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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Armen Kroyan et al (US 20150057802 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kroyan et al discloses a method for operating a self-propelled device (¶ [51]), the method comprising:
receiving, from an optical sensor of the self-propelled device, an indication of a surface color of a surface on which the self-propelled device operates (¶ [54]);
determining that a color transition has occurred from a first color to a second color based on the received indication (¶ [54] and ¶ [56]);
determining an activity associated with the second color (¶ [69]); and
performing the activity associated with the second color (¶ [83] and ¶ [97-98]).
Regarding claim 6, Kroyan et al discloses the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), further comprising:
receiving a selection of the second color (see rejection of claim 1); and
assigning the activity to the second color (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the activity causes the self-propelled device to at least one of move, turn, emit a sound from a speaker, and illuminate a light (¶ [78]; ¶ [6]).
Regarding claim 8, Kroyan et al discloses a self-propelled device (Fig. 3B numeral 103; robotic device) comprising:
an optical sensor (¶ [47]) configured to detect a color of a surface on which the self-propelled device operates (see rejection of claim 1);
at least one motor coupled to a plurality of wheels (¶ [48]); and
a control system (¶ [37] system processor) coupled to the optical sensor and the at least one motor (Fig. 3A), the control system configured to receive from the optical sensor, an indication of a surface color of a surface on which the self-propelled device operates, determine that a color transition has occurred from a first color to a second color based on the received indication, determine an activity associated with the second color, and performing the activity associated with the second color (see rejection of claim 1), and enable the at least one motor to move the self-propelled device (¶ [97]).
Regarding claim 15, Kroyan et al discloses the self-propelled device of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8), further comprising a processor configured to receive an updated color and activity association and store the updated color and activity association in a table (¶ [82-83]).
Regarding claim 16, Kroyan et al discloses the self-propelled device of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15), wherein the activity association is at least one of a move, turn, sound emitted from a speaker, and illuminated light (see rejection of claim 6).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroyan et al in view of Andrew J. Musliner (US 20180104609 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kroyan et al discloses the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Kroyan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the surface on which the self-propelled device operates is a tile on top of another surface.
Musliner, in the same field of endeavor of self-propelled mobile agents or devices which include sensors for detecting information to determine functions or activities to be performed (¶ [127]), teaches the surface on which the self-propelled device operates is a tile on top of another surface (¶ [186] wherein tile is a surface which the mobile agent may traverse).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the method as disclosed by Kroyan et al comprising receiving, from an optical sensor of the self-propelled device, an indication of a surface color of a surface on which the self-propelled device operates to utilize the teachings of Musliner which teaches the surface on which the self-propelled device operates is a tile on top of another surface as a tile surface is easily traversed by a moving object and made of a sturdy material which will last.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of the claims of prior U.S. Patent No. 12197226 (hereinafter Wiencrot ‘226). This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 9, claim 8 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter. (*Note – The non-transitory memory encoding the computer executable instructions perform the claimed “method” when executed by the at least one processor).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 of Wiencrot ‘226 discloses the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights