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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 1, 7, 9-10, 13, 16, 18, and 20 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 9, “detecting a water or cleaning solution level within the first container” in lines 4-5 should be “detecting a water or cleaning solution level within the second container.
For claim 10, “an environment” in the last two lines should be “the environment” since the environment has already been recited in claim 1.
For claim 13, “the object” in line 4 should be “an object” since this is the first time an object on the floor is being introduced, and “an object on the floor surface” in the last line should be “the object on the floor surface” since the object has already been introduced earlier in the claim in line 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case et al (US 20220151450 A1) in view of Johnson et al (US 20200069139 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Case and Johnson respectively)
Regarding Claim 1, Case teaches a method for operating Internet of Things (IoT) smart devices within an environment (See at least Case Paragraphs 0005, 0160-0161, and Figure 5a), comprising:
connecting at least one IoT smart device with an application executed on a smartphone (See at least Case Paragraphs 0143, 0160-0161, and Figure 5a, the mobile device, which is a smart phone that executes applications, is connected to IoT smart devices),
wherein the IoT smart devices comprise at least a robotic cleaning device and a docking station of the robotic cleaning device (See at least Case Paragraphs 0136, 0160-0161, and Figure 5a, the IoT smart devices includes a mobile cleaning robot and its docking station);
generating a map of the environment with the robotic cleaning device (See at least Case Paragraphs 0131, the robot constructs a map of the environment);
displaying the map with the application (See at least Case Paragraphs 0004 and 0144, the mobile application displays the map); and
receiving user inputs with the application, wherein the user inputs specify at least: a command to turn on or turn off a first IoT smart device (See at least Case Paragraphs 0160, 0199, and Figure 6c, the user creates a schedule commanding the smart light to turn on); a command for the robotic cleaning device to clean the environment (See at least Case Paragraphs 0147, 0149, and Figure 4b, the user instructs the robot to clean the environment); and a command for the robotic cleaning device to clean a particular room within the environment (See at least Case Paragraphs 0147, 0149, and Figure 4b, the user selects the rooms to be cleaned during the cleaning mission);
wherein:
the robotic cleaning device…comprise a first container for storing debris (See at least Case Paragraph 0117, the debris bin is interpreted as the first container of the robotic cleaning device);
Case fails to disclose the docking station comprise a first container for storing debris; and
the docking station is configured to suction debris from the first container of the robotic cleaning device into the first container of the docking station.
However, Johnson teaches the docking station comprise a first container for storing debris (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0055-0057 and Figure 2a, the filter bag is interpreted as a first container of the docking station); and
the docking station is configured to suction debris from the first container of the robotic cleaning device into the first container of the docking station (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0049-0052, 0055, and Figure 2a, the docking/evacuation station suctions debris from the debris bin of the robot into the filter bag).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Case with Johnson to have the docking station suction debris from the first container of the robotic cleaning device into the first container of the docking station. This modification, as taught by Johnson, would allow the robot to empty its debris bin autonomously (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0002, 0049-0052, and 0055), thus, improving the autonomous capabilities of the robotic cleaning device.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Case teaches wherein the IoT smart devices further comprise at least one of: a speaker, a television, a kitchen appliance, a washer, a dryer, a lock, lights, window blinds or shades, a thermostat, an air conditioning system, and a heating system (See at least Case Paragraph 0160, the smart devices include a speaker, television, thermostat, and air conditioning).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case in view of Johnson, and in further in view of Madonna et al (US 20190277529 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Madonna)
Regarding Claim 2, modified Case fails to disclose the application comprises a short-term rental application for hosts and guests; the application comprises a host section accessible to a host of a short-term rental and a guest section accessible to a guest renting the short-term rental;
the application displays information relating to the short-term rental including amenities;
the at least one IoT smart device is an amenity of the short-term rental; and
the host and the guest use their respective sections of the application to at least communicate with, monitor, and control the at least one IoT smart device.
However, Madonna teaches the application comprises a short-term rental application for hosts and guests (See at least Madonna Paragraphs 0007, 0030, 0041, and Figures 3a-3b, the hotel is a short-term rental and there is an application for the host/property staff and corporate and the guest); the application comprises a host section accessible to a host of a short-term rental and a guest section accessible to a guest renting the short-term rental (See at least Madonna Paragraphs 0030, 0041, and Figures 3a-3b, the host section is accessible by property staff and corporate, and the guest section is accessible to authorized guests);
the application displays information relating to the short-term rental including amenities (See at least Madonna Paragraphs 0030, 0041, and Figures 3a-3b, the lights and thermostats are interpreted as amenities);
the at least one IoT smart device is an amenity of the short-term rental (See at least Madonna Paragraphs 0030, 0041, and Figures 3a-3b, the smart lights and smart thermostats are the amenities); and
the host and the guest use their respective sections of the application to at least communicate with, monitor, and control the at least one IoT smart device (See at least Madonna Paragraphs 0030, 0041, and Figures 3a-3b, the application allows the guest and host to communicate, monitor, and control the smart lights and thermostats).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Madonna to have the application comprise a host section and a guest section, wherein the host and the guest use their respective sections of the application to at least communicate with, monitor, and control the at least one IoT smart device. This modification, as taught by Madonna, would allow the host to manage the IoT smart devices of each room, and the guest to manage the IoT smart devices of their room, which would improve the control, monitoring, and optimization of in-room devices (See at least Madonna Paragraphs 0006, 0030, and 0041).
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case in view of Johnson, and in further in view of Weyant et al (US 20220061621 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Weyant)
Regarding Claim 4, modified Case fails to disclose presenting proposed areas to clean to a user with the application, wherein:
the robotic cleaning device only cleans the proposed areas after approval from the user; and
the user inputs further specify the approval from the user.
However, Weyant teaches presenting proposed areas to clean to a user with the application (See at least Weyant Paragraphs 0110-0111 and 0113, the cleaning schedule, which includes the proposed cleaning areas, is presented to the user), wherein:
the robotic cleaning device only cleans the proposed areas after approval from the user (See at least Weyant Paragraph 0113, the mobile cleaning robot executes the cleaning mission accepted by the user); and
the user inputs further specify the approval from the user (See at least Weyant Paragraph 0113, the user accepts/approves the cleaning schedules using the UI controls on the interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Weyant to only clean the proposed areas after approval from the user. This modification, as taught by Weyant, would allow the user to accept, decline, or modify the recommended cleaning (See at least Weyant Paragraph 0113), thus, increasing the control the user has over the robotic cleaning device.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Case fails to disclose determining a suggested cleaning comprising a suggested cleaning location, a suggested cleaning setting to use when executing the suggested cleaning, and a suggested time to execute the suggested cleaning, wherein:
the suggested cleaning is proposed to a user with the application; and
the suggested cleaning is only implemented after approval of the suggested cleaning by the user; and
the user inputs further specify the approval of the suggested cleaning.
However, Weyant teaches determining a suggested cleaning comprising a suggested cleaning location (See at least Weyant Paragraph 0110, the recommended cleaning comprises a cleaning area), a suggested cleaning setting to use when executing the suggested cleaning (See at least Weyant Paragraphs 0110-0111, the recommended cleaning comprises a cleaning mode/setting), and a suggested time to execute the suggested cleaning (See at least Weyant Paragraphs 0110-0111, the recommended cleaning comprises a cleaning time), wherein:
the suggested cleaning is proposed to a user with the application (See at least Weyant Paragraph 0113); and
the suggested cleaning is only implemented after approval of the suggested cleaning by the user (See at least Weyant Paragraph 0113, the robot executes the cleaning mission if accepted by the user); and
the user inputs further specify the approval of the suggested cleaning (See at least Weyant Paragraph 0113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Weyant to only implement the suggested cleaning after approval from the user. This modification, as taught by Weyant, would allow the user to accept, decline, or modify the recommended cleaning (See at least Weyant Paragraph 0113), thus, increasing the control the user has over the robotic cleaning device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case in view of Johnson, and in further in view of Lee (US 20220347862 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Lee)
Regarding Claim 5, modified Case fails to disclose the map is autonomously divided into rooms with the robotic cleaning device or the application; and
the rooms are autonomously labelled with the robotic cleaning device or the application.
However, Lee teaches the map is autonomously divided into rooms with the robotic cleaning device or the application (See at least Lee Paragraph 0061, the map is divided into a plurality of cleaning areas/rooms by the robot); and
the rooms are autonomously labelled with the robotic cleaning device or the application (See at least Lee Paragraph 0061, the robot labels the cleaning areas (e.g. a living room, kitchen, Room #1, Room #2, etc.)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Lee to have the robot autonomously divide the map into rooms and label the rooms. This modification, as taught by Lee, would allow the robot to autonomously generate an indoor space map that is divided into a plurality of labeled rooms (See at least Lee Paragraph 0061), thus, improving the autonomous capabilities of the robotic cleaning device.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case in view of Johnson, and in further in view of Wu et al (US 20240164606 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Wu)
Regarding Claims 6-7, modified Case fails to disclose the robotic cleaning device further comprises a second container for storing clean water or cleaning solution;
the docking station further comprises a second container for storing clean water or cleaning solution; and
the docking station is further configured to transfer the clean water or the cleaning solution from the second container of the docking station to the second container of the robotic cleaning device,
wherein: the docking station comprises a third container for storing wastewater; and
the docking station is configured to:
apply the clean water or the cleaning solution from the second container of the docking station to a cleaning component of the robotic cleaning device for cleaning the cleaning component; and
transfer wastewater collected during cleaning of the cleaning component to the third container of the docking station.
However, Wu teaches the robotic cleaning device further comprises a second container for storing clean water or cleaning solution (See at least Wu Paragraphs 0068 and 0072, the mop water tank of the robot stores clean water);
the docking station further comprises a second container for storing clean water or cleaning solution (See at least Wu Paragraphs 0068 and 0072, the docking device includes a water tank for storing clean water); and
the docking station is further configured to transfer the clean water or the cleaning solution from the second container of the docking station to the second container of the robotic cleaning device (See at least Wu Paragraphs 0068 and 0072, clean water is transferred from the docking device to the robot),
wherein: the docking station comprises a third container for storing wastewater (See at least Wu Paragraph 0071, the docking device includes a wastewater tank for storing wastewater); and
the docking station is configured to:
apply the clean water or the cleaning solution from the second container of the docking station to a cleaning component of the robotic cleaning device for cleaning the cleaning component (See at least Wu Paragraphs 0061, 0065, 0068, and 0071-0072, the docking device applies clean water from the water tank to clean the mop/cleaning component of the robot); and
transfer wastewater collected during cleaning of the cleaning component to the third container of the docking station (See at least Wu Paragraphs 0065, and 0071, wastewater from the cleaning is transferred to the wastewater tank).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Wu to transfer the clean water from the second container of the docking station to the second container of the robotic cleaning device, and transfer wastewater collected during cleaning of the cleaning component to the third container of the docking station. These modifications, as taught by Wu, would allow the robot to autonomously replenish its water tank when the water tank is depleted (See at least Wu Paragraphs 0068 and 0072), and allow the robot to autonomously wash its mop (See at least Wu Paragraphs 0065), thus, improving the autonomous capabilities of the robotic cleaning device.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case in view of Johnson and Wu, and in further in view of Ohm et al (US 20240260807 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Ohm)
Regarding Claim 8, modified Case fails to disclose the docking station is configured to blow air towards the cleaning component for drying; and
the docking station is configured to heat the air or water.
However, Ohm teaches the docking station is configured to blow air towards the cleaning component for drying (See at least Ohm Paragraphs 0051-0053, the pad dry blower blows air towards the cleaning component/pad for drying); and
the docking station is configured to heat the air or water (See at least Ohm Paragraph 0053, the air is heated before discharge).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Ohm to blow heated air towards the cleaning component for drying. This modification, as taught by Ohm, would allow the docking station to autonomously dry the cleaning component after cleaning the cleaning component (See at least Ohm Paragraphs 0051-0053), thus, improving the autonomous capabilities of the docking station.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case in view of Johnson, and in further in view of Zhang et al (US 20240237868 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Zhang)
Regarding Claim 9, modified Case teaches the robotic cleaning device returns to the docking station to:
upon completion of a cleaning session (See at least Case Paragraph 0150, the robot returns to its dock upon completing the cleaning mission/session).
Modified Case fails to disclose the robotic cleaning device returns to the docking station to:
empty debris from the first container of the robotic cleaning device;
recharge a battery of the robotic cleaning device;
However, Johnson teaches the robotic cleaning device returns to the docking station to:
empty debris from the first container of the robotic cleaning device (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0049-0052, 0055, and Figure 2a, the robot returns to the docking/evacuation station to empty debris from the debris bin);
recharge a battery of the robotic cleaning device (See at least Johnson Paragraph 0052, the robot returns to the docking/evacuation station to recharge a battery);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Johnson to have the robotic cleaning device return to the docking station to empty debris and recharge a battery. These modifications, as taught by Johnson, would allow the robot to autonomously empty its debris bin and recharge its battery (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0049-0052, and 0055), thus, improving the autonomous capabilities of the robotic cleaning device.
Modified Case fails to disclose the robotic cleaning device returns to the docking station to:
refill a second container of the robotic cleaning device with water or cleaning solution upon a sensor of the robotic cleaning device detecting a water or cleaning solution level within the first container is below a predetermined water or cleaning solution threshold level.
However, Zhang teaches the robotic cleaning device returns to the docking station to:
refill a second container of the robotic cleaning device with water or cleaning solution upon a sensor of the robotic cleaning device detecting a water or cleaning solution level within the first container is below a predetermined water or cleaning solution threshold level (See at least Zhang Paragraphs 0101, 0117-0119, and 0123, when the water volume of the clean water chamber, which is detected by a sensor/detector, is below a threshold, the cleaning apparatus/robot moves to the base/docking station to refill the clean water chamber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Zhang to refill a first container of the robotic cleaning device with water upon a sensor of the robotic cleaning device detecting a water level within the first container is below a predetermined water threshold level. This modification, as taught by Zhang, would allow the robot to autonomously refill its clean water chamber by detecting when the water level is below a threshold value (See at least Zhang Paragraphs 0101, 0117-0119, and 0123), thus, improving the autonomous capabilities of the robotic cleaning device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case in view of Johnson and Zhang, and in further in view of Gao et al (US 20190003137 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Gao)
Regarding Claim 10, modified Case fails to disclose the robotic cleaning device returns to the docking station to refill the second container or recharge the battery of the robotic cleaning device during a cleaning session;
the robotic cleaning device resumes the cleaning session after refilling the second container or recharging the battery of the robotic cleaning device from a last location the robotic cleaning device cleaned prior to returning to the docking station;
the robotic cleaning device determines the last location based on at least the map of an environment created by the robotic cleaning device.
However, Gao teaches the robotic cleaning device returns to the docking station to refill the second container or recharge the battery of the robotic cleaning device during a cleaning session (See at least Gao Paragraph 0278, the robot/snow blower returns to the dock to recharge during a cleaning session);
the robotic cleaning device resumes the cleaning session after refilling the second container or recharging the battery of the robotic cleaning device from a last location the robotic cleaning device cleaned prior to returning to the docking station (See at least Gao Paragraph 0278, the robot/snow blower resumes cleaning at the last location/coordinate prior to recharging after charging is finished);
the robotic cleaning device determines the last location based on at least the map of an environment created by the robotic cleaning device (See at least Gao Paragraphs 0278, the robot/snow blower creates a map and uses the map for navigating back to the last location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Gao to resume the cleaning session after recharging the battery of the robotic cleaning device from a last location the robotic cleaning device cleaned prior to returning to the docking station. This modification, as taught by Gao, would allow the robot to navigate to the last location to continue the work from where it left off after charging is finished (See at least Gao Paragraphs 0278), thus, improving the efficiency of the robotic cleaning device.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case in view of Johnson, and in further in view of Duan et al (US 20240315518 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Duan)
Regarding Claims 11-12, modified Case fails to disclose engaging or disengaging a cleaning component of the robotic cleaning device with or from a floor surface, respectively, based on sensor data indicating a floor type, wherein:
possible floor types comprise at least carpet and a hard surface;
engaging the cleaning component with the floor surface comprises moving the cleaning component towards the floor surface until the cleaning component contacts the floor surface; and
disengaging the cleaning component from the floor surface comprises moving the cleaning component away from the floor surface until the cleaning component is free from contact with the floor surface,
applying a downward pressure onto the cleaning component such that the cleaning component contacts the floor surface with the downward pressure, wherein the cleaning component comprises a mopping pad.
However, Duan teaches engaging or disengaging a cleaning component of the robotic cleaning device with or from a floor surface, respectively, based on sensor data indicating a floor type (See at least Duan Paragraph 0147, the wet-cleaning module engages or disengages the floor based on the detected floor type), wherein:
possible floor types comprise at least carpet and a hard surface (See at least Duan Paragraph 0147, the tile surface is a hard surface);
engaging the cleaning component with the floor surface comprises moving the cleaning component towards the floor surface until the cleaning component contacts the floor surface (See at least Duan Paragraphs 0146-0147, the wet-cleaning component is lowered to contact the floor surface); and
disengaging the cleaning component from the floor surface comprises moving the cleaning component away from the floor surface until the cleaning component is free from contact with the floor surface (See at least Duan Paragraphs 0146-0147, the wet-cleaning module is lifted to separate from the surface),
applying a downward pressure onto the cleaning component such that the cleaning component contacts the floor surface with the downward pressure (See at least Duan Paragraphs 0082, 0085, 0138, and 0146-0147, the wet-cleaning component is lowered by applying a lowering force and the wet-cleaning component contacts the surface with a certain pressure), wherein the cleaning component comprises a mopping pad (See at least Duan Paragraph 0092, the wet-cleaning module is interpreted as a mopping pad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Duan to engaging or disengaging a cleaning component of the robotic cleaning device with or from a floor surface, respectively, based on sensor data indicating a floor type, wherein the cleaning component comprises a mopping pad. This modification, as taught by Duan, would allow the robotic cleaning device to lower the mopping pad to clean hard surfaces like tiles, and lift the mopping pad to avoid mopping carpet (See at least Duan Paragraphs 0092 and 0146-0147), thus, allowing the robotic cleaning device to travel on a plurality of different surfaces.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case in view of Johnson, and in further in view of Cui et al (US 20210049376 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Cui)
Regarding Claims 13-14, modified Case teaches capturing images from the environment using an image sensor disposed on the robotic cleaning device (See at least Case Paragraphs 0122 and 0127);
…and
the robotic cleaning device avoiding, driving around, or performing a discriminatory navigation action in response to an object on the floor surface (See at least Case Paragraphs 0122 and 0130, the robot avoids obstacles/objects on the floor surface), and
determining…at least one of: an object size of the object and an object location of the object with the robotic cleaning device (See at least Case Paragraphs 0122 and 0131, the location of the object/obstacle is determined and marked on the map), wherein:
a structured light source is disposed adjacent to the image sensor and emits structured light onto objects within the environment (See at least Case Paragraphs 0125-0126 and Figure 2b, the optical emitters 182, 184 emit structured light/optical beams onto objects and the image sensor/optical detector 180 is adjacent to the emitters 182, 184);
the structured light falls within a field of view of the image sensor (See at least Case Paragraphs 0125-0126 and Figure 2b, the image sensor/optical detector detects the optical beams/structured light).
Modified Case fails to disclose discriminating the object on a floor surface from patterns or stripes on the floor surface, with the robotic cleaning device;
determining an object type of the object and identifiable object types comprise at least: a shoe, a wire, pet waste, and socks.
However, Cui teaches discriminating an object on a floor surface from patterns or stripes on the floor surface, with the robotic cleaning device (See at least Cui Paragraphs 0026-0027, and 0128-0131, the robot discriminates an obstacle from the pattern of the carpet);
determining an object type of the object (See at least Cui Paragraphs 0069-0070) and identifiable object types comprise at least: a shoe, a wire, pet waste, and socks (See at least Cui Paragraphs 0069-0070, the cables are interpreted as wires).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Cui to discriminate an object on a floor surface from patterns or stripes on the floor surface and determine an object type of the object. By discriminating an object on a floor surface from patterns on the floor surface, as taught by Cui, the robot can reduce misidentification of non-obstacles such as patterns on carpets and floor tiles (See at least Cui Paragraphs 0027, and 0130), thus, improving the accuracy of the robotic cleaning device. By determining an object type, as taught by Cui, the robotic cleaning device can classify the object into an object type and perform autonomous avoidance based on the object type (See at least Cui Paragraphs 0068-0071 and 0102), thus, improving the awareness of the robotic cleaning device.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case in view of Johnson, and in further in view of Yoon et al (US 20240389814 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Yoon)
Regarding Claim 15, modified Case fails to disclose receiving a verbal instruction from a user with a home assistant or a microphone on the robotic cleaning device; and
executing the verbal instruction with the robotic cleaning device.
However, Yoon teaches receiving a verbal instruction from a user with a home assistant or a microphone on the robotic cleaning device (See at least Yoon Paragraphs 0039 and 0091, the robot receives a voice command from a user via the microphone); and
executing the verbal instruction with the robotic cleaning device (See at least Yoon Paragraph 0091, the robot performs the operation corresponding to the voice command).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Yoon to execute a verbal instruction with the robotic cleaning device. Receiving and executing a verbal instruction from a user, as taught by Yoon, is routine and well-understood in the art and allows the user to give the robotic cleaning device a command using their voice (See at least Yoon Paragraphs 0039 and 0091), thus, making the robotic cleaning device more desirable to a user.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case in view of Johnson, and in further in view of Yoon, Schneider et al (US 20210373558 A1), Yang et al (US 20160374526 A1), Chambers et al (US 20180321687 A1), Shim et al (US 20230255430 A1), Han et al (US 20210369070 A1), Orzechowski et al (US 20200069140 A1), Liu (US 20260002792 A1), and Jang et al (US 20250295284 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Schneider, Yang, Chambers, Shim, Han, Orzechowski, Liu, and Jang respectively)
Regarding Claim 16, modified Case teaches displaying each of:
the map of the environment (See at least Case Paragraph 0144);
a robotic cleaning device status (See at least Case Paragraphs 0148-0149, the robot status data is displayed);
a cleaned area within the map (See at least Case Paragraph 0150, the map displays the rooms cleaned);
a cleaning time of the robotic cleaning device (See at least Case Paragraph 0150, the time spent cleaning each room is displayed);
a cleaning history (See at least Case Paragraph 0150, the mission summary, which is interpreted as the cleaning history, is displayed);
an icon within the map representing a location of an object (See at least Case Paragraphs 0122 and 0131, the location of obstacles are indicated on the map);
and the user inputs further specify each of:
a plurality of areas for the robotic cleaning device to perform work within (See at least Case Paragraphs 0147, 0149, and Figure 4b, the user selects the rooms to be cleaned during the cleaning mission);
a type of cleaning for the robotic cleaning device to perform within each of the plurality of areas specified for work (See at least Case Paragraph 0149, the user selects the cleaning mode/type for the room/area);
a cleaning schedule of the robotic cleaning device (See at least Case Paragraph 0149, the user inputs the cleaning schedule);
and a plurality of areas for the robotic cleaning device to avoid (See at least Case Paragraph 0185, the user identifies avoidance spots on the map);
an instruction to enable a quiet mode of the robotic cleaning device (See at least Case Paragraph 0168, the do-not-disturb routine is an instruction for the robot to not produce loud noises);
an instruction to enable a deep cleaning by the robotic cleaning device (See at least Case Paragraph 0168, the user selects a deep clean mode);
Modified Case fails to disclose the user inputs… an instruction for a maintenance station to empty a bin of the robotic cleaning device.
However, Johnson teaches the user inputs… an instruction for a maintenance station to empty a bin of the robotic cleaning device (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0055, 0062, and Figure 4, the user instructs the evacuation/maintenance station to empty the bin of the robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Johnson to have the user instruct the maintenance station to empty a bin of the robotic cleaning device. This modification, as taught by Johnson, would allow the user initiate emptying of the bin of the robot using the mobile device (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0055, 0062, and Figure 4), thus, giving the user more control over the robotic cleaning device.
Modified Case fails to disclose displaying… a battery charge of a battery of the robotic cleaning device.
However, Yoon teaches displaying… a battery charge of a battery of the robotic cleaning device (See at least Yoon Paragraph 0105 and Figure 6, the battery remaining amount is displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Yoon to display a battery charge. This modification, as taught by Yoon, would allow the user to see the battery charge of the robotic cleaning device (See at least Yoon Paragraph 0105 and Figure 6), thus, increasing the awareness of the user.
Modified Case fails to disclose displaying… maintenance information;
and the user inputs…a favorite schedule;
a merger of two rooms within the map;
a division of two rooms within the map;
However, Schneider teaches displaying… maintenance information (See at least Schneider Paragraph 0153, the maintenance reminders are displayed);
and the user inputs…a favorite schedule (See at least Schneider Paragraph 0136 and Figure 6c, the mission routines include a user’s favorite);
a merger of two rooms within the map (See at least Schneider Paragraph 0152);
a division of two rooms within the map (See at least Schneider Paragraph 0152);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Schneider to display maintenance information and input a favorite schedule, a merger of two rooms within the map, and a division of two rooms within the map. These modifications would allow a user to be reminded of maintenance (See at least Schneider Paragraph 0153), select which mission routines are their favorite (See at least Schneider Paragraph 0136), and merge or divide rooms (See at least Schneider Paragraph 0152), thus increasing the awareness and control of the user.
Modified Case fails to disclose displaying… firmware information.
However, Yang teaches displaying… firmware information (See at least Yang Paragraphs 0107, and 0134-0135, the state information, which includes the firmware installed, is displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Yang to display firmware information. This modification, as taught by Yang, would allow a user to see the firmware installed, thus, increasing the awareness of the user.
Modified Case fails to disclose displaying… product information with the application.
However, Chambers teaches displaying… product information with the application (See at least Chambers Paragraph 0129, the identification information, which includes the model of the devices, is displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Chambers to display product information. This modification, as taught by Yang, would allow a user to see the model of the devices, thus, increasing the awareness of the user.
Modified Case fails to disclose the user inputs… an amount of water or cleaning solution the robotic cleaning device is to dispense within an area.
However, Shim teaches the user inputs… an amount of water or cleaning solution the robotic cleaning device is to dispense within an area (See at least Shim Paragraphs 0268-0269, the user inputs the amount of water to dispense).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Shim to have the user input an amount of water or cleaning solution the robotic cleaning device is to dispense within an area. This modification, as taught by Shim, would allow the user to adjust the water dispensed based on the type of floor surface or contamination level (See at least Shim Paragraphs 0268-0269), thus, increasing the control the user has over the robotic cleaning device.
Modified Case fails to disclose the user inputs… a suction power the robotic cleaning device is to use within an area.
However, Han teaches the user inputs… a suction power the robotic cleaning device is to use within an area (See at least Han Paragraphs 0049, 0069, and Figure 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Han to have the user input a suction power the robotic cleaning device is to use within an area. This modification, as taught by Han, would allow the user to adjust the suction power (See at least Han Paragraphs 0049, 0069, and Figure 13), thus, increasing the control the user has over the robotic cleaning device.
Modified Case fails to disclose the user inputs… an instruction for the robotic cleaning device to vacuum first then mop, vacuum and mop, vacuum only, or mop only.
However, Orzechowski teaches the user inputs… an instruction for the robotic cleaning device to vacuum first then mop, vacuum and mop, vacuum only, or mop only (See at least Orzechowski Paragraphs 0069-0072 and 0093-0095, the user sets the cleaning mode, such as vacuum and mop, vacuum only, or mop only, for each zone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Orzechowski to have the user input an instruction for the robotic cleaning device to vacuum first then mop, vacuum and mop, vacuum only, or mop only. This modification, as taught by Orzechowski, would allow the user to designate the cleaning mode for each zone (See at least Orzechowski Paragraphs 0069-0072 and 0093-0095), thus, increasing the control the user has over the robotic cleaning device.
Modified Case fails to disclose the user inputs… a virtual wall within the map.
However, Liu teaches the user inputs… a virtual wall within the map (See at least Liu Paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Liu to have the user input a virtual wall within the map. This modification, as taught by Liu, would allow the user to add a virtual wall to the map (See at least Liu Paragraph 0033), thus, increasing the control the user has over the robotic cleaning device.
Modified Case fails to disclose the user inputs… a scrub intensity of the robotic cleaning device.
