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 .
Applicant's arguments are persuasive and the previous action is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
3. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9-11, 16-19, 21, 23-27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Flaherty et al. (US2012/0223216A1) in view of Johnson et al. (US2006/0216193), and Yuichi et al. (JPH07281752A; Machine Translation) and further in view of Sandberg et al. (WO2004/064504A1).
Re claim 1, Flaherty et al. teach a method of cleaning a region in an industrial environment (paragraph 6, food services area) using at least one industrial robot (Fig. 7), the method comprising: a) obtaining radiation from a region by means of a sensor device, providing sensor data based on the radiation, the sensor data being indicative of the cleanliness, and performing a cleaning process comprising applying cleaning media to the one or more surfaces (paragraphs 6-7). Specifically, paragraphs 6-7 teach a self-propelled robotic unit for sterilizing surfaces, wherein the unit includes large UV light emitters. Paragraph 19 teaches the UV-C light which can be used to target the location of the biological contaminants, based upon their illumination, so that proper combination of on-board eradication methodologies can be used. Paragraph 20 teaches that sterilization systems include self-contained robotic devices. Paragraphs 7 and 132 further teaches that irradiation with UV light causes the biological contaminants to illuminate, wherein the illumination is detected by optical sensor feedbacks. Paragraphs 138-139 teaches a downward looking sensor 93 able to detect residual illumination from any non-eradiated biological contaminants and will trigger a re-cleansing protocol.
Re claims 1 and 10, Flaherty et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of evaluating a surface property, wherein the surface property indicates a type of material of the respective surface. Flaherty et al. further fails to teach performing a cleaning process based on the type of material. Flaherty et al. further fail to teach cleaning media and further fails to teach moving the mobile robot to the docking station and supplying cleaning media from the docking station to one or more tanks of the mobile robot.
Johnson et al. teach cleaning tools for destroying microorganisms and pathogens, for use in the food, medical and pharmaceutical industries (paragraphs 2 and 5).
Paragraph 40 specifically teaches “the tool can include some means to determine properties of the surface to be treated. Information of interest can include surface depth, color, surface type, hardness, texture, moisture level, surface roughness, odor, reflectivity, and extent of dirt and/or contaminants”. Paragraph 40 of Johnson et al. further teaches using sensors, such as optical sensors to gather information indicative of the surface properties. Paragraph 27 of Johnson et al. teach that a combination tool for cleaning and sanitizing a surface includes both a cleaning device and UV flash unit. Paragraph 28 teaches that the combination tool can include devices suitable of wet and dry cleaning. Paragraphs 33 and 37 teaches that the combination tool can include a robotically controlled treatment units. Paragraphs 35 and 38 of Johnson et al. teach varying the intensity and duration (dose), energy (UV) to achieve a specific level of treatment. Paragraph 38 specifically teaches the skilled artisan adjusting the UV dose in response to the levels of contamination encountered during cleaning. Paragraphs 45-51 of Johnson et al. further teaches the use of dilute chemical solutions to improve the efficacy of the UV treatment. In summary, a) Johnson et al. teach the surface property being indicative of a type of material (i.e. the level of contaminants) and b) controlling the cleaning process (i.e. adjusting UV and wet clean processing parameters) based on the surface type (i.e. contaminants being present). Re claim 10, paragraph 39 teaches the motive robotic component is instructed to return the tool (wet cleaning) to the docking station, such that the docking station can monitor and/or replenish cleaning consumables.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Flaherty et al. to include evaluating the surface property, wherein the surface property is indicative of a type of material of the surface, since Johnson et al. clearly teaches that determination of the surface property includes gathering information on the extent of dirt and/or contaminants present on the surface. Furthermore, the skilled artisan would have reasonably considered the teachings of detecting contaminants by UV, as taught by Flaherty et al. ,to read on applicant’s limitations directed to the evaluation of a surface property (i.e. type of material) since Johnson et al. clearly teaches properties of the surface being treated include the extent of dirt and/or contaminants present thereon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Flaherty et al. to include performing the cleaning process based on the surface property (i.e. type of material), as taught by Johnson et al., for purposes of treating the surface in order to effectively disinfect/denature/sanitize contaminants present on the surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Flaherty et al. to include cleaning media, and moving the robot back to a docking station, as taught by Johnson et al. for purposes of replenishing the cleaning consumables in order to perform the same function of cleaning and sanitizing a surface for use in the food industry.
Flaherty et al. in view of Johnson et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of determining a cleanliness value based on sensor data and comparing the cleanliness value to a reference. The examiner argues that these limitations broadly read on comparison with a threshold value to determine whether additional cleaning is needed, the concept of which is neither novel or unobvious. Yuichi et al. teach a cleaning robot with a floor surface reflectance sensor 19, wherein the reflectance of a floor surface is measured (Abstract). Fig. 5 teaches a method of optically measuring the reflectance of the floor surface , and storing a reference value of the reflectance of the floor in a clean state in reference value storage unit 92. A comparison calculation unit compares the reflectance of the floor surface and calculates and outputs the degree of dirt form the difference. The dirtiness state of the floor surface is calculated and outputted by comparing with the output of the sensor unit. The degree of the soiling of the floor can be detected by the absolute amount of the difference between the preset reflectance of the floor and the actual reflectance of the floor. In paragraph 47, Yuichi et al. teach comparing the degree of dirt detected to determine if additional cleaning is need. Arguably, if the contamination level is greater than a reference value, equates to a cleanliness value being less than a reference value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Flaherty et al. to include determining the cleanliness value and comparing it to a threshold/reference value, as taught by Yuichi et al., for purposes of determining if additional cleaning is required.
Flaherty et al. in view of Johnson et al. and Yuichi et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the industrial robot comprising a manipulator movable relative to the base, wherein the manipulator carries the sensor device and/or the cleaning device. Sandberg et al. teach an automatic cleaning device comprising a cleaning robot (page 5, lines 5-10) comprising a cleaning arm (manipulator) movable relative to the base 11, wherein the manipulator carries a cleaning device (i.e. nozzle part 15d). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Flaherty et al. to include a robot comprising a manipulator for carrying the cleaning device, as taught by Sandberg et al., for purposes of controlling the movement of the cleaning device. Furthermore, the examiner argues that the limitations are not novel and/ or unobvious in view of applicant’s cited prior art in the IDS of 4/4/2025, in which both references illustrate a robot having a manipulator (i.e. arm) carrying a sensor.
Re claims 3 and 16, the limitations are met by the teachings of Flaherty et al. Specifically, the sensors detect fluorescence/illumination data, and based on the data, determines whether additional cleaning is needed. Re claims 4 and 17, Flaherty et al. in view of Johnson et al. fail to teach selecting the type of cleaning media based on the sensor data. Absent of a showing a criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been well within the art, in view of the teachings of Johnson et al. to select the desired cleaning media (i.e. wet/dry cleaning, scrubbing for example) in order effectively remove contaminants from the substrate such that the desired level of cleanliness is achieved. Re claims 5 and 18, refer to paragraph 19 which teaches optical sensor to detect levels of illumination to both target the location and estimate the strength of the biological contaminants, wherein the location reads broadly on the “distribution” of contaminants. As previously discussed, Flaherty et al. teach using the illumination to determine whether recleaning is needed. Re claim 9, refer to Fig. 3, elements 41-42 of Flaherty et al. Re claim 11, the limitations are met by Johnson et al., as paragraph 33 teaches the use of remote control using one of more pre-programmed instructions for cleaning. Re claim 21, refer to paragraph 33 of Johnson et al. or the control panel, paragraph 129 of Flaherty et al. Applicant is directed to paragraph 37, elements 20 and 40-41 of Flaherty et al. Re claims 23 and 29, refer to Fig. 2 of Sandberg et al. Re claim 24 differs from claim 1, with respect to determining the cleanliness value for each surface. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious and well within the level of the skilled artisan to determine the cleanliness of each surface during the cleaning process in order to determine whether recleaning is required. Specifically, as the robot moves from one position to another position, the examiner considers each position a new surface, such that it would be well within the level of the skilled artisan to determine during the cleaning process of the entire surface, whether portions of the surface need to be recleaned if the threshold values are not met. Re claim 25, Flaherty et al. teach detection of biological contaminants.
Re claim 26, the limitations are broadly interpreted as adjusting the cleaning parameters based on the sensor data. In summary the cleaning parameters directed to pressure, temperature, concentration, timing of cleaning media are controlled based on sensor data indicative of the cleanliness of the surface. Johnson et al. in general teaches UV disinfection devices, paragraphs 35 and 38 further teachings the parameters of the UV device, such as duration (dose), energy, and/or time can be adjusted based on the surface and in response to the levels of contamination encountered by the optical sensors during cleaning. In the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the examiner takes the position that it would be well within the level of the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the cleaning parameters, such as concentration (i.e. dosage), time application (i.e. duration) depending upon the level of contamination detected by the sensor, in order to achieve the desired level of cleanliness.
Re claim 27, the “surface property value” is broadly interpreted as contaminants being present (in view of the teachings of Johnson et al., as previously discussed above) and comparing to a threshold value, to determine whether cleaning is required, the limitations of which are previously taught by Yuichi et al.
6. Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaherty et al. (US2012/0223216A1) in view of Johnson et al. (US2006/0216193), Yuichi et al. (JPH07281752A; Machine Translation), Sandberg et al. (WO2004/064504A1) and further in view of Kim et al. (US2016/0100733).
Flaherty et al. in view of Johnson et al. , Yuichi et al. and Sandberg et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of a grid-based map. Kim et al. tach a cleaning robot and further teaches a contamination map which provides map information of the cleaning area (paragraphs 25 and 55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Flaherty et al. to include a map, as taught by Kim et al., for purposes of providing map information of the cleaning area.
Response to Arguments
7. In response to Arguments presented in the Pre-Appeal Brief 11/18/2025, Applicant further argues that the prior art of Flaherty fails to teach defining the surface property, wherein the surface property is indicative of the type of the material of the respective surface. Applicant further argues that Flaherty fails to teach or suggest “that the presence of contaminants equates to a type of material”. Applicant further argues that Flaherty fails to teach performing a cleaning process based on the surface property. In view of Applicant’s arguments, the secondary reference of Johnson et al. is now relied upon to teach surface properties include detection of the extent of dirt and/or contaminants present on the surface and further teach performing the cleaning process based on the surface type (i.e. level of contaminants).
Paragraph 40 of Johnson et al. specifically teach “the tool can include some means to determine properties of the surface to be treated. Information of interest can include surface depth, color, surface type, hardness, texture, moisture level, surface roughness, odor, reflectivity, and extent of dirt and/or contaminants”. Paragraph 40 of Johnson et al. further teaches using sensors, such as optical sensors to gather information indicative of the surface properties. Paragraphs 35 and 38 of Johnson et al. teach varying the intensity and duration (dose), energy (UV) to achieve a specific level of treatment. Paragraph 38 specifically teaches the skilled artisan adjusting the UV dose in response to the levels of contamination encountered during cleaning. Paragraphs 45-51 of Johnson et al. further teaches the use of dilute chemical solutions to improve the efficacy of the UV treatment. In summary, a) Johnson et al. teach the surface property being indicative of a type of material (i.e. the level of contaminants) and b) controlling the cleaning process (i.e. adjusting UV and wet clean processing parameters) based on the surface type (i.e. contaminants being present).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Flaherty et al. to include evaluating the surface property, wherein the surface property is indicative of a type of material of the surface, since Johnson et al. clearly teaches that determination of the surface property includes gathering information on the extent of dirt and/or contaminants present on the surface. Furthermore, the skilled artisan would have reasonably considered the teachings of detecting contaminants by UV, as taught by Flaherty et al., to read on applicant’s limitations directed to the evaluation of a surface property since Johnson et al. clearly teaches properties of the surface being treated include the extent of dirt and/or contaminants present thereon. The examiner maintains the position, that, detecting contaminants on the surface, as taught by Flaherty et al., is a measure of the surface property of the floor, in view of the teachings of Johnson et al. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Flaherty et al. to include performing the cleaning process based on the surface property (i.e. type of material), as taught by Johnson et al., for purposes of treating the surface in order to effectively disinfect/denature/sanitize contaminants present on the surface.
8. In response to Arguments presented in the Pre-Appeal Brief 11/18/2025, the examiner agrees with Applicant that Johnson fails to teach that the temperature of the cleaning media (UV light) is controlled based on sensor data. However, upon further review, the limitations of claim 26 remain rejected over the combined teachings of Flaherty et al., Johnson et al., Yuichi et al., and Sandberg et al., for the following reasons.
Re claim 26, the limitations are broadly interpreted as adjusting the cleaning parameters based on the sensor data. In summary the cleaning parameters directed to pressure, temperature, concentration, timing of cleaning media are controlled based on sensor data indicative of the cleanliness of the surface. Johnson et al. in general teaches UV disinfection devices, paragraphs 35 and 38 further teachings the parameters of the UV device, such as duration (dose), energy, and/or time can be adjusted based on the surface and in response to the levels of contamination encountered by the optical sensors during cleaning. In the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the examiner takes the position that it would be well within the level of the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the cleaning parameters, such as concentration (i.e. dosage), time application (i.e. duration) depending upon the level of contamination detected by the sensor, in order to achieve the desired level of cleanliness. The examiner maintains the position that optimization of processing parameters to achieve the desired level of cleanliness is neither novel nor unobvious.
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc