined distance away from the further wall and the front point of the housing corner of the robot vacuum.
after rotation on the spot, performing a forward movement of the mobile, self-moving appliance while simultaneously rotating so that the mobile, self-moving appliance is aligned parallel to the second wall, the second predetermined distance between the front point of the housing corner and the second wall remaining substantially constant during the forward movement ([0030] – [0031], [0045] Fig. 3 – 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
We are considering the circled point in this drawing as the front point of a housing corner. After the robot vacuum has pivoted on its own center axis as we discussed above, the robot vacuum will continue to perform a further movement alongside the further wall and keep a second predetermined distance between the further wall and the front housing as depicted in figures 3 – 4 in a parallel motion with the further wall. Alexander also mentions that “…the robotic vacuum will turn or pivot away from the first wall, and will follow the further wall.” [0030]. This indicates that the pivoting rotation occurs while the robot moves forward as it follows the further wall. This subsequent step of detecting whether the robot is traveling along the further wall confirms that the pivoting/rotating motion is performed until the robot vacuum becomes aligned with the further wall (simultaneously rotating). Once the robot vacuum has aligned itself, it will then continue along the path of 450 and remain at a substantially constant distance from the further wall as depicted by the path 450.
Regarding claim 2, Alexander discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the sequential steps control a movement response of the mobile, self-moving appliance so that the second predetermined distance between the front point of the housing corner and the first wall and the second wall is kept constant ([0030] – [0031] Fig. 3 – 4, 8). A series of sequential steps are taught by Alexander that control the movement of the robot vacuum that lead up to where it travels alongside the further wall [0030] – [0031]. According to figures 3 – 4, a second predetermined distance is kept between the front point of the housing corner and the further wall (2nd wall). The path the robot vacuum takes (450) keeps a constant distance between the front housing and the further wall.
Regarding claim 3, Alexander discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the front point of the housing corner is selected so that a distance between the front point and an actual housing boundary of the mobile, self-moving appliance is substantially constant in cleaning directions ([0007] Fig. 3 – 7). Alexander teaches on creating a substantially constant distance between the front point of the housing corner and the housing boundary along with the further wall (2nd wall). Looking at figures 3 – 7, the robot vacuum is always keeping a substantially constant distance for both the types of corners it encounters. In order for Alexander to maintain a specific constant distance, a selection inherently has to occur. Alexander teaches that sensors (160) can be contact or non-contact sensors (optical or ultrasonic) to identify distance from a detected obstacle, a wall. Due to these sensors (160) being positioned in the front housing corner of the robot vacuum, one of these corners would have to be selected to operate the sensors (160) to identify the range from a wall on that specific side of the robot vacuum to keep a substantially constant distance between the wall and the robot vacuum. This is done to inherently accommodate for the brush that is actively spinning to prevent the brush from being too close to the wall as the brush is actively rotating to pick up dirt, dust, and debris in all cleaning directions as shown in the paths the robot vacuum is navigating in figures 3 - 7.
Regarding claim 4, Alexander discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the front point of the housing corner is selected so that an active range of at least one cleaning element is substantially constant in cleaning directions ([0006] – [0007] Fig. 3 – 7). Alexander teaches on incorporating brushes (110) into the robot vacuum which is a cleaning element. Alexander also teaches that sensors (160) can be contact or non-contact sensors (optical or ultrasonic) to identify distance from a detected obstacle, a wall. Due to these sensors (160) being positioned in the front housing corner of the robot vacuum, one of these corners would have to be selected to operate the sensors (160) to identify the range from a wall on that specific side of the robot vacuum to keep a substantially constant distance between the wall and the robot vacuum. This is done to inherently accommodate an active range for the brush that is actively spinning to prevent the brush from being too close to the wall as the brush is actively rotating to pick up dirt, dust, and debris so that the robot vacuum can more closely clean around obstacles and walls. This active range is depicted in figures 3 – 9 as the robot vacuum keeps an active range that is substantially constant between the walls.
Regarding claim 5, Alexander discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the at least one cleaning element is a side brush and the front point is a side brush axle, a distance between which and the first and second wall is used as a controller parameter for the wall following mode [0007], [0026], [0035], [0043]. Alexander teaches on incorporating brushes onto the robot vacuum. In order for the brushes on the robot vacuum to rotate, inherently a brush axle has to be present for the rotation of the brushes to happen [0007] – [0026]. The first wall and the second wall in Alexander are used as a controller parameter because Alexander looks at both the first wall and the second wall (corner) and determines if the wall is less than 90 degrees, is 90 degrees, or more than 90 degrees. Based on the degrees of the corner, the robot vacuum can determine if navigating that corner is going to be more complicated and less efficient [0035] – [0043]. Therefore, this is considered a controller parameter due to the robot vacuum intaking the information of degrees on the 1st and 2nd walls (corner) and coming up with a judgement on whether it is going to be a complex maneuver or not.
Regarding claim 7, Alexander discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the forward movement of the front point is brought about by a first drive of the mobile, self-moving appliance and an alignment of the mobile, self-moving appliance is brought about by a second drive of the mobile, self-moving appliance. These first and second drives are being considered the left and right wheels on the robot vacuum. The first drive is the right wheel and the second drive is the left wheel. For examining purposes, we will consider the left wheel as the first drive and the right wheel as the second drive. Alexander teaches on incorporating wheels or rollers (120) in the rear portion (140) of the robot vacuum (100).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Taking a look at this figure once again, we can see the robot vacuum is traversing a corner of a wall. In order for this turn to occur, inherently the first drive that is housed under the front point of the housing corner would have to operate the robot vacuum in a direction that allows that front point to maneuver forward and pivot around the curve to line up with the wall (200). As this pivoting is happening, the second drive will then rotate accordingly to align the robot vacuum (100) with the wall (200) inherently in order for the robot vacuum to continue its cleaning operation alongside the wall (200).
Regarding claim 8, Alexander discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the mobile, self-moving appliance has a D shape (Fig. 1 – 2). Alexander teaches on a robot vacuum cleaner that has a D shape as shown in figures 1 – 2.
Regarding claim 9, Alexander discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the mobile, self-moving appliance reduces its speed before reaching the second wall [0029]. Alexander teaches on the robot vacuum being controlled to slow down as it approaches a further wall (2nd wall) before it makes contact.
Regarding claim 10, Alexander discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the mobile, self-moving appliance is a floor cleaning appliance, or a vacuum cleaning and/or sweeping and/or mopping robot [0026]. The self-moving appliance is a robotic vacuum that can brush debris, dust, and dirt.
Regarding claim 11, Alexander discloses a mobile, self-moving appliance, comprising: a distance measurement unit configured to determine a distance between a front point of a housing corner and an adjacent wall; and configured to perform the method according to claim 1 [0007]. Alexander teaches on incorporating contact or non-contact sensors (160) onto the robot vacuum. These sensors (160) can be considered the distance measurement units and are used to identify the distance from an obstacle or an adjacent wall from the front point of the housing corner due to the sensors (160) being right underneath that front housing corner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160320778A1 (hereinafter, “Alexander”), and further in view of US20170066132A1 (hereinafter, “Casey”).
21. Regarding claim 6, Alexander doesn’t explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the second predetermined distance has a tolerance range, in which the front point can appear without a travel movement of the mobile, self-moving appliance being adjusted.
However, Casey in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the second predetermined distance has a tolerance range, in which the front point can appear without a travel movement of the mobile, self-moving appliance being adjusted ([0103], [0109] – [0111] Fig. 21c & 22). Casey teaches on a minimum and maximum distance as the robot follows a wall. This minimum and maximum range can be treated as a tolerance range. If the robot exceeds the maximum distance from the wall it is following, then the wall-following mode is terminated [0109] – [0111]. The initial alignment of the wall as the robot detects a wall and sets a threshold value to a minimum level can be considered the second predetermined distance because the robot is aligning itself at a specific distance in accordance with the set threshold value [0103].
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Alexander with the teachings of Casey to have the robot vacuum remain at a certain range to efficiently clean any debris, dust, or dirt along the wall.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached on (571) 270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669