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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlickenrieder (DE202021001755: See English Machine Translation) and further in view of Itagaki (PG PUB U.S 2007/0097372).
Regarding claim 1, Schlickenrieder teaches a cleaning method (abstract and figs 1-4 of Schlickenrieder), comprising: configuring a fan-motor assembly of an air suctioning device to generate a suction force to suction outside air through an air flow passage (fig 4; para 2 of description), wherein the air suctioning device is disposed in a main body (100), and the fan- motor assembly is disposed in the air flow passage (fig 4); configuring a light source (105) to emit light to the air flow passage (para 3 of description and claims section); configuring an optical sensor (107) to capture a plurality of successive image frames from the air flow passage (para 2 of description and claims section); configuring a processing unit (108) electrically connected to the optical sensor (fig 4) and a memory (claims section) to identify a plurality of dust particles (para 2 of description); obtain at least one particle feature of the plurality of dust particles (para 2 of description); and determine a current cleanness condition according to at least one particle feature (paras 3-4 of description).
Schlickenrieder fails to specifically teach obtain a first image frame and a second image frame from the plurality of successive image frames; compare the first image frame with the second image frame to identify a plurality of dust particles; obtain at least one particle feature of the plurality of dust particles. However, Itagaki also teaches a vacuum cleaning method (para 0068) wherein it is known to use an optical analyzer to obtain a first image frame and a second image frame from the plurality of successive image frames (para 0047-0048); compare the first image frame with the second image frame to identify a plurality of dust particles (para 0047-0048) obtain at least one particle feature of the plurality of dust particles (para 0047-0048) in order to achieve the predictable result of analyzing and identifying particle features to determine cleanliness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schlickenrieder such that it can obtain a first image frame and a second image frame from the plurality of successive image frames; compare the first image frame with the second image frame to identify a plurality of dust particles; obtain at least one particle feature of the plurality of dust particles as taught by Itagaki in order to achieve the predictable result of analyzing and identifying particle features to determine cleanliness.
Regarding claim 2, the present combination of Schlickenrieder and Itagaki teaches wherein a driving system is disposed in the main body and electrically connected to the processing unit (“cleaning plan”; last bullet on page 2 of Schlickenrieder), and includes: a plurality of wheels (fig 4 and last claim on page 4 of Schlickenrieder); and a motor configured to drive the plurality of wheels to move or rotate the main body (implicitly taught), wherein the cleaning method further comprising configuring the processing unit to control the motor to drive the wheels to move or rotate the main body according to a cleaning strategy that defines a cleaning frequency and a cleaning route for a target region (last bullet on page 2, last 4 bullets on page 3, and last claim on page 4 of Schlickenrieder).
Regarding claim 3, the present combination of Schlickenrieder and Itagaki teaches the processing unit to adjust the cleaning strategy according to the current cleanness condition (last bullet on page 2, last 4 bullets on page 3, and last claim on page 4 of Schlickenrieder).
Regarding claim 4, the present combination of Schlickenrieder and Itagaki teaches wherein the at least one particle feature includes a particle size, a particle quantity, a particle density, a particle type, and/or a particle speed (para 2 of description, bullets on page 3 and claims section of Schlickenrieder).
Regarding claim 5, the present combination of Schlickenrieder and Itagaki teaches configuring the processing unit to determine whether or not to repeat the cleaning route or to adjust a moving speed of the main body according to the particle quantity and the particle density (last bullet on page 2 and claims section of Schlickenrieder).
Regarding claim 6, the present combination of Schlickenrieder and Itagaki teaches wherein the air suctioning device further includes: a filter (102) disposed in the air flow passage for separating dust included in air that flows by an operation of the air suctioning device (abstract and claims section of Schlickenrieder); and a dust container (102) disposed to be in communication with the air flow passage for storing the dust separated by the filter (abstract and claims section of Schlickenrieder).
Regarding claim 8, the present combination of Schlickenrieder and Itagaki teaches configuring a communication circuit (para 5 on page 2 and last 3 bullets on page 3 of Schlickenrieder) disposed in the main body to communicatively connected to a mobile device of a user (para 5 on page 2 and last 3 bullets on page 3 of Schlickenrieder), wherein information associated with the cleanness condition and the cleaning strategy is transmitted between the processing unit and the mobile device through the communication circuit (para 5 on page 2 and last 3 bullets on page 3 of Schlickenrieder).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlickenrieder (DE202021001755: See English Machine Translation), Itagaki (PG PUB U.S 2007/0097372) and further in view Thomas (PG Pub U.S 2019/0239709).
Regarding claim 9, the present combination of Schlickenrieder and Itagaki fails to teach configuring the processing unit to enable the mobile device to: plot, according to the particle density and the current cleanness condition, a cleaning map on a target map of the target region on a user interface; and optimize the cleaning strategy according to the cleaning map. However, Thomas teaches configuring the processing unit to enable the mobile device to: plot, according to the particle density and the current cleanness condition (para 0020-0022, 0057, and 0066), a cleaning map on a target map of the target region on a user interface (para 0020-0022, 0057, and 0066) in order to optimize the cleaning strategy according to the cleaning map. Therefore, 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 present combination of Schlickenrieder and Itagaki such that it includes configuring the processing unit to enable the mobile device to: plot, according to the particle density and the current cleanness condition, a cleaning map on a target map of the target region on a user interface as taught by Thomas in order to optimize the cleaning strategy according to the cleaning map.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 10 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement for reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Schlickenrieder (DE202021001755: See English Machine Translation) and Itagaki (PG PUB U.S 2007/0097372).
18. The present combination of Schlickenrieder and Itagaki teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
19. Schlickenrieder and Itagaki fail to teach configuring the processing unit to determine whether or not the suction force is within a normal range according to the particle speed; and in response to determining that the suction force is lower than the normal range, configuring the processing unit to send an alarm signal to remind a user to check the filter as recited in claim 7.
20. Schlickenrieder and Itagaki fail to teach configuring the memory to store the cleaning strategy, an image recognition process, and a plurality of cleaning path corresponding a plurality of specific particle types, respectively; and configuring the processing unit to: execute the image recognition process to identify the particle type of the plurality of dust particles; determine whether or not the particle type of the dust particles match one of the specific particle types; and re-arrange the cleaning route as recited in claim 10.
Conclusion
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRADHUMAN PARIHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached on 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.
/P.P/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714