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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 5/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4-20 remain pending in the application, and claims 2-3 were cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 2/26/2026.
Response to Arguments
Note, for purposes of clarity, the remarks refer to Jung as “Jong” on numerous occasions, there is currently no prior art on the record by the name of Jong.
Applicant provides narrow interpretation of the prior art references in order to state that the combination of references are inoperable. For example, on page 9 of the remarks Applicant asserts that the "robot body remains stationary" in the corner identification process of Ebrahimi Afrouzi. This is in direct contrast to the cited locations of FIG. 144 and P [0991] which take image data collected at different times for "determining an amount of movement of the robot and localization". In regards to Jung, the remarks indicate that the corner sensing is performed with a linear back and forth movement as in the cited P [0056] and FIG. 7, which is true, and the prior Office Action utilized another reference to disclose the rotation at the corner. Applicant asserts that the applied references address entirely different problems with different solutions, but this argument is not persuasive, as both Ebrahimi Afrouzi and Jung are analogous art to the claimed invention, which is also directed to a cleaning robot.
Jung additionally discloses a correction method in P [0057] involving rotation with respect to a predetermined point, which is established in FIG. 7 as the corner. The disclosure states that the rotational movement is used to "correct information on the length of the wheelbase of the robot 300", which is consistent with the assertion of the Non-Final Office Action that Ebrahimi Afrouzi and Jung teach the step for obtaining corner surrounding information, but not explicitly that the terrain information is collected "in such a manner that the main body rotates in a first direction at the corner, and then rotates in a second direction opposite to the first direction.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Ebrahimi Afrouzi and Jung alone provide suggestion for rotation at the corner within P [0057] of Jung. However, the disclosure of Song is relied upon to explicitly show a known method for reaching a corner and rotating in a first direction, and then rotating in a second direction. Applicant attempts to argue that Song is concerned only with cleaning, and that Song fails to disclose or suggest "the specific rotational sequence in a first direction followed by an opposite rotation while sensing". This is directly contradictory to the necessary step outlined by Song for performing the cleaning process. In at least P [0060]-[0063] and P [0067] Song discloses collecting information in the corner while cleaning and performing the claimed rotation in a first direction and then in a second direction.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), 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) because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are: traveling unit, sensing unit, and storage unit in claims 1 and 12-13.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, see at least one traveling wheel 136 with a motor for traveling unit, lidar sensor 175 or other obstacle detection and camera sensors for sensing unit, and volatile or nonvolatile recording medium for storage unit.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 17 recites subject matter referring to obtaining terrain information while the main body rotates at the corner. The additional limitation that claim 17 applies to claim 16 is similar to the limitation of cancelled claim 2. Since claim 16 has been amended similarly to claim 1, the step of obtaining terrain information by the sensing unit while the main body rotates at the corner is already described, and claim 17 imposes no additional further limiting subject matter. For this reason, art has not been applied to claim 17.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 11, 15-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al., hereinafter Ebrahimi Afrouzi (Document ID: US 20220187841 A1) in view of Jung et al., hereinafter Jung (Document ID: US 20230150129 A1), and further in view of Song et al., hereinafter Song (Document ID: US 20140283326 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches a mobile robot and a method from controlling a mobile robot comprising:
a main body (see at least P [0785]: “robot body”);
a traveling unit configured to move the main body (see at least P [0792]: “the robot may include, but it’s not limited to include… a chassis including a set of wheels, a motor to drive the wheels”);
a sensing unit configured to obtain terrain information outside the main body (see at least P [0792]: “a plurality of sensors” as well as “process data from internal or external sensors, execute commands based on data received, control motors such as wheel motors, map the environment, localize the robot, determine division of the environment into zones, and determine movement paths.”); and
Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches a controller (see at least P [0792]: “a controller”) which is configured to determine whether a current location of the main body is a corner in a traveling area based on the terrain information obtained by the sensing unit (see at least P [0882] and FIG. 59B wherein “distance to corner 5905” is determined and also P [0991] and FIG. 144 for comparing environment data including terrain information that helps the robot know whether it’s currently in a corner), And though Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches a motion for obtaining corner surrounding information in FIG. 144, Ebrahimi Afrouzi does not explicitly teach that in response to the main body being positioned at the corner, [the controller] is configured to control a motion for obtaining corner surrounding information to be performed at the corner to obtain terrain information around the corner by the sensing unit.
Instead, Jung, whose invention pertains to a robot that corrects its coordinate system for navigation, teaches in at least P [0050] and FIG. 5A that upon reaching a wall corner “a difference may occur before the correction between a position 510 of the wall corner specified in a base reference coordinate system (or a reference coordinate system of the scanner module) and a position 520 of the wall corner specified in the reference coordinate system 402 of the camera module.” To correct the difference Jung teaches in P [0056] and FIG. 7 “the correction unit 220 may cause the robot 300 to move (or to repeatedly move) forward or backward 710 with respect to a predetermined point 701 (e.g., a wall corner) specified by the scanner module, and may calculate a difference between an actual travel distance of the robot 300 specified with respect to the predetermined point 701 (e.g., the actual travel distance may be calculated by calculating a position of the robot 300 with respect to the predetermined point 701) and a recorded travel distance of the robot 300 (e.g., a distance measured by an odometer of the robot 300) to correct information on the size of the wheels of the robot 300 on the basis of the difference”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the corner measuring and distance recognition of Ebrahimi Afrouzi with the mapping based coordinate correction system of Jung in order to address differences in real time measured data and a reference map for a traveling robot as in P [0050] of Jung.
Ebrahimi Afrouzi further teaches in P [0991] using two different positions at subsequent timestamps to obtain corner surrounding information as external terrain information by the sensing unit, and Jung teaches in P [0050] the use of a point cloud analysis to align and correct corner data. Jung also teaches a correction movement in P [0057] with regards to a predetermined point, such as a corner. But Ebrahimi Afrouzi and Jung do not explicitly teach
wherein the motion for obtaining the corner surrounding information is performed in such a manner that the main body rotates in a first direction at the corner, and then rotates in a second direction opposite to the first direction, to obtain the terrain information by the sensing unit.
Instead Song teaches in FIG. 7C, 8C, and 9C, the ability to rotate accordingly when a corner is sensed, as shown in the process of FIG. 10 as well. In FIG. 9C specifically, Song teaches that the main body rotates in a first direction at the corner, and then rotates in a second direction opposite to the first direction. The determination of whether the robot main body is rotatable in step S107 depends directly on the external environment information of the robot and is based on the sensor data collected in step S103. See at least P [0060]-[0063] and P [0067] which detail that the robot is clearly collecting information in the corner while cleaning.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the corner information collection and coordinate correction of Ebrahimi Afrouzi and Jung with the predetermined rotation angle in both directions and corner sensing of Song in order to ascertain the influence of a corner on the cleaning path of a traveling robot, and implement a process for reacting to and confirming the presence of a corner, which Song defines as essentially intersecting obstacles that make cleaning difficult in P [0062].
Regarding claim 4, modified Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches the mobile robot of claim 1, and Ebrahimi Afrouzi and Jung do not explicitly teach that
the first direction and the second direction are orthogonal to a traveling direction of the main body.
Instead, Song teaches in in P [0067] and FIG. 9C rotating the robot by a predetermined angle in the leftward and rightward direction, which are shown to be orthogonal to the traveling direction of FIG. 9A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the corner information collection and coordinate correction of Ebrahimi Afrouzi and Jung with the predetermined rotation angle in both directions and corner sensing of Song in order to ascertain the influence of a corner on the cleaning path of a traveling robot, and implement a process for reacting to and confirming the presence of a corner, which Song defines as essentially intersecting obstacles that make cleaning difficult in P [0062].
Regarding claim 5, modified Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches the mobile robot of claim 1, and Ebrahimi Afrouzi and Jung do not explicitly teach that
the second direction matches a traveling direction after the main body travels around the corner.
Instead Song teaches in P [0055] “the travel pattern control unit 155 may maintain the main body 2 in the rotated state in the direction of the corner for a predetermined waiting time and then travel the main body 2 according to a normal cleaning travel pattern”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the corner information collection and coordinate correction of Ebrahimi Afrouzi and Jung with the predetermined rotation angle in both directions and subsequent travel in the direction of rotation of Song in order to ascertain the influence of a corner on the cleaning path of a traveling robot, and implement a process for reacting to and confirming the presence of a corner, which Song defines as essentially intersecting obstacles that make cleaning difficult in P [0062].
Regarding claim 6, modified Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches the mobile robot of claim 1, and Ebrahimi Afrouzi further teaches that
the sensing unit comprises a laser sensor for obtaining the terrain information within a predetermined angle with respect to a traveling direction of the main body (see at least FIG. 77A-77C which indicates known sensing methods of incorporating a LIDAR with limited field of view and possibly using multiple laser sensors in an overlapping configuration).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, modified Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches the mobile robot of claim 6 and the method of claim 16, and in view of the modification Ebrahimi Afrouzi further teaches that
the motion for obtaining the corner surrounding information comprises obtaining the terrain information by extracting distances to feature points of a wall within a predetermined distance or a predetermined angle from the corner (see at least P [0995] wherein the camera detects a set of corners and extracts distances to feature points of a wall, while at a predetermined norm distance from a corner, as seen in FIGs. 148A – 148E).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches the mobile robot of claim 7, and Ebrahimi Afrouzi further teaches that
the controller is configured to estimate the current location of the main body based on the distances to the feature points of the wall (see at least P [0995]: “the illumination and depth may be used to keep the robot localized or help regain localization in cases where image feature extraction fails to localize the robot.”).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, modified Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches the mobile robot of claim 1 and the method of claim 16, and in view of the modification, Ebrahimi Afrouzi further teaches
the controller is configured to estimate the current location of the main body based on the terrain information around the corner obtained by performing the motion for obtaining the corner surrounding information (see at least P [0882] and FIG. 59B wherein “distance to corner 5905 are determined, which may be used in localizing the robot”. The process is done with a function of multiple time states and movements, wherein “the function receives a sequence and produces a current state as output.”).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches the mobile robot of claim 1, and Ebrahimi Afrouzi further teaches that
the controller is configured to perform the motion for obtaining the corner surrounding information during wall following traveling of the main body (see at least P [1141]-[1142] wherein “the robot may perform wall follow to close the map”. Specifically, the wall follow helps identify more complex features such as “nooks and corners that remain hidden”).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi Afrouzi in view of Jung and Song, and further in view of Chao (Document ID: US 20180206688 A1.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches the mobile robot of claim 7, and Ebrahimi Afrouzi further teaches in P [1142]-[1143] that the robot tracks features points in the environment and on the wall through optical flow which can reveal obstacles, corners, and nooks. Ebrahimi Afrouzi also teaches in P [1455] “determining an angle and length for all walls”. But Ebrahimi Afrouzi, Jung, and Song do not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to estimate an inclination of the wall based on the distances to the feature points of the wall, and to update the inclination of the wall in a map.
Instead, Chao, whose invention pertains to an automatic cleaning robot, teaches in P [0058] “the automatic cleaner 200 continuously determines the deviation angle between the traveling direction of the automatic cleaner 200 and the nearby wall 400 when traveling.” Additionally, “when the wall 400 is inclined as opposed to vertical or parallel, the deviation angle A will be too large. Therefore, the automatic cleaner 200 determines not to correct the orientation angle Q stored in its software if the deviation angle A is too large.” These measurements are then implemented with the mapping process as described in P [0065]: “the automatic cleaner 200 obtains a plurality of local maps while walking, and updates and expands the map database map (i, j) based on the local maps.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the feature point tracking and optical flow during mapping of Ebrahimi Afrouzi, Jung, and Song with the deviation angle for creating a map and determining when the wall is inclined of Chao in order to maintain and correct the traveling angle of an automatic cleaner, without overcorrecting for environmental factors, such as an inclined wall as in P [0057]-[0058] of Chao.
Regarding claim 10, modified Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches the mobile robot of claim 9, and Ebrahimi Afrouzi further teaches in P [1142]-[1143] that the robot tracks features points in the environment and on the wall through optical flow which can reveal obstacles, corners, and nooks. Ebrahimi Afrouzi also teaches in P [1455] “determining an angle and length for all walls”. But Ebrahimi Afrouzi, Jung, Song do not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to estimate an inclination of the wall based on the distances to the feature points of the wall, and to determine a heading direction of the main body based on the inclination of the wall.
Instead, Chao, whose invention pertains to an automatic cleaning robot, teaches in P [0058] “the automatic cleaner 200 continuously determines the deviation angle between the traveling direction of the automatic cleaner 200 and the nearby wall 400 when traveling.” Additionally, “when the wall 400 is inclined as opposed to vertical or parallel, the deviation angle A will be too large. Therefore, the automatic cleaner 200 determines not to correct the orientation angle Q stored in its software if the deviation angle A is too large.” These measurements are then implemented with the mapping process as described in P [0065]: “the automatic cleaner 200 obtains a plurality of local maps while walking, and updates and expands the map database map (i, j) based on the local maps.” Note in FIG. 2A of Chao that the heading direction of the main body is determined based on the deviation angle and associated wall inclination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the feature point tracking and optical flow during mapping of Ebrahimi Afrouzi, Jung and Song with the deviation angle for creating a map and determining when the wall is inclined during direction control of Chao in order to maintain and correct the traveling angle of an automatic cleaner, without overcorrecting for environmental factors, such as an inclined wall as in P [0057]-[0058] of Chao.
Claim(s) 12-14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi Afrouzi in view of Jung and Song, and further in view of Jiang et al., hereinafter Jiang (Document ID: US 20220244740 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, modified Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches the mobile robot of claim 1 and the method of claim 16, and Ebrahimi Afrouzi further teaches
a storage unit configured to store data (memory, see at least P [1272] wherein maps are stored in the memory),
Ebrahimi Afrouzi additionally teaches in P [0886] a mapping sensor used to generate or update a map, as well as motion for obtaining corner surrounding information in P [0882], and Jung teaches motion for obtaining the corner surrounding information to update the robot’s environmental reference. But Ebrahimi Afrouzi, Jung and Song do not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to access a map stored in the storage unit and update the map based on the terrain information around the corner obtained by performing the motion for obtaining the corner surrounding information.
Instead, Jiang, whose invention pertains to generation of a semantic map that can detect numerous features of an environment in varying conditions, teaches in P [0133] that “the robot platform moves in an environment to continuously perfect the map” using a laser sampling method to update the map of a particle, and in P [0134] the wall corner is identified as part of the map updating process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the map updating and corner localization techniques of Ebrahimi Afrouzi, Jung, and Song with the corner specification within a map updating process of Jiang in order to allow a mobile robot to truly understand its environment through an optimal map as in P [0003] of Jiang.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches the mobile robot of claim 1, and Ebrahimi Afrouzi further teaches
a storage unit configured to store data (memory, see at least P [1272] wherein maps are stored in the memory),
Ebrahimi Afrouzi additionally teaches in P [0886] a mapping sensor used to generate or update a map, as well as motion for obtaining corner surrounding information in P [0882], and Jung teaches motion for obtaining the corner surrounding information to update the robot’s environmental reference. But Ebrahimi Afrouzi, Jung and Song do not explicitly teach generating the map based on terrain information around a plurality of corners and position information of the plurality of corners.
Instead, Jiang, whose invention pertains to generation of a semantic map that can detect numerous features of an environment in varying conditions, teaches in P [0133] that “the environment grid map is gradually generated,” and in P [0134] the wall corner existence and position is specified as part of the map generating process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the map updating and corner localization techniques of Ebrahimi Afrouzi, Jung, and Song with the corner specification within a map generating process of Jiang in order to allow a mobile robot to truly understand its environment through an optimal map as in P [0003] of Jiang.
Regarding claim 14, modified Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches the mobile robot of claim 13, and Ebrahimi Afrouzi further teaches that
the controller is configured to estimate a current location of the main body based on the terrain information around the corner obtained by performing the motion for obtaining the corner surrounding information (see at least P [0882] and FIG. 59B wherein “distance to corner 5905 are determined, which may be used in localizing the robot”. The process is done with a function of multiple time states and movements, wherein “the function receives a sequence and produces a current state as output.”).
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 Dairon Estevez whose telephone number is (703)756-4552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/D.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights