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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending, claims 8-14 having been withdrawn. Applicant's response filed June 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 will be examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 6, 7 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 a plurality of robotic devices to collaboratively move the magnetic media through the environment to perform the scrubbing task, wherein the robotic devices communicate with one another to coordinate movement of 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); see also paragraphs [0046]-[0052] disclosing that the that magnetic field generators can be independently controlled, that two or more magnetic field generators can be controlled to apply the desired magnetic field and movement of the magnetic media and that the magnetic field generators can be movable to vary their position relative to the substrate). 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). It is further understood that the plurality of magnetic field generators, at the very least, communicate magnetically with each other in order to coordinate movement of the magnetic media using one or more magnetic fields, and also that all the magnetic field generators are in communication with a controller in order to control the magnetic field generators (see Sinha paragraph [0048]) and that as such, the magnetic field generators are in communication with one another through the controller in order to coordinate movement of the magnetic media. 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 set to cause the processor set to perform a function, the functions comprising the steps of claim 1 discussed above (see Sinha paragraphs [0039], [0048]).
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 paragraphs [0039], [0048]).
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 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 paragraphs [0039], [0048]).
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 paragraphs [0039], [0048]).
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 paragraphs [0039], [0048]).
As to claims 6 and 20, as discussed in the rejection to claims 1 and 15, Sinha discloses that the 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 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 paragraphs [0039], [0048]).
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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant's argument that the references fail to disclose inter-robot communication and collaborative robotic action, as discussed above, Sinha discloses that the that magnetic field generators can be independently controlled, that two or more magnetic field generators can be controlled to apply the desired magnetic field and movement of the magnetic media and that the magnetic field generators can be movable to vary their position relative to the substrate (see paragraphs [0046]-[0052]). It is understood that the plurality of magnetic field generators, at the very least, communicate magnetically with each other in order to coordinate movement of the magnetic media using one or more magnetic fields of each magnetic field generator (where it is noted that Applicant’s Specification also discloses magnetic communication), and also that all the magnetic field generators are in communication with a controller in order to control the magnetic field generators (see Sinha paragraph [0048]) and that as such, the magnetic field generators can be considered as in communication with one another through the controller in order to coordinate movement of the magnetic media.
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 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
Prosecution Insights