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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 3/5/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of all claims is related and that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one of the group of claims would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining claims, and that the search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the consideration of undue burden is one that must be made by the examiner. Applicant’s arguments that the search of one invention must necessarily result in a search for the other one has been considered, but is not found persuasive insofar as the searches are not co-extensive, as shown in the restriction requirement, and additional search would be of necessity for the combination of inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/5/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/9/2024, 12/3/2024, and 11/10/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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 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 1-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackert et al. (JP 2019025322 A: See English Machine Translation) and further in view of Arima (JP 2020151010 A: See English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hackert teaches a method for operating a cleaner (abstract), the method comprising: providing a first user interface for setting a user designated floor (para 0012-0014, 0021, and 0025-0026); identifying a first floor corresponding to a first user input among at least one floor associated with the first user interface (para 0012 and 0025-0026); collecting first floor data for the first floor (para 0012 and 0025), the first floor data including sensor data (para 0017); providing a second user interface for setting a suction force for the first floor (para 0012 and 0023); and setting a first suction force corresponding to a second user input among the plurality of suction forces associated with the second user interface (para 0012 and 0023), as the suction force for the first floor (para 0012 and 0023).
Hackert fails to teach sensor data collected of each of a plurality of suction forces for the first floor. However, Arima also teaches method for operating a cleaner wherein the floor data includes sensor data collected for each of a plurality of suction forces for the first floor (para 0020 and 0050-0052) in order to determine appropriate suction force for efficient cleaning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hackert such that the first floor data includes sensor data collected for each of a plurality of suction forces for the first floor as suggested by Arima in order to determine appropriate suction force for efficient cleaning.
Regarding claim 2, the present combination of Hackert and Arima teaches wherein the first user interface includes at least one selectable floor item (para 0025 of Hackert), wherein the second user interface includes at least one selectable suction force item (para 0012 and 0025-0026 of Hackert), and wherein the at least one selectable suction force item includes a suction force item corresponding to a user designated suction force (para 0023 of Hackert).
Regarding claim 3, the present combination of Hackert and Arima teaches wherein the plurality of suction forces includes at least one of a plurality of default suction forces or a user-designated suction force (para 0012 and 0023 of Hackert), wherein collecting the first floor data includes sequentially collecting the sensor data for each of the plurality of suction forces (para 0020 and 0050-0052 or Arima), and wherein the sensor data includes at least one of pressure data or current data of the cleaner (para 0020 and 0050-0052 of Arima).
Regarding claim 4, the present combination of Hackert and Arima teaches wherein a period during which the sensor data for each suction force is set to a preset same period (para 0040-0043 and 0050 of Arima).
Regarding claim 5, the present combination of Hackert and Arima teaches before providing the second user interface, identifying that the first floor data has no error (para 0034, 0036 and 0059 of Arima; and implicitly taught by Hackert as floor type approved by user).
Regarding claim 6, the present combination of Hackert and Arima teaches wherein the identifying that the first floor data has no error includes at least one of: determining whether a range of a maximum value and a minimum value of the sensor data is smaller than a first reference value (para 0036-0038 of Arima).
Regarding claim 7, the present combination of Hackert and Arima teaches storing the first floor data or first representative value data including representative values representing the first floor data (para 0017-0025 of Hackert).
Regarding claim 8, the present combination of Hackert and Arima teaches setting a first suction force which is a user designated suction force for the first floor; and obtaining first state information indicating a state of the cleaner at a first time associated with collecting the first floor data, wherein the first state information and information about the first suction force
are stored together with the first floor data or the first representative value data (para 0012 and 0017-0025 of Hackert and 0035, 0040-0043, and 0050-0052 Arima).
Regarding claim 9, the present combination of Hackert and Arima teaches wherein the first state information is obtained based on at least one of pressure data or current data obtained (para 0017-0025 of Hackert) by operating the cleaner with a preset reference suction force in an idle state (para 0029 of Hackert).
Regarding claim 15, the present combination of Hackert and Arima teaches before providing the first user interface, setting the user designated floor and entering a personalization mode for collecting floor data for the user designated floor (para 0021, 0024, and 0029 of Hackert).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 are 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement for reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Hackert et al. (JP 2019025322 A: See English Machine Translation) and Arima (JP 2020151010 A: See English Machine Translation).
The combination of Hackert and Arima teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above and predicting second floor data for the first floor based on the first floor data (para 0026 of Hackert) as recited in claim 10.
Hackert and Arima fail to teach the first state information, and second state information indicating a state of the cleaner at a second time; and obtaining first area data of a first area associated with the first floor based on the second floor data, wherein the second time is a time after the first time as recited in claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRADHUMAN PARIHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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 on 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.
/P.P/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights