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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed on the IDS filed 1/06/2024, 12/22/2024 and 4/7/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
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 15-17 are 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 15, the claim recites “operating the robot at angles between 10 degrees and 60 degrees.” However, it does not define what these angles are relative to, or what angle of operation is meant to fall within this range. Per paragraphs [0100]-[0101] of the specification, it appears that this is meant to describe the angle between two consecutive forward movements of the robot before and after contact with an obstacle. However, this is not clearly described in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as operating the robot such that the angle between two consecutive forward movements of the robot (one before contacting the obstacle and one afterward) is between 10 degrees and 60 degrees.
Regarding claim 16, the claim defines a first and a second forward movement wherein the first and second forward movements are generally parallel. However, this appears to contradict claim 15, from which it depends. Paragraph [0101] of the specification gives an example of “generally parallel” meaning the first and second movement are within 5 degrees of one another. Claim 15, meanwhile, calls for operation at angles between 10 and 60 degrees.
Regarding claim 17, the claim defines a first and a second forward movement wherein the first and second forward movements are not generally parallel. Based on the provided definition of “generally parallel” as within 5 degrees, the angles of operation defined in claim 15 are already “not generally parallel.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolfe et al. (US 20160296092 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Wolfe teaches: A robot configured for cleaning, the robot comprising:
a body comprising a chassis and a cleaning element;
a motor configured to move the robot within an environment;
a sensor; (See Wolfe Fig. 1A-1D, [0046]-[0048] for robot 100 with body 102, electrically driven wheels 121, cleaning pad 120, bumper 110 and bumper sensors 112)
a processor communicatively coupled to the sensor;
a computer memory communicatively coupled to the processor; and
computing instructions stored on the computer memory and configured, when executed by the processor, to cause the processor to: (See Wolfe [0117], [0120]-[0121] for processor(s) executing program instructions from computer memory)
actuate the motor to drive the robot in a forward direction relative to the cleaning element, and (See Wolfe [0067] and throughout for robot moving in a forward direction)
receive sensor data from the sensor, the sensor data indicating an object in the environment relative to the robot, and, (See Wolve [0062] and throughout for detection of obstacles by bumper sensors)
actuate the motor based on the sensor data to cause the robot to alter its course while maintaining the forward direction relative to the cleaning element. (Examiner is interpreting “while maintaining the forward direction” to mean that the robot turns while continuing to move forward, rather than by rotating in place, for example. See Wolfe Fig. 3A-B for examples of the cleaning robot changing direction while moving forward.)
Regarding claim 2, Wolfe teaches: The robot according to claim 1, wherein the robot moving the cleaning element is configured to hold or collect debris as the robot moves in the forward direction. (See Wolve [0072] and throughout for cleaning pad configured to absorb debris)
Regarding claim 6, Wolfe teaches: The robot according to claim 1, wherein the sensor is a force-based sensor. (See Wolfe [0045], [0048] and throughout for detection of force exerted on a bumper sensor)
Regarding claim 7, Wolfe teaches: The robot according to claim 1, wherein the sensor is an image-based sensor or light-based sensor. (See Wolfe [0116] for camera and/or ranging lasers used to build a map of the space, which could include the position of walls, furniture, or other obstacles.)
Regarding claim 8, Wolfe teaches: The robot according to claim 1, wherein the computing instructions are further configured, when executed by the processor, to cause the processor to:
actuate the motor based on the sensor data to cause the robot to, prior to altering its course, move in a backward direction relative to the cleaning element. (See Wolfe Fig. 3A and [0072] for backward movement of robot prior to turning)
Regarding claim 18, Wolfe teaches: The robot according to claim 1, wherein the computing instructions are further configured, when executed by the processor, to stop or lock one or more wheels of the robot upon receipt of sensor data from the sensor indicating that a collision by the robot with an obstacle is occurring. (See Wolfe [0098] for stopping forward movement when the bumper sensor exceeds a threshold)
Regarding claim 19, Wolfe teaches: The robot according to claim 1, wherein the computing instructions are further configured, when executed by the processor, to reverse one or more wheels of the robot upon receipt of sensor data from the sensor indicating that a collision by the robot with an obstacle is occurring. (See Wolfe [0098] for stopping forward movement and reversing the robot when the bumper sensor exceeds a threshold)
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe et al. (US 20160296092 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Wolfe teaches: The robot according to claim 1,
Wolfe does not explicitly teach: wherein the robot moving the cleaning element is configured to hold or collect at least 90 percent of a total amount of debris acquired by the cleaning element as the robot moves in the forward direction.
However, the purpose of a cleaning robot, as taught by Wolfe, is to collect dirt and debris from the floor. It would be obvious that such a robot be designed to collect as much of the encountered dirt and debris as possible. Examiner asserts that a cleaning robot which left behind as much as 10% of the dirt and debris it encountered would be considered a poor cleaner.Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the robot cleaner of Wolfe to achieve a collection rate of at least 90% of the encountered dirt and debris.
Regarding claim 4, modified Wolfe teaches: The robot according to claim 3,
Wolfe does not explicitly teach: wherein the total amount of debris is acquired by the robot during a cleaning session of the robot.
However, Wolfe [0056]-[0057] describe the cleaning pad as being either disposable or reusable, to be replaced after cleaning. Clearly, the intent is not to use the same cleaning pad indefinitely, as it would become too dirty to effectively clean. It would have been obvious, instead, that the cleaning pad be designed to absorb enough dirt and debris that it could complete a cleaning session without becoming so dirty that it needed replacement, as this would present a major inconvenience in a device meant to make floor cleaning more convenient.
Regarding claim 5, Wolfe teaches: The robot according to claim 1,
Wolfe does not explicitly teach: wherein the robot moving the cleaning element is configured to hold or collect at least 60 percent of a total amount of debris acquired by the cleaning element as the robot moves in the forward direction, wherein the size of the debris is between approximately 5.5e-5 mm3 and 15 mm3.
However, as discussed regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious that the robot be designed to collect as much of the encountered dirt and debris as possible. In addition, the sizes described in claim 5 reflect roughly the size of a fine grain of dust at the lower end to a moderate-sized grain of sand at the upper end. This would be an obvious range of debris for a robot such as that described in Wolfe to be designed to absorb, as larger dirt and debris is often better handled by different methods than a cleaning pad.
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe et al. (US 20160296092 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 201600259336 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Wolfe teaches: The robot according to claim 8,
Wolfe does not explicitly teach:
wherein the computing instructions are further configured, when executed by the processor, to cause the processor to:
detect when the robot is in a stuck state, and
actuate the motor based on the sensor data to cause the robot to, prior to altering its course, maneuver the robot to disengage from the stuck state.
However, detection and escape from being stuck is a common feature of robot vacuum cleaners. For example, Lee teaches a method of determining a robot cleaner is stuck and escaping from being stuck (See Lee [0021] and throughout).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, the modify the robot cleaner of Wolfe to include the determination and escape from being stuck, as taught in Lee, in order to improve the reliable functioning of the cleaner.
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe et al. (US 20160296092 A1) in view of Sadowski et al. (US 20140163733 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Wolfe teaches: The robot according to claim 1 further comprising a second sensor,
wherein the second sensor comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor, and (See Wolfe [0084] for accelerometers and gyroscopes)
Wolfe does not explicitly teach:
wherein the computing instructions are further configured, when executed by the processor, to cause the processor to:
receive IMU sensor data from the IMU sensor alone without receiving sensor data from the sensor,
transform the IMU sensor data into a same type of data or output as for the sensor data of the sensor,
provide the same type of data or output to the processor to actuate the motor to cause the robot to alter its course while maintaining the forward direction relative to the cleaning element.
However, Sadowski teaches a robot capable to detecting collision with an object or obstacle using an IMU (See Sadowski [0009]-[0027] for use of accelerometer to detect obstacle and obstacle information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the cleaner of Wolfe to use accelerometer data as a means of detecting obstacles in the event of bumper sensor failure in order to improve the reliability of the cleaner. It would further be obvious that the obstacle data from the accelerometer be modified to match the formatting of the data from the bumper prior to being provided to the navigation program so that the navigation program does not require modification.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe et al. (US 20160296092 A1) in view of Rosenstein et al. (US 20140124004 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Wolfe teaches: The robot according to claim 1,
Wolfe does not explicitly teach: wherein the computing instructions are further configured, when executed by the processor, to actuate the motor to operate the robot in an angled pattern.
Examiner notes that the “angled pattern” of claim 14 is not described in detail. For example, the crow’s foot patterns of Wolfe Figs. 3A and 3B could be interpreted as an angled pattern. Likewise, Wolfe [0006] describes maintaining an angle of contact with the wall surface between 3 and 20 degrees. However, for the sake of expedited prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the “angled pattern” of claim 14 according to Fig. 11F and paragraphs [0100]-[0101] of the present application, as this appears to be the only place that the term appears.
Rosenstein teaches methods of cleaning robot navigation (See [0005]) including angled patterns (See Fig. 9A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the cleaner of Wolfe to incorporate additional navigation methods taught in Rosenstein in order to improve the flexibility and efficiency of the cleaning robot in different circumstances.
Regarding claim 15, Wolfe teaches: The robot according to claim 14, wherein the angled pattern comprises operating the robot at angles between 10 degrees and 60 degrees. (See Rosenstein Fig. 9A for various acute angles between first and second portions of path)
Regarding claim 16, Wolfe teaches: The robot according to claim 15, wherein the angled pattern comprises a first forward movement and a second forward movement, and wherein the first forward movement is parallel or generally parallel to the second forward movement. (See Wolfe [0071] for generally parallel rows)
Regarding claim 17, Wolfe teaches: The robot according to claim 15, wherein the angled pattern comprises a first forward movement and a second forward movement, and wherein the first forward movement is not parallel and not generally parallel to the second forward movement. (See Rosenstein Fig. 9A for various acute, non-parallel angles)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 13 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET whose telephone number is (571)272-2501. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:00. 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, Peter Nolan can be reached on 571-270-7016. 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.
/JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET/
Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights