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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language of the Abstract should avoid phrases which can be implied, such as “…are disclosed”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al., US 2022/0047141.
Regarding claim 1, Xu et al. disclose a robotic cleaning system comprising: a housing (10, 100); at least one wet cleaning element comprising at least one cleaning surface on an underside of the housing (40, 43; paragraph [0102], Figures 9-16); at least one sensor (ground sensor, paragraph [0149]); and at least one processor (paragraph [0104]) programmed or configured to: detect at least one stain on a surface to be cleaned based on sensor data from the at least one sensor (paragraph [0149], ground sensor detects a ground state including a ground material and/or ground stain type such as oil stains or dust); and perform at least one cleaning operation based on the at least one stain (by spraying mopping liquid or cleaning solution, repeated cleaning; paragraphs [0149], [0154]), wherein the robotic cleaner is performing a first cleaning operation before detecting the at least one stain (first cleaning operation is “performing mopping according to a preset moving path” in paragraph [0149]), wherein the at least one cleaning operation comprises a second cleaning operation (second cleaning operation is “more liquid may be sprayed” in paragraph [0149]), and wherein performing the at least one cleaning operation based on the at least one stain comprises interrupting the first cleaning operation and initiating the second cleaning operation (paragraph [0149]; interruption is interpreted as the change between the first operation, where there is mopping according to a preset path, and that when there are more oil stains are detected, a second cleaning operation of more liquid being sprayed occurs). Regarding claim 2, the system further comprises: a docking station (200) comprising: a base (207); and a support extending laterally from the base (205, 206), the support configured to receive at least a portion of the robotic cleaner on top of the support (Figure 1, paragraph [0099]). Regarding claim 3, the at least one sensor comprises an image capture device (visual sensor, paragraph [0143]; can also include a radar sensor). Regarding claim 4, the sensor data comprises an image (paragraph [0143], ground image). Regarding claim 5, wherein detecting the at least one stain comprises detecting the at least one stain on the surface to be cleaned based on sensor data from the at least one sensor and at least one computer vision operation (entire paragraph [0143], see particularly the first sentence). Regarding claim 6, performing the at least one cleaning operation comprises performing at least one wet cleaning operation with the at least one cleaning surface of the at least one wet cleaning element (cleaning operation includes conveying cleaning liquid or water from reservoirs, conveyed to the mopping module 40, see paragraphs [0108], [0143], [0149], [0154]-[0155] and Figure 5). Regarding claim 7, the at least one processor is further programmed or configured to: select a cleaning operation from a plurality of predetermined cleaning operations based on the at least one stain and surface to be cleaned (cleaning operation from a plurality of predetermined working modes, based on data shared to controller, paragraphs [0106]-[0107], [0118]), wherein performing the at least one cleaning operation comprises performing the cleaning operation selected form the plurality of predetermined cleaning operations (paragraphs [0106]-[0107], [0118]). Regarding claim 8, wherein selecting the cleaning operation comprises selecting the cleaning operation from the plurality of predetermined cleaning operations is based on at least one of: a stain type of the at least one stain, a surface type of the surface to be cleaned, or any combination thereof (the cleaning operation or working modes are selected via the processor/control module, these control the liquid supply and conveyed liquid and are based on a stain type and type of surface being cleaned also referred to as “ground state”, see paragraphs [0106]-[0108], [0143], [0149]).
Regarding claim 16, Xu et al. disclose a method comprising detecting, with at least one processor (paragraph [0104]), at least one stain on a surface to be cleaned based on sensor data from at least one sensor of a robotic cleaner (stain detection by ground sensor data, paragraph [0149], detects a ground material and/or ground stain type such as oil stains or dust); and controlling, with the at least one processor, the robotic cleaner to perform at least one cleaning operation based on the at least one stain (by spraying mopping liquid or cleaning solution, repeated cleaning; paragraphs [0149], [0154]), wherein the robotic cleaner is performing a first cleaning operation before detecting the at least one stain (first cleaning operation is “performing mopping according to a preset moving path” in paragraph [0149]), wherein the at least one cleaning operation comprises a second cleaning operation (second cleaning operation is “more liquid may be sprayed” in paragraph [0149]), and wherein performing the at least one cleaning operation based on the at least one stain comprises interrupting the first cleaning operation and initiating the second cleaning operation (paragraph [0149], interruption is interpreted as the change between the first operation, where there is mopping according to a preset path, and that when there are more oil stains are detected, a second cleaning operation of more liquid being sprayed occurs). Regarding claim 17, wherein detecting the at least one stain comprises detecting the at least one stain on the surface to be cleaned based on sensor data from the at least one sensor and at least one computer vision operation (paragraph [0143]). Regarding claim 18, wherein performing the at least one cleaning operation comprises performing at least one wet cleaning operation with at least one cleaning surface of at least one wet cleaning element of the robotic cleaner (cleaning operation includes conveying cleaning liquid or water from reservoirs, conveyed to the mopping module 40, see paragraphs [0108], [0143], [0149], [0154]-[0155] and Figure 5). Regarding claim 19, further comprising: selecting, with at least one processor, a cleaning operation from a plurality of predetermined cleaning operations based on the at least one stain and the surface to be cleaned, wherein performing the at least one cleaning operation comprises performing the cleaning operation selected from the plurality of predetermined cleaning operations, and wherein selecting the cleaning operation comprises selecting the cleaning operation from the plurality of predetermined cleaning operations based on at least one of: a stain type of the at least one stain; a surface type of the surface to be cleaned; or any combination thereof (the cleaning operation or working modes are selected via the processor/control module, these control the liquid supply and conveyed liquid and are based on a stain type and type of surface being cleaned also referred to as “ground state”, see paragraphs [0106]-[0108], [0143], [0149]).
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.
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) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al., US 2022/0047141 in view of Scholten et al., US 2018/0344114.
Xu et al. disclose the robotic cleaning system described above, however regarding claims 10-15 is silent as to the processor being programmed or configured to communicate a notification based on detecting the at least one stain. It is noted that the processor of Xu et al. can include a digital signal processor, microprocessor, ASIC, a programmable logic device, a CPU, or a field programmable gate array (paragraph [0104]) and that these are capable of being configured to communicate a notification. Additionally, the processor communicates a notification to a user based on an amount of liquid remaining in the liquid reservoir (paragraph [0074], [0146]), but again does not communicate a notification based on detecting the at least one stain.
Schloten et al. teach a robotic cleaning system having a robotic cleaner (100 or 2100), the robotic cleaner comprises a housing (112, see Figures), at least one cleaning element comprising at least one cleaning surface on an underside of the housing (dry brush 140); at least one sensor (132, 134, 164, 170, 174, 176, 178, 182 and stain sensors 185, 186, see paragraph [0048]); and at least one processor (128 or 1128) programmed or configured to: detect at least one stain on a surface to be cleaned based on sensor data from the at least one sensor (paragraphs [0048], [0050]); and perform at least one cleaning operation based on the at least one stain (paragraphs [0050]). Regarding claim 10, the processor (1128) is programmed or configured to communicate a notification based on detecting the at least one stain (paragraph [0107], the notification is the communicated information based on the detected stain via stain sensing system 1186). Regarding claim 11, communicating the notification comprises communicating the notification to a remote device of a user associated with the robotic cleaner (2300, mobile communication device or smart phone or tablet or laptop, paragraph [0103]). Regarding claims 12-13, the remote device displays a graphical user interface (GUI) based on the at least one stain, the GUI comprises a map of the surface to be cleaned and comprising at least one stain icon based on the stain (the display is the screen of the mobile communication device, graphical user interface includes map of a floor, paragraph [0104], image or sketch of the stain that is also considered an icon of the stain, paragraph [0105]). Regarding claim 14, the remote device is programmed or configured to: receive an input from the user indicating confirmation that the at least one stain is present (paragraphs [0104]-[0105]); and communicate a communication based on the input (a user can communicate more information or select a cleaning cycle to be implemented, paragraph [0104]; or a user can communicate if further action is needed, paragraph [0107]). Regarding claim 15, the at least one processor is further programmed or configured to receive the communication from the remote device (Figure 15, arrows show communication; also paragraph [0051] notes that the robots can communicate with other devices over global, local, and/or personal area networks; also paragraph [0071] and [0103]), wherein performing at least one cleaning operation comprises performing the at least one cleaning operation based on the communication (paragraphs [0107]-[0108]). Schloten et al. teach that the processor is configured to communicate a notification based on detecting the at least one stain as a way to seek input from a user to determine if additional actions are needed and to allow the user to remotely control cleaning (paragraphs [0105]-[0107]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one processor of Xu et al. to further be programmed or configured as to be able to communicate notification based on detecting the at least one stain, as taught by Schloten et al., so that the user can input or communicate instructions to the robotic cleaner to fulfill stain cleaning needs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Xu et al., US 2022/0047141 fails to disclose the limitations found previously in claims 9 and 19 (“wherein the robotic cleaner is performing a first cleaning operation before detecting the at least one stain, wherein the at least one cleaning operation comprises a second cleaning operation, and wherein performing the at least one cleaning operation based on the at least one stain comprises interrupting the first cleaning operation and initiating the second cleaning operation”). The applicant cites portions of Xu et al. from paragraphs [0015] and [0032] that are directed at another feature of its operation relating to a case when the cleaning robot is trapped or stuck and how the robot limits a liquid supply during a cleaning operation and how more liquid may be sprayed when the ground condition is dry. With regards to the passages in these two paragraphs and along with paragraph [0149], the applicant argues that Xu et al. does not suggest or disclose the features recited in independent claims 1 and 16 requiring “wherein the robotic cleaner is performing a first cleaning operation before detecting the at least one stain, wherein the at least one cleaning operation comprises a second cleaning operation, and wherein performing the at least one cleaning operation based on the at least one stain comprises interrupting the first cleaning operation and initiating the second cleaning operation”.
The examiner does not agree with the applicant’s interpretation of Xu et al. and respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. The examiner maintains that Xu et al. anticipates the limitations in claims 1-8 and 16-19 for the reasons previously set forth above. In summary, the examiner interprets Xu et al. as disclosing a robotic cleaning system comprising wherein in addition to other structure there is at least one sensor in the form of a ground sensor that detects a ground state including a ground material and/or ground stain type such as oil stains or dust, the processor is programmed or configured to perform at least one cleaning operation based on the at least one stain (by spraying mopping liquid or cleaning solution, repeated cleaning; paragraphs [0149], [0154]), wherein the robotic cleaner is performing a first cleaning operation before detecting the at least one stain (first cleaning operation is “performing mopping according to a preset moving path” in paragraph [0149]), wherein the at least one cleaning operation comprises a second cleaning operation (second cleaning operation is “more liquid may be sprayed” in paragraph [0149]), and wherein performing the at least one cleaning operation based on the at least one stain comprises interrupting the first cleaning operation and initiating the second cleaning operation (paragraph [0149]). This interruption is interpreted as the change between the first operation, where there is mopping according to a preset path, and that when there are more oil stains are detected, a second cleaning operation of more liquid being sprayed occurs. The cleaning operations recited in the claims are not specific to a particular cleaning mode or cleaning technique.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg
Prosecution Insights