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 Objections
Claims 3, 5, and 8-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the expected characteristics” while claim 1 recites “the predetermined expected characteristics”. Examiner ascertains that claim 3 is meant to read “the predetermined expected characteristic” as described in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites both “the deviation” and “the determined deviation” after the claim introduces “determine a deviation”. Examiner ascertains that Applicant can recite either “the deviation” or “the determined deviation” since only one such deviation is considered in the claim, but recommends that each instance should be recited with the same wording for adequate continuity of the claim language.
Claim 8 recites “the robotic vacuum cleaner charging system” while claims 9-12 merely recite “the charging station”. Claim 1 introduces this feature as “the robotic vacuum cleaner charging station” and Examiner recommends that each of claims 8-12 recite the same for adequate continuity of the claim language and this charging station feature.
Claim 10 recites “that that robotic vacuum cleaner”. Examiner recommends that the claim instead read “that the robotic vacuum cleaner” since only one such robotic vacuum cleaner is claimed and the specificity of that robotic vacuum cleaner is not required.
Claim 12 is objected to for a similar use of that robotic vacuum cleaner.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“fiducial mark detecting module” introduced in claim 1;
“diagnostics module” introduced in claim 1;
“alert generation module” introduced in claim 1;
“charging detection module” introduced in claim 6;
“engagement detection module” introduced in claim 6;
“navigation module” introduced in claims 9, 11, and 12.
“location determination module” introduced in claim 9; and
“fiducial detection module” introduced in claims 9, 10, and 15.
Page 2 of the Specification reads, “The modules of the processor which are referred to above may be implemented as physical hardware modules. Alternatively, the modules may be implemented as functional, software modules, e.g. modules which are implemented in code” (Lines 22-25). Thus, each of the above claimed “modules” will be considered as any such physical hardware or software configuration of a processor which performs the designated function when reviewing the prior art.
NOTE: The “fiducial mark detecting module” is only included on Page 1 of the specification. The “fiducial mark detecting module” is additionally not included in Fig. 6 which illustrates the processor modules of the robotic vacuum cleaner system. Examiner addresses the sparsity of this feature in the written description in the 112b rejections below.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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 1 recites “a fiducial mark detecting module” which is additionally recited on Page 1 of Applicant’s specification which thus renders support for such a feature. However, given that “the fiducial mark detecting module” is subjected to 112(f) claim interpretations, it is unclear to the Examiner what this module is given that no such description for the module exists beyond Page 1 of Applicant’s specification. Thus, the metes and bounds of the fiducial mark detecting module are unclear. Examiner assumes that, given the functional description of the fiducial mark detecting module, such a module is the same as the fiducial detecting module of claims 9, 10, and 15 and Fig. 6. Thus, Examiner will interpret the claim to instead read “a fiducial detection module”. Such an interpretation would obviate the antecedent basis issue of claims 9, 10, and 15 in which the fiducial detection module is introduced without any prior limitation which would describe which fiducial detection module is being referred to.
Claims 2-15 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 9, 10, and 15 are additionally rejected for the antecedent basis issue which would be obviated by Examiner’s inferred interpretation.
Claims 11-12 are correspondingly rejected as being dependent on claim 10 while claim 13 is rejected as being dependent on claim 9.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 15 are considered indefinite since they contain the conditional clause “if” creating an uncertainty wherein an event can occur or not, hence the use of this clause renders the claims indefinite and the scope of the claim is unascertainable because the use of conditional term “if” is linked to two options: Yes or Not, so the claim must provide the result of both possibilities: "Only after X happens will Y happen." The condition is a singular event that triggers the indicated response. The speaker does not know whether the activity in the “if” phrase will occur. Hence, One suggested option to correct this issue is using the word “when” instead of if”. That is, "Anytime X occurs, Y results." That X will occur is expected (when). The speaker knows that the activity in “when” phrase is likely to occur. “When” expresses more certainty than “if”. In other words, the use of “if” is to introduce a possible or unreal situation or condition, while the use of “when” refers to the time of a future situation or condition that we are certain of.
Claims 2-15 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 7-8 are rejected as being dependent on claim 6.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the expected value of the characteristic”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. No such expected value of the characteristic is introduced prior to this limitation of claim 5 and as such it is unclear which value is being referred to as the expected value. Examiner will interpret the limitation to instead read “an expected value of the characteristic” such that any value which is expected for the characteristic will be pertinent to the limitation.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the building”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. No such building has been introduced prior to this limitation of claim 9 and therefore it is unclear which building is being referred to. Examiner will instead read the limitation as “a building” such that any building will be considered pertinent to the limitation.
Claim 13 is rejected as being dependent on claim 9.
Claim 9 additionally recites “the location of the charging station”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. No such location of the charging station has been introduced prior to this limitation of claim 9 and therefore it is unclear which location of the charging station is being referred to. Examiner will instead read the limitation as “a location of the charging station” such that any location will be considered pertinent to the limitation.
Claim 13 is rejected as being dependent on claim 9.
Claim 9 additionally recites “the location determination module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. No such location determination module has been introduced prior to this limitation of claim 9 and therefore it is unclear which location determination module is being referred to. Examiner will instead read the limitation as “a location determination module” such that any location determination module or functional equivalent (see 112(f) claim interpretations) will be considered pertinent to the limitation.
Claim 13 is rejected as being dependent on claim 9.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the predetermined threshold distance”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Although a predetermined threshold distance is introduced in claim 9, no such predetermined threshold distance has been introduced in either claim 1 or claim 10 and it is thus unclear which predetermined threshold distance is being referred to. Examiner will instead read the limitation as “a predetermined threshold distance” such that any threshold distance will be considered pertinent to the limitation.
Claims 11-12 are rejected as being dependent on claim 10.
Claim 10 further recites “the one or more cameras”. Only one such camera has been introduced in the corresponding claims and therefore it is unclear where “more” cameras are located in the claimed invention. Examiner will thus consider only one such camera so as to align the claim language with that of independent claim 1.
Claims 11-12 are rejected as being dependent on claim 10.
Claims 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected for having similar limitations.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “the navigation module”, “the current location”, and “the motion system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Claim 11 depends from claim 10 which depends from claim 1. Although claim 9 appropriately introduces each of the navigation module, the current location, and the motion system, no such features are introduced in either claim 1 or claim 10 and therefore it is unclear which navigation module, current location, and motion system are being referred to in claim 11. Examiner will therefore read the limitations instead as “a navigation module”, “a current location”, and “a motion system” so that any relevant feature corresponding to these limitations will be considered pertinent.
Claim 12 is rejected for having similar such limitations.
Claim 11 further recites the limitation “cause it to move the robotic vacuum cleaner to the charging position”. It is unclear whether it is the motion system, the navigation module, the processor, or the robot itself. In this case, Examiner best understands it to be the motion system and therefore will read the claim as such for the purpose of rejection.
Claim 12 is rejected as having a similar use of it which is best understood as the motion system.
Claim 15 is rejected as having a similar use of it which is best understood as the robot vacuum cleaner.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “…if the fiducial detection module determines that the fiducial marks are either not present in the image received from the one or more cameras or are not present.” Examiner cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of this limitation. The limitation introduces a conditional statement without any such action associated with the condition. Therefore, it is not possible for the Examiner to adequately determine what the limitation is meant to read. Given that there is no such effect corresponding to the condition described, the limitation is considered unclear and incomplete and therefore Examiner will not apply art to this limitation until the appropriate corrections are made to include the effect considered with the conditional statement.
Examiner notes wherein the claims have been addressed below, in view of the prior art record, as best understood by the Examiner in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections provided herein.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liggett et al. (US 2020/0170470 A1; hereinafter “Liggett”).
Regarding claim 1, Liggett discloses a robotic vacuum cleaner system (The methods are performed by a system including a robotic cleaner.) comprising:
a robotic vacuum cleaner comprising a camera (“robotic cleaner 1” referred to as “a robotic vacuum cleaner” (see [0012]) with camera 108; Fig. 1); and
a processor (“…at least one processor 112 (shown in hidden lines) to execute one or more instructions stored in the memory 110 and cause the robotic cleaner 100 to carry out one or more actions based on the stored instructions” [0012].) comprising:
a fiducial mark detecting module (Provided the 112f claim interpretation, the actions carried out by the processor as described above will serve as a functional equivalent for the fiducial mark detecting module.);
a diagnostics module (Provided the 112f claim interpretation, the actions carried out by the processor as described above will serve as a functional equivalent for the diagnostic module.); and
an alert generation module (Provided the 112f claim interpretation, the actions carried out by the processor as described above will serve as a functional equivalent for the alert generation module.), wherein:
the camera is configured to obtain an image of the surroundings of the robotic vacuum cleaner (“The camera 108 can be configured to observe an environment within which the robotic cleaner 100 is located” [0013].), and to transmit the obtained image to the processor (As seen in methods of Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, the robot cleaner analyzes the captured image (by the processor) and the image is therefore transmitted from the camera to the processor.); and
the fiducial mark detecting module is configured to:
receive the image of the surroundings from the camera; and detect a fiducial mark on a robotic vacuum cleaner charging station in the image (“The step 404 may include analyzing an image of the optical indicium (e.g., coupled a beacon). Upon detecting the optical indicium, the robotic cleaner is configured to determine an action associated with the optical indicium” [0032]. Thus, the robot cleaner, i.e., processor which causes robot cleaner to perform actions of the method, receives the image of the surroundings from the camera inclusive of an optical indicium, i.e., fiducial marker, which is detected on the beacon described in [0024] as a robotic vacuum cleaner charging station.);
the diagnostics module is configured to determine whether the image of the fiducial mark has predetermined expected characteristics, based on the image of the fiducial mark and additional information received by the diagnostics module (“For example, when the robotic cleaner determines that the optical indicium captured in the images matches a known image of an optical indicium (e.g., the robotic cleaner identifies a sufficient number of similarities between the known image and the captured image), the robotic cleaner can be configured to carry out an action associated with the known image. If a match is not determined to exist, the robotic cleaner can be caused to carry out an action that results in the robotic cleaner associating an action with the optical indicium captured in the image” [0033]. Thus, the robotic cleaner, i.e., processor configured to carry out actions performed by the robot according to the disclosed methods, which serves as the diagnostics module is configured to determine whether a match between the captured image of the optical indicium and a known image of an optical indicium is sufficiently similar, i.e., has predetermined expected characteristics, based on the image of the optical indicium and localization of the robot (see also [0013] and [0035] which further describe the expected location of the robot/camera based on the optical indicium).); and
if the diagnostics module determines that the image of the fiducial mark does not have the predetermined expected characteristics, the alert generation module is configured to generate an alert (“The step 504 may include comparing the captured image of the optical indicium to a known image of the optical indicium. The comparison may identify aberrations in the captured image that correspond to occlusions (e.g., a dust accumulation on the camera) and/or damage of the camera. The robotic cleaner may also determine whether the camera is misaligned based on the comparison. For example, the robotic cleaner may determine an estimated location of the optical indicium and, if the location of the optical indicium in the captured image does not correspond to the estimated location, the robotic cleaner may determine there is a misalignment. The method 500 may also include a step 506. The step 506 may include causing the robotic cleaner to apply a correction to subsequent captured images to correct for any identified aberrations and/or misalignments. If the misalignment and/or aberrations cannot be corrected by the robotic cleaner, the robotic cleaner may be configured to notify a user of the robotic cleaner” [0035-0036]. Thus, when the comparison renders an error such as a misalignment or aberration which cannot be corrected, i.e., it is determined that the image of the optical indicium does not have the predetermined characteristics, an alert is generated to notify a user.).
Regarding claim 2, Liggett discloses the robotic vacuum cleaner system according to claim 1, wherein: the robotic vacuum cleaner comprises the processor (Processor 112 shown in Fig. 1 is included as part of the robotic vacuum cleaner.).
Regarding claim 3, Liggett discloses the robotic vacuum cleaner system according to claim 1, wherein: the expected characteristics comprise: an expected location, shape, and/or size of the fiducial mark within the obtained image of the surroundings (As identified in [0028], the actual location of the optical indicium serves as the expected location which the optical indicium should be located within the captured image.).
Regarding claim 4, Liggett discloses the robotic vacuum cleaner system according to claim 1, wherein: the additional information comprises one or more of:
information that the robotic vacuum cleaner is being charged by or engaged with a robotic vacuum cleaner charging station; a location of the robotic vacuum cleaner; a stage of a cleaning operation; and a time (As identified in [0028], additional information to identify whether an expected characteristic of the fiducial marker is present, i.e., optical indicium, includes information that the robotic vacuum cleaner is engaging the docking station, i.e., robotic vacuum cleaner charging station. Additionally, the separation distance of the camera and docking station is known, thus indicating the location of the robotic vacuum cleaner.).
Regarding claim 5, Liggett discloses the robotic vacuum cleaner system according to claim 1, wherein:
the diagnostics module is configured quantitatively to determine a deviation of a value of a characteristic of the fiducial mark in the obtained image of the surroundings from the expected value of the characteristic (“If, based on the comparison, the estimated location is sufficiently different from the actual location, the robotic cleaner 100 may apply a software compensation to the captured images such that the difference is within a predetermined range (e.g., minimized)” [0028]. “The robotic cleaner may also determine whether the camera is misaligned based on the comparison. For example, the robotic cleaner may determine an estimated location of the optical indicium and, if the location of the optical indicium in the captured image does not correspond to the estimated location, the robotic cleaner may determine there is a misalignment” [0035]. Thus, there is a quantitative determination with respect to the estimated location of the optical indicium compared to the actual location, i.e., a deviation of the location value obtained in the image from the expected location value.);
the diagnostics module is configured to compare the deviation to a predetermined threshold deviation; and if it is determined that the determined deviation exceeds the predetermined threshold deviation, the alert generation module is configured to generate the alert (“The step 506 may include causing the robotic cleaner to apply a correction to subsequent captured images to correct for any identified aberrations and/or misalignments. If the misalignment and/or aberrations cannot be corrected by the robotic cleaner, the robotic cleaner may be configured to notify a user of the robotic cleaner” [0036]. Thus, a misalignment which is determined by a comparison which is “sufficiently different” and corrected to a “predetermined range” thus indicating that the difference between the image locations, i.e., deviation, are compared to a predetermined threshold deviation. When the robot is unable to correct the difference to a predetermined range, i.e., threshold deviation, then the robotic cleaner notifies, i.e., generates, an alert.).
Regarding claim 15, Liggett discloses the robotic vacuum cleaner according to claim 1, wherein:
at the start of a cleaning operation, when the robotic vacuum cleaner is located in a charging position in which it is engaged with the charging station, the fiducial detection module is configured to determine whether the fiducial marks are either:
present in an image obtained from the one or more cameras, or present in an expected location in an image obtained from the one or more cameras (“Based, at least in part, on the separation distance of the camera 108 from the docking station 300, which is known when the robotic cleaner 100 is engaging the docking station 300, and the geometry of the camera 108 (e.g., a separation distance between imagers, lens shape, and/or the like) the robotic cleaner 100 can estimate a location of the optical indicium 308 in each of the captured images and compare the estimated location to the actual location. If, based on the comparison, the estimated location is sufficiently different from the actual location, the robotic cleaner 100 may apply a software compensation to the captured images such that the difference is within a predetermined range (e.g., minimized)” [0028]. Thus, while the robot is engaged with the charging station at the charging position, the robot is able to verify whether the optical indicium, i.e., fiducial marks, are present in an expected location in an image obtained from the one or more cameras.)
Note: Wherein claim 15 has been struck through is a result of the 112b rejection stated above. See 112b rejection to ascertain appropriate corrective action for such a claim limitation to be considered in the response.
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.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liggett in view of Taylor et al. (US 2012/0323365 A1; hereinafter “Taylor”).
Regarding claim 9, Liggett teaches the robotic vacuum cleaner system according to claim 1, wherein:
the robotic vacuum cleaner further comprises:
a memory storing a map of a floor of the building, the map including an indication of the location of the charging station (“In some instances, the optical indicium 308 can be used to indicate a location of the docking station 300. For example, the optical indicium 308 may be used to identify which portion of a building (e.g., which floor or room in a home) the docking station 300 is located in such that the robotic cleaner 100 can select a map corresponding to that portion” [0029]. Thus, there are stored maps of a floor of a home, i.e., building, which includes an indication of the location of the docking station, i.e., charging station.); and
a motion system (“The robotic cleaner 100 can include one or more driven wheels 104 configured to urge the robotic cleaner 100 across a surface to be cleaned (e.g., a floor)” [0012]. Thus, wheels 104 which cause motions of the robot across the floor will be considered as “a motion system”.);
the processor further comprises a navigation module; and
in a return operation (In this case, a “return operation” will be referred to as “homing”.):
the navigation module is configured to determine a route back from a current location of the robotic vacuum cleaner towards the charging station, and to generate instructions, which when received by the motion system, cause it to move the robotic vacuum cleaner towards the charging station (“The docking station 300 may also include one or more homing signal generators 310. The homing signal generator 310 can be configured to generate a signal that at least partially covers a region extending around the docking station 300 such that the robotic cleaner 100 can determine its proximity to the docking station 300 (e.g., using the homing signal detector 109). For example, in some instances, the robotic cleaner 100 can be configured to determine an intensity of the emitted homing signal and move in a direction that increases the detected intensity. As such, as the intensity of the homing signal increases, the robotic cleaner 100 can determine that it is approaching the docking station 300 and begin attempting to capture an image of the optical indicium 308” [0030]. Thus, the homing signal detector 109 communicates with the processor which executes instructions for desired robot actions such that the robot determines a route back from a current location towards the charging station emitting the homing signal such that the wheels move the robot);
the location determination module is configured to determine… when the robotic vacuum cleaner is located within a predetermined threshold distance of the charging station (As identified above and additionally below in the excerpts from [0030], there is a determination that the robotic vacuum cleaner is located within a predetermined threshold distance of the charging station based on the intensity or detection of the homing signal.); and
the fiducial detection module is configured to detect the presence of the one or more fiducial marks on the charging station when it is determined that the robotic vacuum cleaner is within the predetermined threshold distance of the charging station (“In some instances, the robotic cleaner 100 may not be configured to determine an intensity of the homing signal. In these instances, the homing signal may be used to determine that the robotic cleaner 100 is within viewing distance of the optical indicium 308” [0030]. Thus, when it is determined that the robot is within “viewing distance”, i.e., a predetermined threshold distance of the charging station, and as additionally noted above will attempt to capture an image of the optical indicium, i.e., detect the presence of one or more fiducial marks.).
However, Liggett does not explicitly teach …the location determination module is configured to determine, based on a determined location of the robotic vacuum cleaner and the map of the floor of the building, when the robotic vacuum cleaner is located within a predetermined threshold distance of the charging station…
Taylor, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …the location determination module is configured to determine, based on a determined location of the robotic vacuum cleaner and the map of the floor of the building, when the robotic vacuum cleaner is located within a predetermined threshold distance of the charging station (“At 906, subsequent to detecting that the amount of charge in the battery is below the threshold, the robot automatically navigates towards a known location of a docking station for the robot. As described above, the robot can access a map of its environment and can use vision-based navigation to begin navigating towards a known location of the docking station. At 908, an estimate is made that the robot is within a first threshold distance of a docking station” [0072]. Thus, according to this method for docking a robot at its charging station, there is a determination (by a processor) based on a determined location of the robot and a map of the environment, i.e., floor of the building, that the robot is within a predetermined threshold distance of the charger.)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the homing processes of Liggett to include the map localization processes of Taylor with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because by utilizing the map to locate the charger, the robot is able to reserve its remaining battery capacity to only send and receive the corresponding signals to detect the charger for when the robot enters the predetermined threshold radius. Additionally, such a modification would be a mere combination of prior art elements according to known methods which would yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(A)).
Regarding claim 10, Liggett teaches the robotic vacuum cleaner system according to claim 1.
Although Liggett further teaches detecting the fiducial marks present on the charging station, Liggett does not explicitly teach
in a docking operation:
when it is determined that that robotic vacuum cleaner is located within the predetermined threshold distance of the charging station, the fiducial detection module is configured to detect whether or not the fiducial marks on the charging station are present in an image obtained by the one or more cameras.
Taylor, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …in a docking operation:
when it is determined that that robotic vacuum cleaner is located within the predetermined threshold distance of the charging station, the fiducial detection module is configured to detect whether or not the fiducial marks on the charging station are present in an image obtained by the one or more cameras (“Now referring to FIG. 7, an exemplary methodology 700 that facilitates autonomously docking a robot with a docking station is illustrated. The methodology 700 starts at 702, and at 704, a detection is made that an IR beam transmitted from a docking station is being received at an IR sensor on a robot. At 706, a determination is made regarding whether the IR sensor is continuously receiving the IR beam” [0062-0063]. Thus, there is a determination that the IR signal is received, and then further continuously received, by the robot while the robot is docking within the predetermined distance of the docking station. That is, the robot captures an IR signature from the docking station and verifies whether or not that signature, i.e., fiducial mark, on the charging station is present.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Liggett to include the verification that the fiducial mark is still received by the robot throughout the docking process as exemplified by Taylor with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because by verifying that the detection is continuously received, the robot is able to proceed with or adjust the docking process such that successful docking of the robot at an appropriate alignment is achieved.
Regarding claim 11, Liggett as modified by Taylor teaches the robotic vacuum cleaner system according to claim 10, with Liggett further teaching wherein:
when it is determined that the fiducial marks are present in the image obtained by the one or more cameras, the fiducial detection module is configured to determine relative position information indicating a position of the robotic vacuum cleaner relative to the charging station (“In some instances, the location of the optical indicium 113 and/or beacon 102 may be indicated on the loaded map such that the robotic cleaner 100 can localize itself relative to the optical indicium 113 and/or beacon 102 within the loaded map” [0013]. Thus, based on a determined optical indicium captured in an image taken by the camera, the robot, via the processor (fiducial detection module), is configured to determine the relative position information of itself relative to the optical indicium and associated charging station, i.e., beacon.); and
the navigation module is configured to:
determine a route from the current location of the robotic vacuum cleaner to a charging position in which the robotic vacuum cleaner is engaged with the charging station, based on the relative position information, and generate instructions, which when received by the motion system, cause it to move the robotic vacuum cleaner to the charging position (“The optical indicium 308 can be used to navigate the robotic cleaner 100 to the docking station 300. For example, the robotic cleaner 100 can be configured to follow and/or move towards a heading that centers the optical indicium 308 within the field of view of the camera 108. As such, the robotic cleaner 100 can advance towards the docking station 300 in a manner that allows the robotic cleaner 100 to engage the charging contacts 304” [0025]. Thus, the robot uses the optical indicium to determine a route from the current location of the robotic vacuum cleaner to a charging position in which the robot engages with the charging contacts based on the heading centered towards the optical indicium, i.e., relative position information, and advances the robot towards the docking station, i.e., moves the robotic vacuum cleaner to the charging position.).
Regarding claim 12, Liggett as modified by Taylor teaches the robotic vacuum cleaner system according to claim 10, with Taylor further teaching wherein:
when it is determined that the fiducial marks are not present in the image obtained by the one or more camera (See “No” arrow for step 706 in method of Fig. 7.), the navigation module is configured to:
identify an alternative position within the predetermined threshold distance of the charging station (“If the IR beam is not being received at the IR sensor, then at 708 the robot is caused to be backed away from the docking station and the methodology returns to 704” [0063]. Thus, when the signature is not received by the robot, i.e., the fiducial mark is not present, the robot backs up, i.e., moves to an identified alternative position within the predetermined threshold distance of the docking station.);
determine a route from the current location of the robotic vacuum cleaner to the alternative position within the predetermined threshold distance of the charging station (The operation of “backing up” institutes a determined route from the current location at the point in which the signal is not still received to the alternative position at the end of the backing up operation.); and
generate instructions, which when received by the motion system, cause it to move the robotic vacuum cleaner to the alternative position within the predetermined distance threshold of the charging station (Again, backing up is an instruction to cause the robot vacuum cleaner to move to the alternative position within the predetermined distance threshold.); and
when it is determined that that robotic vacuum cleaner is located at the alternative position within the predetermined threshold distance of the charging station, the fiducial detection module is configured again to detect whether or not the fiducial marks on the charging station are present in an image obtained by the one or more cameras (Once the back up motion is completed, i.e., the robot is located at the alternative position, the fiducial detection module (processor) is configured to return to steps 704 and 706 of Fig. 7 which causes the robot to detect whether or not the signatures, i.e., fiducial marks on the charging station are present in the signal, i.e., image, which is obtained.).
Regarding claim 13, Liggett as modified by Taylor teaches the robotic vacuum cleaner system according to claim 9, with Taylor further teaching wherein: the predetermined threshold distance is 0.5 to 2 metres (As identified in [0072], the first threshold, i.e., predetermined threshold distance, may be within 2 meters.).
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liggett in view of Abramson (US 2019/0275666 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Liggett teaches the robotic vacuum cleaner according to claim 1.
However, Liggett does not explicitly teach …when it is determined that the fiducial marks are not present in the image obtained by the one or more cameras, the robotic vacuum cleaner is configured to generate an alert.
Abramson, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …when it is determined that the fiducial marks are not present in the image obtained by the one or more cameras, the robotic vacuum cleaner is configured to generate an alert (“The robot 100 may therefore be programmed so as to signal to the user that the marker 108 is no longer visible to the camera 258. This may, for example, include the robot 100 generating an alarm sound or voice feedback through a speaker provided on the robot. In another example, a notification might be sent (for instance using Bluetooth or Wifi) to a control device held by the user, which could be a smartphone” [0191]. Thus, there is a function of the robot which causes the robot to generate an alert when the marker is not visible to the camera, i.e., not present in the image.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the alerts of Liggett to further include the alert as taught by Abramson which generates an alarm when the marker is no longer visible to the robot with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because during the docking operation, the robot relies on the optical indicium, i.e., fiducial mark, and thus by notifying the user that such an indicium is not present in the detected image of the docking station, the user is able to efficiently address an error of the automated docking process. Such a modification is a mere combination of prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143.I(A)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 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:
Claim 6 recites the limitation “…when it is determined that the robotic vacuum cleaner is engaged with or being charged by the robotic vacuum cleaner charging station, if the diagnostics module determines that the image of the fiducial mark does not have the predetermined expected characteristics, the alert generation module is configured to generate an alert that the robotic vacuum cleaner charging station is improperly assembled.”
The prior art considered by Examiner does not include any such feature which would generate an alert that the robotic vacuum cleaner charging station is improperly assembled.
The closest art of record is as follows:
Liggett (as described above) teaches notifications of misalignments (see [0036]), but these misalignments are referred to as misalignments of the camera and therefore would not indicate any such improperly assembled charging station.
Robot Reviews (“Docking Misaligned by Three Inches to the Right”, 2011) further teaches misalignments of robot to the docking station but would not indicate any such alert that indicates the docking station is “improperly assembled”. Some responses in the blog post would indicate that other users might interpret the error as a misassembled docking station, but no such automated alert generated by the robot provides this indication as they are merely human-initiated assumptions with no such basis for accurately determining the cause of the error as an improper assembly.
Therefore, Examiner indicates this limitation of claim 6 as allowable subject matter.
Claims 7-8 depend from this limitation of claim 6 and therefore additionally include the designated allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner includes several additional patent references listed in the “Notice of References Cited” (Form PTO-892) which include pertinent teachings regarding robotic docking systems and alert generation as claimed by Applicant. Examiner further ascertains that the art relied upon for the rejection best disclosed the claims as currently presented, but such additional references will be further considered for any such amendment submitted by Applicant.
Examiner additionally includes other such NPL which provides similar teachings to “Robot Reviews” as indicated in the description of allowable subject matter of claim 6, but the references do not meet the priority date set forth by the instant application and additionally do not teach the required alert which was considered allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY L MOLNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-2276. The examiner can normally be reached 9 A.M. to 4 P.M. EST Monday-Friday.
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, Jonathan (Wade) Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/S.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights