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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (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 statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/886880 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-20 of the present invention are rejected by claims 1-20 of copending Application ‘880, respectively.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/886874 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-20 of the present invention are rejected by claims 1-20 of copending Application ‘874, respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/886865 (reference application), in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0142169 A1), and Yang (WO2023143019A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1 of the present invention, claims 1 and 9 of copending Application ‘865 teaches every claimed limitation except wherein a height of the second type of obstacle is greater than a first height and less than a second height.
However, Kim teaches:
wherein a height of the second type of obstacle is greater than a first height (second reference height) and less than a second height ([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 copending Application ‘865 to determine a height of the obstacle that is greater than a first height and less than a second height, as taught by Kim, in order to determine whether the robot can smoothly cross over the obstacle.
Regarding claim 2 of the present invention, claim 9 of copending Application ‘865 teaches every claimed limitation except “the second height is a maximum height of an obstacle that is crossed over by the self-moving robot when starting the active obstacle crossing component.”
However, Yang teaches the second height is a maximum height of an obstacle that is crossed over by the self-moving robot when starting the active obstacle crossing component (page 9, 9th paragraph “When the obstacle height is between the first preset height and the second preset height, control the sweeping robot to maintain a pre-planned route, and when the distance to the obstacle is less than the preset distance when traveling , starting the obstacle-surmounting mode, so that the sweeping robot can overcome the obstacle; specifically, starting the obstacle-breaking mode may refer to: starting the rocker device in the sweeping robot, so that the rocker device starts to rotate, specifically , the rocker arm device is connected with a motor, starting the rocker arm device in the sweeping robot refers to starting the motor connected to the rocker arm device, so that the motor connected to the rocker arm device drives the rocker arm device to rotate, and the rocker arm When the device is rotating, the rocker device can drive the sweeping robot to cross obstacles whose height is between the first preset height and the second preset height.”).
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 copending Application ‘865, in view of Kim, to include the second height as a maximum height of an obstacle that is crossed over by the self-moving robot when starting the active obstacle crossing component, as taught by Yang. Such modification improves obstacle-surmounting ability of the robot by providing an obstacle-crossing mode, as stated by Yang on page 12, 4th paragraph.
Claim 3 of the present invention is rejected by claim 2 of copending Application ‘865.
Claim 4-9 of the present invention are rejected by claims 3-8 of copending Application ‘865, respectively.
Regarding claim 10 of the present invention, claims 10 and 18 of copending Application ‘865 teaches every claimed limitation except wherein a height of the second type of obstacle is greater than a first height and less than a second height.
However, Kim teaches:
wherein a height of the second type of obstacle is greater than a first height (second reference height) and less than a second height ([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 copending Application ‘865 to determine a height of the obstacle that is greater than a first height and less than a second height, as taught by Kim, in order to determine whether the robot can smoothly cross over the obstacle.
Regarding claim 11 of the present invention, claim 18 of copending Application ‘865 teaches every claimed limitation except “the second height is a maximum height of an obstacle that is crossed over by the self-moving robot when starting the active obstacle crossing component.”
However, Yang teaches the second height is a maximum height of an obstacle that is crossed over by the self-moving robot when starting the active obstacle crossing component (page 9, 9th paragraph “When the obstacle height is between the first preset height and the second preset height, control the sweeping robot to maintain a pre-planned route, and when the distance to the obstacle is less than the preset distance when traveling , starting the obstacle-surmounting mode, so that the sweeping robot can overcome the obstacle; specifically, starting the obstacle-breaking mode may refer to: starting the rocker device in the sweeping robot, so that the rocker device starts to rotate, specifically , the rocker arm device is connected with a motor, starting the rocker arm device in the sweeping robot refers to starting the motor connected to the rocker arm device, so that the motor connected to the rocker arm device drives the rocker arm device to rotate, and the rocker arm When the device is rotating, the rocker device can drive the sweeping robot to cross obstacles whose height is between the first preset height and the second preset height.”).
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 copending Application ‘865, in view of Kim, to include the second height as a maximum height of an obstacle that is crossed over by the self-moving robot when starting the active obstacle crossing component, as taught by Yang. Such modification improves obstacle-surmounting ability of the robot by providing an obstacle-crossing mode, as stated by Yang on page 12, 4th paragraph.
Claim 12 of the present invention is rejected by claim 11 of copending Application ‘865.
Claim 13-18 of the present invention are rejected by claims 12-17 of copending Application ‘865, respectively.
Regarding claim 19 of the present invention, claims 18-19 of copending Application ‘865 teaches every claimed limitation except wherein a height of the second type of obstacle is greater than a first height and less than a second height.
However, Kim teaches:
wherein a height of the second type of obstacle is greater than a first height (second reference height) and less than a second height ([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 copending Application ‘865 to determine a height of the obstacle that is greater than a first height and less than a second height, as taught by Kim, in order to determine whether the robot can smoothly cross over the obstacle.
Regarding claim 20 of the present invention, claim 18 of copending Application ‘865 teaches every claimed limitation except “the second height is a maximum height of an obstacle that is crossed over by the self-moving robot when starting the active obstacle crossing component.”
However, Yang teaches the second height is a maximum height of an obstacle that is crossed over by the self-moving robot when starting the active obstacle crossing component (page 9, 9th paragraph “When the obstacle height is between the first preset height and the second preset height, control the sweeping robot to maintain a pre-planned route, and when the distance to the obstacle is less than the preset distance when traveling , starting the obstacle-surmounting mode, so that the sweeping robot can overcome the obstacle; specifically, starting the obstacle-breaking mode may refer to: starting the rocker device in the sweeping robot, so that the rocker device starts to rotate, specifically , the rocker arm device is connected with a motor, starting the rocker arm device in the sweeping robot refers to starting the motor connected to the rocker arm device, so that the motor connected to the rocker arm device drives the rocker arm device to rotate, and the rocker arm When the device is rotating, the rocker device can drive the sweeping robot to cross obstacles whose height is between the first preset height and the second preset height.”).
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 copending Application ‘865, in view of Kim, to include the second height as a maximum height of an obstacle that is crossed over by the self-moving robot when starting the active obstacle crossing component, as taught by Yang. Such modification improves obstacle-surmounting ability of the robot by providing an obstacle-crossing mode, as stated by Yang on page 12, 4th paragraph.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2, 4-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0142169 A1), in view of Yang (WO2023143019A1).
Regarding claim 1 and similarly cited claims 10 and 19, Kim teaches:
A control method for a self-moving robot (Fig. 1; [0128] “cleaning robot 1”), the self-moving robot performing a cleaning task on an area to be cleaned ([0126] “The cleaning robot, designated by reference numeral 1, is devised to implement cleaning by wiping impurities, such as dust, on a floor while autonomously moving about a cleaning region at home”), wherein the method comprises:
identifying a second type of obstacle in the area to be cleaned ([0445] “when an image captured by the image capturer is input, the controller 630 processes the image, determines from the processed image whether there is an obstacle ahead, and determines the height of the obstacle if determining that there is an obstacle ahead”), wherein a height of the second type of obstacle is greater than a first height (second reference height) and less than a second height ([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.” – The claimed second height can be interpreted to be infinity);
determining a length direction of the second type of obstacle ([0449] “The controller 630 may determine the horizontal width of the obstacle”);
determining a cleaning path based on the area to be cleaned ([0254] “Then, the controller 430 produces a movement route for optimized movement about the cleaning region based on the map information, and also produces a movement pattern based on the map information and operation information.”) and the length direction ([0451] “In the avoidance movement, the controller 630 controls the cleaning robot to move aside to the left or the right or diagonally based on the horizontal width of the obstacle”);
performing the cleaning task on the area to be cleaned based on the cleaning path ([0452] “The drive unit 640 drives multiple motors for each pad assembly in response to an instruction of the controller 630. The drive unit 640 may enable the main body to be in the flat ground movement, including forward movement, backward movement, lateral movement, curvilinear movement, motion in place, and diagonal movement, or to even be rotated, by driving the motors of each drive assembly individually”), wherein an angle between a cleaning direction of the self-moving robot and the length direction is less than a preset angle ([0451] “ In the avoidance movement, the controller 630 controls the cleaning robot to move aside to the left or the right or diagonally based on the horizontal width of the obstacle.” – By turning left or right or diagonally, the robot avoids the obstacle rather than climbing the obstacle. Thus, the cleaning direction of the robot and the length direction of the obstacle is not perpendicular, i.e., the angle between a cleaning direction of the robot and the horizontal width of the obstacle is less than 90 degrees), so as to reduce ... a number of times that the self-moving robot crosses over the second type of obstacle ([0451] “In the avoidance movement, the controller 630 controls the cleaning robot to move aside to the left or the right or diagonally based on the horizontal width of the obstacle” – Avoiding the obstacle reduces a number of times that the robot crosses over the obstacle).
Kim does not specifically teach the self-moving robot comprising an active obstacle crossing component; and performing the cleaning task so as to reduce a number of times that the self-moving robot starts the active obstacle crossing component.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches:
a self-moving robot comprising an active obstacle crossing component (Fig. 5B; page 12th first paragraph “rocker arm 51”);
performing the cleaning task on the area to be cleaned based on the cleaning path, so as to reduce a number of times that the self-moving robot starts the active obstacle crossing component (page 10 “In step A2, when there is an obstacle at the position where the sweeping robot is about to pass, it is judged according to the height of the obstacle whether the obstacle is an obstacle to be avoided; In step A3, when the obstacle is an obstacle that needs to be avoided, re-plan a route that can avoid the obstacle according to the historical travel route and the position of the obstacle” – Avoiding the obstacle reduces the number of times that the robot starts the active obstacle crossing component).
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 Kim to include an active obstacle crossing component, and to perform the cleaning task based on the cleaning path that reduces a number of times that the self-moving robot starts the active obstacle crossing component, as taught by Yang, in order to prevent damaging the robot by avoiding the obstacle.
Regarding claim 2 and similarly cited claims 11 and 20, Kim does not specifically teach wherein the first height is a maximum height of an obstacle that is crossed over by the self-moving robot without starting the active obstacle crossing component, and the second height is a maximum height of an obstacle that is crossed over by the self-moving robot when starting the active obstacle crossing component.
However, Yang teaches:
wherein the first height is a maximum height of an obstacle that is crossed over by the self-moving robot without starting the active obstacle crossing component (page 9, 8th paragraph “When the height of the obstacle is less than the first preset height, the sweeping robot is controlled to maintain a pre-planned route; that is, the height that the sweeping robot can cross during normal operation, for example, 0.5 cm.”), and
the second height is a maximum height of an obstacle that is crossed over by the self-moving robot when starting the active obstacle crossing component (page 9, 9th paragraph “When the obstacle height is between the first preset height and the second preset height, control the sweeping robot to maintain a pre-planned route, and when the distance to the obstacle is less than the preset distance when traveling , starting the obstacle-surmounting mode, so that the sweeping robot can overcome the obstacle; specifically, starting the obstacle-breaking mode may refer to: starting the rocker device in the sweeping robot, so that the rocker device starts to rotate, specifically , the rocker arm device is connected with a motor, starting the rocker arm device in the sweeping robot refers to starting the motor connected to the rocker arm device, so that the motor connected to the rocker arm device drives the rocker arm device to rotate, and the rocker arm When the device is rotating, the rocker device can drive the sweeping robot to cross obstacles whose height is between the first preset height and the second preset height.”).
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 Kim, in view of Yang, to include the first height as a maximum height of an obstacle that the self-moving robot crosses over without starting the active obstacle crossing component, and the second height as a maximum height of an obstacle that is crossed over by the self-moving robot when starting the active obstacle crossing component, as taught by Yang. Such modification improves obstacle-surmounting ability of the robot by providing an obstacle-crossing mode, as stated by Yang on page 12, 4th paragraph.
Regarding claim 4 and similarly cited claim 13, neither Kim nor Yang specifically teaches wherein a range of the preset angle is greater than or equal to 0 degrees and less than or equal to 30 degrees.
However, Kim teaches the self-moving robots move aside to the left or right or diagonally to avoid the obstacle ([0451] “In the avoidance movement, the controller 630 controls the cleaning robot to move aside to the left or the right or diagonally based on the horizontal width of the obstacle” - By turning left or right or diagonally, the robot avoids the obstacle rather than climbing the obstacle. Thus, the cleaning direction of the robot and the length direction of the obstacle is not perpendicular, i.e., the angle between a cleaning direction of the robot and the horizontal width of the obstacle is less than 90 degrees).
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 Kim, in view of Yang, to configure the range of the preset angle to be greater than or equal to 0 degrees and less than or equal to 30 degrees, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5 and similarly cited claim 14, neither Kim nor Zhang specifically teaches wherein a range of the preset angle is greater than or equal to 0 degrees and less than or equal to 20 degrees.
However, Kim teaches the self-moving robots move aside to the left or right or diagonally to avoid the obstacle ([0451] “In the avoidance movement, the controller 630 controls the cleaning robot to move aside to the left or the right or diagonally based on the horizontal width of the obstacle” - By turning left or right or diagonally, the robot avoids the obstacle rather than climbing the obstacle. Thus, the cleaning direction of the robot and the length direction of the obstacle is not perpendicular, i.e., the angle between a cleaning direction of the robot and the horizontal width of the obstacle is less than 90 degrees).
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 Kim, in view of Yang, to configure the range of the preset angle to be greater than or equal to 0 degrees and less than or equal to 20 degrees, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6 and similarly cited claim 15, neither Kim nor Zhang specifically teaches wherein a range of the preset angle is greater than or equal to 0 degrees and less than or equal to 15 degrees.
However, Kim teaches the self-moving robots move aside to the left or right or diagonally to avoid the obstacle ([0451] “In the avoidance movement, the controller 630 controls the cleaning robot to move aside to the left or the right or diagonally based on the horizontal width of the obstacle” - By turning left or right or diagonally, the robot avoids the obstacle rather than climbing the obstacle. Thus, the cleaning direction of the robot and the length direction of the obstacle is not perpendicular, i.e., the angle between a cleaning direction of the robot and the horizontal width of the obstacle is less than 90 degrees).
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 Kim, in view of Yang, to configure the range of the preset angle to be greater than or equal to 0 degrees and less than or equal to 15 degrees, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7 and similarly cited claim 16, neither Kim nor Yang specifically teaches wherein a range of the preset angle is greater than or equal to 0 degrees and less than or equal to 10 degrees.
However, Kim teaches the self-moving robots move aside to the left or right or diagonally to avoid the obstacle ([0451] “In the avoidance movement, the controller 630 controls the cleaning robot to move aside to the left or the right or diagonally based on the horizontal width of the obstacle” - By turning left or right or diagonally, the robot avoids the obstacle rather than climbing the obstacle. Thus, the cleaning direction of the robot and the length direction of the obstacle is not perpendicular, i.e., the angle between a cleaning direction of the robot and the horizontal width of the obstacle is less than 90 degrees).
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 Kim, in view of Yang, to configure the range of the preset angle to be greater than or equal to 0 degrees and less than or equal to 10 degrees, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8 and similarly cited claim 17, neither Kim nor Zhang specifically teaches wherein a range of the preset angle is greater than or equal to 0 degrees and less than or equal to 5 degrees.
However, Kim teaches the self-moving robots move aside to the left or right or diagonally to avoid the obstacle ([0451] “In the avoidance movement, the controller 630 controls the cleaning robot to move aside to the left or the right or diagonally based on the horizontal width of the obstacle” - By turning left or right or diagonally, the robot avoids the obstacle rather than climbing the obstacle. Thus, the cleaning direction of the robot and the length direction of the obstacle is not perpendicular, i.e., the angle between a cleaning direction of the robot and the horizontal width of the obstacle is less than 90 degrees).
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 Kim, in view of Yang, to configure the range of the preset angle to be greater than or equal to 0 degrees and less than or equal to 5 degrees, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9 and similarly cited claim 18, the modified teachings of Kim in view of Yang further teaches:
wherein the preset angle is 0 degrees, and the cleaning direction is parallel to the length direction ([0264] “Upon wall following, the controller 430 checks a boundary of the wall based on a detection signal from the obstacle detector, and controls the respective drive assemblies such that a first direction of the checked boundary is parallel to a second direction as a heading direction of the main body.”; [0265] “That is, the controller 430 may adjust a rotation angle of the main body such that the main body is parallel to the boundary of an obstacle.” – The robot’s heading direction being parallel to the first direction of the checked boundary indicates the angle between the robot’s heading direction and the first direction of the checked boundary is 0 degrees.).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0142169 A1), in view of Yang (WO2023143019A1), and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110495825 A).
Regarding claim 3 and similarly cited claim 12, neither Kim nor Yang specifically teaches wherein the length direction is a direction in which a long side of the second type of obstacle is located.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches wherein the length direction is a direction in which a long side of the second type of obstacle is located (page 13 4th paragraph “the angle between the cleaning robot and the obstacle is determined in real time, specifically the angle between the head of the cleaning robot and the extending direction of the obstacle”).
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 Kim, in view of Yang, to determine a length direction of the second type of obstacle that is a direction in which a long side of the second type of obstacle is located, as taught by Zhang, in order to allow the robot to smoothly cross the obstacle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Jun et al. (US 2021/0064055 A1) teaches a robot cleaner configured to determine whether the robot cleaner is able to climb the obstacle based on the height of 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