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 8, 34, and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, line 5, it appears Applicant intended “the cleaning device” to read --the cleaning robot--
In claim 8, line 7, it appears Applicant intended “the cleaning device” to read --the cleaning robot--
In claim 34, line 1, it appears Applicant intended “a walking component” to read --a drive component--, as the disclosed cleaning robot is not understood to “walk”, per se (see at least Applicant’s Specification ¶00132).
In claim 34, line 3, it appears Applicant intended “controlling the cleaning robot to return to the base” to read --controlling the cleaning robot to return to a base--, as antecedent basis for base has not yet been established.
In claim 37, line 1, it appears Applicant intended “a walking component” to read --a drive component--, as the disclosed cleaning robot is not understood to “walk”, per se (see at least Applicant’s Specification ¶00132).
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 23-24, 34, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lindner et al. (US PGPub. No. 2023/0083593).
Regarding claim 1, Lindner discloses a method for controlling a cleaning robot [1] to return to a base [4], comprising:
determining a type of a first target base and first target task information, wherein the first target base is a base to be docked with the cleaning robot, and the first target task information is information related to a task that needs to be performed by the cleaning robot for returning to the first target base (¶0083-0084, ¶0091-0093); and
controlling, based on the type of the first target base and the first target task information, the cleaning robot to move onto the first target base according to a respective movement strategy (¶0082, ¶0091-0093).
Regarding claim 6, Lindner discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein after determining the type of the first target base, the method further comprises:
storing the type of the first target base to update the base type stored by the cleaning robot (¶0105).
Claims 10-22 were canceled.
Regarding claim 23, Lindner discloses a method for controlling a cleaning robot [1] to move out of a base [4], comprising:
determining a type of a second target base and second target task information, wherein the second target base is a base being currently docked with the cleaning robot, and the second target task information is information about a task performed by the cleaning robot on the second target base (¶0083-0084, ¶0091-0093); and
controlling, based on the type of the second target base and the second target task information, the cleaning robot to move out of the second target base according to a respective move-out strategy (¶0082, ¶0091-0093). Examiner notes that Lindner describes a system in which cleaning robots may perform at least charging and/or emptying the robot’s dust container at one or more base stations, and also at least partially completing all services needed at one or more base stations (¶0093). This description is consistent with a robot charging if needed at a nearby first base station, and then exiting the first base station to proceed to a second base station (according to a move-out strategy) to empty the dust container if the first base station doesn’t have this capability.
Regarding claim 24, Lindner discloses the method according to claim 23, wherein determining the type of the second target base comprises:
acquiring a third base type (¶0085); and
determining the third base type to be the type of the second target base, wherein the third base type is a base type stored by the cleaning robot (¶0083-0084, ¶0091-0093).
Claims 32-33 were canceled.
Regarding claim 34, Lindner discloses a cleaning robot [1], comprising a walking component [5], a cleaning component [6], and a controller (¶0075-0076), wherein
the controller is configured to perform a method for controlling the cleaning robot to return to the base [4], comprising:
determining a type of a first target base and first target task information, wherein the first target base is a base to be docked with the cleaning robot, and the first target task information is information related to a task that needs to be performed by the cleaning robot for returning to the first target base (¶0083-0084, ¶0091-0093); and
controlling, based on the type of the first target base and the first target task information, the cleaning robot to move onto the first target base according to a respective movement strategy (¶0082, ¶0091-0093).
Claims 35-36 were canceled.
Regarding claim 37, a cleaning robot [1], comprising a walking component [5], a cleaning component [6], and a controller (¶0075-0076), wherein
the controller is configured to perform the method for controlling the cleaning robot to move out of the base according to claim 23 (¶0082-0084, ¶0091-0093).
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 2-5, 7-9, and 25-31 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim(s) 2, Examiner deems a method for controlling a cleaning robot to return to a base, comprising: determining a type of a first target base and first target task information, wherein the first target base is a base to be docked with the cleaning robot, and the first target task information is information related to a task that needs to be performed by the cleaning robot for returning to the first target base; and controlling, based on the type of the first target base and the first target task information, the cleaning robot to move onto the first target base according to a respective movement strategy; wherein determining the type of the first target base comprises: acquiring a mode in which the cleaning robot moves onto the first target base and a starting point for current movement of the cleaning robot; when the cleaning robot moves onto the first target base in an automatic mode and the starting point for the current movement of the cleaning robot is the base, acquiring a first base type and a second base type, wherein the first base type is the type of the base acting as the starting point for the current movement of the cleaning robot, and the second base is the type of the first target base determined during the movement of the cleaning robot towards the first target base; and determining the type of the first target base based on the first base type and the second base type to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for modifying the prior art of record to include such a method for controlling a cleaning robot to return to a base, specifically including acquiring a mode in which the cleaning robot moves onto the first target base and a starting point for current movement of the cleaning robot; when the cleaning robot moves onto the first target base in an automatic mode and the starting point for the current movement of the cleaning robot is the base, acquiring a first base type and a second base type, wherein the first base type is the type of the base acting as the starting point for the current movement of the cleaning robot, and the second base is the type of the first target base determined during the movement of the cleaning robot towards the first target base; and determining the type of the first target base based on the first base type and the second base type.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 7-9 depend(s) from claim(s) 2, (respectively,) and is/are deemed allowable at least by virtue of their dependence on allowable claims.
Regarding claim(s) 25, Examiner deems a method for controlling a cleaning robot to move out of a base, comprising: determining a type of a second target base and second target task information, wherein the second target base is a base being currently docked with the cleaning robot, and the second target task information is information about a task performed by the cleaning robot on the second target base; and controlling, based on the type of the second target base and the second target task information, the cleaning robot to move out of the second target base according to a respective move-out strategy; wherein determining the type of the second target base comprises: acquiring a third base type; and determining the third base type to be the type of the second target base, wherein the third base type is a base type stored by the cleaning robot further comprising: receiving a communication signal sent by the second target base in the process of controlling the cleaning robot to move out of the second target base according to the respective move-out strategy, determining whether a base type carried in the communication signal is the same as the third base type, and controlling the cleaning robot to continue moving with a current move-out strategy if the base type carried in the communication signal is the same as the third base type; and controlling the cleaning robot to move according to a compatible move-out strategy if the base type carried in the communication signal is different from the third base type to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for modifying the prior art of record to include such a method for controlling a cleaning robot to move out of a base, further comprising: receiving a communication signal sent by the second target base in the process of controlling the cleaning robot to move out of the second target base according to the respective move-out strategy, determining whether a base type carried in the communication signal is the same as the third base type, and controlling the cleaning robot to continue moving with a current move-out strategy if the base type carried in the communication signal is the same as the third base type; and controlling the cleaning robot to move according to a compatible move-out strategy if the base type carried in the communication signal is different from the third base type.
Claim(s) 26-31 depend(s) from claim(s) 25, (respectively,) and is/are deemed allowable at least by virtue of their dependence on allowable claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL V KERRIGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-8:00pm.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/MICHAEL V KERRIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664