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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: “in consistent” is a misspelling and should be inconsistent. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 5-6, 8-9 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.
Regarding claim 5 “second control information” is not understood. None of the parent claims to claim 5, claims 2 and 1 recite a “first control information”. Examiner will interpret “second control information” as just control information.
Regarding claim 6 “third control information” is not understood. None of the parent claims to claim 6, claims 2 and 1 recite a “first control information” or “second control information”. Examiner will interpret “third control information” as just control information.
Regarding claim 8 “fourth control information” is not understood. None of the parent claims to claim 8, claims 2 and 1 recite a “first control information” or “second control information” or “third control information”. Examiner will interpret “fourth control information” as just control information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 (as best understood), 10-12, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Noh et al (US2019/0320867).
A method for controlling a cleaning device (0001, “moving robot 100”), comprising:
obtaining an environmental characteristic parameter by detecting an operation environment of the cleaning device (fig. 6 at 142, 143, 144; 0079, 0198), the environmental characteristic parameter comprising at least one of a room characteristic parameter (0124, 0142) and an obstacle parameter (fig. 6 at 144 Obstacle Recognition Module); and
controlling the cleaning device (fig. 6 at 140; 0119) to perform cleaning according to the at least one of the room characteristic parameter (0142, claim 20; 0342 last sentence, “controller 140 may be able to identify a type of the obstacle”) and the obstacle parameter (fig. 22; 0033 “controlling driving of a travel unit based on the attribute of the obstacle”).
Claim 2 Noh discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
the room characteristic parameter comprises floor characteristic information of a room (0093, figures 16-18 “pattern light” P1-P2, 0314 first two sentences, 0324); and
controlling the cleaning device to perform cleaning according to the room characteristic parameter comprises (0006, 0088, fig. 12):
determining control information according to the floor characteristic information (fig. 1 diamond decision “Low Enough To Go Over?”, fig. 6 at least 142 & 144), and
maneuvering the cleaning device according to the control information (0100, 0174, claim 4).
Claim 3 Noh discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein
the floor characteristic information comprises a flooring material (figures 3 & 31); and
said determining the control information according to the floor characteristic information comprises:
determining first control information corresponding to the flooring material (figures 18, 27, 29, 31),
wherein the first control information comprises at least one of a water allocating amount, a number of cleaning times, a fan suction force (0068 “providing suction force”), and a moving speed (0108-0109 “speed change”).
Claim 5 (as best understood) Noh discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein:
the floor characteristic information comprises a flooring direction (0165 1st sentence); and
said determining the control information according to the floor characteristic information comprises (0166 “the moving robot 100 may travel in a zigzag pattern by rotating, travelling a predetermined distance, and then travelling again in a direction opposite to the original moving direction”):
determining second control information corresponding to the flooring direction (0193-0197),
wherein the second control information comprises that a cleaning direction of the cleaning device is in consistent with the flooring direction (figures 16-18).
Claim 10 Noh discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein:
the floor characteristic information comprises a room segmenting characteristic of the room (0155 “ the map may divide a cleaning area into a plurality of regions, include a channel connecting the plurality of regions”, 0160 “divide the entire driving area into a plurality of regions”) ; and
said determining the control information according to the floor characteristic information comprises (0198, figures 16-18):
determining control information corresponding to the room segmenting characteristic based on a height of the room segmenting characteristic being smaller than or equal to a predetermined threshold (0011, 0015, 0341).
Claim 11 Noh discloses the method according to claim 2,
wherein obtaining the floor characteristic information of the room comprises (0124):
obtaining a room segmenting characteristic of the room (0142, 0152); and
obtaining the floor characteristic information of the room in response to the cleaning device entering the room through the room segmenting characteristic (0314).
Claim 12 Noh discloses he method according to claim 1, wherein:
the room characteristic parameter comprises room characteristic information of a room (0124 “Locations of rooms in the driving area may be displayed on the map.”, 0142 “map generation module”); and
the obstacle parameter comprises a position of an object in the room (figures 12 & 22),
wherein controlling the cleaning device to perform cleaning according to the room characteristic parameter and the obstacle parameter comprises (robot follows generated maps to clean e.g., 0154):
determining a cleaning parameter according to the room characteristic information (generated maps include parameters for room cleaning); and
controlling the cleaning device to avoid the position of the object and to operate according to the cleaning parameter (device/robot operates with regard to maps including avoiding obstacles).
Claim 17 Noh discloses the method according to claim 12 wherein said controlling the cleaning device to avoid the position of the object comprises:
determining relative position information of the object with respect to a ground of the room (0096 “Position Sensitive Device (PSD)”, 0358 “obstacle detection sensor unit 172”); and
controlling the cleaning device to avoid the position of the object according to the relative position information (0004, fig. 1, 0176).
Claim 18 Noh discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein obtaining the environmental characteristic parameter comprises:
acquiring a first image of the room (fig. 32 “First Image”), and recognizing the room based on the first image (0110 last sentence, 0118 “recognizing the current location of the moving robot 100”, “location recognition module 142”); and
determining the room characteristic information of the room and the position of the object according to a predetermined correspondence relationship (0132, 0133, 0149, 0150).
Claim 19 Noh discloses the method according to claim 18, further comprising, prior to obtaining the environmental characteristic parameter:
controlling the cleaning device to move in the room, and acquiring a second image of the room (0291 “a second pattern projection unit 1530, and a pattern recognition unit 1540”); and
determining the room characteristic information and the position of the object based on the second image (0301 “…images respectively corresponding to the first pattern light P1 and the second pattern light P2…”; 0312 “first light pattern P1 is presented on an acquired image and the lower the second light pattern P2 is presented on the acquired image”), and determining the predetermined correspondence relationship (0321).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al (US2019/0320867) in view of Kolling et al (US2021/0272471).
Noh does not disclose the limitations of claim 6.
Kolling discloses a robotic floor cleaner that utilizes floor characteristic information comprises a flooring size (fig. 1); and said determining the control information according to the floor characteristic information comprises (figures 5 & 6): determining a room type of the room based on the flooring size; and determining third control information corresponding to the room type (0082 “type of any of the rooms 42 (or any portion of the rooms 42 or group of rooms 42), the size of the rooms (or groups of rooms 42) of the environment 40, and the total size of the environment 40”, also examples 15 18 & 21 in paragraphs 0145, 0148 & 0151).
At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in this art to upgrade the functionality of the device of Noh with the more flexible room cleaning control of Kolling. A motivation for this upgrade to Noh would be to allow more options in the controlling of Noh. This obviousness combination is an example of the KSR case law rationale A; combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 7 Kolling also discloses wherein: the room type comprises at least one of a bedroom (fig. 8 at 810), a living room (fig. 8 at 812), a kitchen (fig. 8 at 806), and a toilet; and the third control information comprises at least one of a room cleaning sequence (0077 “operations can be performed in a different sequence”, fig. 4B schedule”), a cleaning agent amount, and a disinfectant amount.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al (US2019/0320867) in view of Jones et al (US2022/0304529).
Noh does not disclose the limitations of claims 13-14.
Jones discloses a robotic cleaning device wherein: room characteristic information comprises a room type (figures 7 & 9C/D); and said determining the cleaning parameter according to the room characteristic information comprises (fig. 7, 0025, 0047 “first room 30 to the second room 40”): determining a first cleaning parameter corresponding to the room type (figures 9C/D, 0118 “cleaning the rooms in the space 500 based on air quality values in the particular rooms.”), wherein the first cleaning parameter comprises at least one of a cleaning priority (0022, 0118 last two sentences, claim 8) and a cleaning degree.
At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in the robotic cleaner art to upgrade the versatility of the cleaner of Noh with the functionality of Jones. A motivation for this improvement to Noh is well known and would be to increase functionality of the cleaner of Noh. This obviousness combination is an example of the KSR case law rationale A; combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al (US2019/0320867) in view of Afrouzi et al (US2019/0176321).
Noh discloses the room characteristic information comprises a flooring material (figures 18 & 31; 0324). However, Noh does not disclose determining a second cleaning parameter corresponding to the flooring material, wherein the second cleaning parameter comprises at least one of a water allocating amount, a number of cleaning times, and a fan suction force.
Afrouzi discloses a robotic cleaner determining a second cleaning parameter (0035 “Any number of other parameters can be used without departing from embodiments disclosed”) corresponding to the flooring material (“a hard (e.g. non-absorbent) surface may receive a mopping service (or vacuuming service followed by a mopping service in a service sequence), while a carpeted service may receive a vacuuming service”), wherein the second cleaning parameter comprises at least one of a water allocating amount (“liquid dispensing speed parameter”), a number of cleaning times, and a fan suction force.
At the time the invention was made it would have been well known in the robot cleaner art to add to the variety of parameters of Noh with some of the parameters of Afrouzi. A motivation for this would be to provide more functionality and applicability for the device of Noh. This obviousness combination is an example of the KSR case law rationale B; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 14, 16, 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
MICHAEL C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights