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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “detection unit,” the limitation “sequentially perform the operations of submerging, advancing, or retreating for a preset distance and then floating to the water surface,” “performing an escape strategy,” and each of the claimed generated and executed steering/escape decisions according to the claimed obstacle detection scenarios of at least claims 2-19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the “detection unit,” the limitation “sequentially perform the operations of submerging, advancing, or retreating for a preset distance and then floating to the water surface,” “performing an escape strategy,” the claimed range of degrees of rotation recited in claims 4-18, and each of the claimed generated and executed steering/escape decisions according to the claimed obstacle detection scenarios of at least claims 2-19 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “cleaning apparatus” and “detection unit” in claims 1-20.
The cleaning apparatus is disclosed at least in pages 2, 3, and 6 and constitutes the structure of “a detection unit,” “a distance measurement unit,” and having the properties of “left/right inclination angles,” “a water surface obstacle avoidance movement method,” and “making an effective steering decision.”
Additionally, there are no details regarding the “distance measurement unit” so as to define which componentry makes up this unit which is recited in the specification as part of the cleaning apparatus.
The “detection unit” is disclosed at pages 4. No definite structure is disclosed and the detection unit is disclosed as having properties of “detecting an obstacle in first, second, and third directions,” “detecting a distance to an obstacle compared to a preset threshold distance,” and “detects an obstacle in at least one direction, generating a steering decision according to detection results,”
Further, a “steering operation,” which does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but is tied to the invoking terms “cleaning apparatus” and “detection unit,” is unclearly claimed and is separately and ambiguously alluded to in conjunction with both the cleaning apparatus and detection unit in Applicant’s own specification without directly attributing the steering operation to one or the other:
the cleaning apparatus (at least at page 3 – “the cleaning apparatus can judge the position relationship with the obstacle based on the signal directly in front and the signals on the two sides thereof, thereby making an effective steering decision”) and
the detection unit (at least at page 2 – “when the detection unit detects the obstacle in at least one direction, generating a steering decision according to detection results”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 recite a cleaning apparatus comprising a “cleaning apparatus” and “detection unit.” A review of the four corners of the disclosure reveals that none of the “cleaning apparatus,” the “detection unit,” the limitation “sequentially perform the operations of submerging, advancing, or retreating for a preset distance and then floating to the water surface,” “performing an escape strategy,” and each of the claimed generated and executed steering/escape decisions according to the claimed obstacle detection scenarios of at least claims 2-19 is adequately described in the specification to show that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The specification and drawings lack the requisite details and accompanying structure to provide support to show possession of the inventive concept being claimed.
For example, regarding the detection unit, no structure or details of the detection unit are provided except for detection of obstacles in three directions. The detection unit is loosely tied to generation of a steering decision, though not concretely tied to generation of these decisions since the steering decision is merely tied to the detection results. In conflict with this, the cleaning apparatus is also tied to the steering decision.
Additionally, the detection unit is also disclosed as a distance measurement unit. Each of these units are disclosed and referred to interchangeably (at least in the Summary – both units are described as being the unit that detects obstacles in 3 directions); however, the specification also appears to separate these units as unique units (at least at page 6 where Applicant discloses, “Example 1 - A water surface obstacle avoidance movement method of a cleaning apparatus is applied to a cleaning apparatus, wherein the cleaning apparatus includes a detection unit, and a distance measurement unit for detecting target signals of obstacles in at least three directions.”). The “cleaning apparatus” is also ambiguously defined in the disclosure and no specific structure is ascribed to the claimed “cleaning apparatus” so that the Applicant has provided adequate written description of the claimed subject matter.
Similarly, the specification is ambiguous about which structure is actually generating the steering strategy. For example, at page 5, Applicant discloses the cleaning apparatus as performing “a steering operation within a preset time.” Conversely, at pages 3-4, Applicant appears to attribute performance of a steering strategy with the detection unit (at least where Applicant discloses, “it can be understood that the detection unit can be used for detecting whether there is an obstacle in front, and a distance value to the obstacle, and when the distance to the obstacle reaches the preset distance threshold value, it can be considered that there is an obstacle in front, so as to perform a steering strategy”).
Claim 1 recites, “a detection unit for detecting obstacles in a first direction, a second direction and a third direction of the cleaning apparatus, and the method comprises: detecting obstacles in the three directions in real time; generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision,” which are also disclosed as provided “effective steering.” It is unclear as to what Applicant is intending to claim by this recitation since neither the specification nor drawings provide clear support and details for detection in three directions to achieve effective steering with a subsequent recitation of “detection results of the other two directions.” It is unclear if this is additive, subtractive, or intended to be two of the three directions. This wording is confusing and unclear. The disclosure does not fairly provide support for what Applicant is intending to claim here, thus creating a written description issue.
Additionally, claims 4-19 recite, “generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision.” It is unclear as to what Applicant is intending to claim by each of these recitations since the ‘results’ hinge on “the other two directions.” The drawings and specification are insufficient in terms of explaining exactly which of the measured directions are being used to make a decision and which direction is the basis for establishing the “other two directions.” The drawings fail to show each of the claimed orientations and the specification does not cure this deficiency. Further, without details of the detection unit and cleaning apparatus, one cannot readily determine the scope of which elements are performing which function. This lack of detail precludes the ability to establish appropriate scoping of the claims and the subject matter sought. There is no depiction of the steering, the claimed angles (acute or obtuse), and no information regarding how to reconcile the claimed detection results from “two other directions” directly coupled to language requiring detection in only one direction or two directions. This compounds the issue of claim 1 requiring three directions of detection and generation of a steering angle according to detection results of the other two directions. It is unclear as to how many unique and distinct angles or combinations of angles Applicant is seeking to claim and the disclosure does not provide sufficient detail to clarify which angles/combinations are actually being claimed. The mixing and matching of numbers of angles of detection and angle/detection combinations coupled with unclear usage of specific angles to arrive at particular calculations renders the claim boundaries indiscernible. The drawings are silent regarding each of these angles and claimed combinations and the specification fails to address these deficiencies in a clear manner. As such, possession of the invention being claimed cannot be established.
The claimed angle of 60-80 degrees, 100-120 degrees, and 120-140 degrees are not depicted in the drawings. Also, the robot is disclosed as operating to navigate a water surface for water surface cleaning, but is also disclosed as being incapable of positioning on the water surface. Additionally, the specification also discusses an “inclination angle” where the “robot inclines to the wall” when discussing each set of claimed range of degrees. This is confusing since inclination angles are typically calculated in ramping-type situation with a vertical and horizontal component and suggests a sloping calculation is being performed at these angles, which suggests some angles are being calculated for a sloped application. There is insufficient written description to analyze and properly construe Applicant’s intended invention within the claims as currently recited.
Claims 19 and 20 recite that the cleaning apparatus is controlled to “sequentially perform the operations of submerging, advancing, or retreating for a preset distance and then floating to the water surface” for “performing an escape strategy.” The specification provides board discussion of a robot having a crawler, air bags, vector jets, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit), none of which are provided in any detail and merely as a list of exemplary componentry. The specification also discloses that the robot will lose positioning capability when in a water surface mode, yet is also disclosed as being capable of judging the position relationship with an obstacle when operating on a water surface. Due to the breadth and limited details provided in the specification and drawings, it is unclear as to what the Applicant’s disclosure does/does not support with regard to the abilities of the invention, thus creating uncertainty as to what Applicant actually has in their possession regarding the inventive structure and capabilities. The limited structural details, inconsistent disclosure of capabilities, and unclear links between various structures and their actual/potential methods of operation contribute to confusion as to what actually structurally exists within the invention and which components are actually performing the recited method.
Since Applicant has failed to provide any details regarding any structure with sufficient positional orientation such that a PHOSITA could readily determine the boundaries and scope of the method/structure being claimed, it is deemed that Applicant does not have sufficient disclosure support to provide written description for the invention. Absent these structural/positional relationship details, Applicant’s disclosure fails to show that Applicant had possession of the invention at the time the application was effectively filed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 recite a cleaning apparatus comprising a “cleaning apparatus,” “generating a steering decision,” and “detection unit” along with various steps related to an escape strategy.
In addition to the lack of written description support detailed above regarding the above-mentioned claimed components/steps, the claims also do not enjoy support under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding definiteness since the boundaries of the claimed subject matter cannot be ascertained. The specification and drawings both fail to provide the requisite details needed to understand the metes and bounds of the “cleaning apparatus,” “detection unit,” steering generation, and limitations of the escape strategy to a degree of particularity that the reader can readily determine what is/isn’t covered by the claimed subject matter. The absence of details within both the specification and drawings requires the claimed subject matter to be interpreted with a significant amount of speculation as to what is/is not included in the “cleaning apparatus,” “generating a steering decision,” “detection unit,” and “escape strategy” of the claimed invention. Since, much of the claim interpretation is left to speculation due to the lack of supporting detail in the specification and drawings, the claims cannot be considered definite.
Claim 1 recites “detecting obstacles in the three directions in real time; generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision, when the detection unit detects the obstacle in at least one direction.” It is unclear as to which directions are encompassed by the “other two directions” since a singular direction 1st, 2nd, or 3rd alone does not precede this limitation or give a basis for which direction would be the at least one direction that the detection unit detects the obstacle. The metes and bounds of this claim cannot be ascertained, thus rendering claim 1 indefinite.
Claim 3 recites, “wherein when the detection unit detects the obstacle, one of the following two cases is comprised: when the detection unit detects that there is no obstacle in front to the obstacle existing.” This claim is not grammatically sound as it recites an obstacle detection condition and then recites a condition where there is no obstacle detected. Further, the latter half of the non-detection part of the phrase does not grammatically make sense (“the detection unit detects that there is no obstacle in front to the obstacle existing”). It is unclear as to what Applicant is attempting to claim by this recitation.
Claims 4-19 recite, “generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision.” No antecedent basis for “the other two directions” or a basis for consistently using this terminology is provided in the claims. It is unclear as to what Applicant is intending to claim by each of these recitations since the ‘results’ hinge on “the other two directions” which have not been previously identified in any of the claims from which claims 4-19 depend.
Claims 19 and 20 are directed to an escape strategy which is not depicted or understood since it hinges upon the unclear detection angles/limitations occurring in the preceding claim(s). There is no depiction in the drawings related to the escape strategy or sufficient discussion in the specification to show when the robot finds itself in this position since the entire strategy is dependent on unclear angle detections/combinations.
The lack of clarity and supporting detail provided in the disclosure results in the Examiner having to use an undue degree of inference-making which regard to interpreting the claims and subject matter sought for patentability, which makes claims 1-20 indefinite.
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 1-3 and 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub. 2023/0212868 to Deng in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2022/0015598 to Lai as best understood.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Deng discloses a water surface obstacle avoidance movement method of a cleaning apparatus, wherein the cleaning apparatus comprises a detection unit (angle sensor, 6) for detecting obstacles in a first direction, a second direction and a third direction of the cleaning apparatus (At least shown in Fig. 3-5), and the method comprises: detecting obstacles in the three directions; generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision, when the detection unit detects the obstacle in at least one direction (At least shown in Fig. 3-5).
Deng does not expressly discuss the sensing being performed in real time.
Nevertheless, Lai teaches sensing obstacles in real time (At least at the Abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the detection unit of Deng to have real time sensing, as taught by Lai, in order to provide the obvious benefit of allowing for unique environments to be sensed for obstacles without requiring pre-programming.
Further, though silent regarding the ability of the sensor of Deng to detect in real time, it is more than likely that Deng employs real time sensing since the angle sensor is performing angular analyses in order to provide thrust commands to follow a pool wall or turn away, which requires on-the-fly computing based on the uniquely sensed environment and shape of a pool.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the primary reference, Deng, discloses that the first direction is an advancing direction of the cleaning apparatus, the second direction is on a left side of the first direction, and the third direction is on a right side of the first direction (At least shown in Fig. 3-5).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the primary reference, Deng, discloses that when the detection unit detects the obstacle, one of the following two cases is comprised: when the detection unit detects that there is no obstacle in front to the obstacle existing; or when the detection unit detects that a distance to the obstacle reaches a preset threshold (At least in Par. [0011, 0013, 0035, 0037]; Shown in Fig. 3-5).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the primary reference, Deng, discloses generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision comprises: when an obstacle is detected only in a second direction, performing right rotation by a second random angle; the second random angle is between 60° and 80° (At least accomplished by virtue of the path followed in Fig. 3 and 4).
Even though Deng is silent regarding the express angles of rotation, a PHOSITA would have readily recognized at the time of effective filing that Deng performs a turning operation substantially close to a 60° and 80° range in Fig. 3 with a right-facing approach to the pool wall and performs a turn less than 90° and more than 45° to follow a pool wall. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have also recognized that the angle of attack would influence the requirement of the robot to meet that range to follow the pool wall and a mirror image of Fig. 3 and 4 would accomplish the claimed direction and rotation. As such, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have recognized that the disclosure of Deng meets the claim limitation as best understood.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the primary reference, Deng, discloses generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision comprises: when an obstacle is detected only in a second direction, performing right rotation by a second random angle; the second random angle is between 60° and 80° (At least accomplished by virtue of the path followed in Fig. 3 and 4).
Even though Deng is silent regarding the express angles of rotation, a PHOSITA would have readily recognized at the time of effective filing that Deng performs a turning operation substantially close to a 60° and 80° range in Fig. 3 with a right-facing approach to the pool wall and performs a turn less than 90° and more than 45° to follow a pool wall. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have also recognized that the angle of attack would influence the requirement of the robot to meet that range to follow the pool wall and a mirror image of Fig. 3 and 4 would accomplish the claimed direction and rotation. As such, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have recognized that the disclosure of Deng meets the claim limitation as best understood.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, the primary reference, Deng, discloses generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision comprises: when an obstacle is detected only in a second direction, performing right rotation by a second random angle; the second random angle is between 60° and 80° (At least accomplished by virtue of the path followed in Fig. 3 and 4).
Even though Deng is silent regarding the express angles of rotation, a PHOSITA would have readily recognized at the time of effective filing that Deng performs a turning operation substantially close to a 60° and 80° range in Fig. 3 with a right-facing approach to the pool wall and performs a turn less than 90° and more than 45° to follow a pool wall. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have also recognized that the angle of attack would influence the requirement of the robot to meet that range to follow the pool wall and a mirror image of Fig. 3 and 4 would accomplish the claimed direction and rotation. As such, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have recognized that the disclosure of Deng meets the claim limitation as best understood.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, the primary reference, Deng, discloses generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision comprises: when an obstacle is detected only in a third direction, performing left rotation by a third random angle; the third random angle is between 60° and 80° (At least accomplished by virtue of the path followed in Fig. 3 and 4).
Even though Deng is silent regarding the express angles of rotation, a PHOSITA would have readily recognized at the time of effective filing that Deng performs a turning operation substantially close to a 60° and 80° range in Fig. 3 with a right-facing approach to the pool wall and performs a turn less than 90° and more than 45° to follow a pool wall. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have also recognized that the angle of attack would influence the requirement of the robot to meet that range to follow the pool wall. As such, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have recognized that the disclosure of Deng meets the claim limitation as best understood.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, the primary reference, Deng, discloses generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision comprises: when an obstacle is detected only in a third direction, performing left rotation by a third random angle; the third random angle is between 60° and 80° (At least accomplished by virtue of the path followed in Fig. 3 and 4).
Even though Deng is silent regarding the express angles of rotation, a PHOSITA would have readily recognized at the time of effective filing that Deng performs a turning operation substantially close to a 60° and 80° range in Fig. 3 with a right-facing approach to the pool wall and performs a turn less than 90° and more than 45° to follow a pool wall. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have also recognized that the angle of attack would influence the requirement of the robot to meet that range to follow the pool wall. As such, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have recognized that the disclosure of Deng meets the claim limitation as best understood.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, the primary reference, Deng, discloses generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision comprises: when an obstacle is detected only in a third direction, performing left rotation by a third random angle; the third random angle is between 60° and 80° (At least accomplished by virtue of the path followed in Fig. 3 and 4).
Even though Deng is silent regarding the express angles of rotation, a PHOSITA would have readily recognized at the time of effective filing that Deng performs a turning operation substantially close to a 60° and 80° range in Fig. 3 with a right-facing approach to the pool wall and performs a turn less than 90° and more than 45° to follow a pool wall. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have also recognized that the angle of attack would influence the requirement of the robot to meet that range to follow the pool wall. As such, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have recognized that the disclosure of Deng meets the claim limitation as best understood.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, the primary reference, Deng, discloses generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision comprises: when an obstacle is detected only in a first direction and a second direction, performing a right rotation by a fourth random angle; the fourth random angle is between 100° and 120° (At least accomplished by virtue of the path followed in Fig. 5 before completion of the turn and continuing).
Even though Deng is silent regarding the express angles of rotation, Deng uses sensing of the walls to the front and a side of the robot to perform a turn. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have recognized that Deng necessarily meets the claimed range of degrees via the steering generated from recognition of the walls and a mirror image of Fig. 3 and 4 would accomplish the claimed direction and rotation to meet the claim limitation as best understood.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, the primary reference, Deng, discloses generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision comprises: when an obstacle is detected only in a first direction and a second direction, performing a right rotation by a fourth random angle; the fourth random angle is between 100° and 120° (At least accomplished by virtue of the path followed in Fig. 5 before completion of the turn and continuing).
Even though Deng is silent regarding the express angles of rotation, Deng uses sensing of the walls to the front and a side of the robot to perform a turn. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have recognized that Deng necessarily meets the claimed range of degrees via the steering generated from recognition of the walls and a mirror image of Fig. 3 and 4 would accomplish the claimed direction and rotation to meet the claim limitation as best understood.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, the primary reference, Deng, discloses generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision comprises: when an obstacle is detected only in a first direction and a second direction, performing a right rotation by a fourth random angle; the fourth random angle is between 100° and 120° (At least accomplished by virtue of the path followed in Fig. 5 before completion of the turn and continuing).
Even though Deng is silent regarding the express angles of rotation, Deng uses sensing of the walls to the front and a side of the robot to perform a turn. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have recognized that Deng necessarily meets the claimed range of degrees via the steering generated from recognition of the walls and a mirror image of Fig. 3 and 4 would accomplish the claimed direction and rotation to meet the claim limitation as best understood.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, the primary reference, Deng, discloses generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision comprises: when an obstacle is detected only in a first direction and a third direction, performing a left rotation by a fifth random angle; the fifth random angle is between 100° and 120° (At least accomplished by virtue of the path followed in Fig. 5 before completion of the turn and continuing).
Even though Deng is silent regarding the express angles of rotation, Deng uses sensing of the walls to the front and a side of the robot to perform a turn. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have recognized that Deng necessarily meets the claimed range of degrees via the steering generated from recognition of the walls and meets the claim limitation as best understood.
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, the primary reference, Deng, discloses generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision comprises: when an obstacle is detected only in a first direction and a third direction, performing a left rotation by a fifth random angle; the fifth random angle is between 100° and 120° (At least accomplished by virtue of the path followed in Fig. 5 before completion of the turn and continuing).
Even though Deng is silent regarding the express angles of rotation, Deng uses sensing of the walls to the front and a side of the robot to perform a turn. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have recognized that Deng necessarily meets the claimed range of degrees via the steering generated from recognition of the walls and meets the claim limitation as best understood.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, the primary reference, Deng, discloses generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision comprises: when an obstacle is detected only in a first direction and a third direction, performing a left rotation by a fifth random angle; the fifth random angle is between 100° and 120° (At least accomplished by virtue of the path followed in Fig. 5 before completion of the turn and continuing).
Even though Deng is silent regarding the express angles of rotation, Deng uses sensing of the walls to the front and a side of the robot to perform a turn. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have recognized that Deng necessarily meets the claimed range of degrees via the steering generated from recognition of the walls and meets the claim limitation as best understood.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, the previous combination of Deng/Lai discloses the claimed invention except for the escape strategy.
Nevertheless, as best understood, Lai discloses a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision further comprises: judging whether the cleaning apparatus is in a trapped state by counting the number of turns of the cleaning apparatus over a period of time, and if it is in the trapped state, performing an escape strategy (At least at the description of Fig. 4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the robot of Deng/Lai to have the advance, detect, and adjust pattern a number of times of Lai in order to navigate obstacles coupled with walls where tight turning scenarios are brought about for the obvious benefit of navigating an area while maximizing cleaning efficacy.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub. 2023/0212868 to Deng in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2022/0015598 to Lai in further view of WO 2023/155159 to Ding as best understood.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the primary reference, Deng, discloses the claimed invention except for the direction and angle.
Nevertheless, Ding discloses generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision comprises: when an obstacle is detected only in a first direction, performing left or right rotation by a first random angle; the first random angle is between 120° and 140° (At least accomplished by virtue of the path followed in Fig. 3A-3F before completion of the turn and continuing).
Even though Ding is silent regarding the express angles of rotation, Ding completes a turn which includes an angle which at one point in time achieves an angle between 120° and 140° prior to completion when facing an obstacle in a first direction. As such, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the turning procedure of Deng to allow for the claimed rotation, as taught by Ding, in order to accommodate steering in non-square and non-linear environments and to have further recognized that the disclosure of Ding meets the claim limitation as best understood.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the primary reference, Deng, discloses the claimed invention except for the direction and angle.
Nevertheless, Ding discloses generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision comprises: when an obstacle is detected only in a first direction, performing left or right rotation by a first random angle; the first random angle is between 120° and 140° (At least accomplished by virtue of the path followed in Fig. 3A-3F before completion of the turn and continuing).
Even though Ding is silent regarding the express angles of rotation, Ding completes a turn which includes an angle which at one point in time achieves an angle between 120° and 140° prior to completion when facing an obstacle in a first direction. As such, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the turning procedure of Deng to allow for the claimed rotation, as taught by Ding, in order to accommodate steering in non-square and non-linear environments and to have further recognized that the disclosure of Ding meets the claim limitation as best understood.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the primary reference, Deng, discloses the claimed invention except for the direction and angle.
Nevertheless, Ding discloses generating a steering decision according to detection results of the other two directions and performing the steering decision comprises: when an obstacle is detected only in a first direction, performing left or right rotation by a first random angle; the first random angle is between 120° and 140° (At least accomplished by virtue of the path followed in Fig. 3A-3F before completion of the turn and continuing).
Even though Ding is silent regarding the express angles of rotation, Ding completes a turn which includes an angle which at one point in time achieves an angle between 120° and 140° prior to completion when facing an obstacle in a first direction. As such, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the turning procedure of Deng to allow for the claimed rotation, as taught by Ding, in order to accommodate steering in non-square and non-linear environments and to have further recognized that the disclosure of Ding meets the claim limitation as best understood.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome all rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brodie Follman whose telephone number is (571)270-1169. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm EST M-F.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571)270-7429. 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.
/BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669