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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 18 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/11/2025 and 08/30/2026 were filed before the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 8 and 18 in line 1, “a bumper”, should recite “the bumper” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1 – 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jang (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0231161 A1) in view of Gilbert, Jr. et al (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0281470 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Jang teaches a robot (robot cleaner, 100; Fig. 1) configured for cleaning (Abstract), the robot (100) comprising: a body (body, 110) comprising a chassis (Fig. 1); a cleaning element (cleaning module, 120) comprising a substate mount (rotating plate, 122) for receiving and holding a disposable hard surface wiping substate (mop member, 121; Paragraph [0030]), wherein the substrate mount (122) has a width (Fig. 3 and 7), generally perpendicular to a forward direction of travel of the robot (100; Fig. 3); a motor (motor, 137d) configured to move the robot within an environment (Paragraph [0082]); a sensor (sensing unit, 810; Paragraph [0178] also with sensors, 16, 17); a processor (controller, 20) communicatively coupled to the sensor (Paragraph [0167]); a computer memory (storage unit, 830) communicatively coupled to the processor (Paragraph [0176]); and computing instructions stored on the computer memory (Paragraph [0176]) and configured, when executed by the processor, to cause the processor to: (i) receive sensor data from the sensor (Paragraph [0176]), and (ii) actuate the motor based on the sensor data to cause the robot to maneuver within the environment (Paragraphs [0175] – [0183]).
Jang does not explicitly teach the substrate mount has a width of less than or equal to about 13.9 cm; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Jang to further include the substrate mount has a width of less than or equal to about 13.9 cm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Jang does not explicitly teach wherein the robot is configured by one or more of: (a) the robot is configured, when the processor executes the computing instructions, to maneuver within the environment by implementing a predefined number of passes; (b) the robot is further configured, when the processor executes the computing instructions, to maneuver within the environment by implementing a predefined speed for each pass; (c) the robot has a height of 9 centimeters or less; (d) the body of the robot comprises a bumper having a corner radius between 0.5 millimeters to 30 millimeters; (e) the cleaning element has a turn radius of less than 27.5 centimeters; (f) the body of the robot comprises a bumper having at least a front bumper portion, and wherein the cleaning element comprises at least a front cleaning element portion, and wherein a distance from the front bumper portion to the front cleaning element portion is less than 10 millimeters; or (g) the body of the robot comprises a bumper having at least a side bumper portion, and wherein the cleaning element comprises at least a side cleaning element portion, and wherein a distance from the side bumper portion to the side cleaning element portion is less than 10 millimeters.
Gilbert, however, teaches (c) the robot (robot cleaner, 10) has a height of 9 centimeters or less (Paragraph [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Jang to further include the robot has a height of 9 centimeters or less, as taught by Gilbert, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 2, Jang, as modified, teaches the robot according to Claim 1, as discussed above.
Jang does not explicitly teach wherein the width is less than or equal to 11.5 centimeters; ; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Jang to further include the substrate mount has a width of less than or equal to about 11.5 cm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 3, Jang, as modified, teaches the robot according to Claim 1, as discussed above.
Jang does not explicitly teach wherein the width is less than or equal to 7 centimeters; ; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Jang to further include the substrate mount has a width of less than or equal to about 7 cm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 4, Jang, as modified, teaches the robot according to Claim 1, as discussed above.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the predefined number of passes comprises 10 or more passes, where each pass comprises one square meter of floor coverage area”, the limitation is directed toward a non-selected configuration.
Regarding Claim 5, Jang, as modified, teaches the robot according to Claim 1, as discussed above.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the predefined speed for each pass comprises at least 100 millimeters per second”, the limitation is directed toward a non-selected configuration.
Regarding Claim 6, Jang, as modified, teaches the robot according to Claim 1, as discussed above.
Jang, as modified by Golbert, does not explicitly teach wherein the height of the robot is 7 centimeters or less; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Jang to further include the height of the robot is 7 centimeters or less, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 7 Jang, as modified, teaches the robot according to Claim 1, as discussed above.
Jang, as modified by Golbert, does not explicitly teach wherein the height of the robot is 5 centimeters or less; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Jang to further include the height of the robot is 7 centimeters or less, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 8, Jang, as modified, teaches the robot according to Claim 1, as discussed above.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the body of the robot comprises a bumper, and wherein the bumper is positioned at a distance between 2 millimeters to 10 millimeters from the body”, the limitation is directed toward a non-selected configuration.
Regarding Claim 9, Jang, as modified, teaches the robot according to Claim 8, as discussed above.
Jang does not explicitly teach wherein the width is less than or equal to 11.5 centimeters; ; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Jang to further include the substrate mount has a width of less than or equal to about 11.5 cm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 10, Jang, as modified, teaches the robot according to Claim 9, as discussed above.
Jang, as modified by Golbert, does not explicitly teach wherein the height of the robot is 7 centimeters or less; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Jang to further include the height of the robot is 7 centimeters or less, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 11, Jang, as modified, teaches the robot according to Claim 10, as discussed above.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the predefined speed for each pass comprises at least 100 millimeters per second”, the limitation is directed toward a non-selected configuration.
Regarding Claim 12, Jang, as modified, teaches the robot according to Claim 11, as discussed above.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the predefined speed is decelerated to reduce the intensity of impact of the robot with an obstacle within the environment to decrease debris falloff”, the limitation is directed toward a non-selected configuration.
Regarding Claim 13, Jang, as modified, teaches the robot according to Claim 12, as discussed above.
Regarding the limitation “wherein a deceleration value from the predefined speed comprises a value between 0.1 millimeters per second/per second to 33.30 millimeters per second/per second”, the limitation is directed toward a non-selected configuration.
Regarding Claim 14, Jang, as modified, teaches the robot according to Claim 13, as discussed above.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the predefined number of passes comprises 10 or more passes, where each pass comprises one square meter of floor coverage area”, the limitation is directed toward a non-selected configuration.
Regarding Claim 15, Jang, as modified, teaches the robot according to Claim 1, as discussed above.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the predefined speed is decelerated to reduce the intensity of impact of the robot with an obstacle within the environment to decrease debris falloff”, the limitation is directed toward a non-selected configuration.
Regarding Claim 16, Jang, as modified, teaches the robot according to Claim 15, as discussed above.
Regarding the limitation “wherein a deceleration value from the predefined speed comprises a value between 0.1 millimeters per second/per second to 33.30 millimeters per second/per second”, the limitation is directed toward a non-selected configuration.
Regarding Claim 17, Jang, as modified, teaches the robot according to Claim 16, as discussed above.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the predefined speed for each pass comprises at least 100 millimeters per second”, the limitation is directed toward a non-selected configuration.
Regarding Claim 18, Jang, as modified, teaches the robot according to Claim 17, as discussed above.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the body of the robot comprises a bumper, and wherein the bumper is positioned at a distance between 2 millimeters to 10 millimeters from the body”, the limitation is directed toward a non-selected configuration.
Conclusion
Art made of record, however, not relied upon for the current rejection is as follows: U. S. Patent No. 11,278,175 B2 to Wolfe et al. teaches A robot configured for cleaning, the robot comprising: a body comprising a chassis; a cleaning element comprising a substate mount for receiving and holding a disposable hard surface wiping substate, wherein the substrate mount has a width, generally perpendicular to a forward direction of travel of the robot, a motor configured to move the robot within an environment; a sensor; a processor communicatively coupled to the sensor; a computer memory communicatively coupled to the processor; and computing instructions stored on the computer memory.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights