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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant filed remarks on 04/27/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103: Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 with respect to Haegermarck (US10874274B2) in view of Romanov et al. (US9744670B2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, applicant argues that Applicant argues that independent claims 1 and 11 recite, inter alia, “creat[ing] a 3D representation of the illuminated object by aggregating the detected object data of captured images taking into account the determined location of the detected object data for the captured images, the created 3D representation being utilized by the robotic cleaning device for navigating the surface to be cleaned,” and that Haegermarck does not disclose or suggest this feature. Applicant further asserts that Haegermarck instead derives positional data of the robotic cleaning device itself from a combination of sensors to detect obstacles, without aggregating object data (i.e., a luminous section of an image) from multiple images to create a 3D representation of an illuminated object for navigation, and that Romanov does not cure the alleged deficiency.
This argument is unpersuasive. Haegermarck teaches a robotic cleaning device having a camera, line lasers that illuminate objects, capture of multiple images, detection/extraction of features corresponding to the illuminated objects in those images, use of measured position (and heading/orientation) data to locate those features, and aggregation of the data from the images to generate a 3D representation that is used for navigation.
Haegermarck discloses (Col. 7):
“The first and second line lasers 27, 28 are configured to send out laser beams, which illuminate furniture, walls and other objects of e.g. a room to be cleaned. The camera 23 is controlled by the controller 22 to capture and record images from which the controller 22 creates a representation or layout of the surroundings that the robotic cleaning device 10 is operating in, by extracting features from the images and by measuring the distance covered by the robotic cleaning device 10, while the robotic cleaning device 10 is moving across the surface to be cleaned.”
Haegermarck further discloses (Col. 7, lines 51–65, the passage cited by Applicant):
“Thus, the controller 22 derives positional data of the robotic cleaning device 10 with respect to the surface to be cleaned from the recorded images, generates a 3D representation of the surroundings from the derived positional data and controls the driving motors 15, 16 to move the robotic cleaning device across the surface to be cleaned in accordance with the generated 3D representation and navigation information supplied to the robotic cleaning device 10 such that the surface to be cleaned can be navigated by taking into account the generated 3D representation. Since the derived positional data will serve as a foundation for the navigation of the robotic cleaning device, it is important that the positioning is correct; the robotic device will otherwise navigate according to a ‘map’ of its surroundings that is misleading.”
The line lasers illuminate objects, producing luminous (laser) sections/patterns on those objects. The camera captures a plurality of images per second as the device moves. The controller extracts features (the detected luminous object data) from each image. Positional data of the device (derived in part from the images themselves and from the device’s sensors, including odometry/IMU/gyroscope data for position and heading/orientation) is used to place/locate those extracted features with respect to a reference. The extracted object data from the multiple images are thereby aggregated, taking the determined locations into account, to generate the 3D representation of the surroundings (including the illuminated objects/obstacles). That 3D representation is explicitly utilized for navigating the surface. This is the same process recited in the claims.
Applicant’s attempt to distinguish “positional data of the robotic cleaning device” from “location of the detected object data” is a distinction without a difference. Locating the device relative to the detected features (or vice versa) in a common reference frame is how the object data from successive images are registered and aggregated into a coherent 3D representation. Haegermarck’s description of extracting features from the recorded images of laser-illuminated objects and generating a 3D representation from the derived positional data as the device moves is the claimed aggregation of detected object data taking into account the determined locations.
Romanov is relied upon for the specific teaching of an optical odometry sensor arranged to be directed towards the surface and configured to measure position of the robotic cleaning device (see, e.g., Romanov Abstract: “The optical odometry sensor system is positioned within a recessed structure on an underside of the mobile robot body and configured to output optical odometry data. The optical odometry sensor system includes an optical odometry camera that includes a telecentric lens configured to capture images of a tracking surface beneath the body…”; and the detailed description of continuous comparison of successive images to estimate relative motion/position via optical flow).
Incorporating Romanov’s optical odometry sensor (directed toward the surface, optionally in a recess on the underside) into Haegermarck’s device as an additional or alternative means of accurately measuring position (and contributing to heading) for the purpose of more reliable derivation of positional data and generation of the 3D representation, for the reasons previously set forth in the Office Action. Romanov does not need to independently teach the aggregation step; it supplies the improved position-measurement sensor that is combined with Haegermarck’s already-disclosed imaging, illumination, feature extraction, aggregation into a 3D representation, and navigation.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haegermarck (US10874274B2) in view of Romanov et al. (US9744670B2), hereinafter referred to as Haegermarck and Romanov respectively.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Haegermarck discloses A robotic cleaning device configured to navigate over a surface to be cleaned (“The robotic cleaning device 10 is hence configured to learn about its environment or surroundings by operating/cleaning.” [Abstract and Col. 8, lines 4–6]).
a propulsion system configured to move the robotic cleaning device over the surface to be cleaned (“The robotic cleaning device 10 comprises a main body 11 housing components such as a propulsion system comprising driving means in the form of two electric wheel motors 15, 16 for enabling movement of the driving wheels 12, 13 such that the cleaning device can be moved over a surface to be cleaned.” Col. 4-5, lines 61–67 & 1-2).
a camera configured to capture images of surroundings of the robotic cleaning device (“The controller 22 is operatively coupled to the camera 23 for recording images of a vicinity of the robotic cleaning device 10.” Col. 7, lines 17–19]).
at least one light source configured to illuminate objects in front of the camera (“a 3D sensor system comprising at least a camera 23 and a first and a second line laser 27, 28… configured to illuminate a height and a width that is greater than the height and width of the robotic cleaning device 10.” Col. 7, lines 12–20).
a heading sensor configured to measure heading of the robotic cleaning device “The robotic cleaning device 10 may further be equipped with an inertia measurement unit (IMU) 24, such as e.g. a gyroscope and/or an accelerometer and/or a magnetometer or any other appropriate device for measuring displacement of the robotic cleaning device 10 with respect to a reference position, in the form of e.g. orientation, rotational velocity, gravitational forces, etc. ” Col. 5, lines 57–67).
and a controller configured to: detect a luminous section in each captured image caused by the at least one light source illuminating an object, the luminous section representing detected object data (“The first and second line lasers 27, 28 are configured to send out laser beams, which illuminate furniture, walls and other objects of e.g. a room to be cleaned. The camera 23 is controlled by the controller 22 to capture and record images from which the controller 22 creates a representation or layout of the surroundings that the robotic cleaning device 10 is operating in, by extracting features from the images and by measuring the distance covered by the robotic cleaning device 10, while the robotic cleaning device 10 is moving across the surface to be cleaned. ” Col. 7, lines 38–55).
determine location of the detected object data in each captured image with respect to a reference position using the measured position and heading of the robotic cleaning device “By combining wheel speed readings with gyroscope information, the controller 22 can perform so called dead reckoning to determine position and heading of the cleaning device 10. ” Col. 6, lines 8–14).
create a 3D representation of the illuminated object by aggregating the detected object data of captured images taking into account the determined location of the detected object data for the captured images, the created 3D representation being utilized by the robotic cleaning device for navigating the surface to be cleaned (“the controller 22 derives positional data of the robotic cleaning device 10 with respect to the surface to be cleaned from the recorded images, generates a 3D representation of the surroundings from the derived positional data and controls the driving motors 15, 16 to move the robotic cleaning device across the surface to be cleaned in accordance with the generated 3D representation and navigation information supplied to the robotic cleaning device 10 such that the surface to be cleaned can be navigated by taking into account the generated 3D representation. Since the derived positional data will serve as a foundation for the navigation of the robotic cleaning device, ” Col. 7, lines 50–65).
Haegermarck does not explicitly teach an optical odometry sensor arranged to be directed towards the surface and configured to measure position of the robotic cleaning device.
However, Romanov teaches an optical odometry sensor arranged to be directed towards the surface and configured to measure position of the robotic cleaning device (“The mobile robot 100 is illustrated in FIGS. 1-2. In particular, FIG. 1 illustrates a front perspective view of the mobile robot 100 and FIG. 2 illustrates a bottom view of the mobile robot 100 in which the recessed structure 210 containing the optical odometry sensor system 205 is visible.” Col. 7, lines 20–25), (“the optical odometry sensor system also outputs a quality measure, where the quality measure indicates the reliability of optical odometry data; and the navigation application directs the processor to estimate a distance travelled using the captured optical odometry data, when a quality measure satisfies a threshold.” Col. 20-21, lines 65-67 & 1-5). Both Haegermarck and Romanov teach methods for navigating a mobile cleaning device. However, Romanov explicitly teaches an optical odometry sensor arranged to be directed towards the surface and configured to measure position of the robotic cleaning device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device navigation method of Haegermarck to also include an optical odometry sensor arranged to be directed towards the surface and configured to measure position of the robotic cleaning device, as taught by Romanov, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods of operating mobile cleaning devices (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Romanov, Col. 7, lines 20–25 and Col. 20-21, lines 65-67 & 1-5]).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Haegermarck discloses The robotic cleaning device of claim 1, the at least one light source comprising: a first and second line laser configured to illuminate objects in front of the camera (“the first and second vertical line lasers 27 , 28…” Col. 8, lines 8–9).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Haegermarck discloses The robotic cleaning device of claim 2, the first and second line laser being vertically oriented line lasers (“the first and second vertical line lasers 27 , 28…” Col. 8, lines 8–9).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Haegermarck discloses The robotic cleaning device of claim 2, the at least one light source further comprising a horizontally oriented line laser (“which may be horizontally or vertically oriented line lasers.” Col. 7, lines 13–14).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Haegermarck discloses The robotic cleaning device of claim 2, the first and second line laser being symmetrically arranged on opposite sides of the camera (“arranged lateral of the camera 23…” Col. 7, lines 20–21).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Haegermarck discloses The robotic cleaning device of claim 1, further comprising: an inertial measurement unit configured to measure the heading of the robotic cleaning device (“The robotic cleaning device 10 may further be equipped with an inertia measurement unit (IMU) 24, such as e.g. a gyroscope and/or an accelerometer and/or a magnetometer or any other appropriate device for measuring displacement of the robotic cleaning device 10 with respect to a reference position, in the form of e.g. orientation, rotational velocity, gravitational forces, etc. ” Col. 5, lines 57–67).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Haegermarck discloses The robotic cleaning device of claim 1, further comprising: an odometry encoder arranged on each drive wheel of the propulsion system for measuring the position and heading of the robotic cleaning device “The robotic cleaning device 10 may further be equipped with an inertia measurement unit (IMU) 24, such as e.g. a gyroscope and/or an accelerometer and/or a magnetometer or any other appropriate device for measuring displacement of the robotic cleaning device 10 with respect to a reference position, in the form of e.g. orientation, rotational velocity, gravitational forces, etc. ………The robotic cleaning device 10 further comprises encoders (not shown in FIG. 1) on each drive wheel 12, 13 which generate pulses when the wheels turn. ……By combining wheel speed readings with gyroscope information, the controller 22 can perform so called dead reckoning to determine position and heading of the cleaning device 10. ” Col. 5-6 Lines 57-67 & 1-10).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Haegermarck discloses The robotic cleaning device of claim 6,
Haegermarck does not explicitly teach the heading sensor being one of the optical odometry sensor, the inertial measurement unit, the odometry encoder or a combination thereof.
However, Romanov does teach the heading sensor being one of the optical odometry sensor, the inertial measurement unit, the odometry encoder or a combination thereof (“the navigation application directs the processor to actuate the drive mechanism and capture optical odometry data from the optical odometry sensor system and gyroscope measurement data from the gyroscope sensor system; estimate a distance travelled using the captured optical odometry data; estimate a direction travelled using the gyroscope measurement data; and update a pose estimate using the estimated distance travelled and direction travelled.” Col. 2, lines 4–13). Both Haegermarck and Romanov teach methods for navigating a mobile cleaning device. However, Romanov explicitly teaches the heading sensor being one of the optical odometry sensor, the inertial measurement unit, the odometry encoder or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device navigation method of Haegermarck to also include the heading sensor being one of the optical odometry sensor, the inertial measurement unit, the odometry encoder or a combination thereof, as taught by Romanov, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods of operating mobile cleaning devices (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Romanov, Col. 2, lines 4–13]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Haegermarck discloses The robotic cleaning device of claim 1,
Haegermarck does not explicitly teach the optical odometry sensor being arranged in a recess on an underside of a main body of the robotic cleaning device.
However, Romanov does teach the optical odometry sensor being arranged in a recess on an underside of a main body of the robotic cleaning device (“The optical odometry sensor system is positioned within a recessed structure on an underside of the mobile robot body and configured to output optical odometry data” Abstract). Both Haegermarck and Romanov teach methods for navigating a mobile cleaning device. However, Romanov explicitly teaches the optical odometry sensor being arranged in a recess on an underside of a main body of the robotic cleaning device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device navigation method of Haegermarck to also include the optical odometry sensor being arranged in a recess on an underside of a main body of the robotic cleaning device as taught by Romanov, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves methods of operating mobile cleaning devices (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Romanov, Abstract]).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Haegermarck discloses The robotic cleaning device of claim 1, the optical odometry sensor being arranged behind an opening of a main body of the robotic cleaning device, via which opening dust and debris is collected (“The robotic cleaning device 10 comprises… a cleaning member arranged to remove debris from a surface to be cleaned…” Col. 1, lines 48–51).
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 extension fee 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 AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights