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 .
This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1 and 3-11 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed 03/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-11 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims and drawings have overcome each 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February, 27 2026.
Response to Arguments
2. Regarding the rejection made under 35 USC 102 and 103, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/16/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references and/or rationale being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 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.
4. Claims 1, and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20150166060, hereinafter Smith) in view of Ohm et al. (US 20230036749, hereinafter Ohm).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches a method for at least one of collision-free wall cleaning or collision-free edge cleaning using a mobile, self-driving appliance or a floor cleaning appliance or a robotic vacuum, sweeping or mopping robot, for autonomous processing of floor surfaces (see at least [0013]: “Another aspect of the disclosure provides a method of operating an autonomous mobile robot across a floor surface.”), the method comprising:
providing one side-brush side of the appliance and providing a side brush on the side-brush side (see at least Figs. 6B, 10-11, and [0009]: “In some implementations, the robot further includes a side brush adjacent one of the corners of the forward face and extending beyond the perimeter of the robot body. In some implementations, the robot includes a bump sensor disposed on the forward portion and in communication with the controller.”; [0081]: “. During execution of the wall-following behavior 300b, the distance to the wall W.sub.D is the distance between the robot's body 110 and the closest part of the wall 24b, plus an offset that is determined by the application (e.g., to ensure a side brush 128 just touches a flat wall 24). When the robot 100 travels along a flat wall 24, as in FIG. 10D, the wall-following distance W.sub.F is equal to the desired wall distance W.sub.D for between the body 110 and the wall 24 (e.g., to ensure a side brush 128 extending beyond the perimeter of the robot 100 just touches a flat wall 24).” Smith teaches a side brush 128 is provided on one side brush side of the robot as shown in Figs. 6A and 6B.);
providing a wall tracking sensor on the side-brush side of the appliance (see at least Figs. 6-11 and [0009]: “In some implementations, the robot further includes a side brush adjacent one of the corners of the forward face and extending beyond the perimeter of the robot body.”; [0053]: “In some implementations, the sensor system 500 includes ranging sonar sensors 530, proximity (e.g., infrared) cliff sensors 520, 520a-520d, contact sensors 540, a laser scanner, and/or an imaging sonar.”; [0081]: “In the example shown in FIG. 11B, the robot 100 uses a contact sensor (e.g. a bumper 130) to determine when it is as close as possible to the upper, outermost portion 24a of the wall 24.”. Smith teaches the contact sensor (wall tracking sensor) disposed on the same side of the side brush as shown on Figs. 6A and 6B.); and
providing a distance sensor on the appliance being a LiDAR sensor (see at least Figs. 7-11 and [0053]: “For example, these sensors 520, 530, 535 may include, but not limited to, proximity sensors, contact sensors, a camera (e.g., volumetric point cloud imaging, three-dimensional (3D) imaging or depth map sensors, visible light camera and/or infrared camera), sonar, radar, LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging, which can entail optical remote sensing that measures properties of scattered light to find range and/or other information of a distant target), LADAR (Laser Detection and Ranging), etc. In some implementations, the sensor system 500 includes ranging sonar sensors 530, proximity (e.g., infrared) cliff sensors 520, 520a-520d, contact sensors 540, a laser scanner, and/or an imaging sonar.”; [0070]: “In some implementations, the sonar system 530 includes three emitters 530e.sub.1-530e.sub.3 and four receivers 530r.sub.1-530r.sub.4, as shown in FIGS. 9A and 9B. The four receivers 530r are disposed equidistantly horizontally from one another on the bumper 130 and are separated by the emitter 530e disposed halfway between two receivers 530r.”);
moving the appliance along a section of a wall at a first distance from the wall determined by measured values of the wall tracking sensor (see at least Figs. 10-11 and [0081]: “In the example shown in FIG. 11B, the robot 100 uses a contact sensor (e.g. a bumper 130) to determine when it is as close as possible to the upper, outermost portion 24a of the wall 24. At this point, the sonar sensors 530 detect the lower recessed wall 24b at a distance Wo, but the collision of the bumper 130 with the outermost upper wall portion 24a contradicts the distance measured by the sonar sensors 530. This combination of sensor signals triggers a back-up, turn, align routine described above with reference to FIGS. 10-10D.”);
simultaneously measuring a second distance from the wall using the distance sensor; using a computer facility of the appliance to determine a difference between distance values of the wall tracking sensor and the distance sensor (see at least Figs. 10-11 and [0081]: “At this point, the sonar sensors 530 detect the lower recessed wall 24b at a distance Wo, but the collision of the bumper 130 with the outermost upper wall portion 24a contradicts the distance measured by the sonar sensors 530. This combination of sensor signals triggers a back-up, turn, align routine described above with reference to FIGS. 10-10D. The robot 100 backs up a threshold distance to enable turning and aligning its side range sensor 535 (e.g., sonar sensor and/or IR sensor) with the wall 24b.”);
determining a collision-free distance value with respect to the wall section as a function of the difference determined by the computer facility (see at least Figs. 10-11 and [0081]: “While the robot 100 is turning, it dynamically calibrates the distance from the recessed portion of the wall 24b and chooses the threshold wall-following distance W.sub.F to travel as close to the upper outermost portion of the wall 24a without running into it. This threshold wall-following distance W.sub.F is greater when the robot is travelling along an overhang 25 than when it is travelling along a flat wall 24 having no overhang 25. During execution of the wall-following behavior 300b, the distance to the wall W.sub.D is the distance between the robot's body 110 and the closest part of the wall 24b, plus an offset that is determined by the application (e.g., to ensure a side brush 128 just touches a flat wall 24). When the robot 100 travels along a flat wall 24, as in FIG. 10D, the wall-following distance W.sub.F is equal to the desired wall distance W.sub.D for between the body 110 and the wall 24 (e.g., to ensure a side brush 128 extending beyond the perimeter of the robot 100 just touches a flat wall 24).”); and
using a closed-loop distance control to control subsequent cleaning journeys as a function of the determined collision-free distance value (see at least Figs. 10-11 and [0081]: “During execution of the wall-following behavior 300b, the distance to the wall W.sub.D is the distance between the robot's body 110 and the closest part of the wall 24b, plus an offset that is determined by the application (e.g., to ensure a side brush 128 just touches a flat wall 24). When the robot 100 travels along a flat wall 24, as in FIG. 10D, the wall-following distance W.sub.F is equal to the desired wall distance W.sub.D for between the body 110 and the wall 24 (e.g., to ensure a side brush 128 extending beyond the perimeter of the robot 100 just touches a flat wall 24).” Smith teaches using the distance between the robot body and the closest part of the wall with an additional offset distance that is fed back into the system (closed-loop) to ensure the side brush just touches the flat wall without the robot colliding into the wall.).
Smith fails to explicitly teach providing a laterally disposed wall tracking sensor on the side-brush side of the appliance.
However, Ohm teaches an apparatus and method for a mobile cleaning robot that provides a laterally disposed wall tracking sensor on a side-brush side of an appliance (see at least Fig. 1 and [0015]: “The robot 100 can also include cliff sensors 124, proximity sensors 126, a bumper 128, bump sensors 130, an obstacle following sensor 132, a side brush 134a including a motor 136a, and a side brush 134b including a motor 136b. The side brushes 134a and 134b can be referred to as the side brushes 134.”; [0036]: “In some examples, the bump sensor 130 can be used to detect movement of the bumper 128 of the robot 100. The bump sensors 130 can transmit signals to the controller 108 so that the controller 108 can redirect the robot 100 based on signals from the bump sensors 130. In some examples, the obstacle following sensors 132 can detect detectable objects, including obstacles such as furniture, walls, persons, and other objects in the environment of the robot 100.” Ohm teaches bump sensor disposed on a side-brush side of the robot.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Ohm and provide a laterally disposed wall tracking sensor on a side-brush side of an appliance in order to provide an alternative position to equip the sensor to pick presences of any objects and walls in the environment.
Regarding claim 3, modified Smith teaches the limitations of claim 1. Smith further teaches providing a side of the appliance opposite to the side-brush side, and not providing a wall tracking sensor on the opposite side of the appliance (see at least Figs. 1, 6-11, [0009], [0053], and [0081]: Smith teaches the robot having an opposite side to the side-brush side where the contact sensors 54 (wall tracking sensor) is not provided on that side. The contact sensor is only provided on one side of the robot behind bumper 130 where the side brush is located as shown in Figs. 6A and 6B.).
Regarding claim 4, modified Smith teaches the limitations of claim 1. Smith further teaches determining the collision-free distance value from determined minimum distances of measurements of the wall tracking sensor and the distance sensor (see at least Figs. 10-11 and [0081]: The distance measured by the contact sensor is offset by a distance (minimum distances from the contact sensor and distance sensor 530) to ensure that the side brush just touches wall 24 which includes any gaps without the robot colliding into the wall.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. Claims 5-6 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20150166060, hereinafter Smith) and Ohm et al. (US 20230036749, hereinafter Ohm) in view of Taylor et al. (US 20050000543, hereinafter Taylor).
Regarding claim 5, modified Smith teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Smith fails to explicitly teach recording the collision-free distance value in a map of surroundings or a grid map.
However, Taylor teaches a method and apparatus for a robot cleaner with internal mapping system that records a collision-free distance value in a map of surroundings or a grid map (see at least [0056]: “The localization and mapping system uses images and other sensors to do visual localization as well as to construct a map that includes landmarks generated by the robot as it explores an environment. The localization and mapping compensates for the changes in lighting moving people and moving objects. The robot uses an existing map of an area or creates a map by determining landmarks in a camera image.”; [0082]: “FIG. 5 illustrates an example in which a serpentine room clean is interrupted by the detection of an obstacle 502, such as a piece of furniture in the middle of the room or a wall. An object following mode is entered to avoid the obstacle. The object following mode can attempt to keep the robot cleaner a fixed distance from the object.”; [0083]: “The robot cleaner can keep track of the cleaned areas of a room by storing a map of the cleaned areas. The map can be created by keeping track of the robot cleaner's position.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Taylor and provide means to record a collision-free distance value in a map of surroundings or a grid map, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to store and keep track of the distance on the map that avoids certain objects.
Regarding claim 6, modified Smith teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Smith fails to explicitly teach recording revised boundary lines or delimiting grid lines that the appliance should not pass over, in the map of the surroundings or the grid map
However, Taylor teaches a method and apparatus for a robot cleaner with internal mapping system that records revised boundary lines or delimiting grid lines that an appliance should not pass over, in a map of a surroundings or a grid map (see at least Figs. 11A-11C and [0143]: “One advantage of the serpentine pattern is the ease of adaptation when obstacles are encountered. At any point in the pattern, when the robot cleaner encounters an obstacle, the robot cleaner can back up and jump to next direction in the pattern. When the robot cleaner gets to an obstacle, the robot cleaner starts the next path segment. This is shown in the example of FIG. 11B.”; [0144]: “As shown in the example of FIG. 11B, obstacles can result in uncleaned regions of the subgrid. In one embodiment, the subgrid is mapped by the robot cleaner and the location of uncleaned regions in the subgrid is identified. The robot cleaner can proceed to move the uncleaned region and clean in another serpentine pattern within the unexplored area as shown in FIG. 11C.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Taylor and provide means to records revised boundary lines or delimiting grid lines that an appliance should not pass over, in a map of a surroundings or a grid map, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to store and update boundaries on a map that avoids certain objects.
Regarding claim 10, modified Smith teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Smith fails to explicitly teach determining the collision-free distance value during an exploratory journey of the appliance.
However, Taylor teaches a method and apparatus for a robot cleaner with internal mapping system that determines a collision-free distance value during an exploratory journey of an appliance (see at least [0056]: “The localization and mapping system uses images and other sensors to do visual localization as well as to construct a map that includes landmarks generated by the robot as it explores an environment. The localization and mapping compensates for the changes in lighting moving people and moving objects. The robot uses an existing map of an area or creates a map by determining landmarks in a camera image. When the robot cleaner moves from a known location, the robot cleaner can re-orient itself using the landmarks. Path planing modules can use the map with the landmarks to orient the robot within a path. The landmark map can be used to produce a map of clean or unclean regions within a room. The clean/unclean region map can be separate from or integrated with the landmark map. The robot can use the clean/unclean region map to clean the room.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Taylor and provide means to determines a collision-free distance value during an exploratory journey of an appliance, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a mode that create and store the distance that avoids collision while exploring the environment.
Regarding claim 11, modified Smith teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Smith fails to explicitly teach determining a collision-free distance value during cleaning journeys of the appliance, only upon determining a change compared to an existing map of the surroundings or grid map.
However, Taylor teaches a method and apparatus for a robot cleaner with internal mapping system that determines a collision-free distance value during cleaning journeys of the appliance, only upon determining a change compared to an existing map of the surroundings or grid map (see at least Figs. 11A-11C and [0143]: “One advantage of the serpentine pattern is the ease of adaptation when obstacles are encountered. At any point in the pattern, when the robot cleaner encounters an obstacle, the robot cleaner can back up and jump to next direction in the pattern. When the robot cleaner gets to an obstacle, the robot cleaner starts the next path segment. This is shown in the example of FIG. 11B.”; [0144]: “As shown in the example of FIG. 11B, obstacles can result in uncleaned regions of the subgrid. In one embodiment, the subgrid is mapped by the robot cleaner and the location of uncleaned regions in the subgrid is identified. The robot cleaner can proceed to move the uncleaned region and clean in another serpentine pattern within the unexplored area as shown in FIG. 11C.” Taylor teaches determining an updated collision-free distance to avoid an obstacle only when it encounters the obstacle compared to an existing map (a changed compared to the existing map).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Taylor and provide means to determine a collision-free distance value during cleaning journeys of the appliance, only upon determining a change compared to an existing map of the surroundings or grid map, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to update the collision free distance only when there is a differences between the existing map to avoid unnecessary data usage.
6. Claims 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20150166060, hereinafter Smith) and Ohm et al. (US 20230036749, hereinafter Ohm) in view of Douillard et al. (US 20180364717, hereinafter Douillard).
Regarding claim 7, modified Smith teaches the limitations of claim 1. Smith further teaches using the distance sensor for the closed-loop control during subsequent cleaning journeys (see at least Figs. 10-11 and [0081]: “During execution of the wall-following behavior 300b, the distance to the wall W.sub.D is the distance between the robot's body 110 and the closest part of the wall 24b, plus an offset that is determined by the application (e.g., to ensure a side brush 128 just touches a flat wall 24). When the robot 100 travels along a flat wall 24, as in FIG. 10D, the wall-following distance W.sub.F is equal to the desired wall distance W.sub.D for between the body 110 and the wall 24 (e.g., to ensure a side brush 128 extending beyond the perimeter of the robot 100 just touches a flat wall 24).”; [0085]: “The sonar sensors 530 enable the robot 100 to distinguish between walls 24 and other obstacles 18, such as chair legs 18a-18b depicted in FIG. 9B.” Smith teaches using the distance between the robot body and the closest part of the wall with an additional offset distance that is fed back into the system (closed-loop) to ensure the side brush just touches the flat wall without the robot colliding into the wall on subsequent journeys.).
Smith fails to explicitly teach only using the distance sensor for the control during subsequent journeys.
However, Douillard teaches a system and method for performing segmentation on three-dimensional data of an autonomous vehicle that only uses a distance sensor for a control during subsequent journeys (see at least [0099]: “As the autonomous vehicle traverses through space capturing LIDAR data, the operations can localize the autonomous vehicle within the global map, by comparing locally captured features with features present on the global map. Such a process may be similar to those discussed above (e.g., a form of SLAM, Bayesian filtering, bundle adjustments, and the like). In some instances, the operations can determine differences between the local map and a global map…In some instances, if a number of differences is above the second threshold, the operations can determine that the localization has failed, and may disregard the global map data, and operate using only locally captured LIDAR data.” Douillard teaches disregarding global map data and only using locally captured LIDAR data (distance sensor) for control.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Douillard and provide a means to only using a distance sensor for a control during subsequent journeys, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order operate using only the distance sensor and disregarding unreliable data [0099].
Regarding claim 8, modified Smith teaches the limitations of claim 1. Smith further teaches performing a measurement using the wall tracking sensor on an outward journey from a location (see at least Figs. 10-11 and [0079-0081]: robot 100 using a contact sensor (wall tracking sensor) located on bumper 130 of the robot to determine when it is as close as possible to the upper, outermost portion 24a of wall 24 on a journey outward and towards the wall.), and performing measurements using the distance sensor on a return journey back to the location (see at least Figs. 10-11 and [0079-0081]: robot 100 using sensors 530 (distance sensor) after it establishes the distance it needs to keep to ensure a side brush 128 extends beyond the perimeter of the robot and just touches the flat wall 24 on a journey to return and away from the wall.).
Smith fails to explicitly teach only using a certain sensor for a journey.
However, Douillard teaches a system and method for performing segmentation on three-dimensional data of an autonomous vehicle that only uses a certain sensor for a journey (see at least [0099]: “As the autonomous vehicle traverses through space capturing LIDAR data, the operations can localize the autonomous vehicle within the global map, by comparing locally captured features with features present on the global map. Such a process may be similar to those discussed above (e.g., a form of SLAM, Bayesian filtering, bundle adjustments, and the like). In some instances, the operations can determine differences between the local map and a global map…In some instances, if a number of differences is above the second threshold, the operations can determine that the localization has failed, and may disregard the global map data, and operate using only locally captured LIDAR data.” Douillard teaches disregarding global map data and only using locally captured LIDAR data (distance sensor) for control.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Douillard and provide a means to only uses a certain sensor for a journey, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order operate using only one type of sensor and disregarding unreliable data from other sensors [0099].
7. Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20150166060, hereinafter Smith) and Ohm et al. (US 20230036749, hereinafter Ohm) and Douillard et al. (US 20180364717, hereinafter Douillard) in view of Taylor et al. (US 20050000543, hereinafter Taylor).
Regarding claim 9, modified Smith teaches the limitations of claim 8. Smith further teaches carrying out the outward and return journeys in areas in which a floor is adjacent to a wall (see at least Figs. 10-11, [0058], and [0079-0081]: robot 100 carries out outwards and return journeys while cleaning floor surface 10 that is adjacent to a wall 24.).
Smith fails to explicitly teach that the floor is a floor carpet.
However, Taylor teaches a method and apparatus for a robot cleaner with internal mapping system that carries out journeys on a floor carpet area (see at least [0032]: “FIG. 1A is a functional diagram of a robot cleaner 100 of an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. In this example, the robot cleaner 100 includes a cleaning unit 102 which can be any type of cleaning unit. The cleaning unit can clean any object, such as a carpeted or uncarpeted floor.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Taylor and provide means to carry out journeys on a floor carpet area, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order adapt to different floor materials.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 TIEN MINH LE whose telephone number is (571)272-3903. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8:30am-5:30pm eastern time).
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on (571)272-6919. 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.
/T.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights