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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 10/09/2024 has been acknowledged
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202311126670.3, filed on 08/30/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20 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 4, 11, and 18 recites the phrase “the one of the traversal areas corresponding to the current traversal point”. However, one of the traversal areas has been introduced twice, once prior in its claim and once prior in the claims from which claims 4, 11, and 18 depend on. As such, the office is unsure whether applicant is referring to the previously introduced traversal area or if applicant is introducing a new traversal area.
Claim 5, 12, and 19 recites the phrase “the one of the traversal areas corresponding to the current traversal point”. However, one of the traversal areas and current traversal point has been introduced twice, once prior in its claim and once prior in the claims from which claims 5, 12, and 19 depend on. As such, the office is unsure whether applicant is referring to the previously introduced traversal area or if applicant is introducing a new traversal area.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 also recites the term “the traversal optimization point”. However, traversal optimization point has yet to be introduced in the claim or previous claims from which the claims depend on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 8 is directed to a system (robot). Therefore, claim 8 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 15 is directed to an apparatus (medium). Therefore, claim 15 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 8 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 8 recites: A cleaning robot comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing programs that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of operations comprising:
obtaining a map of a scene where the cleaning robot is located, and a position of the cleaning robot in the map;
determining a map contour where the position of the cleaning robot is located according to the map;
determining a plurality of traversal points for searching for a charging station and a plurality of traversal areas corresponding to the plurality of traversal points according to the map contour; and
searching for the charging station in the traversal areas corresponding to the traversal points according to a predetermined search order, until the charging station is found in the traversal areas, or the traversal areas corresponding to all of the traversal points have been searched.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “determining and searching” steps encompass a user to draw conclusions from the data. Determining a map contour and traversal points is something that can be done mentally with pen and paper. Searching for something is a process that can be done mentally through observation. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “robot comprising: one or more processors; and a memory…”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the processor and memory is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining and searching steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the processor and memory are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a processor and memory.
In addition to that, the examiner submits that obtaining map data and position data using a processor and memory, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a processor and memory to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining and searching steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a processor and memory or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 8 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the robot, the processor and memory amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of obtaining map and position data, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of obtaining map and position data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the processors and memories from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional.. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Further Claims 1 and 15 are not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 1, 8, and 15.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example further defining that the searching limitation is vehicle control and controlling a vehicle with the map contours and traversal points/areas. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-116009560-A to Zhang et. al. (“Zhang”) in view of WO-2019104866-A1 to Yang et. al. (“Yang”).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches a cleaning robot (Zhang Claim 5 “cleaning robot”) comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing programs that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of operations comprising (Zhang Claim 11 “A robot, comprising: a memory and a processor; The memory is used to store programs; The processor is configured to execute the program to realize each step of the method for finding piles by a robot…”):
obtaining a map of a scene where the cleaning robot is located (Zhang Claim 3 “Obtain the semantic map corresponding to the working area of the robot;”), and a position of the cleaning robot in the map (Zhang Claim 2 “set the traversal order of each room, and, for each target room with the same priority, follow the order of the navigation path length corresponding to each target room from small to large A traversal sequence is set, wherein the navigation path length is the path length from the location of the robot to the target room.”);
determining a plurality of traversal points for searching for a charging station and a plurality of traversal areas corresponding to the plurality of traversal points according to a map contour (Zhang Claim 1 “After determining that the robot needs to return to the charging pile, acquire the attribute information of each room in the area to be searched, the area to be searched is all potential areas of the charging pile, and the attribute information is used to characterize the functional attributes of the room;” and Claim 6 “the process of controlling the robot to sequentially traverse the rooms to find piles comprises: When searching for piles in each room, control the robot to navigate to the preset observation point in the room to search for charging piles; If no charging pile is found in the navigation path and at the position of the observation point…”); and
searching for the charging station in the traversal areas corresponding to the traversal points according to a predetermined search order, until the charging station is found in the traversal areas, or the traversal areas corresponding to all of the traversal points have been searched (Zhang Claim 1 “determine the priority of each room, and set the traversal order of each room according to the order of priority from high to low; The robot is controlled to traverse the rooms sequentially to find piles according to the order in which the rooms are traversed”, Claim 2, Claim 5, and Claim 6 “robot is controlled to move to a point on the outline of the room, and the charging pile is searched for by moving clockwise or counterclockwise along the outline of the room. Until the charging pile or the closed loop of the moving path is found.”).
Zhang does not teach determining a map contour where the position of the cleaning robot is located according to the map. However, Yang teaches determining a map contour where the position of the cleaning robot is located according to the map (Yang Description “the laser radar is an important component of the cleaning robot, and the laser radar draws the contour map of the room by scanning the distance between the edge of the room and the cleaning robot.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the robot of Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Yang such that the operations comprise determining a map contour where the position of the cleaning robot is located according to the map. Doing so would ensure accurate area contour drawings in complex environments (Yang Background Technique & Summary of the invention).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang as modified by Yang teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8. Zhang further discloses that searching for the charging station in the traversal areas corresponding to the traversal points comprises:
detecting whether one of the traversal areas corresponding to a current traversal point contains a point that has already been searched (Zhang Claim 6 “robot is controlled to move to a point on the outline of the room, and the charging pile is searched for by moving clockwise or counterclockwise along the outline of the room. Until the charging pile or the closed loop of the moving path is found.”); and
in response to the one of the traversal areas corresponding to the current traversal point containing the point that has already been searched, searching for the charging station at a next traversal point after the current traversal point (Zhang Description “controlling the robot to traverse each room sequentially to find piles according to the order of traversal of each room. Specifically, after the traversal order of each room in the area to be searched is determined in the previous step, each room may be traversed sequentially according to the traversal order. It is understandable that after traversing each room according to the order of traversal, if a charging pile is found in a certain room, you can use the location of the charging pile as the target point to navigate and return to the charging pile without having to search for the rest of the room. Do a traversal to find piles.”).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang as modified by Yang teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8. Zhang further discloses that searching for the charging station in the traversal areas corresponding to the traversal points comprises:
detecting whether there is an undetected area in one of the traversal areas corresponding to a current traversal point (Zhang Description “In the navigation path of the robot navigating to the observation point position of the room, and at the observation point position, the robot can sense whether there is a charging pile around in real time. For example, the robot uses sensors to detect whether there are charging piles around it during the navigation path. After arriving at the observation point, the robot can be controlled to rotate at least one circle on the spot to detect whether there are charging piles around. If a charging pile is found in the navigation path or at the observation point, the charging pile search process ends. If no charging pile is found in the navigation path or at the observation point, the quick search process ends and the fine search process enters.”); and
in response to there being an undetected area in the one of the traversal areas corresponding to the current traversal point, determining a traversal optimization point in one of the traversal areas corresponding to a current traversal point according to the undetected area (Zhang Description “The edge search strategy can be used, that is, the robot is controlled to move to a point on the outline of the room, and the charging pile is searched clockwise or counterclockwise along the outline of the room until the charging pile is searched or the moving path is closed. Among them, when moving along the outline of the room, the robot can be controlled to a certain safe distance from the outline of the room, such as about 3cm, to ensure that the robot will not collide with the outline of the room.”).
With respect to claims 1-3, all limitations have been examined with respect to the robot in claims 8-10. The robot taught/disclosed in claims 8-10 can clearly perform the method of claims 1-3. Therefore claims 1-3 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to claims 15-17, all limitations have been examined with respect to the robot in claims 8-10. The robot taught/disclosed in claims 8-10 can clearly perform the medium of claims 15-17. Therefore claims 15-17 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Yang, further in view of CN-102929285-A to Pan et. al. (“Pan”).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang as modified by Yang teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8. Zhang as modified by Yang does not teach that determining the map contour where the position of the cleaning robot is located according to the map comprises: binarizing the map to obtain a binarized image; and performing dilation on the binarized image to obtain the map contour corresponding to the map. However, Pan teaches that determining the map contour where the position of the cleaning robot is located according to the map comprises: binarizing the map to obtain a binarized image; and performing dilation on the binarized image to obtain the map contour corresponding to the map (Pan [0005] “The map image processing is extracted from the digital elevation map single layer contour line graph, and subjecting the image to binary image processing to obtain the contour represents an obstacle map”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Pan to Zhang as modified by Yang such that determining the map contour where the position of the cleaning robot is located according to the map comprises: binarizing the map to obtain a binarized image; and performing dilation on the binarized image to obtain the map contour corresponding to the map. Doing so would improve safety and efficiency of movement operations (Pan [0004]).
With respect to claim 7, all limitations have been examined with respect to the robot in claim 14. The robot taught/disclosed in claim 14 can clearly perform the method of claim 7. Therefore claim 7 are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/29/26
Prosecution Insights