However, Jang teaches the user inputs… a scrub intensity of the robotic cleaning device (See at least Jang Paragraph 0206, the user inputs the intensity of the mop rag).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Jang to have the user input a scrub intensity of the robotic cleaning device. This modification, as taught by Jang, would allow the user to set the scrub intensity (See at least Jang Paragraph 0206), thus, increasing the control the user has over the robotic cleaning device.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case in view of Johnson, Yoon, Schneider, Yang, Chambers, Shim, Han, Orzechowski, Liu, and Jang, and in further view of Kleiner et al (US 20180074508 A1), Kumar et al (US 20230062104 A1), Toh (US 20250090706 A1), Morin et al (US 20160183752 A1), and Yamamoto (US 20200133239 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Kleiner, Kumar, Toh, Morin, and Yamamoto respectively)
Regarding Claim 17, modified Case teaches the user inputs further specify each of: an addition of or a modification to furniture within the map (See at least Case Paragraphs 0004 and 0122, the user can add or remove objects from the map, and the objects include furniture);
an order in which the robotic cleaning device is to clean rooms (See at least Case Paragraph 0149, the user manipulates the order of rooms to be cleaned);
a start and a stop time during which the robotic cleaning device is to not operate (See at least Case Paragraph 0166, the user sets a no-run-time schedule).
Modified Case fails to disclose the user inputs… a robotic cleaning route;
an instruction for the robotic cleaning device to clean in a particular direction;
an instruction to move the robotic cleaning device in a particular direction;
However, Han teaches the user inputs… a robotic cleaning route (See at least Han Paragraphs 0068 and 0125, the user indicates a traveling route for the cleaning robot);
an instruction for the robotic cleaning device to clean in a particular direction (See at least Han Paragraphs 0068, 0125, 0134, and Figure 7, the traveling route for the cleaning robot is interpreted as a particular direction);
an instruction to move the robotic cleaning device in a particular direction (See at least Han Paragraphs 0125, 0134, and Figure 7, the traveling route for the cleaning robot is interpreted as a particular direction);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Han to have the user input a cleaning route and instruction for the robot to clean or move in a particular direction. This modification, as taught by Han, would allow the user to control the movement of the robotic cleaning device (See at least Han Paragraphs 0068, 0125, 0134, and Figure 7), thus, increasing the control the user has over the robotic cleaning device.
Modified Case fails to disclose displaying a floor type of different areas within the map with the application.
However, Kleiner teaches displaying a floor type of different areas within the map with the application (See at least Kleiner Paragraph 0226 and Figure 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Kleiner to display a floor type of different areas within the map. This modification, as taught by Kleiner, would allow a user to set the floor type of different areas (See at least Kleiner Paragraph 0226 and Figure 32), thus, increasing the awareness of the user.
Modified Case fails to disclose the user inputs… a modification to a floor type within the map.
However, Kumar teaches the user inputs… a modification to a floor type within the map (See at least Kumar Paragraph 0145, the surface type is changed after replacing flooring).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Kumar to input a modification to a floor type within the map. This modification, as taught by Kumar, would allow a user to change a surface type and characteristics of the section after replacing flooring in the environment (See at least Kumar Paragraph 0145), thus, increasing the accuracy of the map.
Modified Case fails to disclose the user inputs… an instruction for the robotic cleaning device to map the environment before cleaning for a first time.
However, Toh teaches the user inputs… an instruction for the robotic cleaning device to map the environment before cleaning for a first time (See at least Toh Paragraphs 0164-0165, the robot is instructed to map the space before disinfecting/cleaning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Toh to input an instruction for the robotic cleaning device to map the environment before cleaning for a first time. This modification, as taught by Toh, would allow the robot to utilize the map when cleaning (See at least Toh Paragraphs 0164-0165), thus, improving the awareness of the robotic cleaning device during a cleaning operation.
Modified Case fails to disclose the user inputs… a start and stop time within which the robotic cleaning device is to recharge.
However, Morin teaches the user inputs… a start and stop time within which the robotic cleaning device is to recharge (See at least Morin Paragraphs 0054 and 0090, the user inputs a charging schedule).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Morin to input a start and stop time within which the robotic cleaning device is to recharge. This modification, as taught by Morin, would allow a user to input the charging schedule for the robot (See at least Morin Paragraphs 0054 and 0090), thus, increasing the control the user has over the robotic cleaning device.
Modified Case fails to disclose the user inputs… a robotic cleaning device voice.
However, Yamamoto teaches the user inputs… a robotic device voice (See at least Yamamoto Paragraphs 0025, 0063-0064 and Figure 4, the tone of the robot voice is selected by a user via touch panel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Yamamoto to input a robotic cleaning device voice. This modification, as taught by Yamamoto, would allow a user to select the voice for the robot (See at least Yamamoto Paragraphs 0063-0064 and Figure 4), thus, increasing the control the user has over the robotic cleaning device.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case in view of Johnson, and in further view of Orzechowski
Regarding Claim 18, modified Case teaches determining a suggested no-go zone with the robotic cleaning device or the application based on at least one of: areas in which the robotic cleaning device previously got stuck and locations of cliffs (See at least Case Paragraphs 0121, and 0185, the robot identifies avoidance spots based on obstacles, which includes cliffs);
displaying the suggested no-go zone within the map of the environment with the application (See at least Case Paragraphs 0121, and 0131, locations of obstacles, which include the cliff, are indicated on the map as nontraversable space).
Modified Case fails to disclose the user inputs further specify an instruction to implement the suggested no-go zone.
However, Orzechowski teaches the user inputs further specify an instruction to implement the suggested no-go zone (See at least Orzechowski Paragraphs 0009, and 0098, the user accepts the zone suggested by the robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Orzechowski to input an instruction to implement the suggested no-go zone. This modification, as taught by Orzechowski, would allow a user to accept or change the zones and labels (at least Orzechowski Paragraphs 0009, and 0098), thus, increasing the control the user has over the assigned zones.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case in view of Johnson, and in further view of Carswell et al (US 20250194879 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Carswell)
Regarding Claim 20, modified Case teaches cleaning at least two rooms within the environment (See at least Case Paragraphs 0147, and Figure 6c).
Modified Case fails to disclose displaying a level of dirtiness of each room within the map; wherein the robotic cleaning device prioritizes cleaning the dirtiest rooms.
However, Carswell teaches displaying a level of dirtiness of each room within the map (See at least Carswell Paragraphs 0008, 0054, and 0061, the dust distribution map, which displays the level of dirtiness of each zone/room, is displayed on the client device); wherein the robotic cleaning device prioritizes cleaning the dirtiest rooms (See at least Carswell Paragraph 0009, the locations with most dust, which are the dirtiest rooms, are prioritized).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Case with Carswell to prioritize cleaning the dirtiest rooms. This modification, as taught by Carswell, would allow the robotic cleaning device to clean the rooms in order of decreasing amount of dust (See at least Carswell Paragraph 0009), thus, ensuring the dirtiest rooms get cleaned first.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on Pages 10-11 of the remarks, that Case fails to disclose “the user inputs specify at least: a command to turn on or turn off a first IoT smart device”. Applicant states that Case actuates the lights or door “indirectly and automatically…in response to a trigger of the schedule. It cannot be assumed that the application input itself turns the IoT device on or off, as the UI of FIGS 6A-6G fails to illustrate any toggles to turn the IoT devices (e.g. lights, dorr) on or off, nor is this disclosed in the text. Case only discloses that the actuation of the IoT device may be caused by the trigger of the robot, which could be based on the scheduled routine, a time of day, or another connected smart home application, rather than the presented application itself. In contrast, the subject matter of Claim 1 discloses wherein the user inputs specify at least: a command to turn on or turn off a first IoT smart device.”.
However, Examiner disagrees with Applicant. Paragraph 0199 of Case states “through the user interface, the user may create a schedule with actions for the robot to trigger, such as turning on the lights or locking the door.” And Figure 6c shows the created schedule.
PNG
media_image1.png
528
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The user creating a schedule with a command to turn on the lights is interpreted as “the user inputs specify at least: a command to turn on or turn off a first IoT smart device” as the user inputs the schedule with the commands. Furthermore, Paragraph 0163 of Case discloses the user using the application on their mobile device to control multiple networked smart devices (e.g., internet-connected windows, doors, lighting, security, thermostat, home appliance).
PNG
media_image2.png
228
921
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, for these reasons, claim 1 still stands rejected under 103.
Applicant further argues, on pages 11-12 of the remarks, that the prior art fails to disclose “displaying information on the environment, including amenities, wherein the amenities include at least one of: WLAN, laundry, a pool, and a hot tub.”.
However, Applicant never claimed the limitation “the amenities include at least one of: WLAN, laundry, a pool, and a hot tub”. Claim 2 merely states “the application displays information relating to the short-term rental including amenities;”. There is no mention of WLAN, laundry, a pool, and a hot tub in the claims. Therefore, claim 2 still stands rejected under 103.
Applicant argues, on page 12 of the remarks, that the rejection for claims 16 and 17 “reconstructs the claimed invention using the Applicant's disclosure as a roadmap, rather than identifying a teaching, suggestion, or motivation within the cited references themselves. Applicant further notes that the office action relies upon eleven and sixteen separate prior art references, respectively, with each prior art reference addressing only isolated aspects of the claim subject matter. The extensive combination of numerous references underscores that no single reference, or reasonable combination of references, teaches or suggests the claimed invention, indicating that claimed subject matter embodies a patentably distinct and non-obvious combination.”.
However, Examiner disagrees. Claim 16 lists a plurality of different items that are displayed with the application, and a plurality of different user inputs that are input with the application. Each limitation is properly rejected using prior art that teaches the corresponding limitation. None of the items that are displayed or user inputs that are input are novel. The reason that there are 11 different references cited is because there are 10 different items that are displayed, and 15 different user inputs that are input. The combination of cited references teach all 25 limitations of claim 16. Claim 17 depends off of claim 16, and lists 1 display limitation and 10 different user inputs that are input. Thus, similarly to claim 16, to teach all 11 additional limitations, Examiner has relied on an additional 5 references. None of the items that are displayed or user inputs that are input in claim 17 are novel, and the combination of cited references teach all the additional limitations. Thus, for these reasons, claims 16-17 still remain rejected under 103.
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 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 ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights