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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites “…when said robot arm comes into contact with the obstacle, for each direction of force an associated torque, which can be detected by said contact sensor system, results about at least one of said joints” which does not read clearly. For purposes of clarity, it is suggested that the limitation read “when said robot arm comes into contact with the obstacle, for each direction of force, an associated torque results about at least one of said joints, said torque being detectable by said contact sensor system.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (CN 113545707, machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 1: Huang teaches a cleaning robot for cleaning a cleaning region, the cleaning robot comprising:
a housing (Figs. 1 and 4, element 1) having a housing front;
a drive unit for driving the cleaning robot in the cleaning region (not illustrated; implicitly taught at pg. 3, line 3 which mentions a driving route of the robot cleaner);
a floor cleaning unit (elements 7) for cleaning a floor surface of the cleaning region;
a robot arm (elements 1, 9) for moving objects, wherein said robot arm is disposed in a resting position on said housing front of said housing (pg. 3, sixth full paragraph discusses storage groove 3 as a storage position for the robot arm), said robot arm forming a bumper in the resting position (e.g., when stored); and
a controller for controlling said drive unit, said floor cleaning unit and said robot arm (pg. 3, final paragraph).
Regarding Claim 14: Huang teaches a method for controlling a cleaning robot, which comprises the steps of:
transferring a robot arm into at least one operating position in order to move an object and/or to clean a surface; and
transferring the robot arm to a resting position in order to stow the robot arm, wherein, in the resting position, the robot arm is disposed on a housing front and forms a bumper (Figs. 1 and 4; pg. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 113545707, machine translation referenced herein) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu (CN 108403013, machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 4: Huang teaches the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Huang does not expressly disclose that the robot arm has at least two segments which are connected to one another via a joint to form a serial kinematic system. However, Xu teaches a cleaning robot having a robot arm that has at least two segments (Fig. 3, elements 4 and 5) connected by a joint (Fig. 3, unnumbered), wherein in a resting position at least one of the segments is disposed on a first side surface of said housing front. Xu teaches that the segmented arm allows easier positioning for cleaning (pg. 5, second full paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Huang with a segmented arm in order to enhance the cleaning effect by the robot, as suggested by Xu.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 113545707, machine translation referenced herein) and Xu (CN 108403013) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sommer (US 2001/0004719).
Regarding Claim 5: Huang and Xu teach the elements of Claim 4 as discussed above, but do not expressly disclose the robot arm having a contact sensor system. However, Sommer teaches a cleaning robot (see abstract; Fig. 1, element 1) having a robot arm (element 4), the end of which comprises a contact sensor system (Fig. 2, element 13) configured to provide a sensor signal when the robot arm comes into contact with an obstacle [0102]; and a controller configured to influence a route plan on a bases of the sensor signal [0113]. Sommer teaches that this contact sensor system facilitates detection of obstacles that are in the cleaning path [0106]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Huang and Xu with a contact sensor system on the robot arm in order to detect obstacles on the cleaning path, as taught by Sommer.
Regarding Claim 6: Huang, Xu, and Sommer teach the elements of Claim 5 as discussed above. Sommer is cited for teaching the contact sensor system, and further teaches that the contact sensor system is formed by at least one surface sensor which is disposed at least in sections (elements 19, 20) on an outer side of said robot arm.
Regarding Claim 7: Huang, Xu, and Sommer teach the elements of Claim 5 as discussed above. Xu is cited for teaching a segmented robot arm. Sommer is cited for teaching a contact sensor system. In the combination of Huang, Xu, and Sommer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art device to dispose the at least one contact sensor system in at least one of said segments in order to detect the obstacles as suggested by Sommer.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 113545707, machine translation referenced herein), Xu (CN 108403013) and Sommer (US 2001/0004719) as applied to Claim 5, and further in view of Xie et al. (CN 114224226, machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 9: Huang, Xu, and Sommer teach the elements of Claim 5 as discussed above. They do not expressly disclose when said robot arm comes into contact with the obstacle, for each direction of force, an associated torque results about at least one of said joints, said torque being detectable by said contact sensor system. However, Xie teaches a robot cleaner having a robot arm wherein the torque about the arm joint is detected when the arm comes into contact with an obstacle in order to avoid and detect collisions (pg. 10, paragraphs (11)-(14)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art device such that when said robot arm comes into contact with the obstacle, for each direction of force, an associated torque results about at least one of said joints, said torque being detectable by said contact sensor system in order to detect whether there is a collision with an obstacle, as suggested by Xie.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 113545707, machine translation referenced herein) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 13: Huang teaches the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Huang teaches that the robot arm is disposed close to a contour (storage groove 3). Though Huang does not expressly disclose formation of an air gap on said housing front, Huang does teach that the robot arm moved into and out of storage groove (element 3). Therefore, it is reasonably expected that a gap is formed between the arm and storage groove in order to allow the arm to fit without scratching or otherwise damaging the surface of the arm or groove.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 113545707, machine translation referenced herein) as applied to Claim 14 and further in view of Sommer (US 2001/0004719).
Regarding Claim 15: Huang teaches the elements of Claim 14 as discussed above, but does not expressly disclose contact with an obstacle is detected by the robot arm in the resting position. However, Sommer teaches a cleaning robot (see abstract; Fig. 1, element 1) having a robot arm (element 4) in a non-extended position, the end of which comprises a contact sensor system (Fig. 2, element 13) configured to provide a sensor signal when the robot arm comes into contact with an obstacle [0102]; and a controller configured to influence a route plan on a bases of the sensor signal [0113]. Sommer teaches that this contact sensor system facilitates detection of obstacles that are in the cleaning path [0106]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Huang by detecting an obstacle by the robot arm in the resting position and outputting a sensor signal in order to assist detection of obstacles on the cleaning path, as taught by Sommer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 8, and 10-12 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. Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The reviewed prior art does not anticipate or fairly suggest a cleaning robot having all features of the aforementioned claims. The closest prior art of record is that of Huang as outlined above.
However, Huang does not disclose or fairly suggest that the robot arm is disposed with a protrusion in the receiving region at least in relation to a housing vertical or longitudinal axis, as required by claims 2-3.
Huang does not teach or fairly suggest that the contact sensor system is formed by at least one articulated drive of said robot arm, wherein said controller is configured to monitor a motor current of said at least one articulated drive, as required by Claim 8.
Huang does not teach or fairly suggest wherein a part of said robot arm that is disposed in a detection region has a smaller cross section than a part of the robot arm that is disposed outside the detection region, as required by claim 10-12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714