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 12-22 are pending, claims 1-11 having been cancelled. Applicant's response filed June 30. 2025 is acknowledged.
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) 12, 13, 16 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3205250A1 to Watanabe et al. in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0055325 to Yoon et al.
As to claim 12, Watanabe discloses a method for improved cleaning of a spatially delimited region by using a robot vacuum cleaner with a fan (see Watanabe paragraph [0041]), the method comprising the steps of: approaching the region with the robot vacuum cleaner while the fan rotates at a first rotation speed; using a sensor facility to detect the approach of the robot vacuum cleaner to the region and conveying information about the approach to a computer facility; using the computer facility to monitor the approach and, before reaching the region, to increase the fan rotation speed to a second, higher fan rotation speed, causing the fan to have the second, higher fan rotation speed when the robot vacuum cleaner reaches the region; using the sensor facility to detect an onwards movement of the robot vacuum cleaner into and out of the region and to convey information about the onwards movement to the computer facility; and using the computer facility, after leaving the region, to reduce the second fan rotation speed to the first fan rotation speed (see Watanabe paragraphs [0044]-[0056] disclosing the robot cleaner has a controller and obstacle detection sensors; paragraphs [0164]-[0183] disclosing initiating a corner cleaning control upon detection of a corner using the corner detection unit; paragraphs [0335]-[0336] disclosing increasing the suction force of the fan when it is determined that a corner has been detected by the corner detection unit). Watanabe further discloses that the corner can be detected before contact (see Watanabe paragraph [0377]) and thus is understood as disclosing that the corner cleaning can be started before reaching the corner. Finally, since the corner cleaning is performed in the corner, it is reasonably expected to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the corner cleaning is stopped, including reducing the speed of the suction fan, when the robot leaves the corner (see Watanabe paragraph [0336] where the suction force of the fan is reduced in comparison to that at the corner).
While Watanabe discloses the use of sensors to detect the corner before contact and the use of sensors to detect the corner relative to the robot cleaner (see Watanabe paragraphs [0044]-[0056], [0164]-[0183], [0335]-[0336] and [0377]), Watanabe does not explicitly disclose that the computer facility monitors the approach to calculate a position from a detected current speed of the robot vacuum cleaner from which the increase in the fan rotation speed must take place in order to have a second, higher fan rotation speed required for the region available. Yoon discloses that it is known in the art of robot cleaners to determine the position and direction of the robot cleaner by acquiring speed information of the robot cleaner and then calculating information on a moving distance and direction from an initial position of the robot cleaner to a next position (see Yoon paragraphs [0139]-[0141]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to determine the position and direction of the robot cleaner by acquiring the speed information of the robot cleaner as disclosed by Yoon as being known in the art of autonomous navigation in robot cleaners. The combination of Watanabe and Yoon would have the robot cleaner use speed information to determine the position and direction of the robot cleaner as disclosed by Yoon and when the robot cleaner is approaching the corners, to increase the fan rotation speed as disclosed by Watanabe.
As to claim 13, the combination of Watanabe and Yoon discloses that the rotation speed of the brush can also be increased in the corner cleaning (see Watanabe paragraphs [0335]-[0336]).
As to claim 16, the combination of Watanabe and Yoon discloses providing the sensor facility with at least one of a distance sensor or a collision sensor (see Watanabe paragraphs [0044]-[0045]).
As to claim 20, the combination of Watanabe and Yoon discloses designating the region as at least one of a corner region or a wall (see Watanabe paragraphs [0164]-[0183]).
As to claim 21, the combination of Watanabe and Yoon discloses a robot vacuum cleaner comprising a sensor facility, a fan and a computer facility for carrying out the method according to claim 12 (see Watanabe paragraphs [0044]-[0056] disclosing the sensor facility; paragraph [0041] disclosing the fan; and paragraphs [0052]-[0056] disclosing the computer facility; see above rejection to claim 12).
As to claim 22, the combination of Watanabe and Yoon discloses the sensor facility has at least one of a distance sensor or a collision sensor (see Watanabe paragraphs [0044]-[0045]).
Claim(s) 14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3205250A1 to Watanabe et al. in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0055325 to Yoon et al. as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0019178 to Orzechowski et al.
Watanabe and Yoon are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 13.
As to claim 14, while Watanabe/Yoon does not explicitly disclose that the power is adjusted in the corner cleaning, Orzechowski discloses a similar robot cleaner wherein it is known in the art to adjust the powers of the brush and vacuum motors (see Orzechowski paragraph [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Watanabe/Yoon to increase the electrical power of the motors to a higher power to increase cleaning in the corners as disclosed by Orzechowski.
As to claims 17 and 18, Orzechowski discloses that it is known in the art to use different, lower power and speeds (see Orzechowski paragraphs [0069]-[0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to operate the robot at reduced speeds as disclosed by Orzechowski to produce less noise and be less bothersome to the user (see Orzechowski paragraph [0069]), and while Orzechowski discloses reducing the brush speed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also reduce the fan speed to reduce noise since higher fan speeds generate more noise or operating the vacuum motor at reduced power would also be expected to reduce the fan speed. While the combination of Watanabe, Yoon and Orzechowski does not explicitly disclose the amount of reduction of speed (50% or 80%) and the reduced, second speed (100% or 140%), selection of speeds is considered as optimizing or finding the workable ranges by routine experimentations and desires of the user (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3205250A1 to Watanabe et al. in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0055325 to Yoon et al. and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0019178 to Orzechowski et al. as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of DE102014115828A1 to Braun (see machine translation).
Watanabe, Yoon and Orzechowski are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 14.
As to claim 15, while the combination of Watanabe, Yoon and Orzechowski does not explicitly disclose setting the second, higher electrical power of at least one of the fan motor or the brush drive motor to lie above a recommended or maximum permitted continuous power of the fan motor or of the brush drive motor, Braun discloses that it is known in the art to set a higher electrical power above a recommended or maximum permitted continuous power of the fan motor or of the brush drive motor (see Braun Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Watanabe/Yoon/Orzechowski to set the second, higher electrical power of at least one of the fan motor or the brush drive motor to lie above a recommended or maximum permitted continuous power of the fan motor or of the brush drive motor in order to efficiently clean highly polluted areas (see Braun machine translation pages 1 and 2).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3205250A1 to Watanabe et al. in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0055325 to Yoon et al. as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0019178 to Orzechowski et al. and DE102014115828A1 to Braun (see machine translation).
Watanabe and Yoon are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 13.
As to claim 19, Watanabe/Yoon does not explicitly disclose that the first fan rotation speed and first brush speed amount to 100% of the maximum permitted continuous fan rotation speed and brush speed and the second fan rotation speed and brush speed amount to 200% of the maximum permitted continuous fan rotation speed and brush speed. Orzechowski discloses that it is known in the art to use different power and speeds (see Orzechowski paragraphs [0069]-[0071]) as well as normal and higher power modes (see Orzechowski paragraph [0024]). Braun discloses that it is known in the art to set a higher electrical power above a recommended or maximum permitted continuous power of the fan motor or of the brush drive motor (see Braun Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to operate the robot at maximum and above maximum power and speeds as disclosed by Orzechowski/Braun to more efficiently clean highly polluted areas (see Orzechowski paragraph [0024]; Braun machine translation pages 1 and 2), and while Orzechowski discloses adjusting the brush speed and power, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also adjust the fan speed to improve cleaning or operating the vacuum motor at higher powers to improve cleaning. While the combination of Watanabe, Yoon and Orzechowski does not explicitly disclose the first speeds (100%) and the higher, second speed (200%), selection of speeds is considered as optimizing or finding the workable ranges by routine experimentations and desires of the user (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument since Yoon is now relied upon for the newly added claim limitations as discussed above.
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