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 .
Specification Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-10 and 12-21 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.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 13, “the longest symmetry axis” lacks antecedent basis, therefore these claims are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the longest symmetry axis” to mean any longest symmetry axis.
Regarding claims 2-10 and 14-21, these claims depend from one of claims 1 and 13 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as one of claims 1 and 13 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of one of claims 1 and 13 noted above.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 12 recites a “transitory computer-readable storage medium”. The Office asserts that the claimed “transitory computer-readable storage medium” can be a transitory signal, which is non-statutory. The Examiner suggests that Applicant replace “transitory computer-readable storage medium” with “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” or any other text, supported in the original specification/claims that converts the claim into a statutory category.
Claims 1-10 and 13-21 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims recite a practical application of controlling the cleaning device to clean along the cleaning direction.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jinn (KR 20070108815 A, see attached NPL for paragraph numbers).
Claim 1
Jinn teaches:
A method for controlling a cleaning device, comprising (Jinn - Paragraphs 0017, 0022-0023) “a control method of a cleaning robot”
obtaining a laying direction of a floor covering, wherein the laying direction is a direction where the longest symmetry axis of the floor covering is located; determining a cleaning direction of the cleaning device based on the laying direction (Jinn - Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0024-0025, 0030-0031) “extracting the direction of the bottom grain from the image of the photographed bottom surface; And (c) following the cleaning robot in the extracted bottom grain direction”
and controlling the cleaning device to clean along the cleaning direction (Jinn - Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0024-0025) “controlling the cleaning robot to proceed in the direction of the bottom grain”
Claim 2
Jinn teaches:
determining the cleaning direction of the cleaning device based on the laying direction comprises (Jinn - Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0024-0025, 0030-0031) “(c) following the cleaning robot in the extracted bottom grain direction”
when the laying direction is a single direction, setting the laying direction as the cleaning direction of the cleaning device, wherein the single direction refers to a plurality of laying directions of the floor covering being mutually parallel (Jinn - Paragraphs 0026-0036) “the existing line groups is within a predetermined angle range… After grouping the lines, the bottom grain direction is determined”
Claim 3
Jinn teaches:
determining the cleaning direction of the cleaning device based on the laying direction comprises (Jinn - Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0024-0025, 0030-0031) “(c) following the cleaning robot in the extracted bottom grain direction”
when the laying direction comprises two or more different directions, setting the cleaning direction as a long side direction of an area where the floor covering is located (Jinn - Paragraphs 0034-0036) “the size of the group is generated by giving a weight to the length and the number of each line belonging to the same group”
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 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.
Claims 10, 12-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinn (KR 20070108815 A, see attached NPL for paragraph numbers) in view of Hillen (US 20140166047 A1).
Claim 10
Jinn does not teach:
Determining the laying direction of the floor according to a user setting.
However, Hillen teaches:
obtaining the laying direction of the floor covering comprises: determining the laying direction of the floor covering according to a user setting (Hillen - Paragraphs 0026, 0055-0056, Claim 1) “the floor is preferably presented to the user in the form of a photo (picture) or as a marked area in a map of the surroundings… the user can confirm the classification or can change it”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Jinn with determining the laying direction of the floor according to a user setting of Hillen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Jinn and Hillen both describe determining the laying direction of the floor and a robotic cleaning device. One would have been motivated to combine as this prevents errors in classification and incorrect cleaning (Hillen – Paragraph 0055).
Claim 12
Jinn teaches:
obtaining a laying direction of a floor covering, wherein the laying direction is a direction where the longest symmetry axis of the floor covering is located; determining a cleaning direction of the cleaning device based on the laying direction (Jinn - Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0024-0025, 0030-0031) “extracting the direction of the bottom grain from the image of the photographed bottom surface; And (c) following the cleaning robot in the extracted bottom grain direction”
and controlling the cleaning device to clean along the cleaning direction (Jinn - Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0024-0025) “controlling the cleaning robot to proceed in the direction of the bottom grain”
Jinn does not teach:
A transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, which, when executed by a processor, implements a method for controlling a cleaning device.
However, Hillen teaches:
A transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, which, when executed by a processor, implements a method for controlling a cleaning device, comprising (Hillen - Paragraph 0017) “software required for evaluating the photographic pictures, in particular a digital image, is contained in an electronic memory… a microcontroller that is provided on the appliance”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Jinn with a computer-readable storage medium and a processor of Hillen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Jinn and Hillen both describe obtaining a laying direction of the floor and controlling the cleaning device. One would have been motivated to combine as this allows for image processing for improved cleaning and energy efficiency (Hillen – Paragraph 0015).
Claim 13
Jinn does not teach:
A processor and a memory storing executable instructions.
However, Hillen teaches:
An electronic device, comprising: a processor; and a memory configured to store executable instructions of the processor (Hillen - Paragraph 0017) “software required for evaluating the photographic pictures, in particular a digital image, is contained in an electronic memory… a microcontroller that is provided on the appliance”
wherein the processor is configured to execute a method for controlling a cleaning device by executing the executable instructions, the method comprising (Hillen - Paragraph 0017) “a microcontroller that is provided on the appliance. It is also preferred that the commands for setting cleaning or treatment parameters or the traveling strategy be generated in the appliance itself”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Jinn with a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions and a processor of Hillen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Jinn and Hillen both describe obtaining a laying direction of the floor and controlling the cleaning device. One would have been motivated to combine as this allows for image processing for improved cleaning and energy efficiency (Hillen – Paragraph 0015).
All of the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 14-15
All of the limitations have been examined with respect to claims 2-3. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 21
All of the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 10. Please see the rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4 recites (emphasis added):
“The method according to claim 1,wherein the obtaining the laying direction of the floor covering comprises:
identifying a covering type of the floor covering;
determining whether to identify the laying direction of the floor covering based on the covering type; and
after determining to identify the laying direction of the floor covering, identifying the laying direction of the floor covering”.
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Jinn teaches identifying the laying direction of the floor covering (Jinn - Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0024-0025, 0030-0031) “extracting the direction of the bottom grain from the image of the photographed bottom surface”.
However, Jinn does not teach the type of floor covering.
Hillen teaches analyzing the floor type and analyzing the floor pattern/grains (Hillen - Claim 1, Paragraph 27) "wood floors or other floors with characteristic patterns or grains can also be identified via the evaluation".
However, Hillen does not teach determining whether to identify the laying direction of the floor based on the covering type.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 4 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 4 recites allowable subject matter.
Claim 16 recites allowable subject matter because this claim recites similar allowable subject found in claim 4.
Claims 5-9 and 17-20 recite allowable subject matter based upon their dependency from one of claims 4 and 16.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights