DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 08/21/2025 has/have been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
The preliminarily amended list of claims 1-20 is pending in this application. In the preliminarily amended claim set filed 06/29/2025:
Claim(s) 2-4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16 has/have been indicated as amended.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 11, 14 has/have been indicated as originally presented.
Claim(s) 17-20 has/have been newly added.
Claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the application.
Non-Final Rejection
Claim Objections/Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6-13 is/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. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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(s) 1-5 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite using a processor to determine if an automatic cleaning apparatus is in a slipping state by: 1) obtaining a metered distance value representative of a rotation distance of a wheel of the automatic cleaning apparatus; 2) obtaining multiple frame point clouds; and 3) determining that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in a slipping state based on the metered distance value and the multiple frame point clouds.
The limitations of: using a processor to determine if an automatic cleaning apparatus is in a slipping state by: 1) obtaining a metered distance value representative of a rotation distance of a wheel of the automatic cleaning apparatus; 2) obtaining multiple frame point clouds; and 3) determining that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in a slipping state based on the metered distance value and the multiple frame point clouds, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the using a processor language, in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing steps of: determining that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in a slipping state based on the metered distance value and the multiple frame point clouds, gathered in advance. The above claim limitations pertaining to steps: 1) and 2), comprise steps that perform “data gathering” by reciting steps of receiving data from an odometer and laser radar, but do not positively recite an odometer and laser radar as part the structure of the claimed invention and therefore recite Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity(Insignificant Pre-Solution Activity as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(g)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components and Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites a processor. The processor in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception by incorporating an additional element(s) in the claimed method. Accordingly, this additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it/they does/do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a processor amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception by incorporating an additional element(s) in the claimed method. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Examiner’s Note #1: With respect to claims 14 and 15, although claims 14 and 15 recite “an automatic cleaning apparatus,” the implementation of this term further amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception by incorporating an additional element(s) in the claimed method. Put another way an automatic cleaning apparatus is recited, and a method is performed in which the automatic cleaning apparatus is the subject of the claimed method; however, the automatic cleaning apparatus is not recited as a positively recited autonomous device that performs autonomous walking operations, for example, nor does the claimed method result in a subsequent control step or modification to the automatic cleaning apparatus based on a determination that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in a slipping state. There is merely a determination that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in a slipping state without anything further to improve or remedy this scenario – End of Examiner’s Note #1.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5 and 16-20 when analyzed as a whole, is/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 element(s), if any, in the dependent claim(s) is/are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim(s) 1, 14 and 15.
Examiner’s Note #2: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim(s) in order to modify the gathered data in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art could not perform in the human mind or with pen and paper, such as in Applicant’s claim 6, which recites: “projecting a two-dimensional position of each point data in each first frame point cloud onto a preset plane to obtain a first plane map, and projecting a two-dimensional position of each point data in each second frame point cloud onto the preset plane to obtain a second plane map” in order to perform similarity matching during the slipping state determination process(addition to the intermediate limitations from claims 2 and 4, which claim 6 depends from).
The projection of 3D point-cloud data onto one or more 2D planes is a process that one of ordinary skill in the art could not perform in the human mind or with pen and paper and therefore remedies the above cited concerns regarding patentability of the claimed invention. In view of this, claim(s) 6 and all claims which depend from claim 6 have been indicated as possessing allowable subject matter above.
Alternatively, reciting automatic control of the automatic cleaning apparatus in a specific way using a result of the claimed determination method, i.e. NOT simply reciting: “controlling the automatic cleaning apparatus based the determination that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in a slipping state,” but rather control more directly linked to the claimed invention, for example, from the Applicant’s specification: “the automatic cleaning apparatus may control the driving wheel assembly 141 to cause the automatic cleaning apparatus to respond to the event (or object), for example, to move away from the obstacle;” [Applicant’s Specification; ¶: 0120], which would overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 101, were the claimed in independent form.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 1 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG et al. (Chinese Patent Publication 107643186 A) in view of HE et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0104908 A1) referenced as Yang and HE, respectively, moving forward.
With respect to claim 1, Yang discloses:
“A method for detecting a slipping state, comprising:” [Yang; Yang is directed towards determining whether or not a wheeled robot that automatically walks is in a slipping state: " In this embodiment, the method for detecting machine slippage is applied to a wheeled robot to detect whether the walking wheels of the wheeled robot are slipping;" ¶: 0038];
“and obtaining multiple frame point clouds through a laser radar within a preset detection time period during walking of an automatic cleaning apparatus” [Yang; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yang discloses receiving first laser data and second laser data at multiple time points(see, for example first time point and second time point in Step S120 in Fig. 3 and ¶: 0040-0041), which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "preset detection time;" See also: ¶: 0043];
“wherein the metered distance value represents a rotation distance value of a driving wheel assembly” [Yang; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yang further discloses that a rotation distance calculation submodule is used to calculate the rotation distance of the respective walking wheels of the wheeled robot using the gathered sensor data (¶: 0105); See also: ¶: 0044];
“and determining that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in the slipping state based on the metered distance value and the multiple frame point clouds” [Yang; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yang discloses determining whether the wheeled robot is in a slipping state based on a comparison of radar sensor data at a first moment and at a second moment(¶: 0012). Yang further discloses that determination is performed by comparing a first pose increment and a second pose increment using the first laser data and the second laser data(¶: 0012). Yang further discloses that a rotation distance calculation submodule is used to calculate the rotation distance of the respective walking wheels of the wheeled robot using the gathered sensor data (¶: 0105). In view of this, the disclosed difference in the first pose increment and second pose increment has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "determining that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in the slipping state based on the metered distance value and the multiple frame point clouds;" See also: Fig. 2; ¶: 0035-0043].
Yang does not specifically state: “obtaining a metered distance value through an odometer.”
HE, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for determining slipping of wheels in automatic robots, teaches: “obtaining a metered distance value through an odometer” [HE; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, He teaches an automatic cleaning robot that uses an odometer to determine whether or not its wheels are slipping; Fig. 1; ¶: 0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for determining whether an automatic walking wheeled robot is in a slipping state as disclosed by Yang to incorporate the teachings regarding measuring distances traveled by the robot’s wheels using an odometer as taught by HE with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for determining whether an automatic walking wheeled robot is in a slipping state that is more robust in its ability to be able to independently navigate around obstacles that are causing the robot to be stuck in a slipping state thereby “improving workability of the cleaning robot” [HE; ¶: 0122].
With respect to claim 14, Yang discloses:
“An automatic cleaning apparatus, comprising:” [Yang; Yang is directed towards determining whether or not a wheeled robot that automatically walks is in a slipping state: " In this embodiment, the method for detecting machine slippage is applied to a wheeled robot to detect whether the walking wheels of the wheeled robot are slipping;" ¶: 0038];
“wherein the metered distance value represents a rotation distance value of a driving wheel assembly” [Yang; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yang further discloses that a rotation distance calculation submodule is used to calculate the rotation distance of the respective walking wheels of the wheeled robot using the gathered sensor data (¶: 0105); See also: ¶: 0044];
“a laser radar configured to obtain a frame point cloud during the walking of the automatic cleaning apparatus” [Yang; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yang discloses a radar senser to collect first laser data and second laser data; ¶: 0119];
“a processor connected respectively to the odometer and the laser radar for communication, and the processor configured to: obtain the metered distance value through the odometer, and obtain multiple frame point clouds through the laser radar within a preset detection time period during the walking of the automatic cleaning apparatus, wherein the metered distance value represents the rotation distance value of the driving wheel assembly” [Yang; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yang discloses receiving first laser data and second laser data at multiple time points(see, for example first time point and second time point in Step S120 in Fig. 3 and ¶: 0040-0041), which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "preset detection time;" See also: ¶: 0043];
“and determine that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in the slipping state based on the metered distance value and the multiple frame point clouds” [Yang; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yang discloses determining whether the wheeled robot is in a slipping state based on a comparison of radar sensor data at a first moment and at a second moment(¶: 0012). Yang further discloses that determination is performed by comparing a first pose increment and a second pose increment using the first laser data and the second laser data(¶: 0012). Yang further discloses that a rotation distance calculation submodule is used to calculate the rotation distance of the respective walking wheels of the wheeled robot using the gathered sensor data (¶: 0105). In view of this, the disclosed difference in the first pose increment and second pose increment has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "determining that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in the slipping state based on the metered distance value and the multiple frame point clouds;" See also: Fig. 2; ¶: 0035-0043].
Yang does not specifically state: “an odometer configured to obtain a metered distance value.”
HE teaches: “an odometer configured to obtain a metered distance value” [HE; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, He teaches an automatic cleaning robot that uses an odometer to determine whether or not its wheels are slipping; Fig. 1; ¶: 0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for determining whether an automatic walking wheeled robot is in a slipping state as disclosed by Yang to incorporate the teachings regarding measuring distances traveled by the robot’s wheels using an odometer as taught by HE with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for determining whether an automatic walking wheeled robot is in a slipping state that is more robust in its ability to be able to independently navigate around obstacles that are causing the robot to be stuck in a slipping state thereby “improving workability of the cleaning robot” [HE; ¶: 0122].
With respect to claim 15, Yang discloses:
“An automatic cleaning apparatus, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer program instructions executable by the processor, and when the processor executes the computer program instructions, the processor is configured to: obtain a metered distance value” [Yang; Yang is directed towards determining whether or not a wheeled robot that automatically walks is in a slipping state: " In this embodiment, the method for detecting machine slippage is applied to a wheeled robot to detect whether the walking wheels of the wheeled robot are slipping;" ¶: 0038;
"For example, the flowcharts and block diagrams in the accompanying drawings illustrate the architecture, functions, and operations of possible implementations of devices, methods, and computer program products according to various embodiments of the present invention;" ¶: 0125];
“and obtain multiple frame point clouds through a laser radar within a preset detection time period during walking of an automatic cleaning apparatus” [Yang; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yang discloses receiving first laser data and second laser data at multiple time points(see, for example first time point and second time point in Step S120 in Fig. 3 and ¶: 0040-0041), which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "preset detection time;" See also: ¶: 0043];
“wherein the metered distance value represents a rotation distance value of a driving wheel assembly” [Yang; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yang further discloses that a rotation distance calculation submodule is used to calculate the rotation distance of the respective walking wheels of the wheeled robot using the gathered sensor data (¶: 0105); See also: ¶: 0044];
“and determine that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in a slipping state based on the metered distance value and the multiple frame point clouds” [Yang; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yang discloses determining whether the wheeled robot is in a slipping state based on a comparison of radar sensor data at a first moment and at a second moment(¶: 0012). Yang further discloses that determination is performed by comparing a first pose increment and a second pose increment using the first laser data and the second laser data(¶: 0012). Yang further discloses that a rotation distance calculation submodule is used to calculate the rotation distance of the respective walking wheels of the wheeled robot using the gathered sensor data (¶: 0105). In view of this, the disclosed difference in the first pose increment and second pose increment has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "determining that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in the slipping state based on the metered distance value and the multiple frame point clouds;" See also: Fig. 2; ¶: 0035-0043].
Yang does not specifically state: “through an odometer.”
HE teaches: “through an odometer,” [HE; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, He teaches an automatic cleaning robot that uses an odometer to determine whether or not its wheels are slipping; Fig. 1; ¶: 0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for determining whether an automatic walking wheeled robot is in a slipping state as disclosed by Yang to incorporate the teachings regarding measuring distances traveled by the robot’s wheels using an odometer as taught by HE with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for determining whether an automatic walking wheeled robot is in a slipping state that is more robust in its ability to be able to independently navigate around obstacles that are causing the robot to be stuck in a slipping state thereby “improving workability of the cleaning robot” [HE; ¶: 0122].
With respect to claim 16, Yang discloses: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer program instructions, wherein the computer program instructions, when called and executed by a processor, implement steps of claim 1” [Yang; "For example, the flowcharts and block diagrams in the accompanying drawings illustrate the architecture, functions, and operations of possible implementations of devices, methods, and computer program products according to various embodiments of the present invention;" ¶: 0125].
Claim(s) 2, 3, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of HE and LI et al. (Chinese Patent Publication 114608849 A ) referenced as LI.
With respect to claim 2, Yang in view of HE does not specifically state: “wherein said determining that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in the slipping state based on the metered distance value and the multiple frame point clouds comprises: in response to that the metered distance value is greater than a preset metered distance threshold, determining whether the position of the automatic cleaning apparatus has changed based on the multiple frame point clouds; and in response to that it is determined that the position of the automatic cleaning apparatus has not changed, determining that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in the slipping state.”
LI, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for determining slipping of wheels in automatic robots, teaches: “wherein said determining that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in the slipping state based on the metered distance value and the multiple frame point clouds comprises: in response to that the metered distance value is greater than a preset metered distance threshold, determining whether the position of the automatic cleaning apparatus has changed based on the multiple frame point clouds; and in response to that it is determined that the position of the automatic cleaning apparatus has not changed, determining that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in the slipping state” [LI; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Li teaches determining that an automatic sweeper robot is in a slipping state by first calculating whether a size relationship between a first pose and a second pose of a robot is greater than a first set value. Subsequently, Li further teaches determining if the drive wheel deviates significantly from the distance value determined by the lidar; and determining that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in the slipping state, for example in a situation in which: "the drive wheel of the robot vacuum cleaner is rotating, but the displacement of the robot vacuum cleaner remains unchanged;" ¶: 0072; See also: ¶: 0071, 0073-0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for determining whether an automatic walking wheeled robot is in a slipping state as disclosed by Yang to incorporate the teachings regarding determining whether the automatic robot is in a slipping state while rotating or not rotating by assessing the change in rotation and change in position in the automatic robot over time as taught by LI with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for determining whether an automatic walking wheeled robot is in a slipping state that is more robust in its ability to “improve the accuracy of determining whether the sweeper is slipping during straight-line movement” [LI; ¶: 0079].
With respect to claim 3, Yang in view of HE does not specifically state:
“wherein said determining that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in the slipping state based on the metered distance value and the multiple frame point clouds comprises the following steps: determining whether the position of the automatic cleaning apparatus has changed based on the multiple frame point clouds;”
“in response to that it is determined that the position of the automatic cleaning apparatus has not changed based on the multiple frame point clouds, determining whether the metered distance value is greater than a preset metered distance threshold; and in response to that the metered distance value is greater than the preset metered distance threshold, determining that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in the slipping state.”
LI teaches:
“wherein said determining that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in the slipping state based on the metered distance value and the multiple frame point clouds comprises the following steps: determining whether the position of the automatic cleaning apparatus has changed based on the multiple frame point clouds” [LI; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Li teaches determining that an automatic sweeper robot is in a slipping state by calculating whether a size relationship between a first pose and a second pose of a robot is greater than a first set value; ¶: 0071-0076];
“in response to that it is determined that the position of the automatic cleaning apparatus has not changed based on the multiple frame point clouds, determining whether the metered distance value is greater than a preset metered distance threshold; and in response to that the metered distance value is greater than the preset metered distance threshold, determining that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in the slipping state.” [LI; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Li teaches determining if there is a deviation from a distance and angle measured from a lidar sensor as part of the determination process for if the robot cleaner is slipping as follows: "when the second difference between the first distance value in the first pose and the second distance value in the second pose is greater than the second set value, it indicates that the distance value predicted based on the angular velocity information of the gyroscope and the speed information of the drive wheel deviates significantly from the distance value actually determined by the lidar. In this case, the displacement of the sweeper determined by the two is significantly different, that is, the sweeper is in a slipping state;" ¶: 0075; See also: ¶: 0071-0074, 0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for determining whether an automatic walking wheeled robot is in a slipping state as disclosed by Yang to incorporate the teachings regarding determining whether the automatic robot is in a slipping state while rotating or not rotating by assessing the change in rotation and change in position in the automatic robot over time as taught by LI with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for determining whether an automatic walking wheeled robot is in a slipping state that is more robust in its ability to “improve the accuracy of determining whether the sweeper is slipping during straight-line movement” [LI; ¶: 0079].
With respect to claim 17, Yang in view of HE does not specifically state: “wherein the processor is further configured to: in response to that the metered distance value is greater than a preset metered distance threshold, determine whether the position of the automatic cleaning apparatus has changed based on the multiple frame point clouds; and in response to that it is determined that the position of the automatic cleaning apparatus has not changed, determine that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in the slipping state.”
LI teaches: “wherein the processor is further configured to: in response to that the metered distance value is greater than a preset metered distance threshold, determine whether the position of the automatic cleaning apparatus has changed based on the multiple frame point clouds; and in response to that it is determined that the position of the automatic cleaning apparatus has not changed, determine that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in the slipping state” [LI; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Li teaches determining that an automatic sweeper robot is in a slipping state by first calculating whether a size relationship between a first pose and a second pose of a robot is greater than a first set value. Subsequently, Li further teaches determining if the drive wheel deviates significantly from the distance value determined by the lidar; and determining that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in the slipping state, for example in a situation in which: "the drive wheel of the robot vacuum cleaner is rotating, but the displacement of the robot vacuum cleaner remains unchanged;" ¶: 0072; See also: ¶: 0071, 0073-0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for determining whether an automatic walking wheeled robot is in a slipping state as disclosed by Yang to incorporate the teachings regarding determining whether the automatic robot is in a slipping state while rotating or not rotating by assessing the change in rotation and change in position in the automatic robot over time as taught by LI with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for determining whether an automatic walking wheeled robot is in a slipping state that is more robust in its ability to “improve the accuracy of determining whether the sweeper is slipping during straight-line movement” [LI; ¶: 0079].
With respect to claim 18, Yang in view of HE does not specifically state:
“wherein the processor is further configured to: determine whether the position of the automatic cleaning apparatus has changed based on the multiple frame point clouds”
“in response to that it is determined that the position of the automatic cleaning apparatus has not changed based on the multiple frame point clouds, determine whether the metered distance value is greater than a preset metered distance threshold; and in response to that the metered distance value is greater than the preset metered distance threshold, determine that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in the slipping state.”
LI teaches:
“wherein the processor is further configured to: determine whether the position of the automatic cleaning apparatus has changed based on the multiple frame point clouds” [LI; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Li teaches determining that an automatic sweeper robot is in a slipping state by calculating whether a size relationship between a first pose and a second pose of a robot is greater than a first set value; ¶: 0071-0076];
“in response to that it is determined that the position of the automatic cleaning apparatus has not changed based on the multiple frame point clouds, determine whether the metered distance value is greater than a preset metered distance threshold; and in response to that the metered distance value is greater than the preset metered distance threshold, determine that the automatic cleaning apparatus is in the slipping state” [LI; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Li teaches determining if there is a deviation from a distance and angle measured from a lidar sensor as part of the determination process for if the robot cleaner is slipping as follows: "when the second difference between the first distance value in the first pose and the second distance value in the second pose is greater than the second set value, it indicates that the distance value predicted based on the angular velocity information of the gyroscope and the speed information of the drive wheel deviates significantly from the distance value actually determined by the lidar. In this case, the displacement of the sweeper determined by the two is significantly different, that is, the sweeper is in a slipping state;" ¶: 0075; See also: ¶: 0071-0074, 0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for determining whether an automatic walking wheeled robot is in a slipping state as disclosed by Yang to incorporate the teachings regarding determining whether the automatic robot is in a slipping state while rotating or not rotating by assessing the change in rotation and change in position in the automatic robot over time as taught by LI with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for determining whether an automatic walking wheeled robot is in a slipping state that is more robust in its ability to “improve the accuracy of determining whether the sweeper is slipping during straight-line movement” [LI; ¶: 0079].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
LI (Chinese Patent Publication 109414145 A) discloses: The invention discloses a slip detecting method. A first optical flow sensor is positioned on one side of the first driving wheel, a first encoder is mounted on the first driving wheel, and the first encoder is configured to detect a speed of the first driving wheel; calculation is performed according to the image acquired at the current time of the first optical flow sensor and the historical image collected at the first n times, and the first actual displacement of the current time of the mobile electronic device is acquired relative to the previous nth time. A first actual speed of the current time of the mobile electronic device is obtained according to the first displacement; the first theoretical speed of the current time of the mobile electronic device is acquired according to the speed of the first driving wheel acquired by the first encoder in real time, and whether the mobile electronic device has a slip phenomenon is determined according to the first theoretical speed and the first speed difference of the first actual speed.
ZHU et al. (Chinese Patent Publication 110946511 A) discloses: The embodiment of the invention provides a slip judgment method and a device, and a storage medium. According to the method of the invention, a plurality of environment images in the action process of the robot are acquired; the action state of the robot is determined in combination with the plurality of environment images; and if the action state of the robot is a slipping state, the robot executes an escape action. According to the method of the invention, a plurality of environment images in a robot process are acquired; the action state of the robot is determined according to the acquired environment images; and when it is detected that the action state of the robot is the slipping state, the robot executes the escape action and returns to normal operation, by means of the slip judgment method, the slipping action of the robot can be rapidly determined, the escape action is executed, and the working efficiency of the robot is improved.
TAN et al. (Chinese Patent Publication 114505887 A) discloses: The invention discloses a slipping detection method and device of a robot and the robot. The method comprises the following steps: acquiring a first position variable quantity and a first angle variable quantity between a current laser frame and a previous laser frame resolved by a predetermined sensor; acquiring a second position variable quantity and a second angle variable quantity between the current laser frame and the previous laser frame calculated by the speedometer; when a difference value between the second position variation and the first position variation is greater than or equal to a first preset position variation threshold value, and/or when a difference value between the second angle variation and the first angle variation is greater than or equal to a first preset angle variation threshold value, combining a correlation matching result of the laser point cloud data and the local map; and the slipping condition of the robot in the current laser frame is judged. By the adoption of the scheme, the problems that in the moving process of the robot, the situation that wheels slip occurs, and the whole system is greatly affected can be solved.
NIU (Chinese Patent Publication 117008148 A) discloses: The invention provides a slip state detection method and device and a storage medium. In the walking process of the automatic cleaning equipment, the metering distance value and the multiple frame point clouds in the preset detection time period are obtained, and it can be rapidly and accurately determined that the automatic cleaning equipment is in the slipping state through the metering distance value and the multiple frame point clouds. The sensing efficiency and the detection sensitivity of the system are improved, and the user experience is improved.
SO et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0253445 A1) discloses: A robot cleaner for generating accurate travelling records regardless of floor material is provided. The robot cleaner includes a main body, a drive wheel installed on the main body, a drive motor configured to rotate the drive wheel, a travelling sensor configured to detect rotation of the drive wheel, a first optical sensor configured to detect an obstacle located in a moving direction of the main body, a cleaning tool configured to clean a floor, a second optical sensor configured to acquire an image of the floor, and a processor electrically connected to the drive motor, the travelling sensor, the first optical sensor, and the second optical sensor. The processor is configured to control a memory to store a movement record of the main body based on an output of the travelling sensor and an output of the second optical sensor, calculate a distance moved by the main body based on an output of the second optical sensor in response to detection of an obstacle, and control a cleaning tool to clean a floor in the vicinity of the obstacle in response to the distance travelled by the main body that is calculated as being greater than a threshold distance.
LI et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0275816 A1) discloses: The present disclosure relates to a method for detecting a skidding of a robot, a mapping method and a chip. A method for detecting a skidding of a robot, comprising the following steps: By an odometer on existing driving wheels of a robot and a gyroscope and a processor in a body of the robot, a first angle change rate generated by two driving wheels within a preset time and a second angle change rate generated by the gyroscope within the preset time are detected and calculated, so as to determine an angular velocity change error rate of the robot. Finally, by judging whether the angular velocity change error rate is greater than or equal to a preset value, it is determined whether the robot is in the skidding state.
Forsberg et al. (United States Patent Publication 2025/0341837 A1) discloses: A robotic cleaning device configured to navigate over a surface to be cleaned including a propulsion system configured to move the robotic cleaning device over the surface to be cleaned, a camera, at least one light source, an optical odometry sensor arranged to be directed towards the surface and configured to measure position of the robotic cleaning device, a heading sensor configured to measure heading of the robotic cleaning device, and a controller configured to detect a luminous section in each captured image caused by the at least one light source illuminating an object, the luminous section representing detected object data, determine location of the detected object data in each captured image with respect to a reference position using the measured position and heading of the robotic cleaning device, and to create a 3D representation of the illuminated object.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 11:00 am & 12:00pm - 5:00 pm.
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 A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/RAMI NABIH BEDEWI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
