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 .
Amendments to the claims have been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues are fully addressed with the new rejections made to the newly provided amendments.
Arguments are further moot as new art has been found based on the newly presented amendments. Additionally, Applicants arguments are addressed further below.
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues that the limitations of claims 2 and 3 are moved into claim 1 and 11 and 12 into claim 10. However, the limitation of claim 11 with states “automatically generating a second path within the cleaning zone; and allowing the robot to be operated to clean the area along the second path while automatically moving therealong” is not reflected in clams 1 and 10. Furthermore claim 10 is further amended to read “move along the desired path and the second path”; which was not in claim 11 or 12.
Applicant further argues spiral path and presents figure 8. Examiner notes that Figure 8 of Applicant’s drawings are similar to figure 6 of the new prior art and is used in the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims recite “automatically moving along the desired first path and the second path during operation. One of ordinary skill in the art may assume that the paths are moved along simultaneously.
Claims 1-18 can be rejected under 102 based on MPEP 2111.04(11), however in practicing compact prosecution, a 103 rejection is made. The claims must be amended to overcome the conditional limitation rejections.
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 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi US 11,069,082 as applied to claim above, and further in view of Haegermarck US 20170344013 A1.
1. Although broader, claim 1 is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 10.
2-3 Canceled
4. is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 13.
5. is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 14.
6. Although broader, is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 15.
7. Although broader, is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 16.
8. is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 17.
9. Fig. 25 and C3L63 LIDAR map
10. Ebrahimi teaches a method of operating a robot to clean an area, the method comprising:
obtaining a floor plan of the area; C238L15; generating, with the processor of the robot [C1L54 vacuum, mower, mop…], a floor plan. [to generating is to obtaining]
capturing a first path in the area as the robot C49L65the application displays the camera view of the robot. is guided by a user about the area, C49L50 the user uses the application to define a path of the robot;
wherein the first path defines a perimeter of a cleaning zone within the area; Fig. 131# 9600 inside 9601 also C128, L63l may assign a zone A a set of perimeters edges E wherein a perimeters edge e=(n.sub.1, n.sub.2) connects a node n.sub.1∈A with a node n.sub.2.Math.A. Thus, the set of perimeters edges clearly defines the set of perimeters nodes ∂A, and gives information about the nodes, which are just inside zone A as well as the nodes just outside zone A. Also Fig.23A; C116. Line 63
displaying the captured first path on the floor plan; C49L65 the application displays the camera view of the robot.
allowing the user to modify the captured first path to obtain a desired first path; C49L45; display the map of the environment as it is being built and updated. The application may also be used to define a path of the robot and zones and label areas. the user uses the application to define a path of the robot using path tool 6402 to draw path
and
allowing the robot to be operated to automatically move along the desired path and the second path to clean the area. 50L10; toggling robot between autonomous and manual mode. C68L37; coverage algorithm in a first subarea and rectangular-spiral coverage algorithm in a second subarea, clean the first subarea and second subarea
Regarding
determining if a rectangle can be defined within the cleaning zone; and
obtaining a pattern path for the rectangle and a spiral path around the rectangle that together define a second path if it is determined that a rectangle can be defined within the cleaning zone;
MPEP 2111.04(11)
Regarding the method claims 10 and 18, the limitation “determining if a rectangle can be defined within the cleaning zone”. Examiner notes, since the claims are all method claims, if the previous steps has been met, then the step of “obtaining a pattern path for the rectangle and a spiral path around the rectangle that together define a second path if it is determined that a rectangle can be defined within the cleaning zone;” is not required to be rejected because it is an "if" statement which is conditioned from the steps of where "determining if a rectangle can be defined within the cleaning zone". For example, one can state that no object or obstacle has been determined in the path of the cleaning robot and therefore no rectangle can be defined within the cleaning zone. As such the steps of “obtaining a pattern path for the rectangle and a spiral path around the rectangle that together define a second path if it is determined that a rectangle can be defined within the cleaning zone;” is not required as there is no rectangle defined. According to MPEP 2111.04(11) and Ex parte Schulhauser. As such Examiner will not be considering the non-selected option.
However, in practicing compact procicution, the conditional limitation will be addressed, but amendments must be made to overcome the conditional limitation.
Further regarding determining if a rectangle can be defined within the cleaning zone; and
obtaining a pattern path for the rectangle and a spiral path around the rectangle that together define a second path if it is determined that a rectangle can be defined within the cleaning zone;
Ebrahimi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach
determining if a rectangle can be defined within the cleaning zone; and
obtaining a pattern path for the rectangle and a spiral path around the rectangle that together define a second path if it is determined that a rectangle can be defined within the cleaning zone;
However, Haegermarck teaches fig.6a determining if a rectangle can be defined object 34’ within the cleaning zone 35; and
obtaining a pattern path for the rectangle path 11 around 34’ and a spiral path around the rectangle 36’ that together define a second path path 11 where path 42 is the first path if it is determined that a rectangle can be defined within the cleaning zone Fig. 6a;
Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for the purpose of improving cleaning method for a robotic cleaning device such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. The combination is also considered obvious to try as stated in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
11-12 Canceled
13. The method according to Claim 10, wherein determining if a rectangle can be defined within the cleaning zone comprises:
increasingly reducing a size of the cleaning zone, each time by a cleaning width of the robot to obtain a current smaller cleaning zone until it is determined that one of a rectangle C130L30; reducing repeat coverage that occurs during such distant drives. and
minimum rotated rectangle bounding the current smaller cleaning zone fits within the cleaning zone C130L30; the processor chooses orientation of coverage areas such that their edges align with the walls of the environment to improve total surface coverage as coverage areas having various orientations with respect to the walls of the environment may result in small areas
or
no further smaller cleaning zone can be obtained.
14. The method according to claim 10, wherein obtaining a pattern path for the rectangle and a spiral path around the rectangle that together define the second path comprises:
generating a candidate pattern path from each side of the rectangle to define a plurality of candidate pattern paths in the rectangle; C67L35; the robot may execute a wall-follow coverage algorithm in a first subarea and rectangular-spiral coverage algorithm in a second subarea
generating a plurality of candidate spiral paths; C67L35; and rectangular-spiral coverage algorithm in a second subarea,
determining a cleaning cost for each combination of each of the plurality of candidate pattern paths and each of the plurality of candidate spiral paths; and C67L40; unique tags [cost i.e. number giving based on size, rank, or coverage], such as a number or any label, may be assigned to each subarea. The unique tags may be used to set and control the operation and execution of tasks within each subarea and to set the order of coverage of each subarea. For example, the robot may cover a particular subarea first and another particular subarea last.
selecting a combination of candidate pattern path and candidate spiral path with a lowest cleaning cost as the second path.C67L45; the order of coverage of the subareas is such that repeat coverage within the total area is minimized.
15. The method according to Claim 10, wherein allowing the user to modify the captured first path comprises:
providing points along the captured first path which can be moved to modify the captured first path. Fig. 56
16. The method according to Claim 15, wherein providing points along the captured first path which can be moved to modify the captured first path comprises:
providing the points along the path which can be dragged and dropped to modify the captured first path. Fig. 56
17. The method according to Claim 10, wherein obtaining the floor plan of the area is performed at the same time as capturing the first path. Fig. 25 and C3L63 LIDAR map
18. is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 10.
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 SIHAR A KARWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11am.-7pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on 571-270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIHAR A KARWAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights