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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner interprets the claimed term “floor covering” as discussed in the specification paragraph 100131 “As an example, the ground pavement may be a carpet, a floor mat such as a cat litter mat, tiles, or the like. The ground pavement may be a raised floor covering on a floor.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Hillman, Jr. et al (US9609991).
A method comprising:
obtaining, by a robot cleaner (col. 4 ll 42-45), sensing information (col. 3 ll 64 to col. 4 ll 3) of a ground region (col. 3 ll 28-30) associated with a floor covering (“carpet and the like”, “carpeted floor and a tile floor”), wherein the floor covering is on a floor (fig. 4, col. 5 ll 46-54);
determining contour position information (fig. 4) of an edge of the floor covering (fig. 4 “mobile robotic device 400”, “edge 405”, “floor 415”) based on the sensing information (fig. 2 at 200 “Receive information about an edge”);
generating a navigation map (col. 4 ll 4-9) for the robot cleaner based on the contour position information; and
controlling the robot cleaner to travel (col. 5 ll 47-54, col. 3 ll 46-52) along the edge of the floor covering on the floor (col. ll 19-20) while maintaining a distance (Abstract last sentence, col. 1 ll 50-53, ) from the edge based on the generated navigation map (fig. 2 at 215 “Compare positional information and information received from video camera to a map”).
Claim 2 Hillman discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the controlling comprises: controlling the robot cleaner to travel along the edge of the floor covering in a travel direction parallel to the edge or parallel to a tangent of the edge (fig. 4).
Claim 4 Hillman disclose (fig. 4) the method according to claim 1, wherein the controlling comprises: controlling the robot cleaner (“mobile robotic device 400”) to travel (420 arrow) along the edge (405) of the floor covering (“carpeted portion of a floor 410”) in response to a distance between an occupied region of the floor covering in the navigation map (“along the illustrated path 420”) and the robot cleaner.
Claim 7 Hillman discloses the method according to claim 2, further comprising: determining the travel direction based on a region occupied by the floor covering in the navigation map (Abstract 1st sentence, col. 4 ll 25-33).
Claim 8 Hillman discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the sensing information comprises at least one of a region image (col. 3 ll 8-14), an infrared image, and laser feedback information of the ground region.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Hillman, Jr. et al (US9609991).
A robot cleaner (“mobile robotic device 100”) comprising:
one or more processors (“processing devices”); and
memory storing instructions (col. 2 ll 45-46), when executed by the one or more processors, cause the robot cleaner (col. 4 ll 42-45) to:
obtain sensing information (col. 3 ll 64 to col. 4 ll 3) of a ground region (col. 3 ll 28-30) associated with a floor covering (fig. 4 “mobile robotic device 400”, “edge 405”, “floor 415”) on a floor (fig. 4, col. 5 ll 46-54);
determine contour position information (fig. 4) of an edge of the floor covering (fig. 4 “mobile robotic device 400”, “edge 405”, “floor 415”) based on the sensing information (fig. 2 at 200 “Receive information about an edge”);
generate a navigation map (col. 4 ll 4-9) for the robot cleaner based on the contour position information; and
travel (col. 5 ll 47-54, col. 3 ll 46-52) along the edge of the floor covering on the floor (col. ll 19-20) while maintaining a distance (Abstract last sentence, col. 1 ll 50-53) from the edge based on the generated navigation map (fig. 2 at 215 “Compare positional information and information received from video camera to a map”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillman, Jr. et al (US9609991) in view of (WO 2022186469 A1).
Hillman discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the generating the navigation map comprises: determining body position information of the robot cleaner (Abstract “cleaning device from the determined position”, col. 3 ll 37-45, claim 1); and generating the navigation map (col. 4 ll 4-10) with based on the contour position information and the body position information (Abstract, col. 1 ll 62 to col. 2 ll 2). Hillman does not disclose the positioning places that the robot cleaner as a center in the navigation map.
WO 2022186469 A1 discloses a robot cleaner placed at the center of a generated navigation map (“The robot cleaner 210 may move to a location designated by the user or move to the center of the room based on the map of the robot cleaner 210 and check whether motion is detected through the lidar sensor.”). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in this art to enable the device of Hillman to center the cleaner on the generated navigation map as taught by WO 2022186469 A1. The motivation for this upgrade to Hillman is ubiquitous in the map generating arts ld be to make the cleaner prominent on the map. This 35 U.S.C. 103 combination follows the KSR case law rationale C; Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillman, Jr. et al (US9609991) in view of (CN 110037619 A)
Hillman does not disclose controlling the robot cleaner to reverse a preset target distance based on determining that the robot cleaner has traveled to the ground region.
CN 110037619 A discloses controlling a robot cleaner (“cleaning robot”) to reverse a preset target distance based on determining that the robot cleaner has traveled to the ground region (claim 8). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of skill in this art to modify Hillman so that the robot cleaner reverses a preset target distance based on determining that the robot cleaner has traveled to a ground region as taught by CN 110037619 A. A motivation for this is well known and would be to backtrack clean a cleaned area. This 35 U.S.C. 103 combination follows the KSR case law rationale C; Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillman, Jr. et al (US9609991).
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media (col. 2 ll 5), when executed, cause:
obtaining sensing information (col. 3 ll 64 to col. 4 ll 3) of a ground region (col. 3 ll 28-30) associated with a floor covering (“carpet and the like”, “carpeted floor and a tile floor”);
determining contour position information (fig. 4) of an edge of the floor covering (fig. 4 “mobile robotic device 400”, “edge 405”, “floor 415”) based on the sensing information (fig. 2 at 200 “Receive information about an edge”);
generating a navigation map (col. 4 ll 4-9) for a robot cleaner based on the contour position information; and
controlling the robot cleaner to travel (col. 5 ll 47-54, col. 3 ll 46-52) along the edge of the floor covering on the floor (col. ll 19-20) while maintaining a distance (Abstract last sentence, col. 1 ll 50-53) from the edge based on the generated navigation map (fig. 2 at 215 “Compare positional information and information received from video camera to a map”).
Hillman does not disclose that the computer readable media is non-transitory.
At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to have the computer readable media non-transitory. The claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 9-14, 18 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
MICHAEL C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 .
Prosecution Insights