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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed September 5th, 2025 have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action sent on July 7th, 2025.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1-2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments narrowing the cleaning operation between the cleaning robot and the vehicle based on a predetermined condition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang et al. (CN Patent Pub. No. 114850109 A, published August 5th, 2022), herein “Zhang”, in view of Shin et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2017/0121019 A1), herein “Shin”.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang discloses a vehicle cleaning system (See 0006, “[…] a vehicle-mounted cleaning robot system […]”) comprising:
a vehicle (See 0007, “[…] on-board cleaning robot system […] includes a control system, an unmanned vehicle communicating with the control system […]”); and
a cleaning robot that cleans the vehicle (See 0007, “A cleaning robot paired with a machine […]”), wherein
the vehicle and the cleaning robot mutually perform communication of information for cleaning (See 0007 as referenced above. See also 0046, “[…] the control module 16 is arranged on the unmanned vehicle 1 to communicate with the control system […] Communication between machine 2 and cleaning robot 3.”).
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the robot cleans the vehicle upon satisfaction of a predetermined condition.
Shin, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the robot cleans the vehicle upon satisfaction of a predetermined condition (See 0007, “[…] drone-type smart car wash robot […] flies around a vehicle in an unmanned manner so that scanning may be performed on a vehicle to be washed, and dirty state information and shape information of the vehicle and a flight path for performing car wash and a car wash operation control signal corresponding to these information may be calculated […] car wash operation control signal calculation algorithm of a controller, and therefore a car wash module of the aircraft module which flies along the flight path for performing car wash may intelligently and automatically perform car wash according to the car wash operation control signal […]” See also 0016, “[…] dirty state value calculation algorithm that receives state information of the portion to be washed from the car wash state detection module and calculates a dirty state value from the state information of the portion to be washed, a dirtiness determination algorithm that determines, when a dirty state reference value is set, whether the dirty state value calculated from the dirty state value calculation algorithm is the set dirty state reference value or more, and a car wash re-performing control algorithm that generates, when the dirty state value calculated from the dirty state value calculation algorithm is the dirty state reference value or more, an operation control signal for controlling the operations of the aircraft module and the car wash module so that car wash on the portion to be washed is performed again.”).
In view of Shin’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with cleaning system comprising mutual operations between a cleaning robot and a vehicle as disclosed by Zhang, the cleaning robot to clean a vehicle upon satisfaction of a predetermined condition, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the system already comprises the necessary components and communication channels to perform the cleaning operation, and improves the effectiveness of an automated cleaning operation by ensuring the consistency of the operational result, as taught by Shin.
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang further discloses the vehicle cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein
the vehicle includes a first processor (See 0037, “[…] unmanned vehicle 1 also includes a control module 16 to receive position instructions and send start instructions to the unmanned aerial vehicle 2 (communication between the control system and the unmanned vehicle 1 is achieved through the control system and the control module 16) […]” Examiner notes the control module included in the vehicle operates as a first processor),
the cleaning robot includes a second processor (See 0011-0013, “[…] the cleaning robot includes a robot body and an electromagnetic force seat arranged on the top of the robot body […] respectively installed with a first antenna and a second antenna which are matched with each other […] the cleaning robot feeds back a maintenance instruction to the control module, and the control module receives the maintenance instruction. After the instruction, a return instruction is sent […]” Examiner notes the cleaning robot has the ability to receive and transmit instructions to communicate with the rest of the system through the control module and operates in feedback response, thus being the same as including a processing component being a second processor),
the first processor transmits vehicle information to the cleaning robot in a case where the vehicle satisfies the predetermined condition (See 0037 and 0011-0013 as referenced above. See also 0035, “[…] control system sends a position command to the unmanned vehicle 1 according to the cleaning requirement […] the cleaning requirement of the heliostat is based on the heliostat cleaning requirement.”), and
the second processor determines a cleaning area and a cleaning method of the vehicle on a basis of the vehicle information received from the vehicle, cleans the vehicle by the cleaning robot on a basis of the cleaning area and the cleaning method, and transmits cleaning completion information to the vehicle in a case where cleaning of the vehicle by the cleaning robot is completed (See 0011-0013 and 0035 as referenced above. See also 0051, “[…] when the work task is completed, the drone 2 sends the electromagnetic force seat 9 closing command to the cleaning robot 3, and the cleaning robot 3 receives it […] the recovery of the cleaning robot 3 is completed.”).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang et al. (CN Patent Pub. No. 114850109 A) in view of Shin et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2017/0121019 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Weissbrich et al. (CN Patent Pub. No. 111348005 A, filed December 20th, 2019 and published June 30th, 2020), herein “Weissbrich”.
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang in combination with Shin teaches the vehicle cleaning system according to claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first processor transmits the vehicle information in a case where there is no occupant in the interior (See 0035 of Zhang, “[…] the driverless car 1 drives to the coordinate point indicated by the command according to the position command, and the cleaning requirement of the heliostat is based on the heliostat cleaning requirement.”).
But does not explicitly disclose the first processor determines, as the predetermined condition, a situation of an interior of the vehicle by using a sensor group provided in the vehicle in a case where the vehicle is stopped.
Weissbrich, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the first processor determines, as the predetermined condition, a situation of an interior of the vehicle by using a sensor group provided in the vehicle in a case where the vehicle is stopped (See 0024, “The sensor is preferably an interior space camera, which is used to detect the degree of dirtiness of the interior space […] a sensor for detecting particulate matter in the air of the interior space.” See also 0090, “[…] to perform the cleaning of the interior space of the vehicle 10, it drives into the service module 95 to stop there at the stop position […]”).
In view of Weissbrich’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the vehicle cleaning system communicating requirements and priorities for when and which vehicle to operate on as taught by Zhang in view of Shin, an additional condition determined by sensors detecting the interior of the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the vehicle system is already capable of generating and transmitting cleaning requirements to deploy a cleaning robot, and including the interior conditions of the vehicle in its communications can improve accuracy and efficiency during the priority determination step, wherein the vehicles with the interiors most needing cleaning can be targeted first.
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang in combination with Shin does not explicitly teach the vehicle cleaning system according to claim 3, wherein
the vehicle information includes at least a use history of the vehicle and seating history information of an occupant, and
the second processor determines the cleaning area and the cleaning method on a basis of the use history and the seating history information.
Weissbrich, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the vehicle information includes at least a use history of the vehicle and seating history information of an occupant (See 0021, “[…] there are contaminated, certain seat or body regions respectively […] in the form of a scale, is predetermined for the driver, according to which the user can input the degree of contamination. According to this manner of execution, the second information then preferably has a corresponding description about the degree, location and/or type of contamination […]”), and
the second processor determines the cleaning area and the cleaning method on a basis of the use history and the seating history information (See 0036-0037, “[…] the user input is detected and transmitted to the server […] already obtains information about the customer's expectations from the control unit in advance and takes this into account when determining the cleaning to be performed […] the server preferably receives or determines information about the determined estimated duration or estimated cost of cleaning and adds this information to the third information transmitted to the control unit […] user input is detected and transmitted to the server. For example, a user of a vehicle may specify a time period […]”).
In view of Weissbrich’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the vehicle cleaning system and the communications between the vehicle and a cleaning robot including information pertaining to the vehicle relative to designated cleaning requirements as taught by Zhang in view of Shin, the information to further include user and seating history when determining the proper way to clean the interior of the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, since incorporating the information from a prior driver/passenger on their physical preferences into the cleaning requirements would only improve the overall effectiveness of the cleaning operation by reducing unnecessary or undesired cleaning.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang et al. (CN Patent Pub. No. 114850109 A) in view of Shin et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2017/0121019 A1) and Weissbrich et al. (CN Patent Pub. No. 111348005 A) as applied to claims 3-4 above, and further in view of Schutz et al. (DE Patent Pub. No. 10 2019 208 133 A1, filed June 4th, 2019), herein “Schutz”.
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang in view of Shin and Weissbrich teaches the vehicle cleaning system according to claim 4, but do not explicitly teach or suggest wherein
the second processor determines the cleaning area and the cleaning method on a basis of a shape of the interior of the vehicle and a material of a seat.
Schutz, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the second processor determines the cleaning area and the cleaning method on a basis of a shape of the interior of the vehicle and a material of a seat (See 0017, “[…] adapt a cleaning robot to the complicated geometry of a vehicle interior […] enables simpler automatic cleaning of at least one section of the vehicle seat and, moreover, enables completely new forms of automated seat cleaning […]” See also 0064, “[…] configured to determine a seat cleaning to be carried out on the vehicle based on information received from the vehicle or from the server. In particular, the type of seat cleaning […] further boundary conditions are determined, for example regarding the surface material of the vehicle components in the vehicle interior and the cleaning agents suitable […] configured to determine the cleaning to be carried out on the vehicle on the basis of information received from the vehicle […]”).
In view of Schutz’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the vehicle cleaning system determining proper cleaning areas and methods based on user and seating information as taught by Zhang in view of Shin and Weissbrich, the shape of the vehicle interior and the material of the seating as additional factors, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the vehicle cleaning system from the combination of Zhang, Shin and Weissbrich already communicates interior conditions of the vehicle to determine proper cleaning methods and requirements, and including additional physical parameters of the interior shape and seat material improves potential operational range regarding automation and reduces undesired errors in the cleaning operation resulting from improperly shaped/sized components in cleaning tools or unsafe/unsuitable cleaning solutions and liquids.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Zhou et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2020/0384959 A1); Nakano et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0031730 A1)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Bryant Tang whose telephone number is (571)270-0145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 CST.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/BRYANT TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658