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 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
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. 18/886874 (reference application), in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110495825 A). 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 2 of the copending Application ‘874 teaches every claimed limitation except “determining a cleaning path based on the length direction; wherein an angle between a cleaning direction of the self-moving robot and the length direction is less than a preset angle, so as to reduce a number of times that the self-moving robot crosses over the first type of obstacle.”
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches:
determining a length direction (extending direction) of the first type of obstacle (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” – The extending direction of the obstacle is inherently included by the determination of the angle between the head of the cleaning robot and the extending direction of the obstacle) ;
determining a cleaning path the length direction (page 14 8th paragraph “The adjustment process of the driving wheel may include backward movement, steering, and attitude adjustment. In a preferred embodiment, the head of the cleaning robot faces the obstacle, that is, the forward direction of the cleaning robot is directly facing the obstacle. Currently, the cleaning robot is advanced. The direction can be as perpendicular to the extending direction of the obstacle as possible to prepare for crossing the obstacle.”);
wherein an angle between a cleaning direction of the self-moving robot and the length direction is less than a preset angle (page 13, 4th paragraph “To ensure that the angular deviation of the cleaning robot from the obstacle is always kept within a preset range, so that obstacles can be smoothly crossed. Specifically, to make the speed difference between the left side speed and the right side speed of the cleaning robot, so that the cleaning robot generates an angular acceleration, which makes the angular deviation between the cleaning robot and the obstacle always remain within a preset range”).
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 ‘874 to determine determining a length direction of the first type of obstacle; determining a cleaning path based on the area to be cleaned and the length direction; performing a cleaning task on the area to be cleaned based on the cleaning path, wherein an angle between a cleaning direction of the self-moving robot and the length direction is less than a preset angle, as taught by Zhang, in order to allow the robot to smoothly cross the obstacle.
Zhang does not explicitly teach “so as to reduce a number of times that the self-moving robot crosses over the first type of obstacle.” However, this limitation is interpreted as an intended purpose of the claimed invention. Therefore, this limitation would naturally occur as a result of the limitation “performing a cleaning task on the area to be cleaned based on the cleaning path, wherein an angle between a cleaning direction of the self-moving robot and the length direction is less than a preset angle” being performed.
Further, Zhang teaches allowing the robot to move perpendicular to the extending direction of the obstacle (page 14, 8th paragraph “The adjustment process of the driving wheel may include backward movement, steering, and attitude adjustment. In a preferred embodiment, the head of the cleaning robot faces the obstacle, that is, the forward direction of the cleaning robot is directly facing the obstacle. Currently, the cleaning robot is advanced. The direction can be as perpendicular to the extending direction of the obstacle as possible to prepare for crossing the obstacle”). This allows the two driving wheels of the robot to cross over the obstacle at the same time rather than crossing each individual wheel, thus reducing the number of times that the robot crosses over the obstacle.
Claim 2 of the present invention is rejected by of claim 3 of copending Application ‘874.
Claims 3-7 of the present invention are rejected by of claims 4-9 of copending Application ‘874, respectively.
Claim 8 of the present invention is rejected by of claim 9 of copending Application ‘874.
Claim 9 of the present invention is rejected by of claims 1 and 2 of copending Application ‘874.
Regarding claim 10 of the present invention, claims 10 and 11 of the copending Application ‘874 teaches every claimed limitation except “determining a cleaning path based on the length direction; wherein an angle between a cleaning direction of the self-moving robot and the length direction is less than a preset angle, so as to reduce a number of times that the self-moving robot crosses over the first type of obstacle.”
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches:
determining a length direction (extending direction) of the first type of obstacle (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” – The extending direction of the obstacle is inherently included by the determination of the angle between the head of the cleaning robot and the extending direction of the obstacle) ;
determining a cleaning path the length direction (page 14 8th paragraph “The adjustment process of the driving wheel may include backward movement, steering, and attitude adjustment. In a preferred embodiment, the head of the cleaning robot faces the obstacle, that is, the forward direction of the cleaning robot is directly facing the obstacle. Currently, the cleaning robot is advanced. The direction can be as perpendicular to the extending direction of the obstacle as possible to prepare for crossing the obstacle.”);
wherein an angle between a cleaning direction of the self-moving robot and the length direction is less than a preset angle (page 13, 4th paragraph “To ensure that the angular deviation of the cleaning robot from the obstacle is always kept within a preset range, so that obstacles can be smoothly crossed. Specifically, to make the speed difference between the left side speed and the right side speed of the cleaning robot, so that the cleaning robot generates an angular acceleration, which makes the angular deviation between the cleaning robot and the obstacle always remain within a preset range”).
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 ‘874 to determine determining a length direction of the first type of obstacle; determining a cleaning path based on the area to be cleaned and the length direction; performing a cleaning task on the area to be cleaned based on the cleaning path, wherein an angle between a cleaning direction of the self-moving robot and the length direction is less than a preset angle, as taught by Zhang, in order to allow the robot to smoothly cross the obstacle.
Zhang does not explicitly teach “so as to reduce a number of times that the self-moving robot crosses over the first type of obstacle.” However, this limitation is interpreted as an intended purpose of the claimed invention. Therefore, this limitation would naturally occur as a result of the limitation “performing a cleaning task on the area to be cleaned based on the cleaning path, wherein an angle between a cleaning direction of the self-moving robot and the length direction is less than a preset angle” being performed.
Further, Zhang teaches allowing the robot to move perpendicular to the extending direction of the obstacle (page 14, 8th paragraph “The adjustment process of the driving wheel may include backward movement, steering, and attitude adjustment. In a preferred embodiment, the head of the cleaning robot faces the obstacle, that is, the forward direction of the cleaning robot is directly facing the obstacle. Currently, the cleaning robot is advanced. The direction can be as perpendicular to the extending direction of the obstacle as possible to prepare for crossing the obstacle”). This allows the two driving wheels of the robot to cross over the obstacle at the same time rather than crossing each individual wheel, thus reducing the number of times that the robot crosses over the obstacle.
Claim 11 of the present invention is rejected by of claim 12 of copending Application ‘874.
Claims 12-16 of the present invention are rejected by of claim 13-17 of copending Application ‘874.
Claim 17 of the present invention is rejected by of claim 18 of copending Application ‘874.
Claim 18 of the present invention is rejected by of claim 11 of copending Application ‘874.
Regarding claim 19 of the present invention, claims 19 and 20 of the copending Application ‘874 teaches every claimed limitation except “determining a cleaning path based on the length direction; wherein an angle between a cleaning direction of the self-moving robot and the length direction is less than a preset angle, so as to reduce a number of times that the self-moving robot crosses over the first type of obstacle.”
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches:
determining a length direction (extending direction) of the first type of obstacle (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” – The extending direction of the obstacle is inherently included by the determination of the angle between the head of the cleaning robot and the extending direction of the obstacle) ;
determining a cleaning path the length direction (page 14 8th paragraph “The adjustment process of the driving wheel may include backward movement, steering, and attitude adjustment. In a preferred embodiment, the head of the cleaning robot faces the obstacle, that is, the forward direction of the cleaning robot is directly facing the obstacle. Currently, the cleaning robot is advanced. The direction can be as perpendicular to the extending direction of the obstacle as possible to prepare for crossing the obstacle.”);
wherein an angle between a cleaning direction of the self-moving robot and the length direction is less than a preset angle (page 13, 4th paragraph “To ensure that the angular deviation of the cleaning robot from the obstacle is always kept within a preset range, so that obstacles can be smoothly crossed. Specifically, to make the speed difference between the left side speed and the right side speed of the cleaning robot, so that the cleaning robot generates an angular acceleration, which makes the angular deviation between the cleaning robot and the obstacle always remain within a preset range”).
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 ‘874 to determine determining a length direction of the first type of obstacle; determining a cleaning path based on the area to be cleaned and the length direction; performing a cleaning task on the area to be cleaned based on the cleaning path, wherein an angle between a cleaning direction of the self-moving robot and the length direction is less than a preset angle, as taught by Zhang, in order to allow the robot to smoothly cross the obstacle.
Zhang does not explicitly teach “so as to reduce a number of times that the self-moving robot crosses over the first type of obstacle.” However, this limitation is interpreted as an intended purpose of the claimed invention. Therefore, this limitation would naturally occur as a result of the limitation “performing a cleaning task on the area to be cleaned based on the cleaning path, wherein an angle between a cleaning direction of the self-moving robot and the length direction is less than a preset angle” being performed.
Further, Zhang teaches allowing the robot to move perpendicular to the extending direction of the obstacle (page 14, 8th paragraph “The adjustment process of the driving wheel may include backward movement, steering, and attitude adjustment. In a preferred embodiment, the head of the cleaning robot faces the obstacle, that is, the forward direction of the cleaning robot is directly facing the obstacle. Currently, the cleaning robot is advanced. The direction can be as perpendicular to the extending direction of the obstacle as possible to prepare for crossing the obstacle”). This allows the two driving wheels of the robot to cross over the obstacle at the same time rather than crossing each individual wheel, thus reducing the number of times that the robot crosses over the obstacle.
Claim 20 of the present invention is rejected by claim 3 of copending Application ‘874.
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. 18/886880 (reference application), in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0142169 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1 of the present invention, claim 1 of copending Application ‘880 teaches every claimed limitation except the obstacle being a first type of obstacle, and the first height is a maximum height that a driving wheel of the self-moving robot crosses over.
However, Kim teaches:
the obstacle being a first type of obstacle ([0445] “More specifically, 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.”), and
the first height is a maximum height that a driving wheel of the self-moving robot crosses over ([0046] “if the height of the obstacle is equal to or greater than the first reference height but equal to or less than a second reference height, the controller 630 controls the cleaning robot to be in the climbing movement”; [0462] “in the climbing movement, the cleaning robot climbs up using two pad assemblies arranged in the front while applying a movement force for the main body using the remaining two pad assemblies. When the two pad assemblies arranged in the front are on the top of the obstacle, a movement force for the main body is produced using the two pad assemblies located on the top 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 copending Application ‘880 to determine a first type of obstacle, and a first height that is a maximum height that a driving wheel of the self-moving robot crosses over, as taught by Kim, in order to determine whether the robot can smoothly cross over the obstacle.
Claim 2 of the present invention is rejected by the modified teachings of copending Application ‘880 (claim 3) and Kim.
Claims 3-7 of the present invention are rejected by claims 4-8 of copending Application ‘880, respectively.
Claim 8 of the present invention is rejected by claim 9 of copending Application ‘880.
Claim 9 of the present invention is rejected by claim 2 of copending Application ‘880.
Regarding claim 10 of the present invention, claim 10 of copending Application ‘880 teaches every claimed limitation except the obstacle being a first type of obstacle, and the first height is a maximum height that a driving wheel of the self-moving robot crosses over.
However, Kim teaches:
the obstacle being a first type of obstacle ([0445] “More specifically, 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.”), and
the first height is a maximum height that a driving wheel of the self-moving robot crosses over ([0046] “if the height of the obstacle is equal to or greater than the first reference height but equal to or less than a second reference height, the controller 630 controls the cleaning robot to be in the climbing movement”; [0462] “in the climbing movement, the cleaning robot climbs up using two pad assemblies arranged in the front while applying a movement force for the main body using the remaining two pad assemblies. When the two pad assemblies arranged in the front are on the top of the obstacle, a movement force for the main body is produced using the two pad assemblies located on the top 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 copending Application ‘880 to determine a first type of obstacle, and a first height that is a maximum height that a driving wheel of the self-moving robot crosses over, as taught by Kim, in order to determine whether the robot can smoothly cross over the obstacle.
Claim 11 of the present invention is rejected by the modified teachings of copending Application ‘880 (claim 12) and Kim.
Claims 12-16 of the present invention are rejected by claims 13-17 of copending Application ‘880, respectively.
Claim 17 of the present invention is rejected by claim 18 of copending Application ‘880.
Claim 18 of the present invention is rejected by claim 11 of copending Application ‘880.
Regarding claim 19 of the present invention, claim 19 of copending Application ‘880 teaches every claimed limitation except the obstacle being a first type of obstacle, and the first height is a maximum height that a driving wheel of the self-moving robot crosses over.
However, Kim teaches:
the obstacle being a first type of obstacle ([0445] “More specifically, 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.”), and
the first height is a maximum height that a driving wheel of the self-moving robot crosses over ([0046] “if the height of the obstacle is equal to or greater than the first reference height but equal to or less than a second reference height, the controller 630 controls the cleaning robot to be in the climbing movement”; [0462] “in the climbing movement, the cleaning robot climbs up using two pad assemblies arranged in the front while applying a movement force for the main body using the remaining two pad assemblies. When the two pad assemblies arranged in the front are on the top of the obstacle, a movement force for the main body is produced using the two pad assemblies located on the top 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 copending Application ‘880 to determine a first type of obstacle, and a first height that is a maximum height that a driving wheel of the self-moving robot crosses over, as taught by Kim, in order to determine whether the robot can smoothly cross over the obstacle.
Claim 20 of the present invention is rejected by the modified teachings of copending Application ‘880 (claim 3) and Kim.
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. 18/886855 (reference application), in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0142169 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1 of the present invention, claim 1 of copending Application ‘855 teaches every claimed limitation except the obstacle being a first type of obstacle, and the first height is a maximum height that a driving wheel of the self-moving robot crosses over.
However, Kim teaches:
the obstacle being a first type of obstacle ([0445] “More specifically, 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.”), and
the first height is a maximum height that a driving wheel of the self-moving robot crosses over ([0046] “if the height of the obstacle is equal to or greater than the first reference height but equal to or less than a second reference height, the controller 630 controls the cleaning robot to be in the climbing movement”; [0462] “in the climbing movement, the cleaning robot climbs up using two pad assemblies arranged in the front while applying a movement force for the main body using the remaining two pad assemblies. When the two pad assemblies arranged in the front are on the top of the obstacle, a movement force for the main body is produced using the two pad assemblies located on the top 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 copending Application ‘855 to determine a first type of obstacle, and a first height that is a maximum height that a driving wheel of the self-moving robot crosses over, as taught by Kim, in order to determine whether the robot can smoothly cross over the obstacle.
Claim 2 of the present invention is rejected by the modified teachings of copending Application ‘855 (claim 3) and Kim.
Claims 3-7 of the present invention are rejected by claims 4-8 of copending Application ‘855, respectively.
Claim 8 of the present invention is rejected by claim 9 of copending Application ‘855.
Claim 9 of the present invention is rejected by claim 2 of copending Application ‘855.
Regarding claim 10 of the present invention, claim 10 of copending Application ‘855 teaches every claimed limitation except the obstacle being a first type of obstacle, and the first height is a maximum height that a driving wheel of the self-moving robot crosses over.
However, Kim teaches:
the obstacle being a first type of obstacle ([0445] “More specifically, 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.”), and
the first height is a maximum height that a driving wheel of the self-moving robot crosses over ([0046] “if the height of the obstacle is equal to or greater than the first reference height but equal to or less than a second reference height, the controller 630 controls the cleaning robot to be in the climbing movement”; [0462] “in the climbing movement, the cleaning robot climbs up using two pad assemblies arranged in the front while applying a movement force for the main body using the remaining two pad assemblies. When the two pad assemblies arranged in the front are on the top of the obstacle, a movement force for the main body is produced using the two pad assemblies located on the top 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 copending Application ‘855 to determine a first type of obstacle, and a first height that is a maximum height that a driving wheel of the self-moving robot crosses over, as taught by Kim, in order to determine whether the robot can smoothly cross over the obstacle.
Claim 11 of the present invention is rejected by the modified teachings of copending Application ‘855 (claim 12) and Kim.
Claims 12-16 of the present invention are rejected by claims 13-17 of copending Application ‘855, respectively.
Claim 17 of the present invention is rejected by claim 18 of copending Application ‘855.
Claim 18 of the present invention is rejected by claim 11 of copending Application ‘855.
Regarding claim 19 of the present invention, claim 19 of copending Application ‘855 teaches every claimed limitation except the obstacle being a first type of obstacle, and the first height is a maximum height that a driving wheel of the self-moving robot crosses over.
However, Kim teaches:
the obstacle being a first type of obstacle ([0445] “More specifically, 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.”), and
the first height is a maximum height that a driving wheel of the self-moving robot crosses over ([0046] “if the height of the obstacle is equal to or greater than the first reference height but equal to or less than a second reference height, the controller 630 controls the cleaning robot to be in the climbing movement”; [0462] “in the climbing movement, the cleaning robot climbs up using two pad assemblies arranged in the front while applying a movement force for the main body using the remaining two pad assemblies. When the two pad assemblies arranged in the front are on the top of the obstacle, a movement force for the main body is produced using the two pad assemblies located on the top 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 copending Application ‘855 to determine a first type of obstacle, and a first height that is a maximum height that a driving wheel of the self-moving robot crosses over, as taught by Kim, in order to determine whether the robot can smoothly cross over the obstacle.
Claim 20 of the present invention is rejected by the modified teachings of copending Application ‘855 (claim 3) and Kim.
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 1-8, 10-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0142169 A1), in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110495825 A).
Kim teaches:
(Claim 1) A control method for a self-moving robot (Fig. 1; [0128] “cleaning robot 1”), comprising:
(Claim 10) A self-moving robot (Fig. 1; [0128] “cleaning robot 1”), comprising a memory (Fig. 14; [0235] “storage unit 460”) and a processor (Fig. 14; [0235] “controller 430”), wherein a computer program is stored in the memory, and the computer program, when executed by the processor, causes the processor (Fig. 14) to:
(Claim 19) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to implement the following:
identifying a first type of obstacle in an area to be cleaned ([0445] “More specifically, 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 first type of obstacle is less than a first height, and the first height is a maximum height ([0446] discloses “second reference height” as the maximum height that the robot can climb over) that a driving wheel ([0462] “two pad assemblies” of the self-moving robot crosses over ([0046] “if the height of the obstacle is equal to or greater than the first reference height but equal to or less than a second reference height, the controller 630 controls the cleaning robot to be in the climbing movement”; [0462] “in the climbing movement, the cleaning robot climbs up using two pad assemblies arranged in the front while applying a movement force for the main body using the remaining two pad assemblies. When the two pad assemblies arranged in the front are on the top of the obstacle, a movement force for the main body is produced using the two pad assemblies located on the top 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.”).
Kim does not specifically teach determining a length direction of the first type of obstacle;
determining a cleaning path based on the length direction;
performing a cleaning task on the area to be cleaned based on the cleaning path, wherein an angle between a cleaning direction of the self-moving robot and the length direction is less than a preset angle, so as to reduce a number of times that the self-moving robot crosses over the first type of obstacle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches:
determining a length direction (extending direction) of the first type of obstacle (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” – The extending direction of the obstacle is inherently included by the determination of the angle between the head of the cleaning robot and the extending direction of the obstacle) ;
determining a cleaning path based on the length direction (page 14 8th paragraph “The adjustment process of the driving wheel may include backward movement, steering, and attitude adjustment. In a preferred embodiment, the head of the cleaning robot faces the obstacle, that is, the forward direction of the cleaning robot is directly facing the obstacle. Currently, the cleaning robot is advanced. The direction can be as perpendicular to the extending direction of the obstacle as possible to prepare for crossing the obstacle.”);
performing a cleaning task on the area to be cleaned based on the cleaning path (page 14 8th paragraph “In this embodiment, after the position of the obstacle is determined, the driving wheel is controlled to adjust the position of the cleaning robot so that the head of the cleaning robot faces the obstacle. The adjustment process of the driving wheel may include backward movement, steering, and attitude adjustment. In a preferred embodiment, the head of the cleaning robot faces the obstacle, that is, the forward direction of the cleaning robot is directly facing the obstacle”), wherein an angle between a cleaning direction of the self-moving robot and the length direction is less than a preset angle (page 13, 4th paragraph “To ensure that the angular deviation of the cleaning robot from the obstacle is always kept within a preset range, so that obstacles can be smoothly crossed. Specifically, to make the speed difference between the left side speed and the right side speed of the cleaning robot, so that the cleaning robot generates an angular acceleration, which makes the angular deviation between the cleaning robot and the obstacle always remain within a preset range”).
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 determine determining a length direction of the first type of obstacle; determining a cleaning path based on the area to be cleaned and the length direction; performing a cleaning task on the area to be cleaned based on the cleaning path, wherein an angle between a cleaning direction of the self-moving robot and the length direction is less than a preset angle, as taught by Zhang, in order to allow the robot to smoothly cross the obstacle.
Zhang does not explicitly teach “so as to reduce a number of times that the self-moving robot crosses over the first type of obstacle.” However, this limitation is interpreted as an intended purpose of the claimed invention. Therefore, this limitation would naturally occur as a result of the limitation “performing a cleaning task on the area to be cleaned based on the cleaning path, wherein an angle between a cleaning direction of the self-moving robot and the length direction is less than a preset angle” being performed.
Further, Zhang teaches allowing the robot to move perpendicular to the extending direction of the obstacle (page 14, 8th paragraph “The adjustment process of the driving wheel may include backward movement, steering, and attitude adjustment. In a preferred embodiment, the head of the cleaning robot faces the obstacle, that is, the forward direction of the cleaning robot is directly facing the obstacle. Currently, the cleaning robot is advanced. The direction can be as perpendicular to the extending direction of the obstacle as possible to prepare for crossing the obstacle”). This allows the two driving wheels of the robot to cross over the obstacle at the same time rather than crossing each individual wheel, thus reducing the number of times that the robot crosses over the obstacle.
Regarding claim 2 and similarly cited claims 11 and 20, Kim does not specifically teach wherein the length direction is a direction in which a long side of the first type of obstacle is located.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the length direction is a direction in which a long side of the first 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 to determine a length direction of the first type of obstacle that is a direction in which a long side of the first type of obstacle is located, as taught by Zhang, in order to allow the robot to smoothly cross the obstacle.
Regarding claim 3 and similarly cited claim 12, 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 30 degrees.
However, Zhang teaches a range of the preset angle can be any angle (page 14 8th paragraph “The angle between the head of the cleaning robot and the extending direction of the obstacle can also be any angle.”).
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 Zhang, 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 4 and similarly cited claim 13, 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, Zhang teaches a range of the preset angle can be any angle (page 14 8th paragraph “The angle between the head of the cleaning robot and the extending direction of the obstacle can also be any angle.”).
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 Zhang, 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 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 15 degrees.
However, Zhang teaches a range of the preset angle can be any angle (page 14 8th paragraph “The angle between the head of the cleaning robot and the extending direction of the obstacle can also be any angle.”).
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 Zhang, 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 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 10 degrees.
However, Zhang teaches a range of the preset angle can be any angle (page 14 8th paragraph “The angle between the head of the cleaning robot and the extending direction of the obstacle can also be any angle.”).
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 Zhang, 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 7 and similarly cited claim 16, 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, Zhang teaches a range of the preset angle can be any angle (page 14 8th paragraph “The angle between the head of the cleaning robot and the extending direction of the obstacle can also be any angle.”).
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 Zhang, 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 8 and similarly cited claim 17, the modified teachings of Kim in view of Zhang 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 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0142169 A1), in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110495825 A), and further in view of Yang (WO2023143019A1).
Regarding claim 9 and similarly cited claim 18, neither Kim nor Zhang specifically teaches wherein the self-moving robot comprises an active obstacle crossing component, and the first height is a maximum height of an obstacle that the self-moving robot crosses over by relying on the driving wheel without starting the active obstacle crossing component.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches:
wherein the self-moving robot comprises an active obstacle crossing component (Fig. 5B; page 12th first paragraph “rocker arm 51”), and the first height is a maximum height (first preset height) of an obstacle that the self-moving robot crosses over by relying on the driving wheel 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.”; 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 Zhang, to include an active obstacle crossing component, and the first height is a maximum height of an obstacle that the self-moving robot crosses over by relying on the driving wheel without 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.
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