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 final action is in response to Applicant’s filing dated December 4, 2025. Claims 11-21 are currently pending and have been considered, as provided in more detail below. Claim 22 has been canceled.
*Examiner Note: Claim language is bolded. Cited References and Applicant’s arguments are italicized. Examiner interpretations are preceded with an asterisk *.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/04/25 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are directed toward subject matter that has not been previously considered and has necessitated a new ground of rejection as outlined below. While the new ground of rejection may rely on some of the previous references applied in the prior rejection of record, new additional references have been added to the combination and introduced for Applicant’s consideration given the amended independent claims as discussed in detail below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, amendments made to the claims have necessitated new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
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.
Claims 11-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koura (US 2020/0405111 A1) in view of Caplan (US 2014/0056701 A1) further in view of Hammes (US 2015/0285912 A1) further in view of Joachimsthaler (US 2017/0146422 A1) and further in view of Floros (US 2003/0222798A1).
Regarding claim 11, Koura discloses A method for operating a mobile, self-propelled
device, the method (see at least para. [0186] of Koura which discloses “improved robotic vacuums and autonomous cleaning devices and methods of using the same”) comprising: providing a mobile, self-propelled device (Fig. 1, 1 and see at least para. [0037] of Koura which discloses “The robotic vacuum 1 collects dust, dirt, debris, etc. while traveling autonomously”, *An autonomously traveling robotic vacuum is a mobile device that includes propulsion components enabling movement without external force, and therefore constitutes a mobile, self-propelled device), having: a device housing (Fig. 1, 11 and see at least para. [0039] of Koura which discloses “a housing 11, which has an interior space. The housing 11 comprises: an upper housing 11A; a lower housing 11B, which is disposed downward of and is connected to the upper housing 11A”); a detection facility (Fig. 1, 50 and see at least para. [0061] of Koura which discloses “the optical sensor 50 comprises a laser sensor (light detection and ranging; LIDAR) that detects objects by emitting laser light, e.g. in the infrared wavelength range, in the visible wavelength range and/or in the ultraviolet wavelength range”, *Examiner interprets sensor 50 to be the detection facility because para. [0047] of Applicant’s specification describes “The detection facility in the present case is a laser tower, in particular a LIDAR sensor 2 (light detection and ranging-sensor)”) configured to rotate about an axis of rotation (Fig. 7, CX and see at least para. [0062] of Koura which discloses “the optical sensor 50 comprises: a rotary body 51, which rotates about a rotational axis CX”) relative to said device housing (see at least para. [0072] of Koura which discloses “the rotary body 51 may be rotatably supported by a portion of the upper housing 11A”, *Examiner interprets that since body 51 is supported by housing 11, then the rotation occurs relative to the device housing); and a cover (Fig. 1, 52 and see at least para. [0062] of Koura which discloses “a cover 52, which is disposed upward of the rotary body 51”) arranged above the detection facility and being supported by a plurality of web elements (Fig. 8, 70 and see at least para. [0062] of Koura which discloses “legs (support columns) 70, which are disposed around the rotary body 51 and support the cover 52”, *Examiner interprets legs/support columns 70 to be the plurality of web elements since para. [0020] of Applicant’s specification describes “The cover is supported by a plurality of web elements. Web elements are understood to mean, in particular, any elements which are suitable for holding, supporting and/or fastening the cover to the region provided therefor. For example, the web elements are support elements and/or support legs”); said web elements having position relative to the detection facility (see at least para. [0066] of Koura which discloses “The legs 70 are disposed (extend) downward of the cover 52. The legs 70, i.e. two, three or more of the legs 70, are provided in a spaced apart manner around the rotary body 51. In the present embodiment, four of the legs 70 are provided around the rotary body 51” and see at least para. [0132] of Koura which discloses “the legs 70 include first legs 70A and second legs 70B, whose inclination directions differ. In the example shown in FIG. 16, the first legs 70A and the second legs 70B are disposed in an alternating manner around rotational axis CX”, *Examiner interprets the web elements 70 to be positioned relative to the bottom of the detention facility 50 and *Examiner interprets that since these limitations are cited in the alternative only 1 limitation is required, i.e., web elements having position relative to the detection facility).
Koura may not explicitly disclose said web elements having mutually different shapes and
the method comprising: calibrating and/or monitoring the detection facility for errors based on measuring beams of the detection facility by determining a position and orientation of the detection facility relative to the device housing based on variable configuration and/or position of the web elements by using measuring beams for determining which measuring beams are emitted by the detection device and blocked by the web elements: determining a number of measuring beams that are blocked by the web elements: and determining the direction of the detection device relative to the device housing and its rotational speed by evaluating the blocked measuring beams.
However, Caplan discloses web elements (Fig. 1, 41-45 & 50 and see at least para. [0018] of
Caplan which discloses “The panel 20 includes a plurality of ribs 41, 42, 43, 44, 45“ and see at least para. [0021] of Caplan which discloses “In order to make up for the discontinuity in the rib 45, a complementary rib 50 is provided on the second surface 28 as shown in FIG. 1 (where the panel surface 24 is rendered transparent) and FIG. 3. The complementary rib 50 is aligned with the discontinuous rib 45 that projects from the first surface 24 and is positioned in the area of the discontinuity. The complementary rib 50 functions as a “bridge” to maintain structural continuity across the discontinuity or reduced-height section of the rib 45 on the first side 24. By aligned, it is meant that the complementary rib 50 substantially follows a path established or defined by the discontinuous rib 45” and see at least para. [0022] of Caplan which discloses “The complementary rib 50 can be of the same height as the discontinuous rib 45, or larger, or smaller as illustrated”, *Examiner interprets ribs 41-45 and 50 to be different web elements that have mutually different shapes as illustrated in Fig. 1 and notes the different positions of the ribs/web elements around the cover/shroud) having mutually different shapes (Fig. 1 of Caplan illustrates the mutually different shapes of ribs 45B compared to ribs 44 & 44 and rib 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the web elements of Koura to have mutually different shapes, as taught in Caplan with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase support coverage of the device cover. See para. [0002] and [0023] of Caplan for motivation.
Koura, as modified by Caplan, may not explicitly disclose the method comprising:
calibrating and/or monitoring the detection facility for errors based on measuring beams of the detection facility by determining a position and orientation of the detection facility relative to the device housing based on variable configuration and/or position of the web elements by using measuring beams for determining which measuring beams are emitted by the detection device and blocked by the web elements: determining a number of measuring beams that are blocked by the web elements: and determining the direction of the detection device relative to the device housing and its rotational speed by evaluating the blocked measuring beams.
However, Hammes discloses calibrating and/or monitoring (see at least para. [0019] of
Hammes which discloses “a reference signal required for technical safety aspects is resolved for monitoring the detection capability” and see at least para. [0047] of Hammes which discloses “detections can be suppressed in a near zone suppression of the evaluation or optically”) the detection facility for errors (see at least para. [0006] of Hammes which discloses “One of these measures which turn a laser scanner into a safety laser scanner is the use of an internal reference target system with whose aid the error-free function of the distance measurement and its unimpaired sensitivity are checked” and see at least para. [0054] of Hammes which discloses “The evaluation unit 34 has an expectation as to when the optical reference signal should be received with an error-free function and can thus reveal errors”) based on measuring beams of the detection facility (see at least para. [0029] of Hammes which discloses “holding elements could admittedly be detected by the scanning beam, lie within the laser scanner and thus necessarily outside the relevant protected fields, whereby they are reliably and simply masked. Only a certain energetic loss, but by no means an incorrect measurement, thereby results” and see at least para. [0030] of Hammes which discloses “An angle measurement unit is preferably provided for detecting the angular position of the deflection unit. Complete two-dimensional position coordinates are then available overall for detected objects”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the method of Koura, as modified by Caplan to include calibrating and/or monitoring the detection facility for errors based on measuring beams, as taught in Hammes with a reasonable expectation of success in order to monitor the operational condition of the rotating detection facility and detect errors or deviations in the detection system so that accurate object detection and navigation performance of the mobile device are maintained.
Koura, as modified by Caplan and Hammes, may not explicitly disclose by determining a
position and orientation of the detection facility relative to the device housing based on variable configuration and/or position of the web elements by using measuring beams for determining which measuring beams are emitted by the detection device and blocked by the web elements: determining a number of measuring beams that are blocked by the web elements: and determining the direction of the detection device relative to the device housing and its rotational speed by evaluating the blocked measuring beams.
However, Joachimsthaler discloses determining a position (see at least para. [0058] of
Joachimsthaler which discloses “Position-sensing unit 50 is suitably adapted to generate digital angle values φ indicative of the angular position of shaft 12, and thus also of shaft 30, with respect to a reference position. Material measure 14 with measuring graduation 15 and scanning unit 24 for scanning the same are associated with position-sensing unit 50 for this purpose. Position-sensing unit 50 further includes a position analysis unit 52 for generating digital angle value φ from the scanning signals of scanning unit 24”) and orientation (see at least para. [0053] of Joachimsthaler which discloses “imbalance sensor 200 is a displacement sensor 200 capable of measuring a distance d between a reference position associated with housing 10 of the angle-measuring device and a reference position associated with shaft 12”, *The Examiner interprets shaft 12 as corresponding to the rotating detection facility and housing 10 as corresponding to the device housing. Accordingly, Joachimsthaler teaches determining the position and orientation of a rotating component relative to the housing using measurement signals generated from sensing interactions with structural reference features) of the detection facility relative to the device housing based on variable configuration (see at least para. [0038] of Joachimsthaler which discloses “Measuring graduation 15 includes one or more graduation tracks which may have an incremental code or/and an absolute code, depending on the operating principle of the angle-measuring device”, *The configuration of these measuring graduations determines how the scanning unit generates position signal indicative of angular position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the method of Koura, as modified by Caplan and Hammes to include by determining a position and orientation of the detection facility relative to the device housing based on variable configuration, as taught in Joachimsthaler with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine the angular position of the rotating detection facilitate relative to the device housing so that the operational state and alignment of the detection facility can be accurately monitored and calibrated during operation. The modification would merely apply a known angular position determination technique to the rotating detection facility of Koura and would not change the principle of operation of the device.
Koura, as modified by Caplan and Hammes discloses and/or position of the web elements
(Fig. 8, 70 and see at least para. [0062] of Koura which discloses “legs (support columns) 70, which are disposed around the rotary body 51 and support the cover 52”, *Examiner interprets legs/support columns 70 to be the plurality of web elements since para. [0020] of Applicant’s specification describes “The cover is supported by a plurality of web elements. Web elements are understood to mean, in particular, any elements which are suitable for holding, supporting and/or fastening the cover to the region provided therefor. For example, the web elements are support elements and/or support legs”) by using measuring beams (see at least para. [0029] of Hammes which discloses “holding elements could admittedly be detected by the scanning beam, lie within the laser scanner and thus necessarily outside the relevant protected fields, whereby they are reliably and simply masked. Only a certain energetic loss, but by no means an incorrect measurement, thereby results”) for determining which measuring beams are emitted by the detection device and blocked (see at least para. [0089] of Koura which discloses “the detection light, which is emitted from the light-emitting surface 63 during rotation of the rotary body 51, is blocked by the leg 70“ and see at least para. [0115] of Koura which discloses “the light-emitting surface 63 during rotation of the rotary body 51, is blocked by the leg 70 does not become excessively long. Thus, as was explained above, by reducing the amount of the detection light that is blocked by each of the legs 70, improved detection accuracy of the optical sensor 50 is made possible”) by the web elements.
Koura, as modified by Caplan and Hammes and Joachimsthaler may not explicitly disclose
determining a number of measuring beams that are blocked by the web elements: and determining the direction of the detection device relative to the device housing and its rotational speed by evaluating the blocked measuring beams.
However, Floros discloses determining a number of measuring beams (see at least para.
[0028] of Floros which discloses “an optical encoder uses a beam of light and a beam-interrupting slotted disk to produce electrical pulses in response to a rotation. By counting a single bit or by decoding a set of bits, the pulses can be converted to relative or absolute position measurements. One advantage of optical encoders is that the shaft position is detected using a light beam”) that are blocked by the web elements: and determining the direction of the detection device relative to the device housing and its rotational speed by evaluating the blocked measuring beams (see at least para. [0023] of Floros which discloses “As the shaft rotates, pulse trains occur on the channels at a frequency proportional to the shaft speed, and the phase relationship between the signals yields the rotation direction. By counting the number of pulses and knowing the resolution of the disk, the angular motion can be measured”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the method
of Koura, as modified by Caplan and Hammes and Joachimsthaler to include determining a number of measuring beams that are blocked by the web elements: and determining the direction of the detection device relative to the device housing and its rotational speed by evaluating the blocked measuring beams; as taught in Floros with a reasonable expectation of success in order to obtain information about the angular position, direction of rotation, and rotational speed of the rotating detection facility from the interaction of its measuring beams with the web elements, thereby enabling more precise monitoring and control of the detection facility’s operational state and improving and accuracy and reliability of object detection and navigation of the mobile device, as is already known for shaft encoders in Floros. See para. [0003] and [0023] of Floros for motivation.
Regarding claim 12, Koura, as modified by Caplan further in view of Hammes further in view
of Joachimsthaler and further in view of Floros discloses wherein: the mobile, self-propelled device has opening angles (Fig. 10 illustrates opening angles relative to CX and see at least para. [0086] of Koura which discloses “rotational axis CX, an inclination angle θ of the first side surface 71 with respect to virtual line RL and the inclination angle θ of the second side surface 72 with respect to virtual line RL are 5° or greater and 85° or less, i.e. from 5° to 85°. This inclination angle θ emanates from a point (vertex) where one virtual radial line RL intersects the first side surface 71 or the second side surface 72 while the optical axis Xa coincides with the first side surface 71 or the second side surface 72, respectively”) relative to the axis of rotation (Fig. 7, CX and see at least para. [0062] of Koura which discloses “the optical sensor 50 comprises: a rotary body 51, which rotates about a rotational axis CX”) between each of said web elements (Fig. 8, 70 and see at least para. [0062] of Koura which discloses “legs (support columns) 70, which are disposed around the rotary body 51 and support the cover 52”, *Examiner interprets legs/support columns 70 to be the plurality of web elements); said opening angles have mutually different sizes (see at least para. [0116] of Koura which discloses “the inclination angles θ of the legs 70, with respect to a virtual line RL that intersects a middle point of the respective leg 70, may differ from one another. For example, the inclination angle θ of a first leg 70 may be 30°, and the inclination angle θ of a second leg 70 may be 35°”, *Examiner interprets this as the opening angles having mutually different sizes); and said detection facility (Fig. 1, 50 and see at least para. [0061] of Koura which discloses “the optical sensor 50 comprises a laser sensor (light detection and ranging; LIDAR) that detects objects by emitting laser light, e.g. in the infrared wavelength range, in the visible wavelength range and/or in the ultraviolet wavelength range”) is configured to determine a position and/or orientation of the detection facility relative to its environment based on the opening angles of different sizes (see at least para. [0182] of Koura which discloses “at a first rotational position of the rotary body 51 relative to the legs 70, an optical axis Xa of the light-emitting device 61 coincides, or forms an angle less than 5°, with a first surface 79B of one of the legs 70. At a second rotational position of the rotary body 51 relative to the legs 70, the optical axis Xa of the light-emitting device 61 coincides, or forms an angle less than 5°, with a second surface 79D of the one of the legs 70. At a third rotational position of the rotary body 51 relative to the legs 70, an optical axis Xb of the light-receiving device 62 coincides, or forms an angle less than 5°, with a third surface 79A of the one of the legs 70. At a fourth rotational position of the rotary body 51 relative to the legs 70, the optical axis Xb of the light-receiving device 62 coincides, or forms an angle less than 5°, with a fourth surface 79C of the one of the legs 70”, *Examiner interprets this to be evidence of determining a position of the detection facility 70 based on different ranges of angles).
Regarding claim 13, Koura, as modified by Caplan further in view of Hammes further in view
of Joachimsthaler and further in view of Floros discloses wherein the position and/or orientation of the detection facility is configured to be determined based on measuring beams output from the detection facility and blocked (see at least para. [0089] of Koura which discloses “the leg 70 blocks less of the detection light, which is emitted from the light-emitting surface 63 than if the surfaces of the leg 70 are (as in the known art described above) arranged to be parallel or substantially parallel to the virtual radial lines RL. For example, even if the outer shape of the leg 70 is enlarged (widened) such that the distance between the first side surface 71 and the second side surface 72 becomes longer (wider), the time during which the detection light, which is emitted from the light-emitting surface 63 during rotation of the rotary body 51, is blocked by the leg 70 does not become excessively long. Because a greater amount of the detection light emitted from the light-emitting surface 63 is radiated towards objects (i.e. less detection light is blocked by the legs 70)”) by the web elements (see at least para. [0081] of Koura which discloses “the light-emitting device 61 emits laser light as the detection light. The light beam of the detection light emitted from the light-emitting device 61 coincides with optical axis Xa of the light-emitting device 61. At least a portion of the light beam of the detection light that enters the light-receiving device 62 coincides with optical axis Xb of the light-receiving device 62” and see at least para. [0089] of Koura which discloses “because the first side surface 71 and the second side surface 72 become parallel to, or coincide with, optical axis Xa of the light-emitting device 61 when at least a portion of the leg 70 opposes (faces) the light-emitting surface 63 of the light-emitting device 61, the leg 70 blocks less of the detection light, which is emitted from the light-emitting surface 63 than if the surfaces of the leg 70 are (as in the known art described above) arranged to be parallel or substantially parallel to the virtual radial lines RL. For example, even if the outer shape of the leg 70 is enlarged (widened) such that the distance between the first side surface 71 and the second side surface 72 becomes longer (wider), the time during which the detection light, which is emitted from the light-emitting surface 63 during rotation of the rotary body 51, is blocked by the leg 70 does not become excessively long. Because a greater amount of the detection light emitted from the light-emitting surface 63 is radiated towards objects (i.e. less detection light is blocked by the legs 70), the detection accuracy of the optical sensor 50 can be improved as compared to known optical sensors. In addition, by enlarging (widening) the outer shape of the leg 70 such that the distance between the first side surface 71 and the second side surface 72 becomes longer (wider), the legs 70 may be made more robust, thereby providing stronger support for the cover 52”, *Examiner interprets this as determining the position/orientation of the detection facility 50 based on measuring beams output from the detection facility and blocked by the web elements).
Regarding claim 14, Koura, as modified by Caplan further in view of Hammes further in view
of Joachimsthaler and further in view of Floros discloses wherein said detection facility is configured to determined determine errors (see at least para. [0006] of Hammes which discloses “One of these measures which turn a laser scanner into a safety laser scanner is the use of an internal reference target system with whose aid the error-free function of the distance measurement and its unimpaired sensitivity are checked” and see at least para. [0054] of Hammes which discloses “The evaluation unit 34 has an expectation as to when the optical reference signal should be received with an error-free function and can thus reveal errors”) based on the measuring beams (see at least para. [0029] of Hammes which discloses “holding elements could admittedly be detected by the scanning beam, lie within the laser scanner and thus necessarily outside the relevant protected fields, whereby they are reliably and simply masked. Only a certain energetic loss, but by no means an incorrect measurement, thereby results” and see at least para. [0030] of Hammes which discloses “An angle measurement unit is preferably provided for detecting the angular position of the deflection unit. Complete two-dimensional position coordinates are then available overall for detected objects”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the detection facility to determine errors based on the measuring beams, as taught in Hammes with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure the optimal orientation of the detection facility and to maintain steady measurement values. See para. [0029] and [0030] of Hammes for motivation.
Regarding claim 15, Koura, as modified by Caplan further in view of Hammes further in view
of Joachimsthaler and further in view of Floros discloses wherein the errors to be determined by the detection facility are at least one of said detection facility not rotating at the dedicated speed (see at least para. [0023] of Floros which discloses “As the shaft rotates, pulse trains occur on the channels at a frequency proportional to the shaft speed, and the phase relationship between the signals yields the rotation direction. By counting the number of pulses and knowing the resolution of the disk, the angular motion can be measured”), said detection facility not optimally oriented (see at least para. [0029] of Hammes which discloses “orientation of the laser scanner anyway depends on the assembly at the location of the application” and see at least para. [0049] of Hammes which discloses “So that the circuit board of the test light transmitter 38 does not have to be tilted for its orientation, a deflection prism 52 is positioned upstream which is at the same time collimating and thus replaces a collimation lens”) and said detection facility being worn (see at least para. [0027] of Hammes which discloses “Impairments in the optical system, that is, for example, in the deflection unit or reception optics due to effects such as condensation, corrosion or maladjustment, as well as in the amplification of the light receiver or of its downstream analog electronics are recognized via the amplitude”).
Regarding claim 16, Koura, as modified by Caplan further in view of Hammes further in view
of Joachimsthaler and further in view of Floros discloses wherein said detection facility is configured to compare (see at least para. [0006] of Hammes which discloses “The comparison of this measurement with a taught expected value allows the assessment of whether the detection capability of the safety laser scanner is limited. In addition, a current distance offset which is caused by temperature-dependent internal signal transit time fluctuations can be determined and corrected from this measurement”) detected values of the measuring beams with predetermined values for determining errors (see at least para. [0006] of Hammes which discloses “One of these measures which turn a laser scanner into a safety laser scanner is the use of an internal reference target system with whose aid the error-free function of the distance measurement and its unimpaired sensitivity are checked” and see at least para. [0054] of Hammes which discloses “The evaluation unit 34 has an expectation as to when the optical reference signal should be received with an error-free function and can thus reveal errors”).
Regarding claim 17, Koura, as modified by Caplan further in view of Hammes further in view
of Joachimsthaler and further in view of Floros discloses wherein said web elements (Fig.
1, 41-45 & 50 and see at least para. [0018] of Caplan which discloses “The panel 20 includes a plurality of ribs 41, 42, 43, 44, 45“ and see at least para. [0021] of Caplan which discloses “In order to make up for the discontinuity in the rib 45, a complementary rib 50 is provided on the second surface 28 as shown in FIG. 1 (where the panel surface 24 is rendered transparent) and FIG. 3. The complementary rib 50 is aligned with the discontinuous rib 45 that projects from the first surface 24 and is positioned in the area of the discontinuity. The complementary rib 50 functions as a “bridge” to maintain structural continuity across the discontinuity or reduced-height section of the rib 45 on the first side 24. By aligned, it is meant that the complementary rib 50 substantially follows a path established or defined by the discontinuous rib 45” and see at least para. [0022] of Caplan which discloses “The complementary rib 50 can be of the same height as the discontinuous rib 45, or larger, or smaller as illustrated”, *Examiner interprets ribs 41-45 and 50 to be web elements that have mutually different shapes as illustrated in Fig. 1 and notes the different positions of the ribs/web elements around the cover/shroud) have mutually different widths (see at least para. [0005] of Caplan which discloses “A first rib extends substantially perpendicularly from the first surface, the first rib having a portion of decreasing height corresponding to a decreased stiffening effect of the first rib. A second rib is positioned on the second surface substantially opposite the portion of decreasing height to compensate for the decreased stiffening effect of the first rib”, *Examiner interprets the second rib to have a different shape than the first because it is compensating for the reduced stiffness and see Fig. 1 of Caplan illustrates the different widths of the web elements 41-45 and 50).
Regarding claim 18, Koura, as modified by Caplan further in view of Hammes further in view
of Joachimsthaler and further in view of Floros discloses wherein the web elements (Fig.
8, 70 and see at least para. [0062] of Koura which discloses “legs (support columns) 70, which are disposed around the rotary body 51 and support the cover 52”, *Examiner interprets legs/support columns 70 to be the plurality of web elements since para. [0020] of Applicant’s specification describes “The cover is supported by a plurality of web elements. Web elements are understood to mean, in particular, any elements which are suitable for holding, supporting and/or fastening the cover to the region provided therefor. For example, the web elements are support elements and/or support legs”); are arranged relative to one another with an offset to a multiple of an angular spacings (see at least para. [0066] of Koura which discloses “The legs 70, i.e. two, three or more of the legs 70, are provided in a spaced apart manner around the rotary body 51”) between the measuring beams emitted by the detection facility (see at least para. [0089] of Koura which discloses “the leg 70 blocks less of the detection light, which is emitted from the light-emitting surface 63 than if the surfaces of the leg 70 are (as in the known art described above) arranged to be parallel or substantially parallel to the virtual radial lines RL. For example, even if the outer shape of the leg 70 is enlarged (widened) such that the distance between the first side surface 71 and the second side surface 72 becomes longer (wider), the time during which the detection light, which is emitted from the light-emitting surface 63 during rotation of the rotary body 51, is blocked by the leg 70 does not become excessively long. Because a greater amount of the detection light emitted from the light-emitting surface 63 is radiated towards objects (i.e. less detection light is blocked by the legs 70”).
Regarding claim 20, Koura, as modified by Caplan further in view of Hammes further in view
of Joachimsthaler and further in view of Floros discloses wherein the device (Fig. 1, 1 and see at least para. [0037] of Koura which discloses “The robotic vacuum 1 collects dust, dirt, debris, etc. while traveling autonomously”, *Examiner interprets autonomously traveling robot 1 to be a self-propelled device) is a floor cleaning device (see at least para. [0037] of Koura which discloses “The robotic vacuum 1 collects dust, dirt, debris, etc. while traveling autonomously on a surface-to-be-cleaned FL”) for autonomously treating floor surfaces (see at least para. [0040] of Koura which discloses “The main body 2 has a suction port 15 provided in the bottom plate 11D. The suction port 15 is provided in (at) a front portion of the bottom surface 2B and opposes (faces) the surface-to-be-cleaned FL. The suction port 15 suctions in dust, debris, etc. from the surface-to-be-cleaned FL”).
Regarding claim 21, Koura, as modified by Caplan further in view of Hammes further in view
of Joachimsthaler and further in view of Floros discloses wherein the floor cleaning device is a vacuuming (see at least para. [0185] of Koura which discloses “a robotic vacuum (i.e. having a suctioning capability)”), sweeping (see at least para. [0250] of Koura which discloses “one or more brushes (16, 18) rotatably mounted on the main body (2) and adapted to sweep dust, debris, etc. toward the suction port (15)”), and/or mopping robot (see at least para. [0185] of Koura which discloses “a robotic vacuum (i.e. having a suctioning capability), the present teachings are equally applicable any kind of autonomous cleaning device, such as including autonomous mopping robots, autonomous floor scrubbers, autonomous UV sterilizers, etc., or any kind of device that performs robotic mapping”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koura (US 2020/0405111 A1) in view of Caplan (US 2014/0056701 A1) further in view of Hammes (US 2015/0285912 A1) further in view of Joachimsthaler (US 2017/0146422 A1) and further in view of Floros (US 2003/0222798A1) in view of Clark (US 2006/0102796).
Regarding claim 19, Koura, as modified by Caplan further in view of Hammes further in view
of Joachimsthaler and further in view of Floros discloses the web elements (Fig. 8, 70 and see at least para. [0062] of Koura which discloses “legs (support columns) 70, which are disposed around the rotary body 51 and support the cover 52”, *Examiner interprets legs/support columns 70 to be the plurality of web elements).
Koura, as modified by Caplan further in view of Hammes further in view of Joachimsthaler
and further in view of Floros, may not explicitly disclose wherein the web elements are configured to be extendable or retractable.
However, Clark discloses web elements (Fig. 1B, 12 and see at least para. [0031] of Clark
which discloses a “flexible cover 16 that is attached to each of the ribs 12”and see at least para. [0034] of Clark which discloses “the ribs 12 have respective radii 20 that are staggered in size, such that the ribs “nest” radially within each other”) that are configured to be extendable (see at least para. [0030] of Clark which discloses “a plurality of arcuate ribs 12, each having opposite ends respectively pinioned at opposite sides of the feature at about the surface 2 of the vehicle 3 for rotational movement of the rib about an axis of rotation 14 (seen end-on in the figures) extending through the opposite ends thereof, and through an arcuate path of revolution extending over the feature“) or retractable (Fig. 2A, 12 illustrates the ribs in the retracted position and see at least para. [0034] of Clark which discloses “when the ribs are rotated to the fully retracted position”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the web elements of Koura, as modified by Caplan further in view of Hammes further in view of Joachimsthaler and further in view of Floros to be extendable or retractable, as taught in Clark with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase support coverage and facilitate monitoring and protection when needed. See para. [0030] of Caplan for motivation.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sun (US 2020/0298415A1) discloses an autonomous cleaning robot, that includes a robot body, comprising an assembly section and a suction port, the suction port being disposed on the bottom of the robot body and towards a surface to be cleaned; a drive system, comprising drive wheels, the drive wheels being disposed on opposite sides of the robot body and configured to drive the robot body to move; a control system, disposed on the robot body and configured to control the drive wheels; a dust suction assembly disposed in the assembly section, an air inlet channel of the dust suction assembly being communicated with the suction port, and the dust suction assembly being used to suck dust under a negative pressure; and a variable dust collection channel disposed at peripheral of the suction port, the variable dust collection channel being used for sweeping and scraping to collect dust in a first state and used for forming a dust suction channel communicated with the suction port in a second state. Jeong (US 2020/0187736 A1) discloses a robot cleaner is a device for automatically cleaning a space, which is to be cleaned, by vacuuming dirt such as dust accumulated on the floor while traveling in the cleaning space, without a user's operation. The robot cleaner travels in the space to be cleaned and cleans the space to be cleaned. The robot cleaner identifies the distance to obstacles such as furniture, office supplies, and walls installed in a cleaning area through a distance sensor, and cleans the cleaning area while changing directions by selectively driving left and right wheel motors of the robot cleaner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA IVEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4896. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DANA D IVEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/D.D.I/March 5, 2026
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662