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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A1 in the reply filed on July 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 6, 2026.
Claims 1-6 and 10-20 will be examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 12, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0124004 to Rosenstein et al.
As to claims 1, 11 and 16, Rosenstein discloses an electronic apparatus and a method of controlling the electronic apparatus, comprising: at least one memory storing information on a cleaning path and dust distribution information (see Rosenstein paragraphs [0068]-[0069], [0078], [0102]-[0106]); a driver (see Rosenstein paragraphs [0052]-[0053], [0067]-[0070]; and one or more processors connected to the at least one memory and to the driver, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the one or more instructions, and wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the electronic apparatus to (see Rosenstein paragraphs [0065]-[0070], [0100]-[0109]): identify a cleanable area corresponding to at least a portion of the cleaning path, and control the driver to change the cleaning path based on the cleanable area and the dust distribution information (see Rosenstein paragraphs [0073]-[0081] disclosing identifying cleanable areas and dirt distribution using the image analysis system and controlling the driver to change the cleaning path based on the cleanable area and the dust distribution information). Regarding claim 16, Rosenstein discloses that the method can be executed by at least one processor of a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein (see Rosenstein paragraphs [0065]-[0070], [0100]-[0109]).
As to claims 2, 12 and 17, Rosenstein discloses identifying the dirty floor area (read as identifying a dust area from an inside to an outside of the cleanable area since the area of the dirty floor area) and controlling the driver to change the cleaning path (see Rosenstein paragraphs [0073]-[0081], see also Fig. 7 disclosing an inside to outside cleaning path).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0124004 to Rosenstein et al. as applied to claims 1, 12 and 17 above.
Rosenstein is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejections of claims 2, 12 and 17 above.
As to claims 3, 13 and 18, Rosenstein discloses that the driver is controlled to change the cleaning path for spot cleaning of the detected dirty location and the image data is used for localization, mapping and path planning (see Rosenstein paragraphs [0073]-[0081]) and as such, it is reasonably expected that the cleaning path corresponds with the outline of the dirty location in order to spot clean the dirty location.
As to claim 10, Rosenstein discloses that the electronic apparatus can imaging sensor can include an infrared camera as part of the imaging sensor to detect the debris and dirty locations (see Rosenstein paragraphs [0058], [0061] and [0074]) and it is reasonably expected that Rosenstein discloses the infrared camera system to obtain an image by emitted IR to obtain the dust distribution information based on the image.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 14, 15, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0124004 to Rosenstein et al. as applied to claims 3, 13 and 18 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0309975 to Lindhe et al.
Rosenstein is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejections of claims 3, 13 and 18 above.
As to claims 4, 14 and 19, while Rosenstein discloses a first brush (see Rosenstein paragraph [0057]), Rosenstein does not explicitly disclose a second brush wherein based on the electronic apparatus moving along the changed cleaning path, reduce a rotation speed of a brush that is positioned within the dust area from among the first brush and the second brush and increase rotation speed of a brush that is not positioned within the dust area from among the first brush and the second brush. Lindhe discloses a similar electronic apparatus comprising multiple brushes, including a side brush located on either side of the electronic apparatus (see Lindhe Fig. 3 disclosing center brush 18 and side brushes 23 and 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include side brushes as disclosed by Lindhe in order collect dirt and debris located at or beyond the periphery of the main body or any debris out of reach of the opening (see Lindhe paragraph [0007]). Lindhe further discloses optimizing cleaning by increasing the brush speed when there is little debris and lowering the brush speed when there is a lot of debris (see Lindhe paragraph [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Rosenstein to reduce the brush speed when positioned within the dirty area and increase the brush speed when not positioned within the dust area as disclosed by Lindhe in order to optimize cleaning by the electronic apparatus.
As to claims 5, 15 and 20, while Rosenstein discloses a first brush (see Rosenstein paragraph [0057]), Rosenstein does not explicitly disclose a second brush wherein based on the electronic apparatus cleaning the dust area while the electronic apparatus rotates, reverse a rotation direction of the first brush or the second brush based on a rotation direction of the electronic apparatus. Lindhe discloses a similar electronic apparatus comprising multiple brushes, including a side brush located on either side of the electronic apparatus (see Lindhe Fig. 3 disclosing center brush 18 and side brushes 23 and 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include side brushes as disclosed by Lindhe in order collect dirt and debris located at or beyond the periphery of the main body or any debris out of reach of the opening (see Lindhe paragraph [0007]). Lindhe further discloses changing the rotation direction of the brushes based on the movement direction of the electronic apparatus (see, e.g., Lindhe paragraph [0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to change the rotation direction of the brushes based on the movement direction of the electronic apparatus as disclosed by Lindhe in order to ensure that the brushes are directing the debris toward the suction opening (see Lindhe paragraph [0028]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0124004 to Rosenstein et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0397202 to Artes et al.
Rosenstein is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejections of claim 3 above.
As to claim 6, while Rosenstein discloses a brush (see Rosenstein paragraph [0057]), Rosenstein does not explicitly disclose changing the cleaning path so that the brush is positioned outside of the dust area. Artes discloses a similar electronic apparatus wherein the cleaning path includes positioning the brush outside of the dust area (see, e.g., Artes Fig. 5D where the cleaning path includes having the cleaning device be located outside of the dust area D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Rosenstein to include having the cleaning path have brush be located outside of the dust area as disclosed by Artes in order to optimize the cleaning of a heavily soiled area (see Artes paragraph [0061]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights