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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 and 15-20 in the reply filed on December 10, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 10, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “wherein instructing the one or more robotic devices generating the one or more magnetic fields…” in lines 1-3. Said recitation is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “determining a scrubbing task” in line 2. It is unclear whether the “scrubbing task” recited in claim 7 is referring to the scrubbing task recited in claim 1, or to a different, unrecited scrubbing task. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “determining [[a]] the scrubbing task…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the function of instructing the one or more robotic devices…” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the “instructing of the one or more robotic devices.” Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-6 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0313907 to Sinha et al.
As to claims 1 and 15, Sinha discloses a computer-implemented method for scrubbing an environment (see Sinha Abstract and paragraph [0039] disclosing a microprocessor programmed to perform the disclosed method) comprising: receiving, by a processor, environment data associated with an environment; analyzing the environment data to identify a scrubbing task associated with the environment; configuring a magnetic media based on the scrubbing task; and directing one or more robotic devices to move the magnetic media through the environment to perform the scrubbing task, wherein the one or more robotic devices move the magnetic media using one or more magnetic fields (see Sinha Figs. 7 and 7A and paragraphs [0058]-[0061] where the topography of the surface is determined, the magnetic field generators are moved based on the topography of the surface and the functionalized (see Sinha paragraphs [0021]-[0031]) magnetic particles is moved using the one or more magnetic fields by the magnetic field generators (read as robotic devices)). It is reasonably expected that because Sinha discloses that the magnetic field generators are moved based on the topography of the surface (e.g., that the magnetic field generated is parallel to the channels in order for the magnetic particles to move along the channels), one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the processor receives the alignment of the axis of the channels (read as environment data associated with the environment) and analyzed the environment data to identify the scrubbing task associated with the environment (where to place the magnetic field generators in order to perform the disclosed scrubbing task). Regarding claim 15, because Sinha discloses a microprocessor programed to carry out the functions, said microprocessor is understood to be a computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a function, the functions comprising the steps of claim 1 discussed above (see Sinha paragraph [0039]).
As to claims 2 and 16, as discussed in the rejection to claims 1 and 15, Sinha discloses that the one or more objects in the environment associated with the scrubbing task is analyzed and the topography of the surface is identified (read as identifying one or more attributes of the one or more objects) and that the direction of the magnetic media (read as one or more characteristics of the magnetic media) is altered based on the topography (see Sinha paragraphs [0058]-[0061]). Furthermore, Sinha discloses that the magnetic media is functionalized based on the contaminants on the substrate (see Sinha paragraphs [0021]-[0031]). Regarding claim 16, because Sinha discloses a microprocessor programed to carry out the functions, said microprocessor is understood to be a computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a function, the functions comprising the steps of claim 2 discussed above (see Sinha paragraph [0039]).
As to claims 3 and 17, as discussed in the rejection to claims 1 and 15, Sinha discloses that the one or more objects in the environment associated with the scrubbing task and the magnetic media is analyzed and the topography of the surface is identified and that the direction of the magnetic media is needing to be moved is identified (read as one or more attributes of the one or more objects and the one or more characteristics of the magnetic media is identified), and configuring the one or more magnetic field generators (read as robotic devices) is configured based on the one or more attributes of the one or more objects and the one or more characteristics of the magnetic media (see Sinha paragraphs [0058]-[0061] where the magnetic field generators are move based on the topography and where the magnetic particles are introduced). Furthermore, Sinha discloses that the magnetic media is functionalized based on the contaminants on the substrate (see Sinha paragraphs [0021]-[0031]). Regarding claim 17, because Sinha discloses a microprocessor programed to carry out the functions, said microprocessor is understood to be a computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a function, the functions comprising the steps of claim 3 discussed above (see Sinha paragraph [0039]).
As to claims 4 and 18, Sinha discloses that the used magnetic media and contaminants are recovered and separated (see Sinha paragraph [0055]). Regarding claim 18, because Sinha discloses a microprocessor programed to carry out the functions, said microprocessor is understood to be a computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a function, the functions comprising the steps of claim 4 discussed above (see Sinha paragraph [0039]).
As to claims 5 and 19, as discussed in the rejection to claims 1 and 15, Sinha discloses that the one or more objects in the environment associated with the scrubbing task and the magnetic media is analyzed and the topography of the surface is identified and that the direction of the magnetic media is needing to be moved is identified (see Sinha paragraphs [0058]-[0061]). Since Sinha discloses various methods or moving the magnetic particles relative to the substrate surface as well as based on the topography of the substrate surface (see Sinha Fig. 3, 4, 7 and 7A), Sinha is understood to disclose that a specific performance plan is identified that includes one or more movements of the magnetic media, one or more movements of the robotic devices and the magnetic level of the one or more magnetic fields (see Sinha paragraph [0046], [0050]-[0050], [0058]-[0061]) and that said identification based on the object to be cleaned would involve an analysis by the processor (read as simulation of the scrubbing task). Regarding claim 19, because Sinha discloses a microprocessor programed to carry out the functions, said microprocessor is understood to be a computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a function, the functions comprising the steps of claim 5 discussed above (see Sinha paragraph [0039]).
As to claims 6 and 20, as discussed in the rejection to claims 1 and 15, Sinha discloses that the one or more magnetic field generators (read as robotic devices) are moved based on the topography of the surface to be cleaned and a magnetic field is generated to incite movement of the magnetic media with one or more magnetic fields proximate to the magnetic media wherein the one or more robotic devices and the magnetic media communicate magnetically to produce movement (see Sinha paragraphs [0058]-[0061]). Regarding claim 20, because Sinha discloses a microprocessor programed to carry out the functions, said microprocessor is understood to be a computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a function, the functions comprising the steps of claim 6 discussed above (see Sinha paragraph [0039]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0313907 to Sinha et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0089322 to Shinozaki et al.
Sinha is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 7, while Sinha discloses determining the scrubbing task requires one or more sets of one or more robotic devices and instructing the one or more sets of the one or more robotic devices to move the magnetic media through the environment to perform the scrubbing task and wherein the one or more sets of the one or more robotic devices work collaboratively to move the magnetic media using the one or more magnetic fields (see Sinha paragraphs [0058]-[0061]), and to the extent that the multiple particles disclosed by Sinha is not considered as disclosing multiple magnetic media, Shinozaki discloses a similar magnetic cleaning method wherein multiple magnetic media can be used (see Shinozaki Fig. 13, paragraphs [0121], [0123]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sinha to use different types of magnetic media in order to optimize the cleaning of the surface as disclosed by Shinozaki (see Shinozaki paragraphs [0121], [0123]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714