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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-2, 4-13, 15, 19, 21, 24, 27 and 37 in the reply filed on 4/30/2026 is acknowledged.
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 2, 4-8, 11-13, 15, 19, 21, 24, 27 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 2 is indefinite because the target cleaning region "of the cleaning device" lacks positive antecedent basis. Claim 4 is indefinite because of its dependency. Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear what applicant is trying to claim by the limitations of "determining a room of the predetermined type as the target cleaning region in response to "determining that the cleaning device is in a room of a predetermined type based on the semantic map". Claim 7 is indefinite because if the cleaning device has no second cleaning target remaining in a region, then it is unclear how the region having the predetermined distance from the cleaning device is the target cleaning region, since the claim specifically recites the second cleaning target being a region having a predetermined distance. Specifically, a) the second cleaning target defines a region having a predetermined distance, b) the claim recites there is no second cleaning target region, and therefore, by default there is no region having a predetermined distance needed to be cleaned by the cleaning device. However, the latter part of claim 7 recites "determining a region having the predetermined distance from the cleaning device "as the target cleaning region", which had been previously defined as a "second cleaning target". Claim 11 is dependent on cancelled claim 3. Claim 11 is further indefinite because it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as "small". Claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear whether line 7 should recite "the current cleaning state". Claim 15 is indefinite because it is unclear in lines 6-7 what is meant by the phrase " a predetermined passing strategy corresponding to the cleaning state". It also appears that lines 7-10 and 91-21 are duplicative of lines 5-7. Claim 21 is indefinite because it is unclear whether line 15 should recite "the dynamic obstacle" instead of "a dynamic obstacle". Claim 24 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by "filling the target cleaning region". Claim 27, line 27, it is unclear what "the position" refers to. Line 46 of claim 27 should be amended to recite "the two adjacent traveling routes".
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) 1-2, 4-6, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN114003039A, machine translation).
Re claims 1 and 37, Li et al. teach determining a target cleaning region by acquiring a global map to determine the type of each cleaning area (claim 1); generating a cleaning trajectory (i.e. path) in the region in response to path planning instruction (claim 2, planning a cleaning robot path according to the cleaning channel and the type of each cleaning area, paragraphs 9, 11, 51, 60), and performing a cleaning action along the cleaning trajectory(paragraphs 60, 95, 97). The limitations of "in response to path planning instruction" is read broadly to include generating a path based on any type of parameter and Li et al. teach generating a path in response to the cleaning channel and type of each cleaning area. Claim 2 is broadly interpreted as cleaning a target in a target region by a cleaning device in a non-charging position, wherein the target region is a predetermined distance from the cleaning device. Applicant's predetermined distance can include any distance of the target region from the cleaning device which requires cleaning. Applicant is directed to paragraph 95 for example, in which the cleaning robot cleans a target (i.e. 2, specific room; Fig. 5) in a target region (2, 4, 5) by a cleaning device in a non-charging position (i.e. along path Q1), wherein the target region is a predetermined distance from the cleaning device. Re claim 4, refer to claim 1 for example. Re claim 5 is broadly interpreted as determining a room as a target cleaning region in response to the cleaning device based on the rooms on the map. Applicant is directed to claim 1 and paragraph 95 which teaches acquiring a global map and identifying the type of each cleaning area in the map, and providing a cleaning path for the cleaning robot to clean the specified target region. Re claim 6 is broadly interpreted as the cleaning device is not in a room of a predetermined type (i.e. not a targeted region) and a second cleaning target is determined based on the map, wherein the second cleaning target is a predetermined distance from the cleaning device. Applicant is once again directed to Fig. 5 and paragraph 95, wherein when one targeted region (i.e. room) is cleaned, the cleaning device cleans a second cleaning target, based on the map, wherein the second targeted region is a predetermined distance from the cleaning device. Re claim 37, refer to paragraph 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN114003039A, machine translation) in view of Yoon et al. (US2012/0222224A1).
Li et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the cleaning device cleaning along edges at first and then in a zig zag manner and returning to a charging position. Paragraph 113 of Yoon et al. teach the robot cleaning device performing a cleaning operation by traveling in any direction, as in a zigzag manner or in a random manner by the controller. 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 method of Li et al. to include traveling in a zigzag manner or in a random manner, as taught by Yoon et al. for effectively performing a cleaning operation by the robot cleaning device. Re claim
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN114003039A, machine translation) in view of Shin et al. (US2016/0154996A1).
Li et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of claim 10, wherein the limitations are broadly interpreted to include voice activation of a cleaning robot. Shin et al. teach a robot cleaner and a method of controlling a robot cleaner wherein a voice recognition device 40 recognizes the command of the user while the robot cleaner performs cleaning. 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 method of Li et al. to include voice recognition, as taught by Shin et al., as a means of controlling the commands of the robot during the cleaning operations.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN114003039A, machine translation) in view of VanTongeren (US2021/0068524A1).
Li et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the claimed cleaning targets. Van Tongeren teaches a floor cleaner for movement over a surface to be cleaned, wherein the floor cleaner can clean hard to reach spaces such as along edges of furniture to remove debris including that of dirt, dust, soil, hair or stains (paragraph 32). 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 method of Li al., to include hard to reach spaces such as furniture, as taught by Van Tongeren, for purposes of effectively removing debris, which includes stains from the floor surface.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miao et al. teach a cleaning method using a mobile robot. Hong et al. teach a cleaning robot and mapping. Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. teach a plurality of robots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc
Prosecution Insights