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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13-36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant had filed amended claims and hence the previous rejection has been withdrawn and the restriction requirement as well. However, a new prior art was found and thus a new rejection has been provided based on the new claims.
Response to Amendment
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.
Claim(s) 13-16, 18, 23-26, 28, 33-34 & 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being read upon by Perets et al., US PG Pub 2018/0200884 A1., (hereafter Perets).
Regarding claim 13 where it is disclosed by Perets to have, “A cleaning robot [at least paragraph 0004 where they cite a cleaning robot] comprising: at least one sensor [at least paragraphs 0015, 0018, 0021 & 0055]; at least one camera [at least paragraph 0087 cites at least a video or 3D camera]; memory [at least paragraphs 0019, 0034 & 0046 cites “memory”]; a driving unit [at least paragraphs 0021 & 0111, where they robot has to clean the room and thus would require a driving unit to actual move around and clean the room]; and at least one processor [at least paragraph 0019], wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine a structure within a home based on information obtained through the at least one sensor or the at least one camera [at least paragraphs 0004, 0016, 0093 & 0109-0110]; obtain recognition information regarding an object included in an image obtained by the at least camera by inputting the obtained image into a trained artificial intelligence model [at least paragraphs 0014, 0076-0080 & 0086-0087], and obtain recognition information regarding at least one area of the structure within the home based on the obtained recognition information regarding the object [at least paragraphs 0014, 0076-0080 & 0086-0087]; generate a map including recognition information regarding the at least one area and including a position of the object obtained using the at least one sensor or the at least one camera and recognition information regarding the object, wherein the map includes the determined structure within the home [at least paragraphs 0004, 0016. 0080-0081 & 0093]; and perform a cleaning operation for one or more areas based on the map [at least paragraphs 0016, 0042, 0075, 0081-0083, 0089-0090 & 0093].”
Regarding claim 14 where it is disclosed by Perets in at least paragraphs 0017, 0018, 0075, 0087, 0088, 0091 & 0093, to have their system also, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to: based on a user voice instructing a cleaning operation for the one or more areas being input, control the driving unit to move to the one or more areas based on the map; and based on moving to the one or more areas, perform a cleaning operation for the one or more areas.”
Regarding claim 15 where it is disclosed by Perets in at least paragraphs 0017, 0018, 0075, 0087, 0088, 0091 & 0093, to have their system also have, “the user voice includes information regarding a cleaning operation and a name of the one or more areas.”
Regarding claim 16 where it is disclosed by Perets in at least paragraphs 0014, 0076-0080 & 0086-0087 to have they system, “obtain recognition information regarding the at least one area by inputting an image of the at least one area obtained by the at least one camera into a trained artificial intelligence model; and generate the map including a name of the at least one area based on recognition information regarding the at least one area.”
Regarding claim 18 where it is disclosed by Perets in at least paragraphs 0046, 0095, 0111 & 00126 to have the system also include, “a communication interface, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: control the communication interface to transmit the map to a user terminal; and wherein the user terminal displays a map received from the cleaning robot.”
Regarding claim 23 which is the corresponding method claim for system claim 1 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 24 where it is disclosed by Perets in paragraphs 0017-0018, 0075 & 0087-0091, to have, “based on a user voice instructing a cleaning operation for the one or more areas being input, moving to the one or more areas based on the map; and based on moving to the one or more areas, performing a cleaning operation for the one or more areas.”
Regarding claim 25 where it is disclosed by Perets in paragraphs 0017-0018, 0075 & 0087-0091, to have, “the user voice includes information regarding a cleaning operation and a name of the one or more areas.”
Regarding claim 26 where it is disclosed by Perets in at least paragraphs 0014, 0076-0080 & 0086-0087, to have the, “obtaining recognition information regarding the at least one area by inputting an image of the at least one area obtained by the at least one camera into a trained artificial intelligence model; and generating the map including a name of the at least one area based on recognition information regarding the at least one area.”
Regarding claim 28 where it is disclosed by Perets in at least paragraphs 0046, 0095, 0111 & 00126 to have the system also include, “transmitting the map to a user terminal, wherein the user terminal displays a map received from the cleaning robot.”
Regarding claims 33 & 35 where it is disclosed by Perets in at least paragraphs 0078, 0012-0013, 0015, 0018, 0087 & 0093, to have, “the recognition information regarding the object includes a name or an icon of the object.”
Regarding claims 34 & 36 where it is disclosed by Perets in at least paragraphs 0078, 0012-0013, 0015, 0018, 0087 & 0093, to have, “the recognition information regarding the at least one area includes a name of the at least one area.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 19-22, 27 & 29-32, 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
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 08/20/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 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
