DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/22/2025 and 09/16/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-13, 16-17, and 19-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,115,674. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 of the present invention is rejected by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,674.
Claim 2 of the present invention is rejected by claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,674.
Claim 3 of the present invention is rejected by claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,674.
Claim 4 of the present invention is rejected by claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,674.
Claim 6 of the present invention is rejected by claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,674.
Claim 7 of the present invention is rejected by claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,674.
Claim 8 of the present invention is rejected by claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,674.
Claim 9 and 16 of the present invention are rejected by claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,674.
Claim 10 of the present invention is rejected by claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,674.
Claim 11 and 18 of the present invention are rejected by claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,674.
Claim 13 and 20 of the present invention are rejected by claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,674.
Claim 14 of the present invention is rejected by claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,674.
Claim 15 of the present invention is rejected by claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,674.
claim 17 of the present invention is rejected by claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,674.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-13, 16-17, and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,674 in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0142169 A1).
Regarding claim 5 and similarly cited claims 12 and 19, U.S. Patent ‘674 does not specifically teach wherein the higher a height of the second type of obstacle, the lower the second obstacle crossing frequency.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches wherein the higher a height of an obstacle, the lower the obstacle crossing frequency ([0446] “If the height of the obstacle is greater than the second reference height, the controller 630 controls the cleaning robot to be in the avoidance movement.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of U.S. Patent ‘674 to include the higher a height of an obstacle, the lower an obstacle crossing frequency, as taught by Kim, wherein the obstacle is a second type of obstacle as taught in U.S. Patent ‘674, in order to avoid damaging the robot when the robot is not able to cross the obstacle smoothly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jun et al. (US 2021/0064055) teaches a robot cleaner configured to sense a height of an obstacle, maintain an initial travel path if the robot cleaner is able to climb the obstacle, and change the travel path of the robot cleaner if the robot cleaner is not able to climb the obstacle.
Yang (WO 2023143019 A1) teaches a robot cleaner having an active obstacle crossing component for crossing the obstacle that is within a height range.
Wang et al. (US 2025/0089966 A1) teaches a robot cleaner configured to be controlled to stop working and/or to ascend in response that the detection information or the state information satisfies a non-mopping condition.
Choi et al. (US 2022/0175210 A1) teaches a robot cleaner configured to analyze the image around the main body, detect the depth of the floor surface and the height of the floor surface beyond the obstacle, and determine whether to climb the obstacle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHI Q BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-3962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am-5:00pm 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, 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.
/NHI Q BUI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3656