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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12 & 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al., US PG Pub 2018/0361577 A1., (hereafter Williams) and further in view of Szatmary et al., US PG Pub 2018/0125319 A1., (hereafter Szatmary).
Regarding claim 1 where it is disclosed by Williams to have, “A method [at least paragraph 0009 cites “a method”], performed by a cleaning robot [at least paragraph 0009 cites “robotic platform”], of performing a task [at least paragraph 0009 where it cites “platform configures to perform a wide variety of tasks and modes of operation…”], the method comprising: capturing an image of an object in a vicinity of the cleaning robot [at least paragraphs 0051-0052, 0059 & 0062 where it is cited to have “cameras” ]; transmitting the captured image to a user terminal device [at least paragraphs 0047, 0056-0057 & 0074 where they cite “user computing device 130”]; displaying the captured image and a list of a plurality of tasks performable by the cleaning robot on the user terminal device [at least paragraph 0074 where they cite, “the robotic platform may decide to transmit a communication, such as one containing a picture of an obstruction, to a supervisory person (e.g., through a user computing device 130) who may respond with instructions or may arrive on scene to remove the obstruction.”]; determining a task performable by the cleaning robot from the list of the plurality of tasks [at least paragraphs 0096-0097, where they cite, “The need for switching tools may be indicated on an alert screen 2200, 2300, which may provide the user with the options to cancel cleaning, direct the robotic platform 100 to proceed to a service module exchange facility 114, and the like.”]; transmitting the determined task to the cleaning robot; and performing cleaning based on the determined task [at least paragraphs 0137, 0096 & 0144-0146, where they cite “…to reproduce the user directed sequences of movement and poses of the robotic platform 100.” & “As the robotic platform 100 is being taught a path, e.g. being directed along a specific path by an operator, the teach-repeat facility 4102 periodically records and stores the pose information in a file.”].”
However, where it is not specifically disclosed by Williams to have their system include having a “list of plurality of tasks”, even though they do have their system in paragraphs 0145-0148 including, “to establishing a fully mapped sequence of service tasking.(paragraph 0148)” Which has been interpreted as a list of tasks that needs to be carried out by the robotic device.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Williams to have their system provide “a list of plurality of tasks” that the robotic device could do based on the obstacle that it detects. Where the obstacle that is sensed would allow the system/user to determine how it should behave. For example., the robotic device might detect a movable obstacle and hence could verbally warn the pet to move or it could detect a static object like furniture which would require the robotic device move around the furniture.
However if applicant believes that this is not taught by Williams then the prior art of is has been provided as in at least column 10 lines 28-60 where they describe how their system detects an obstacle and display that information to the display device of the user device/transceiver device 404, the user then uses the arrow keys on the device to help the robot avoid the collision with the obstacle.
Thus it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Williams by the teachings of Park, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of controlling robotic devices via user devices. Where one would have, with a reasonable expectation of success, modify William by the use of a well know technique to improve similar devices in the same way, as taught by Park. Where in this instance the modification of Williams whom does not have the user device produce options to avoid the collision with the obstacle as taught by Park, where this would help in prevent damage to both the obstacle and the robotic device if a collision occurred.
Where neither Williams nor Park teach their system having “a plurality of options”, where this has been interpreted to mean more than one option. The prior art of Szatmary in at least paragraphs 0014, 0016, 0020 & 0028 does teach having the feature of their system including at least two different trajectories that the robot can take where one of them is to avoid the obstacle, this is read upon by applicants claim to, “a plurality of options.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Williams and Park by the teachings of Szatmary, where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of robotic control devices. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivate to modify Williams by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as taught by Szatmary. Where in this instance the modification of both Williams and Park to have their system now include allowing the user to be able to determine how the robotic device can avoid the obstacle and hence also teach it how to safely avoid running over cables that might be in a house and hence prevent damage to said cables.
Regarding claim 2 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by William, Park and Szatmary, where it is further disclosed by Szatmary in at least paragraphs 0020, 0065 & 0083 to have, “one of the plurality of tasks includes a task of performing cleaning while completely avoiding the object.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Williams and Park by the teachings of Szatmary, where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of robotic control devices. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivate to modify Williams by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as taught by Szatmary. Where in this instance the modification of both Williams and Park to have their system now include allowing the user to be able to determine how the robotic device can avoid the obstacle and hence also teach it how to safely avoid running over cables that might be in a house and hence prevent damage to said cables.
Regarding claim 3 where all the limitations of claim 2 are disclosed by William, Park and Szatmary, where it is further disclosed by Szatmary in at least paragraphs 0013, 0017, 0116 & 0127 to have, “the task of performing cleaning while completely avoiding the object comprises that the cleaning robot moves while avoiding the object by a certain distance.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Williams and Park by the teachings of Szatmary, where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of robotic control devices. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivate to modify Williams by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as taught by Szatmary. Where in this instance the modification of both Williams and Park to have their system now include allowing the user to be able to determine how the robotic device can avoid the obstacle and hence also teach it how to safely avoid running over cables that might be in a house and hence prevent damage to said cables.
Regarding claim 4 where it is disclosed by Williams in a least paragraph 0074 to have their robotic device, “when a position of the object moves, the cleaning robot moves and cleans a floor surface where the object was located.” Where it is cited by Williams to, “the obstacle may be dynamic, such as a dog or person, and may respond to requests to move out of the way. In some instances, the robotic platform 100 may autonomously act to alter its intended path. In other instances, the robotic platform may cease operation if conditions dictate. In embodiments, the robotic platform 100 may store instances of disrupted operations for further processing, such as to come back to that location later to cover an area that was skipped.”
Regarding claim 5 where it is further disclosed by Williams in at least paragraphs 0074 & 103-104 to have their system also include, “storing a local driving plan for the cleaning robot to drive; and updating the local driving plan for an area where the object is located.”
Regarding claim 8 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 1 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 2 and thus rejected for the same reasons as state for claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 3 and thus rejected for the same reasons as state for claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 11 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 4 and thus rejected for the same reasons as state for claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 12 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 5 and thus rejected for the same reasons as state for claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 15 which is the corresponding computer program product claim for method claim 1 and thus rejected for the same reasons as state for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16 which is the corresponding computer program product claim for method claim 2 and thus rejected for the same reasons as state for claim 2 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 & 13-14 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is directed to form PTO 892 where all the relevant art that was found during the search has been cited. .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVESH V AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3255. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur, 8-6:30, 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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
BHAVESH V. AMIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/BHAVESH V AMIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657