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 1-8 and 19-30 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed 07/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 19-30 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
2. Regarding the rejection made under 35 USC 102, the Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In addition, Applicant’s arguments filed 07/14/2026 regarding Feature F1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 13 of the remarks that Li fails to disclose, or suggest “determining a first movement distance at least in response to the first detection information”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Li teaches using LIDAR to detect obstacles and the distance between the cleaning robot and the obstacle. This information is utilized for determining the preset distance (that can vary) the robot needs to travel backwards and turn while avoiding the obstacle (see at least Figs. 19-24 and pages 16-18). Li specifically states “It should be understood that, in other embodiments, the cleaning robot can also detect obstacles through the laser radar provided on it, and the distance between the cleaning robot and the obstacle can be detected by the laser radar. For example, the aforementioned first distance can be used to detect obstacles. Detect with lidar.” (page 16). Li further states “When the cleaning robot moves backward to reach the preset second target distance, the cleaning robot rotates in the second clockwise direction… For example, as shown in Figure 21, d0 is the second target distance, l2 is the maximum distance from the edge of the cleaning robot to the rotation center a of the cleaning robot, l1 is the distance from the rotation center a of the cleaning robot to the obstacle, and δ is the preset error, Where, after the cleaning robot moves backward the second target distance d0, as long as l1>=l2+δ.” (see page 18). The second target distance is determined by not only the structural parameters but also the distance from the l2 which is the maximum distance from the center of the robot to the obstacle which the LIDAR detects. Thus, Li teaches determining a first movement distance at least in response to the first detection information.
Therefore, the prior art meets the claim limitations, and the Applicant’s arguments regarding Feature F1 are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 2 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, recites the limitation “cleaning device .” should be replaced with “cleaning device.” to remove the extra spacing between the period and “device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
5. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
6. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first detector is configured to sense…” in claims 1, 21, and 30.
“second detector…is configured to sense…” in claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations:
“first detector” in claims 1, 21, and 30 corresponds to “first detector 1111” and “The first detector may be a laser distance sensor” [0075], [0094], and Fig. 1.
“second detector” in claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 corresponds to “second detector 1112” and “The second detector may be a smaller laser distance sensor” [0075], [0104], and Fig. 1.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claims 1-8 and 19-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specification is utilized for the description citations below.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 21 and 30), the limitation “a detection accuracy of the second detector is higher than a detection accuracy of the first detector” is unclear and indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by “a detecting accuracy” since this is conflicting with the specification since accuracy and precision does not mean the same. Paragraph [0104] of the specification indicates that “The first detector detects the distances between the obstacles 200 around the device body 110 and the device body 110, but is lower in accuracy….When the device body 110 is parallel to the wall, it is still necessary to use a higher-precision distance sensor like the second detector to achieve millimeter-level travelling along the wall.” It is unclear if the applicant intended to state that the second detector is a detector with higher accuracy or higher precision than the first detector. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted the limitation as the detection accuracy of the second detector is higher than the first detector.
In the art rejections above, the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner. Any claim not explicitly rejected under this heading is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-3, 19, 21-23, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 109645896B, hereinafter Li) in view of Ganzhen Shenzhen Intelligent Science and Tech Limited Company (CN 114200480A, hereinafter Ganzhen).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a method for controlling a cleaning device, comprising:
providing the cleaning device, wherein the cleaning device comprises a device body (see at least Figs. 1-4 and page 7: “As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the cleaning robot 100 includes a robot main body 101, a drive motor 102, a sensor unit 103, a controller 104, a battery 105, a walking unit 106, a memory 107, a communication unit 108, a robot interaction unit 109, and cleaning parts.”), a trigger (see at least Figs. 1-4 and page 10: “The collision sensor 1032 includes a collision housing 10321 and a trigger sensor 10322.”), a first detector (see at least Figs. 1-4 and page 10: “lidar 1031”), and a second detector (see at least Figs. 1-4 and page 10: “distance sensor 1033”), and the trigger, the first detector, and the second detector are arranged on the device body (see at least Figs. 1-5);
acquiring first detection information of the first detector in response to the trigger being triggered, wherein the trigger is configured to be triggered in response to the cleaning device colliding with an obstacle (see at Figs. 19-24 and page 10: “After hitting the obstacle, the cleaning robot 100 moves away from the obstacle, and under the action of the elastic buffer member, the collision housing 10321 moves back to the original position.”; page 18: “When the cleaning robot detects an obstacle through the collision sensor provided on the head of the cleaning robot, it means that there is an obstacle in front of the cleaning robot, and the cleaning robot moves backward, as shown in FIG. 20.”), the first detector is configured to sense the obstacle at a periphery of the device body (see at least Figs. 1-5 and page 10: “The circuit unit of the lidar 1031 analyzes the received laser signal, and can detect the environment information around the lidar 1031, such as the distance and angle of obstacles relative to the lidar 1031. In addition, a camera can also be used to replace the lidar 1031, and the distance and angle of the obstacle relative to the camera can also be obtained by analyzing the obstacle in the image taken by the camera.”), and the second detector is arranged on a side of the device body and is configured to sense the obstacle at the side of the device body (see at least Figs. 1-5 and page 10: “The distance sensor 1033 is arranged on the side of the robot main body 101, so that the distance from the obstacle located near the side of the cleaning robot 100 to the distance sensor 1033 can be measured by the distance sensor 1033.”);
determining a first movement distance at least in response to the first detection information (see at least Figs. 19-24 and page 16: “Wherein, the size of the preset distance range determines the size of the area that the cleaning robot leaks to clean…It should be understood that, in other embodiments, the cleaning robot can also detect obstacles through the laser radar provided on it, and the distance between the cleaning robot and the obstacle can be detected by the laser radar. For example, the aforementioned first distance can be used to detect obstacles. Detect with lidar.”; page 18: “The cleaning robot collides with the obstacle through the collision sensor and generates a collision signal. The collision signal determines that the obstacle does exist. At this time, the cleaning robot moves backward. When the cleaning robot moves backward to reach the preset second target distance, the cleaning robot rotates in the second clockwise direction… For example, as shown in Figure 21, d0 is the second target distance, l2 is the maximum distance from the edge of the cleaning robot to the rotation center a of the cleaning robot, l1 is the distance from the rotation center a of the cleaning robot to the obstacle, and δ is the preset error, Where, after the cleaning robot moves backward the second target distance d0, as long as l1>=l2+δ.” Li teaches using LIDAR to detect obstacles and the distance between the cleaning robot and the obstacle. This information is utilized for determining the preset distance (that can vary) the robot needs to travel backwards and turn while avoiding the obstacle.);
after controlling the cleaning device to move backward for the first movement distance, executing a first obstacle approaching operation according to the first detection information (see at least Figs. 19-24 and page 12: “Specifically, in an implementation manner, the cleaning robot can detect the distance between the cleaning robot and the obstacle through a distance sensor and/or lidar, and the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle based on the detected distance to realize the cleaning robot around the obstacle.”; page 18: “The cleaning robot collides with the obstacle through the collision sensor and generates a collision signal. The collision signal determines that the obstacle does exist. At this time, the cleaning robot moves backward. When the cleaning robot moves backward to reach the preset second target distance, the cleaning robot rotates in the second clockwise direction.”);
acquiring second detection information of the second detector (see at least Figs. 19-24 and page 18: “When the cleaning robot rotates in the second clockwise direction to reach the preset forward angle, the cleaning robot moves forward, as shown in Figure 22, where the preset forward angle is such that the cleaning robot avoids collision with obstacles when moving forward.”; page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset.”); and
controlling the cleaning device to execute an operation of travelling along the obstacle according to the second detection information (see at least Figs. 8-24 and page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset distance.”).
Li fails to explicitly teach wherein a detection accuracy of the second detector is higher than a detection accuracy of the first detector.
However, Ganzhen teaches a method and system for measuring sensor error on a mobile robot wherein a detection accuracy of a second detector is higher than a detection accuracy of a first detector (see at least pages 12-13: “…however, the accuracy of the position data provided by the second sensor is higher than the accuracy of the position data provided by the first sensor.”).
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 Li to incorporate the teachings of Ganzhen and provide a detection accuracy of a second detector that is higher than a detection accuracy of a first detector, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve reliability when detecting an object around the robot.
Regarding claim 2, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 1. Li further teaches wherein the first detection information at least comprises:
a first included angle between the device body and the obstacle, a vertical distance between the device body and the obstacle, and a horizontal distance between the device body and a target end of the obstacle (see at least Fig. 19-24 and page 18: “for example, after the cleaning robot collides with an obstacle, the cleaning robot moves back a second target distance, so that the cleaning robot has a turning space that allows the cleaning robot to avoid obstacles when turning Collision. The setting of the second target distance is related to the contour and rotation mode of the cleaning robot. For example, as shown in Figure 21, d0 is the second target distance, l2 is the maximum distance from the edge of the cleaning robot to the rotation center a of the cleaning robot, l1 is the distance from the rotation center a of the cleaning robot to the obstacle, and δ is the preset error, Where, after the cleaning robot moves backward the second target distance d0, as long as l1>=l2+δ.”; pages 18-19: “For example, the preset forward angle can be determined as follows: the angle θ between the center line of the cleaning robot after turning in the second clockwise direction and the center line of the cleaning robot before turning is the preset forward angle, as shown in Fig. 23 As shown in, where the closest distance d1 between the centerline of the cleaning robot and the obstacle after turning is greater than half of the width of the cleaning robot k, where the centerline of the cleaning robot is located at half the width of the cleaning robot and cleans in parallel The line of the direction the robot is currently facing.”); and
the target end of the obstacle is located in front of the cleaning device (see at least Figs. 19-24 and page 18: target end of obstacle is in front of the cleaning robot when the cleaning robot approaches and collide with the obstacle.).
Regarding claim 3, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 2. Li further teaches wherein controlling the cleaning device to execute the operation of travelling along the obstacle according to the second detection information comprises:
determining a first rotation angle according to the first included angle (see at least Figs. 8-24 and page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset distance. Within the distance. When the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction to reach a preset angle, the cleaning robot moves upward and backward in the current direction, as shown in FIG. 14, to clean the area that is missed due to the turning of the cleaning robot.”);
controlling the cleaning device to rotate by the first rotation angle to a side distal from the second detector (see at least Figs. 8-24 and page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset distance. Within the distance. When the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction to reach a preset angle, the cleaning robot moves upward and backward in the current direction, as shown in FIG. 14, to clean the area that is missed due to the turning of the cleaning robot.”); and
controlling the cleaning device to move forward according to the horizontal distance between the device body and the target end of the obstacle (see at least 8-24 and page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset distance. Within the distance. When the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction to reach a preset angle, the cleaning robot moves upward and backward in the current direction, as shown in FIG. 14, to clean the area that is missed due to the turning of the cleaning robot.”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 1. Li further teaches wherein the first movement distance is determined by combining structural parameters of the cleaning device and the first detection information, wherein the structural parameters comprises a positional relationship between the second detector and a geometric center of the device body, a distance between the geometric center of the device body, and a collision position (see at least Figs. 19-24 and page 18: “When the cleaning robot moves backward to reach the preset second target distance, the cleaning robot rotates in the second clockwise direction….The setting of the second target distance is related to the contour and rotation mode of the cleaning robot. For example, as shown in Figure 21, d0 is the second target distance, l2 is the maximum distance from the edge of the cleaning robot to the rotation center a of the cleaning robot, l1 is the distance from the rotation center a of the cleaning robot to the obstacle, and δ is the preset error, Where, after the cleaning robot moves backward the second target distance d0, as long as l1>=l2+δ.”; pages 18-19: “For example, the preset forward angle can be determined as follows: the angle θ between the center line of the cleaning robot after turning in the second clockwise direction and the center line of the cleaning robot before turning is the preset forward angle, as shown in Fig. 23 As shown in, where the closest distance d1 between the centerline of the cleaning robot and the obstacle after turning is greater than half of the width of the cleaning robot k, where the centerline of the cleaning robot is located at half the width of the cleaning robot and cleans in parallel The line of the direction the robot is currently facing.”).
Regarding claim 21, Li teaches a cleaning robot (see at least Figs. 1-5), comprising:
at least one hardware processor and a memory comprising program instructions that (see at least Fig. 5 and page 30: “The steps of the method or algorithm described in the embodiments disclosed in this document can be directly implemented by hardware, a software module executed by a processor, or a combination of the two. The software module can be placed in random access memory (RAM), internal memory, read-only memory (ROM), electrically programmable ROM, electrically erasable programmable ROM, registers, hard disks, removable disks, CD-ROMs, or all areas in the technical field.”), when executed, control a cleaning device having a device body (see at least Figs. 1-4 and page 7: “As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the cleaning robot 100 includes a robot main body 101, a drive motor 102, a sensor unit 103, a controller 104, a battery 105, a walking unit 106, a memory 107, a communication unit 108, a robot interaction unit 109, and cleaning parts.”), a trigger (see at least Figs. 1-4 and page 10: “The collision sensor 1032 includes a collision housing 10321 and a trigger sensor 10322.”), a first detector (see at least Figs. 1-4 and page 10: “lidar 1031”), and a second detector (see at least Figs. 1-4 and page 10: “distance sensor 1033”), the at least one hardware processor being directed to:
acquire first detection information of the first detector in response to the trigger being triggered, wherein the trigger is triggered in response to that the cleaning device collides with an obstacle (see at Figs. 19-24 and page 10: “After hitting the obstacle, the cleaning robot 100 moves away from the obstacle, and under the action of the elastic buffer member, the collision housing 10321 moves back to the original position.”; page 18: “When the cleaning robot detects an obstacle through the collision sensor provided on the head of the cleaning robot, it means that there is an obstacle in front of the cleaning robot, and the cleaning robot moves backward, as shown in FIG. 20.”), the first detector is configured to sense the obstacle at a periphery of the device body (see at least Figs. 1-5 and page 10: “The circuit unit of the lidar 1031 analyzes the received laser signal, and can detect the environment information around the lidar 1031, such as the distance and angle of obstacles relative to the lidar 1031. In addition, a camera can also be used to replace the lidar 1031, and the distance and angle of the obstacle relative to the camera can also be obtained by analyzing the obstacle in the image taken by the camera.”), the second detector is arranged on a side of the device body and configured to sense the obstacle at the side of the device body (see at least Figs. 1-5 and page 10: “The distance sensor 1033 is arranged on the side of the robot main body 101, so that the distance from the obstacle located near the side of the cleaning robot 100 to the distance sensor 1033 can be measured by the distance sensor 1033.”);
determine a first movement distance at least in response to the first detection information (see at least Figs. 19-24 and page 16: “Wherein, the size of the preset distance range determines the size of the area that the cleaning robot leaks to clean…It should be understood that, in other embodiments, the cleaning robot can also detect obstacles through the laser radar provided on it, and the distance between the cleaning robot and the obstacle can be detected by the laser radar. For example, the aforementioned first distance can be used to detect obstacles. Detect with lidar.”; page 18: “The cleaning robot collides with the obstacle through the collision sensor and generates a collision signal. The collision signal determines that the obstacle does exist. At this time, the cleaning robot moves backward. When the cleaning robot moves backward to reach the preset second target distance, the cleaning robot rotates in the second clockwise direction… For example, as shown in Figure 21, d0 is the second target distance, l2 is the maximum distance from the edge of the cleaning robot to the rotation center a of the cleaning robot, l1 is the distance from the rotation center a of the cleaning robot to the obstacle, and δ is the preset error, Where, after the cleaning robot moves backward the second target distance d0, as long as l1>=l2+δ.” Li teaches using LIDAR to detect obstacles and the distance between the cleaning robot and the obstacle. This information is utilized for determining the preset distance (that can vary) the robot needs to travel backwards and turn while avoiding the obstacle.);
after controlling the cleaning device to move backward for the first movement distance, execute a first obstacle approaching operation according to the first detection information (see at least Figs. 19-24 and page 12: “Specifically, in an implementation manner, the cleaning robot can detect the distance between the cleaning robot and the obstacle through a distance sensor and/or lidar, and the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle based on the detected distance to realize the cleaning robot around the obstacle.”; page 18: “The cleaning robot collides with the obstacle through the collision sensor and generates a collision signal. The collision signal determines that the obstacle does exist. At this time, the cleaning robot moves backward. When the cleaning robot moves backward to reach the preset second target distance, the cleaning robot rotates in the second clockwise direction.”);
acquire second detection information of the second detector (see at least Figs. 19-24 and page 18: “When the cleaning robot rotates in the second clockwise direction to reach the preset forward angle, the cleaning robot moves forward, as shown in Figure 22, where the preset forward angle is such that the cleaning robot avoids collision with obstacles when moving forward.”; page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset.”); and
control the cleaning device to execute an operation of travelling along the obstacle according to the second detection information (see at least Figs. 8-24 and page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset distance.”).
Li fails to explicitly teach wherein a detection accuracy of the second detector is higher than a detection accuracy of the first detector.
However, Ganzhen teaches a method and system for measuring sensor error on a mobile robot wherein a detection accuracy of a second detector is higher than a detection accuracy of a first detector (see at least pages 12-13: “…however, the accuracy of the position data provided by the second sensor is higher than the accuracy of the position data provided by the first sensor.”).
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 Li to incorporate the teachings of Ganzhen and provide a detection accuracy of a second detector that is higher than a detection accuracy of a first detector, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve reliability when detecting an object around the robot.
Regarding claim 22, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 21. Li further teaches wherein the first detection information at least comprises: a first included angle between the device body and the obstacle, a vertical distance between the device body and the obstacle, and a horizontal distance between the device body and a target end of the obstacle (see at least Fig. 19-24 and page 18: “for example, after the cleaning robot collides with an obstacle, the cleaning robot moves back a second target distance, so that the cleaning robot has a turning space that allows the cleaning robot to avoid obstacles when turning Collision. The setting of the second target distance is related to the contour and rotation mode of the cleaning robot. For example, as shown in Figure 21, d0 is the second target distance, l2 is the maximum distance from the edge of the cleaning robot to the rotation center a of the cleaning robot, l1 is the distance from the rotation center a of the cleaning robot to the obstacle, and δ is the preset error, Where, after the cleaning robot moves backward the second target distance d0, as long as l1>=l2+δ.”; pages 18-19: “For example, the preset forward angle can be determined as follows: the angle θ between the center line of the cleaning robot after turning in the second clockwise direction and the center line of the cleaning robot before turning is the preset forward angle, as shown in Fig. 23 As shown in, where the closest distance d1 between the centerline of the cleaning robot and the obstacle after turning is greater than half of the width of the cleaning robot k, where the centerline of the cleaning robot is located at half the width of the cleaning robot and cleans in parallel The line of the direction the robot is currently facing.”); and
the target end of the obstacle is located in front of the cleaning device (see at least Figs. 19-24 and page 18: target end of obstacle is in front of the cleaning robot when the cleaning robot approaches and collide with the obstacle.).
Regarding claim 23, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 22. Li further teaches wherein the at least one hardware processor is further directed to:
determine a first rotation angle according to the first included angle (see at least Figs. 8-24 and page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset distance. Within the distance. When the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction to reach a preset angle, the cleaning robot moves upward and backward in the current direction, as shown in FIG. 14, to clean the area that is missed due to the turning of the cleaning robot.”);
control the cleaning device to rotate by the first rotation angle to a side distal from the second detector (see at least Figs. 8-24 and page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset distance. Within the distance. When the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction to reach a preset angle, the cleaning robot moves upward and backward in the current direction, as shown in FIG. 14, to clean the area that is missed due to the turning of the cleaning robot.”); and
control the cleaning device to move forward according to the horizontal distance between the device body and the target end of the obstacle (see at least 8-24 and page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset distance. Within the distance. When the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction to reach a preset angle, the cleaning robot moves upward and backward in the current direction, as shown in FIG. 14, to clean the area that is missed due to the turning of the cleaning robot.”).
Regarding claim 29, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 21. Li further teaches wherein the first movement distance is determined by combining structural parameters of the cleaning device and the first detection information, wherein the structural parameters comprises a positional relationship between the second detector and a geometric center of the device body, a distance between the geometric center of the device body and a collision position (see at least Figs. 19-24 and page 18: “When the cleaning robot moves backward to reach the preset second target distance, the cleaning robot rotates in the second clockwise direction….The setting of the second target distance is related to the contour and rotation mode of the cleaning robot. For example, as shown in Figure 21, d0 is the second target distance, l2 is the maximum distance from the edge of the cleaning robot to the rotation center a of the cleaning robot, l1 is the distance from the rotation center a of the cleaning robot to the obstacle, and δ is the preset error, Where, after the cleaning robot moves backward the second target distance d0, as long as l1>=l2+δ.”; pages 18-19: “For example, the preset forward angle can be determined as follows: the angle θ between the center line of the cleaning robot after turning in the second clockwise direction and the center line of the cleaning robot before turning is the preset forward angle, as shown in Fig. 23 As shown in, where the closest distance d1 between the centerline of the cleaning robot and the obstacle after turning is greater than half of the width of the cleaning robot k, where the centerline of the cleaning robot is located at half the width of the cleaning robot and cleans in parallel The line of the direction the robot is currently facing.”).
Regarding claim 30, Li teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon, wherein when the program is executed by a processor (see at least Fig. 5 and page 30: “The steps of the method or algorithm described in the embodiments disclosed in this document can be directly implemented by hardware, a software module executed by a processor, or a combination of the two. The software module can be placed in random access memory (RAM), internal memory, read-only memory (ROM), electrically programmable ROM, electrically erasable programmable ROM, registers, hard disks, removable disks, CD-ROMs, or all areas in the technical field.”), the process performs a method for controlling a cleaning device, wherein the cleaning device comprises a device body (see at least Figs. 1-4 and page 7: “As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the cleaning robot 100 includes a robot main body 101, a drive motor 102, a sensor unit 103, a controller 104, a battery 105, a walking unit 106, a memory 107, a communication unit 108, a robot interaction unit 109, and cleaning parts.”), a trigger (see at least Figs. 1-4 and page 10: “The collision sensor 1032 includes a collision housing 10321 and a trigger sensor 10322.”), a first detector (see at least Figs. 1-4 and page 10: “lidar 1031”) and a second detector (see at least Figs. 1-4 and page 10: “distance sensor 1033”), and the trigger, the first detector and the second detector are arranged on the device body (see at least Figs. 1-5); and the processor is configured to:
acquire first detection information of the first detector in response to the trigger being triggered, wherein the trigger is triggered in response to that the cleaning device collides with an obstacle (see at Figs. 19-24 and page 10: “After hitting the obstacle, the cleaning robot 100 moves away from the obstacle, and under the action of the elastic buffer member, the collision housing 10321 moves back to the original position.”; page 18: “When the cleaning robot detects an obstacle through the collision sensor provided on the head of the cleaning robot, it means that there is an obstacle in front of the cleaning robot, and the cleaning robot moves backward, as shown in FIG. 20.”), the first detector is configured to sense the obstacle at a periphery of the device body (see at least Figs. 1-5 and page 10: “The circuit unit of the lidar 1031 analyzes the received laser signal, and can detect the environment information around the lidar 1031, such as the distance and angle of obstacles relative to the lidar 1031. In addition, a camera can also be used to replace the lidar 1031, and the distance and angle of the obstacle relative to the camera can also be obtained by analyzing the obstacle in the image taken by the camera.”), the second detector is arranged on a side of the device body and configured to sense the obstacle at the side of the device body (see at least Figs. 1-5 and page 10: “The distance sensor 1033 is arranged on the side of the robot main body 101, so that the distance from the obstacle located near the side of the cleaning robot 100 to the distance sensor 1033 can be measured by the distance sensor 1033.”),
determine a first movement distance at least in response to the first detection information (see at least Figs. 19-24 and page 16: “Wherein, the size of the preset distance range determines the size of the area that the cleaning robot leaks to clean…It should be understood that, in other embodiments, the cleaning robot can also detect obstacles through the laser radar provided on it, and the distance between the cleaning robot and the obstacle can be detected by the laser radar. For example, the aforementioned first distance can be used to detect obstacles. Detect with lidar.”; page 18: “The cleaning robot collides with the obstacle through the collision sensor and generates a collision signal. The collision signal determines that the obstacle does exist. At this time, the cleaning robot moves backward. When the cleaning robot moves backward to reach the preset second target distance, the cleaning robot rotates in the second clockwise direction… For example, as shown in Figure 21, d0 is the second target distance, l2 is the maximum distance from the edge of the cleaning robot to the rotation center a of the cleaning robot, l1 is the distance from the rotation center a of the cleaning robot to the obstacle, and δ is the preset error, Where, after the cleaning robot moves backward the second target distance d0, as long as l1>=l2+δ.” Li teaches using LIDAR to detect obstacles and the distance between the cleaning robot and the obstacle. This information is utilized for determining the preset distance (that can vary) the robot needs to travel backwards and turn while avoiding the obstacle.),
after controlling the cleaning device to move backward for the first movement distance, execute a first obstacle approaching operation according to the first detection information (see at least Figs. 19-24 and page 12: “Specifically, in an implementation manner, the cleaning robot can detect the distance between the cleaning robot and the obstacle through a distance sensor and/or lidar, and the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle based on the detected distance to realize the cleaning robot around the obstacle.”; page 18: “The cleaning robot collides with the obstacle through the collision sensor and generates a collision signal. The collision signal determines that the obstacle does exist. At this time, the cleaning robot moves backward. When the cleaning robot moves backward to reach the preset second target distance, the cleaning robot rotates in the second clockwise direction.”),
acquire second detection information of the second detector (see at least Figs. 19-24 and page 18: “When the cleaning robot rotates in the second clockwise direction to reach the preset forward angle, the cleaning robot moves forward, as shown in Figure 22, where the preset forward angle is such that the cleaning robot avoids collision with obstacles when moving forward.”; page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset.”), and
control the cleaning device to execute an operation of travelling along the obstacle according to the second detection information (see at least Figs. 8-24 and page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset distance.”).
Li fails to explicitly teach wherein a detection accuracy of the second detector is higher than a detection accuracy of the first detector.
However, Ganzhen teaches a method and system for measuring sensor error on a mobile robot wherein a detection accuracy of a second detector is higher than a detection accuracy of a first detector (see at least pages 12-13: “…however, the accuracy of the position data provided by the second sensor is higher than the accuracy of the position data provided by the first sensor.”).
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 Li to incorporate the teachings of Ganzhen and provide a detection accuracy of a second detector that is higher than a detection accuracy of a first detector, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve reliability when detecting an object around the robot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. Claims 4-5, 20, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 109645896B, hereinafter Li) and Ganzhen Shenzhen Intelligent Science and Tech Limited Company (CN 114200480A, hereinafter Ganzhen) in view of Gritsenko et al. (US 20200069125, hereinafter Gritsenko).
Regarding claim 4, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 3. Li further teaches wherein controlling the cleaning device to move forward according to the horizontal distance between the device body and the target end of the obstacle comprises:
controlling the cleaning device to move forward in response to the horizontal distance between the device body and the target end of the obstacle being greater than or equal to a preset value (see at least page 17: “Based on the above implementation method, before the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, the cleaning robot must first approach the obstacle, that is, move to the obstacle, so that the distance sensor detects the obstacle. When the cleaning robot uses the distance sensor to collect When the first distance of is within the preset distance range, the cleaning robot starts to rotate around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction.”);
acquiring a second included angle between the device body at a current position and the obstacle in response to the trigger being triggered (see at least Figs. 19-24 and page 18: “The cleaning robot collides with the obstacle through the collision sensor and generates a collision signal. The collision signal determines that the obstacle does exist. At this time, the cleaning robot moves backward. When the cleaning robot moves backward to reach the preset second target distance, the cleaning robot rotates in the second clockwise direction. The second target distance is the distance for the cleaning robot to avoid collision with obstacles when turning in the second clockwise direction. The hour hand direction is opposite to the first hour hand direction; for example, after the cleaning robot collides with an obstacle, the cleaning robot moves back a second target distance, so that the cleaning robot has a turning space that allows the cleaning robot to avoid obstacles when turning Collision.”);
determining a second rotation angle according to the second included angle (see at least Figs. 8-24 and page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset distance. Within the distance. When the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction to reach a preset angle, the cleaning robot moves upward and backward in the current direction, as shown in FIG. 14, to clean the area that is missed due to the turning of the cleaning robot.”); and
controlling the cleaning device to rotate by the second rotation angle to the side distal from the second detector (see at least Figs. 8-24 and page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset distance. Within the distance. When the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction to reach a preset angle, the cleaning robot moves upward and backward in the current direction, as shown in FIG. 14, to clean the area that is missed due to the turning of the cleaning robot.”).
Li fails to explicitly teach acquiring a second data in response to the trigger being triggered again.
However, Gritsenko teaches an apparatus and system for navigation of autonomous mobile robots that acquires a second data in response to a trigger being triggered again (see at least [0103]: “In some implementations, at the operation 810, the robot 100 is turned until the second obstacle surface 902 is detected. For example, the robot 100 can detect the second obstacle surface 902 upon one or more conditions being satisfied. In some implementations, one or more of the bump sensors 139a, 139b (shown in FIG. 3C) is triggered.”; [0107]: “As the operations 808, 810, 814, 816 are repeated, during each successive repetition, a different portion of the untraversed portion 906 can be traversed by the cleaning region 176.”).
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 Li to incorporate the teachings of Gritsenko and provide a means to acquires a second data in response to a trigger being triggered again, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to repeat the operations and capture additional data whenever the trigger is activated again.
Regarding claim 5, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 4. Li further teaches wherein determining the second rotation angle according to the second included angle comprises:
determining the second rotation angle according to the second included angle and a set position of the second detector relative to the device body (see at least Figs. 2-4, 6-24, and page 10: “The distance sensor 1033 is arranged on the side of the robot main body 101, so that the distance from the obstacle located near the side of the cleaning robot 100 to the distance sensor 1033 can be measured by the distance sensor 1033.”; page 16: “The position point of the distance sensor on the cleaning robot is the target point, and the distance sensor collects the first distance between the target point and the obstacle, as shown in FIG. 18. In this embodiment, when the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, the cleaning robot maintains the first distance between the target point and the obstacle within a preset distance range.”; page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset distance. Within the distance. When the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction to reach a preset angle, the cleaning robot moves upward and backward in the current direction, as shown in FIG. 14, to clean the area that is missed due to the turning of the cleaning robot.”).
Regarding claim 20, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 4. Li further teaches wherein the preset value is calculated according to posture and position of the cleaning device when the cleaning device collides with the obstacle and structural parameters of the cleaning device and the structural parameters comprises a positional relationship between the second detector and a geometric center of the device body, a distance between the geometric center of the device body and a collision position (see at least Figs. 19-24 and page 18: “When the cleaning robot moves backward to reach the preset second target distance, the cleaning robot rotates in the second clockwise direction….The setting of the second target distance is related to the contour and rotation mode of the cleaning robot. For example, as shown in Figure 21, d0 is the second target distance, l2 is the maximum distance from the edge of the cleaning robot to the rotation center a of the cleaning robot, l1 is the distance from the rotation center a of the cleaning robot to the obstacle, and δ is the preset error, Where, after the cleaning robot moves backward the second target distance d0, as long as l1>=l2+δ.”; pages 18-19: “For example, the preset forward angle can be determined as follows: the angle θ between the center line of the cleaning robot after turning in the second clockwise direction and the center line of the cleaning robot before turning is the preset forward angle, as shown in Fig. 23 As shown in, where the closest distance d1 between the centerline of the cleaning robot and the obstacle after turning is greater than half of the width of the cleaning robot k, where the centerline of the cleaning robot is located at half the width of the cleaning robot and cleans in parallel The line of the direction the robot is currently facing.”).
Regarding claim 24, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 23. Li further teaches wherein the at least one hardware processor is further directed to:
control the cleaning device to move forward in response to the horizontal distance between the device body and the target end of the obstacle being greater than or equal to a preset value (see at least page 17: “Based on the above implementation method, before the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, the cleaning robot must first approach the obstacle, that is, move to the obstacle, so that the distance sensor detects the obstacle. When the cleaning robot uses the distance sensor to collect When the first distance of is within the preset distance range, the cleaning robot starts to rotate around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction.”);
acquire a second included angle between the device body at a current position and the obstacle in response to the trigger being triggered (see at least Figs. 19-24 and page 18: “The cleaning robot collides with the obstacle through the collision sensor and generates a collision signal. The collision signal determines that the obstacle does exist. At this time, the cleaning robot moves backward. When the cleaning robot moves backward to reach the preset second target distance, the cleaning robot rotates in the second clockwise direction. The second target distance is the distance for the cleaning robot to avoid collision with obstacles when turning in the second clockwise direction. The hour hand direction is opposite to the first hour hand direction; for example, after the cleaning robot collides with an obstacle, the cleaning robot moves back a second target distance, so that the cleaning robot has a turning space that allows the cleaning robot to avoid obstacles when turning Collision.”);
determine a second rotation angle according to the second included angle (see at least Figs. 8-24 and page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset distance. Within the distance. When the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction to reach a preset angle, the cleaning robot moves upward and backward in the current direction, as shown in FIG. 14, to clean the area that is missed due to the turning of the cleaning robot.”); and
control the cleaning device to rotate by the second rotation angle to the side distal from the second detector (see at least Figs. 8-24 and page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset distance. Within the distance. When the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction to reach a preset angle, the cleaning robot moves upward and backward in the current direction, as shown in FIG. 14, to clean the area that is missed due to the turning of the cleaning robot.”).
Li fails to explicitly teach acquiring a second data in response to the trigger being triggered again.
However, Gritsenko teaches an apparatus and system for navigation of autonomous mobile robots that acquires a second data in response to a trigger being triggered again (see at least [0103]: “In some implementations, at the operation 810, the robot 100 is turned until the second obstacle surface 902 is detected. For example, the robot 100 can detect the second obstacle surface 902 upon one or more conditions being satisfied. In some implementations, one or more of the bump sensors 139a, 139b (shown in FIG. 3C) is triggered.”; [0107]: “As the operations 808, 810, 814, 816 are repeated, during each successive repetition, a different portion of the untraversed portion 906 can be traversed by the cleaning region 176.”).
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 Li to incorporate the teachings of Gritsenko and provide a means to acquires a second data in response to a trigger being triggered again, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to repeat the operations and capture additional data whenever the trigger is activated again.
Regarding claim 25, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 24. Li further teaches wherein the at least one hardware processor is further directed to:
determine the second rotation angle according to the second included angle and a set position of the second detector relative to the device body (see at least Figs. 2-4, 6-24, and page 10: “The distance sensor 1033 is arranged on the side of the robot main body 101, so that the distance from the obstacle located near the side of the cleaning robot 100 to the distance sensor 1033 can be measured by the distance sensor 1033.”; page 16: “The position point of the distance sensor on the cleaning robot is the target point, and the distance sensor collects the first distance between the target point and the obstacle, as shown in FIG. 18. In this embodiment, when the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, the cleaning robot maintains the first distance between the target point and the obstacle within a preset distance range.”; page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset distance. Within the distance. When the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction to reach a preset angle, the cleaning robot moves upward and backward in the current direction, as shown in FIG. 14, to clean the area that is missed due to the turning of the cleaning robot.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. Claims 6 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 109645896B, hereinafter Li) and Ganzhen Shenzhen Intelligent Science and Tech Limited Company (CN 114200480A, hereinafter Ganzhen) in view of Artes et al. (US 20210131822, hereinafter Artes).
Regarding claim 6, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 3. Li further teaches wherein controlling the cleaning device to move forward according to the horizontal distance between the target end of the obstacle and the device body comprises:
controlling the cleaning device to move to the side distal from the second detector at a first linear speed (see at least page 4: “The cleaning robot maintains a first distance within a preset distance range, and the first distance is a distance from a target point on the cleaning robot to the obstacle.”; page 5: “The cleaning robot controls the rotation speed difference of the first driving wheel and the second driving wheel to maintain the first distance within a preset distance range.”) and a first angular speed in response to the horizontal distance between the device body and the target end of the obstacle being less than a preset value (see at least page 24: “For example, taking the cleaning robot rotating around an obstacle in a clockwise direction as an example, when the distance between the second distance sensor and the obstacle will exceed the preset distance range, the cleaning robot increases the speed of the revolver; when the second distance sensor and the obstacle When the distance between obstacles is less than the preset distance range, the cleaning robot increases the speed of the right wheel.”), and controlling the cleaning device to execute an operation (see at least Figs. 8-24 and page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset distance.”).
Li fails to explicitly teach executing an obstacle searching operation in a case that the trigger is not triggered when a preset duration is reached.
However, Artes teaches a method and apparatus for exploration of an unknown environment by an autonomous mobile robot that executes an obstacle searching operation in a case that a trigger is not triggered when a preset duration is reached (see at least [0057]: “As mentioned, the partial region detection can be repeated regularly or as a response to the detection of certain events. A repetition of the partial region detection can be triggered, e.g., when the robot determines that a particular interval of time has elapsed since the last partial region detection, that the robot has traveled a certain distance since the last partial region detection, that the explored region of the robot operating zone has grown by a particular area since the last partial region detection or that the cost for the further exploration of the reference partial region is greater than a given value. The cost may be assessed, e.g., by means of a cost function. A repetition of the partial region detection may also be triggered, e.g., if the robot has reached a target point determined for the exploration. Such a target point can be chosen, for example, on the boundary between explored and not (yet) explored partial regions. While the robot is heading for this point, it can detect new regions with its sensors and thus expand the bounds of the explored region.”).
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 Li to incorporate the teachings of Artes and provide a means to executes an obstacle searching operation in a case that a trigger is not triggered when a preset duration is reached, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to detect new regions with its sensors and thus expand the bounds of the explored region [0057].
Regarding claim 26, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 23. Li further teaches wherein the at least one hardware processor is further directed to:
control the cleaning device to move to the side distal from the second detector at a first linear speed (see at least page 4: “The cleaning robot maintains a first distance within a preset distance range, and the first distance is a distance from a target point on the cleaning robot to the obstacle.”; page 5: “The cleaning robot controls the rotation speed difference of the first driving wheel and the second driving wheel to maintain the first distance within a preset distance range.”) and a first angular speed in response to the horizontal distance between the device body and the target end of the obstacle being less than a preset value (see at least page 24: “For example, taking the cleaning robot rotating around an obstacle in a clockwise direction as an example, when the distance between the second distance sensor and the obstacle will exceed the preset distance range, the cleaning robot increases the speed of the revolver; when the second distance sensor and the obstacle When the distance between obstacles is less than the preset distance range, the cleaning robot increases the speed of the right wheel.”), and control the cleaning device to execute an operation (see at least Figs. 8-24 and page 19: “When the cleaning robot moves forward until the first distance reaches the preset distance, the cleaning robot rotates around the obstacle in the first clockwise direction, as shown in Figure 8, during the rotation, the first distance collected by the distance sensor is maintained at the preset distance.”).
Li fails to explicitly teach executing an obstacle searching operation in a case that the trigger is not triggered when a preset duration is reached.
However, Artes teaches a method and apparatus for exploration of an unknown environment by an autonomous mobile robot that executes an obstacle searching operation in a case that a trigger is not triggered when a preset duration is reached (see at least [0057]: “As mentioned, the partial region detection can be repeated regularly or as a response to the detection of certain events. A repetition of the partial region detection can be triggered, e.g., when the robot determines that a particular interval of time has elapsed since the last partial region detection, that the robot has traveled a certain distance since the last partial region detection, that the explored region of the robot operating zone has grown by a particular area since the last partial region detection or that the cost for the further exploration of the reference partial region is greater than a given value. The cost may be assessed, e.g., by means of a cost function. A repetition of the partial region detection may also be triggered, e.g., if the robot has reached a target point determined for the exploration. Such a target point can be chosen, for example, on the boundary between explored and not (yet) explored partial regions. While the robot is heading for this point, it can detect new regions with its sensors and thus expand the bounds of the explored region.”).
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 Li to incorporate the teachings of Artes and provide a means to executes an obstacle searching operation in a case that a trigger is not triggered when a preset duration is reached, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to detect new regions with its sensors and thus expand the bounds of the explored region [0057].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. Claims 7-8 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 109645896B, hereinafter Li) and Ganzhen Shenzhen Intelligent Science and Tech Limited Company (CN 114200480A, hereinafter Ganzhen) in view of Szatmary et al. (US 20160378117, hereinafter Szatmary).
Regarding claim 7, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 1. Li further teaches
controlling the cleaning device to move backward by a first preset distance in response to that the first detection information (see at least Figs. 8-15 and page 13: “During the rotation of the cleaning element, the cleaning element rotates along an arc-shaped trajectory, and an uncleaned area is generated on the inner side of the arc-shaped trajectory. An area that can be cleaned, and the uncleaned area is located between the movement track of the cleaning element and the obstacle. The cleaning robot moves backwards in the current direction, that is, moves back in a straight line. At this time, the cleaning part follows the movement of the cleaning robot, and the cleaning trajectory of the cleaning part is a straight line, so that it can clean to the area that is missing due to the rotation, as shown in Figure 12.”), and
executing an operation after the cleaning device is rotated by a second preset angle to a side distal from the second detector (see at least Figs. 8-15 and page 13: “During the rotation of the cleaning element, the cleaning element rotates along an arc-shaped trajectory, and an uncleaned area is generated on the inner side of the arc-shaped trajectory. An area that can be cleaned, and the uncleaned area is located between the movement track of the cleaning element and the obstacle. The cleaning robot moves backwards in the current direction, that is, moves back in a straight line. At this time, the cleaning part follows the movement of the cleaning robot, and the cleaning trajectory of the cleaning part is a straight line, so that it can clean to the area that is missing due to the rotation, as shown in Figure 12.”).
Li fails to explicitly teach controlling the cleaning device to move in response to that the first detection information is not acquired and executing an obstacle searching operation.
However, Szatmary teaches an apparatus and method for robotic device navigation that controls a cleaning device to move in response to that a first detection information is not acquired (see at least Fig. 1 and [0057]: “In some cases, the robot may infer the success/failure of communication based on a measurable metric and responsively adjust its behavior. For example, a robot may infer a reduction of a probability of collision based on an increasing distance between a person and the robot as compared to the rate of change of the distance immediately prior the action (thereby signifying that the person has changed course and is moving away from the robot's trajectory, etc.) In some cases, the failure of communication may result in adjustment of the robot's own action; e.g., the robot may change a projected image (from a yellow to red, from static to dynamic images, etc.), add an audio signal (or change an audio volume), and/or change its own trajectory to avoid collision, and/or perform other actions.”) and executing an obstacle searching operation (see at least [0063]: “During a premises familiarization phase, the robotic apparatus may be configured to explore the premises environment in order to, e.g., to produce a map of the premises (e.g., such as shown in FIG. 1). The map of the environment may be stored in the non-transitory memory of the robot.”; [0067]: “In one or more implementations, the robot may be configured to explore the premises area. Premises exploration may comprise determination of locations of objects within the premises and construction of the premises map using location of the robot and data provided by one or more sensors.”).
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 Li to incorporate the teachings of Szatmary and provide a means to control a cleaning device to move in response to that a first detection information is not acquired and executes an obstacle searching operation, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to change its own trajectory to avoid collision when there is a failure in communications [0057].
Regarding claim 8, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 7. Li further teaches wherein the operation comprises:
controlling the cleaning device to move and rotate to a direction where the second detector is arranged at a linear speed (see at least page 4: “The cleaning robot maintains a first distance within a preset distance range, and the first distance is a distance from a target point on the cleaning robot to the obstacle.”; page 5: “The cleaning robot controls the rotation speed difference of the first driving wheel and the second driving wheel to maintain the first distance within a preset distance range.”) and an angular speed until the trigger is triggered (see at least page 4: “When the cleaning robot detects the obstacle through the collision sensor, the cleaning robot moves backward.”; page 24: “For example, taking the cleaning robot rotating around an obstacle in a clockwise direction as an example, when the distance between the second distance sensor and the obstacle will exceed the preset distance range, the cleaning robot increases the speed of the revolver; when the second distance sensor and the obstacle When the distance between obstacles is less than the preset distance range, the cleaning robot increases the speed of the right wheel.”).
Li fails to explicitly teach an obstacle searching operation comprising searching linear speed and searching angular speed.
However, Szatmary teaches an apparatus and method for robotic device navigation that executes an obstacle searching operation comprising searching linear speed and searching angular speed (see at least [0063]: “During a premises familiarization phase, the robotic apparatus may be configured to explore the premises environment in order to, e.g., to produce a map of the premises (e.g., such as shown in FIG. 1). The map of the environment may be stored in the non-transitory memory of the robot.”; [0067]: “In one or more implementations, the robot may be configured to explore the premises area. Premises exploration may comprise determination of locations of objects within the premises and construction of the premises map using location of the robot and data provided by one or more sensors.”; [0187]: “In some implementations of robotic vehicle navigation (e.g., 200 in FIG. 2A) the control state space transformation shown in Table 2 may be characterized by a drive component (e.g., linear velocity v) and a turn component (e.g., angular velocity ω). The component values (v,ω) that may be applied to motors of the robotic device 102 of FIG. 1 may be selected from a range between 0 and 1, as shown Table 2.”).
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 Li to incorporate the teachings of Szatmary and provide a means execute an obstacle searching operation comprising searching linear speed and searching angular speed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to explore a premises environment and determine locations of objects in the premise [0067].
Regarding claim 27, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 21. Li further teaches wherein the at least one hardware processor is further directed to:
control the cleaning device to move backward by a first preset distance in response to that the first detection information (see at least Figs. 8-15 and page 13: “During the rotation of the cleaning element, the cleaning element rotates along an arc-shaped trajectory, and an uncleaned area is generated on the inner side of the arc-shaped trajectory. An area that can be cleaned, and the uncleaned area is located between the movement track of the cleaning element and the obstacle. The cleaning robot moves backwards in the current direction, that is, moves back in a straight line. At this time, the cleaning part follows the movement of the cleaning robot, and the cleaning trajectory of the cleaning part is a straight line, so that it can clean to the area that is missing due to the rotation, as shown in Figure 12.”), and
execute an operation after the cleaning device is rotated by a second preset angle to a side distal from the second detector (see at least Figs. 8-15 and page 13: “During the rotation of the cleaning element, the cleaning element rotates along an arc-shaped trajectory, and an uncleaned area is generated on the inner side of the arc-shaped trajectory. An area that can be cleaned, and the uncleaned area is located between the movement track of the cleaning element and the obstacle. The cleaning robot moves backwards in the current direction, that is, moves back in a straight line. At this time, the cleaning part follows the movement of the cleaning robot, and the cleaning trajectory of the cleaning part is a straight line, so that it can clean to the area that is missing due to the rotation, as shown in Figure 12.”).
Li fails to explicitly teach controlling the cleaning device to move in response to that the first detection information is not acquired and executing an obstacle searching operation.
However, Szatmary teaches an apparatus and method for robotic device navigation that controls a cleaning device to move in response to that a first detection information is not acquired (see at least Fig. 1 and [0057]: “In some cases, the robot may infer the success/failure of communication based on a measurable metric and responsively adjust its behavior. For example, a robot may infer a reduction of a probability of collision based on an increasing distance between a person and the robot as compared to the rate of change of the distance immediately prior the action (thereby signifying that the person has changed course and is moving away from the robot's trajectory, etc.) In some cases, the failure of communication may result in adjustment of the robot's own action; e.g., the robot may change a projected image (from a yellow to red, from static to dynamic images, etc.), add an audio signal (or change an audio volume), and/or change its own trajectory to avoid collision, and/or perform other actions.”) and executing an obstacle searching operation (see at least [0063]: “During a premises familiarization phase, the robotic apparatus may be configured to explore the premises environment in order to, e.g., to produce a map of the premises (e.g., such as shown in FIG. 1). The map of the environment may be stored in the non-transitory memory of the robot.”; [0067]: “In one or more implementations, the robot may be configured to explore the premises area. Premises exploration may comprise determination of locations of objects within the premises and construction of the premises map using location of the robot and data provided by one or more sensors.”).
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 Li to incorporate the teachings of Szatmary and provide a means to control a cleaning device to move in response to that a first detection information is not acquired and executes an obstacle searching operation, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to change its own trajectory to avoid collision when there is a failure in communications [0057].
Regarding claim 28, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 27. Li further teaches wherein the operation comprises:
controlling the cleaning device to move and rotate to a direction where the second detector is arranged at a linear speed (see at least page 4: “The cleaning robot maintains a first distance within a preset distance range, and the first distance is a distance from a target point on the cleaning robot to the obstacle.”; page 5: “The cleaning robot controls the rotation speed difference of the first driving wheel and the second driving wheel to maintain the first distance within a preset distance range.”) and an angular speed until the trigger is triggered (see at least page 4: “When the cleaning robot detects the obstacle through the collision sensor, the cleaning robot moves backward.”; page 24: “For example, taking the cleaning robot rotating around an obstacle in a clockwise direction as an example, when the distance between the second distance sensor and the obstacle will exceed the preset distance range, the cleaning robot increases the speed of the revolver; when the second distance sensor and the obstacle When the distance between obstacles is less than the preset distance range, the cleaning robot increases the speed of the right wheel.”).
Li fails to explicitly teach an obstacle searching operation comprising searching linear speed and searching angular speed.
However, Szatmary teaches an apparatus and method for robotic device navigation that executes an obstacle searching operation comprising searching linear speed and searching angular speed (see at least [0063]: “During a premises familiarization phase, the robotic apparatus may be configured to explore the premises environment in order to, e.g., to produce a map of the premises (e.g., such as shown in FIG. 1). The map of the environment may be stored in the non-transitory memory of the robot.”; [0067]: “In one or more implementations, the robot may be configured to explore the premises area. Premises exploration may comprise determination of locations of objects within the premises and construction of the premises map using location of the robot and data provided by one or more sensors.”; [0187]: “In some implementations of robotic vehicle navigation (e.g., 200 in FIG. 2A) the control state space transformation shown in Table 2 may be characterized by a drive component (e.g., linear velocity v) and a turn component (e.g., angular velocity ω). The component values (v,ω) that may be applied to motors of the robotic device 102 of FIG. 1 may be selected from a range between 0 and 1, as shown Table 2.”).
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 Li to incorporate the teachings of Szatmary and provide a means execute an obstacle searching operation comprising searching linear speed and searching angular speed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to explore a premises environment and determine locations of objects in the premise [0067].
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