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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitzer et al., US PG Pub 2018/0348783 A1., (hereafter Pitzer) in view of Yoon et al., US PG Pub 2015/0032260 A1., (hereafter Yoon).
Regarding claim 1 where it is disclosed by Pitzer to have a robotic cleaning device as shown in at least figures 1-3. This is read upon by applicants claim to, “A cleaning robot [at least figures 1-3 where they show a robotic cleaning device as described also in the abstract] comprising: at least one camera [at least paragraphs 7, 27 & 30 where they cite “cameras 642”]; a driver [at least paragraphs 25-26 where they cite “wheel motors 608”]; and at least one processor [at least paragraphs 26-27 where they cite “processor 604”] configured to: by inputting images photographed by the at least one camera to a trained artificial intelligence model [at least paragraphs 65 & 85-86], obtain recognition information regarding a plurality of objects included in the photographed images [at least paragraphs 65 & 85-86]; generate a map by mapping an area of the plurality of objects included in the map with the recognition information regarding the plurality of objects [at least paragraphs 64-69];… .”
However, it is not specifically disclosed by Pitzer to have their system also include the feature of: “receive a user voice instructing a cleaning operation, wherein the user voice comprises information regarding the cleaning operation and recognition information regarding a first object from among the plurality of objects; based on the user voice instructing the cleaning operation, control the driver to move the cleaning robot to an area corresponding to the first object; and based on moving of the cleaning robot to the area corresponding to the first object, perform the cleaning operation regarding the area corresponding to the first object”
Where it is disclosed by Yoon to have their system also teach in the abstract to include a robotic cleaning device that can be controlled with voice commands. Where it is disclosed by Yoon to have, “receive a user voice instructing a cleaning operation [at least figures 7 & 9, where the user commands the robotic device using oral commands], wherein the user voice comprises information regarding the cleaning operation and recognition information regarding a first object from among the plurality of objects [at least paragraphs 81, 104-106]; based on the user voice instructing the cleaning operation [at least paragraphs 81, 104-106 and figure 9], control the driver to move the cleaning robot to an area corresponding to the first object [at least paragraphs 11, 19, 63 & 73-74, where they cite traveling unit 160 for moving the robot]; and based on moving of the cleaning robot to the area corresponding to the first object [at least paragraphs 81-84], perform the cleaning operation regarding the area corresponding to the first object. [at least paragraphs 81-84]”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Pitzer by the teachings of Yoon, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of robotic control systems for robotic cleaning systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to use a well-known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Where in this instance the modification of Pitzer by Yoon, where Pitzer does not have any mean for verbal control of a robotic device. Where one would have found the modification of Pitzer to now allow the robot to use verbal commands to carry out functions, would have led to improved speed of commanding the robot to carry out desired task instead of spending time programming a different device to control said robot. This leads to ease of use and let connection issues and weakness for the user operating the cleaning device.
Regarding claim 2 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Pitzer and Yoon as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Yoon in at least paragraphs 94-99 & 105-106, where the user can verbally speak a command to the robot to clean a desired space. Whereby the verbal communication of instructing the robot to clean an area is considered to be the “performance operation” as the action of cleaning an area is the performance operation. Furthermore, in Pitzer they describe in at least paragraphs 6, 72 & 85-86 to have words associated with object that the robot can react to, for example the user can say “sock” and the robot can return to the sock. This is read upon by applicants claim to, “the user voice includes a word referring to the first object from among the plurality of objects and a word indicating a performance operation of the cleaning robot, and wherein the word referring to the first object from among the plurality of objects matches the recognition information regarding the first object from among the plurality of objects.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Pitzer by the teachings of Yoon, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of robotic control systems for robotic cleaning systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to use a well-known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Where in this instance the modification of Pitzer by Yoon, where Pitzer does not have any mean for verbal control of a robotic device. Where one would have found the modification of Pitzer to now allow the robot to use verbal commands to carry out functions, would have led to improved speed of commanding the robot to carry out desired task instead of spending time programming a different device to control said robot. This leads to ease of use and let connection issues and weakness for the user operating the cleaning device.
Regarding claim 3 where it is disclosed by Pitzer in at least paragraphs 8 & 76 as well as figures 8 & 10A-10B to have, “the at least one processor is configured to, identify a boundary of the plurality of objects in the map; and determine the area of the plurality of objects based on the boundary of the plurality of objects.”
Regarding claim 4 where it is disclosed by Pitzer in at least paragraphs 64 & 85-86 as well as figure 10B box 1024 where it shows “SOCK!”. This is read upon by applicants claim to, “the map includes at least one of name and icon of corresponding object on the area of the plurality of objects.”
Regarding claim 5 where it is disclosed by Pitzer in at least paragraphs 64 & 85-86 as well as figures 1024 where it shows and labels the “sock!”. This is read upon by applicants claim to, “based on a user command to modify one of the plurality of objects being input on a user terminal, a UI including names of a plurality of candidate objects is displayed on the map.”
Regarding claim 6 where it is disclosed by Pitzer in at least paragraphs 85-86 to have their system also include, “the plurality of candidate objects included in the UI are obtained based on results output by the trained artificial intelligence model.”
Regarding claim 7 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 8 which is the corresponding method claim for system claim 2 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 9 which is the corresponding method claim for system claim 3 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 10 which is the corresponding method claim for system claim 4 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 11 which is the corresponding method claim for system claim 5 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 12 which is the corresponding method claim for system claim 6 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 6 above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 31 of U.S. Patent No. 12,140,954. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Where the current applicant in claim 1 includes: “A cleaning robot comprising: at least one camera; a driver; and at least one processor configured to: by inputting images photographed by the at least one camera to a trained artificial intelligence model, obtain recognition information regarding a plurality of objects included in the photographed images; generate a map by mapping an area of the plurality of objects included in the map with the recognition information regarding the plurality of objects; receive a user voice instructing a cleaning operation, wherein the user voice comprises information regarding the cleaning operation and recognition information regarding a first object from among the plurality of objects; based on the user voice instructing the cleaning operation, control the driver to move the cleaning robot to an area corresponding to the first object; and based on moving of the cleaning robot to the area corresponding to the first object, perform the cleaning operation regarding the area corresponding to the first object.”
The patented claim 31 includes: “A cleaning robot comprising: at least one sensor; at least one camera; a driver; and at least one processor configured to: by inputting an image photographed by the at least one camera to a trained artificial intelligence model, obtain information regarding an object included in the photographed image; obtain information sensed by the at least one sensor; obtain recognition information regarding an area of a plurality of areas using the obtained information regarding the object, wherein the recognition information regarding the area of the plurality of areas comprises information regarding a type of the area of the plurality of areas; generate a map displaying the plurality of areas using the obtained information regarding the object, the sensed information and the recognition information regarding the area of the plurality of areas; based on a user voice instructing a cleaning operation regarding an area from among the plurality of areas, control the driver to move the cleaning robot to the area from among the plurality of areas; and based on moving of the cleaning robot to the area from among the plurality of areas, perform the cleaning operation regarding the area from among the plurality of areas, wherein the user voice comprises information regarding the cleaning operation and recognition information regarding the area from among the plurality of areas, and wherein the map includes the information regarding the type of the area of the plurality of areas.”
Even though the claims are not identical it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the prior art of Hong et al., to have their system also being able to also clean a specific area instead of the whole area to allow for quicker and efficient use of the robotic cleaning device when only spot cleaning may only be required.
Conclusion
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