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 .
Claims 1-8 and 17-28 are pending, claims 9-16 having been cancelled.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 17, 18, 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0282613 to Fong et al.
As to claims 1, 17 and 18, Fong discloses a method for controlling regional cleaning of a cleaning robot comprising: in response to an operation request for an initial region, determining an element comprised in the initial region (see Fong paragraphs [0194]-[0207]; [0126]-[0128]); determining an element type of the element (see Fong paragraphs [0126]-[0128]; invoking, based on the element type, region configuration information corresponding to the element type (see Fong paragraphs [0126]-[0128] and [0194]-[0207]); and determining a location and range of a target region based on the region configuration information (see Fong paragraphs [0126]-[0128], [0155]-[0159], [0163]-[0175], [0187]-[0207]). Regarding claim 17, Fong discloses that a non-transitory storage medium having a computer program stored thereon to perform the method (see Fong paragraphs [0085]-[0086], [0093], [0244]-[0246]). Regarding claim 18, Fong discloses an electronic device comprising a memory and processor wherein a computer program is stored in the memory and the processor is configured to run the computer program to perform the method (see Fong paragraphs [0085]-[0086], [0093], [0244]-[0246]).
As to claims 6 and 23, Fong discloses sending a regional cleaning instruction to the cleaning robot to instruct the cleaning robot to clean the target region (see Fong paragraphs [0187]-[0207]). Regarding claim 23, Fong discloses an electronic device comprising a memory and processor wherein a computer program is stored in the memory and the processor is configured to run the computer program to perform the method (see Fong paragraphs [0085]-[0086], [0093], [0244]-[0246]).
As to claims 7 and 24, Fong discloses that the sending the regional cleaning instruction to the cleaning robot to instruct the cleaning robot to clean the target region can comprise at least instructing the cleaning robot to travel to the target region to start to perform the cleaning operation (see Fong paragraphs [01217]-[0222]). Regarding claim 24, Fong discloses an electronic device comprising a memory and processor wherein a computer program is stored in the memory and the processor is configured to run the computer program to perform the method (see Fong paragraphs [0085]-[0086], [0093], [0244]-[0246]).
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 19 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0282613 to Fong et al. as applied to claims 1, 17 and 18 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0284792 to Kleiner et al.
Fong is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 17 and 18.
As to claims 2, 19 and 26, Fong does not explicitly disclose a user’s clicking operation request for regional cleaning on a cleaning map and determining a clicked region on the cleaning map as the initial region. Kleiner discloses a similar method wherein the user’s clicking operation request for regional cleaning on a cleaning map and determining a clicked region on the cleaning map as the initial region (see Kleiner paragraphs [0154], [0192]-[0198]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a user’s clicking operation request for regional cleaning on a cleaning map and determining a clicked region on the cleaning map as the initial region as disclosed by Kleiner in order to allow the user to direct the cleaning robot to the desired location as is known in the art. Regarding claim 19, Fong discloses an electronic device comprising a memory and processor wherein a computer program is stored in the memory and the processor is configured to run the computer program to perform the method (see Fong paragraphs [0085]-[0086], [0093], [0244]-[0246]). Regarding claim 26, Fong discloses that a non-transitory storage medium having a computer program stored thereon to perform the method (see Fong paragraphs [0085]-[0086], [0093], [0244]-[0246]).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 8, 20, 21, 25, 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0282613 to Fong et al. as applied to claims 1, 17 and 18 above, and further in view of CN109828562A to Zhao et al. (see machine translation).
Fong is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 17 and 18.
As to claims 3, 4, 20, 21, 27 and 28, while Fong discloses that the element can comprise furniture or a supply (see Fong paragraph [0127]), Fong does not explicitly disclose pre-configuring region configuration information corresponding to each type of element, wherein target regions with different extended ranges are configured for different elements and the determining a location of the element based on the region configuration information and determining the target region by extending a region of a pre-determined length from an unblocked outer edge of the element by taking the location as a center, wherein the predetermined length is pre-configured, based on the element type, in the region configuration information. Zhao discloses a similar method wherein the preset distance outward from the outer edges of the furniture serves as the key cleaning area where based on the layout of the furniture, one or more key cleaning areas are constructed with the center point of the furniture as the center and a predetermined distance outward from the outer edge of the furniture as the outer edge, and thus different extended ranges would be configured for different types of elements (see Zhao paragraphs [0013], [0024], [0028], [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Fong such that the preset distance outward from the outer edges of the furniture serves as the key cleaning area and based on the layout of the furniture, one or more key cleaning areas are constructed with the center point of the furniture as the center and a predetermined distance outward from the outer edge of the furniture as the outer edge as disclosed by Zhao in order to optimize the cleaning of the robot (see Zhao paragraph [0043]). Regarding claims 20 and 21, Fong discloses an electronic device comprising a memory and processor wherein a computer program is stored in the memory and the processor is configured to run the computer program to perform the method (see Fong paragraphs [0085]-[0086], [0093], [0244]-[0246]). Regarding claims 27 and 28, Fong discloses that a non-transitory storage medium having a computer program stored thereon to perform the method (see Fong paragraphs [0085]-[0086], [0093], [0244]-[0246]).
As to claims 8 and 25, the combination of Fong and Zhao discloses determining based on the region configuration information, the cleaning mode corresponding to the element type and controlling the cleaning robot to use the corresponding cleaning mode to clean the target region (see Fong paragraphs [0126]-[0128], [0197], [0204], [0217]-[0220]; Zhao paragraph [0096]). Regarding claim 25, Fong discloses an electronic device comprising a memory and processor wherein a computer program is stored in the memory and the processor is configured to run the computer program to perform the method (see Fong paragraphs [0085]-[0086], [0093], [0244]-[0246]).
Claim(s) 5 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0282613 to Fong et al. in view of CN109828562A to Zhao et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claims 4 and 21 above, and further in view of EP2294960A2 to Sauerwald et al. (see machine translation).
Fong and Zhao are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 4.
As to claims 5 and 22, while the combination of Fong and Zhao discloses a stain level corresponding to each type of elements and adjusting the cleaning based on the stain level (see Fong paragraphs [0126]-[0128]; Zhao paragraphs [0036], [0042]-[0043]), Fong/Zhao does not explicitly disclose having a predetermined length corresponding to an element of a high stain level be greater than a predetermined length corresponding to an element of a low stain level. Sauerwald discloses that it is known in the art to target clean the area that is heavily soiled (see Sauerwald paragraph [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have larger cleaning areas for more heavily soiled elements and smaller cleaning areas for less heavily soiled elements in order to optimize the cleaning by the robot. Regarding claim 22, Fong discloses an electronic device comprising a memory and processor wherein a computer program is stored in the memory and the processor is configured to run the computer program to perform the method (see Fong paragraphs [0085]-[0086], [0093], [0244]-[0246]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights