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 filed 08 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant asserts that the previously applied prior art fails to teach every limitation of claim 1. Specifically, Applicant asserts that the claimed features (omitted for brevity, see at least Page 3 of Applicant's Arguments dated 08 April 2026) are "NEITHER disclosed NOR suggested by Man, Vicenti, or their combination [sic]," for at least the following reasons:
1. The pool cleaning robot comprises two physically separate sub-sensors [sic]: a first sub-sensor unit on a first side, and at least one second sub-sensor unit on a different second side, for collaborative path planning.
2. The first rotation angle is DETERMINED SOLELY by the sensing result of the second sub-sensor unit [sic], and rotation stops only when the second sub-sensor's signal reaches the pool edge [sic].
3. After rotation, the robot real-time acquires second distance information via the second sub-sensor and dynamically maintains the second distance within a preset range [sic] to travel along the pool edge.
4. The system is DEDICATED TO UNDERWATER POOL CLEANING [sic], with path planning adapted to pool edge constraints, not ground robot SLAM or re-localization.
Additionally, Applicant asserts that "Man discloses a pool cleaning control method using only one infrared sensor plus an angular velocity sensor (gyroscope) [sic]…," asserting that "it is fatally deficient" for the following reasons:
1. Man uses only one infrared sensor [sic]—no dual sub-sensors on separate sides.
2. In Man, the rotation angle is calculated by the gyroscope [sic], not by a second sub-sensor. Rotation stops when an ADC value falls below a threshold, not when a second sensor's signal reaches the pool edge.
3. Man relies on pre-calculated turn angles and travel distances [sic]—no real-time dynamic distance maintenance along the edge.
4. Man is limited to rectangular pools [sic] with fixed 90° turns and cannot adapt to irregular pool edges.
Further, Applicant asserts that "Vicenti is Non-Analogous Art [sic] and Discloses No Claimed Features [sic]," specifically arguing that "[t]he Examiner incorrectly equates Vicenti's wall following sensor 113 to the present invention's second sub-sensor unit… [t]hese two components are fundamentally different in purpose, structure, control logic, and application [sic]," for the following reasons:
1. Installation Purpose and Position [sic]
Vicenti's wall following sensor 113 is mounted on a floor-cleaning robot [sic] and serves only for ground obstacle detection, SLAM re-localization, and map correction [sic]—it is an auxiliary positioning sensor that does not participate in core coverage path planning.
The present invention's second sub-sensor unit is mounted on an underwater pool cleaning robot [sic] and is a core sensor for real-time pool-edge ranging, rotation angle calculation, and dynamic edge-following control [sic].2. Working Principle and Trigger Condition [sic]
Vicenti's wall following sensor 113 only detects whether the robot side is roughly parallel to an obstacle [sic] to stop rotation; it does not calculate precise angles, collect real-time distance data, or support closed-loop motion control.
The present invention's second sub-sensor unit collects precise real-time distance to the pool edge, exclusively determines the first rotation angle [sic], and uses "sensing signal reaching the pool edge" as the only condition to stop rotation [sic]—it is the core input for closed-loop control.3. Control Logic and Collaboration [sic]
Vicenti's wall following sensor 113 works independently [sic]; it does not collaborate with other sensors to form a "front-side distance detection + lateral angle determination + dynamic distance maintenance" logic. It only supports SLAM re-localization.
The present invention's second sub-sensor unit deeply collaborates with the first sub-sensor unit: the first sub-sensor unit detects approach to the pool edge, and the second sub-sensor unit sets the rotation angle and maintains edge distance—together enabling full coverage in irregular pools. 4. Application Environment and Adaptation [sic]
Vicenti's wall following sensor 113 is designed for dry indoor floor environments [sic], with no adaptation for underwater waterproofing, water pressure, or light scattering in water.
The present invention's second sub-sensor unit is specifically designed for underwater pool environments [sic], supporting underwater ranging, pool-edge contour recognition, and dynamic edge-following.5. Technical Effect [sic]
Vicenti's wall following sensor 113 only enables wall-following and re-localization for floor robots [sic]; it cannot solve missed cleaning, path deviation, or irregular pool adaptation in pool cleaning.
The present inventions second sub-sensor unit enables precise rotation, dynamic distance maintenance, and full coverage for underwater pool cleaners [sic], eliminating the defects of the prior art.
In sum, Vicenti's wall following sensor 113 is NOT equivalent to the claimed second sub-sensor in any aspect. The Examiner's characterization is unsupported by the prior art [sic].
Thus, Vicenti is non-analogous art and provides no teaching or suggestion to remedy Man's defects.
Lastly, in response to the arguments previously presented by the examiner (omitted for brevity, see at least Pages 2-4 of the Non-Final rejection dated 09 January 2026), Applicant disagrees and clarifies the following:
1. Applicant's argument was misinterpreted [sic]
Applicant does NOT [sic] contend that "a prior art solution should never be modified merely because it solves its own problem." Instead, Applicant's argument is that:
Man does NOT [sic] solve the problem addressed by the present invention;
Man only solves a narrow problem of avoiding path deviation upon touching a straight pool wall, but fails entirely to solve adaptive path planning for irregular pool edges [sic];
A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have no motivation, no teaching, and no reasonable expectation of success [sic] to add a second sensor to Man, not because man "works well enough," but because Man's single-sensor + gyroscope architecture is fundamentally incompatible with the present invention's dual-sensor collaborative control. 2. Man does NOT fully solve the problem [sic]
Man is limited to rectangular pools with straight edges and relies on pre-calculated angles and distances. It cannot adapt to curved, angled, or irregular pool edges [sic], resulting in missed cleaning and path deviation. Man's "solution" is narrow and flawed, and does not address the core problem solved by the present invention.3. No structural or technical reason to add a second sensor to Man [sic]
Man's entire control logic is built around one infrared sensor + an angular velocity sensor (gyroscope) [sic] to calculate turning angles. Adding a lateral second sub-sensor would discard Man's core algorithm and require a complete redesign of its control system. No prior art suggests such a redesign, and Vicenti's wall-following sensor is for a non-analogous floor robot and cannot be transplanted to an underwater pool cleaner.4. The Examiner's reasoning is legally insufficient
Obviousness requires a convincing motivation to combine [sic] prior art references. The mere possibility of "increasing accuracy" is not a legally valid motivation [sic] absent specific teaching in the prior art. MPEP § 2134 makes clear that generalities such as "improving accuracy" do not suffice to establish obviousness. Here, neither Man nor Vicenti provides any teaching, suggestion, or incentive to combine their systems to achieve the present invention's dual-sensor collaborative path planning for irregular pools.
Thus, the Examiner's observation does not support a finding of obviousness. The combination of Man and Vicenti is improper, lacks motivation, and cannot achieve the present invention's technical effects.
The examiner disagrees for at least the following reasons.
Regarding Applicant's first set of arguments, specifically those regarding Applicant's assertion that the above noted "claimed features" are not disclosed or suggested by the combination of Man and Vicenti, the examiner argues the following, with the numbering of the argument corresponding to the numbering of the argument presented above.
1. This is merely a summation of the preamble of claim 1.
2. Applicant here is arguing limitations that are not claimed. There is no requirement in claim 1 that the first angle be "DETERMINED SOLELY [sic]" by the second sub-sensor, nor is there any requirement that rotation stop when the second sub-sensor's signal reaches the pool edge. Rather, the limitations of claim 1 merely recite that "the first angle is determined based on a sensing result of the at least one second sub-sensor unit (emphasis added)," which does not require the first angle be "DETERMINED SOLELY [sic]" by the second sub-sensor unit, merely be based on (i.e., determined at least in part by) the sensing result of the second sub-sensor unit. Additionally, the limitations of claim 1 merely recite that "the first angle enables a sensing signal emitted by the at least one second sub-sensor unit to reach the edge of the pool (emphasis added)," rather than there being any explicit limitation that the rotation stop when the second sub-sensor's signal reaches the pool edge.
3. This is again a summation of a portion of claim 1.
4. This is a summation of the intended purpose of the claimed invention, but does not sufficiently distinguish it from the prior art.
Regarding Applicant's second set of arguments, particularly those pertaining to Man reference, the examiner notes that Applicant, per at least MPEP § 2145(IV), "cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references." The examiner notes, however, that Applicant's argument 4. indicates a misunderstanding of the Man reference overall. Specifically, Man discloses in several portions (see at least 0056 of Man) that the control method detailed is specifically intended to adapt to irregularly shaped pools, rather than "only being limited to rectangular pools and fixed 90° turns" as Applicant asserts. See additionally at least Fig. 2B of Man.
Regarding Applicant's third set of arguments, particularly those pertaining to the Vicenti reference, the examiner again notes that per at least MPEP § 2145(IV), "cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references." Further, the examiner argues the following, with the numbering of the argument corresponding to the numbering of the argument presented above.
1. That Vicenti is directed towards a floor-cleaning robot and the present application is directed towards a pool cleaning robot does not per se render Vicenti non-analogous, especially with consideration that both Man and Vicenti (as well as the present application) are predominantly classified in CPC G05D1. Further, the examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's assertion that the wall following sensor of Vicenti serves "only for ground obstacle detection, SLAM re-localization, and map correction [sic]," not least in part because it ignores the purpose set out in the name of the sensor, wall following.
2. The examiner notes that, as claimed, claim 1 does not recite that the "second sub-sensor unit … exclusively determines the first rotation angle" nor does it recite that the "sensing signal reaching the pool edge" is the "only condition to stop rotation," as Applicant asserts. Notably, the first angle is merely "determined based on a sensing result of the at least one second sub-sensor unit," rather than being determined solely based on the sensing result. Similarly, claim 1 does not even discuss conditions for stopping rotation, and merely states that the first angle "enables a sensing signal emitted by the at least one second sub-sensor unit to reach the edge of the pool," rather than the sensing signal reaching the pool edge being used in the stopping of rotation.
3. Applicant here argues against Vicenti individually, rather than analyzing what the combination of Man and Vicenti teaches.
4. Applicant here argues against bodily incorporation of the sensor of Vicenti. The examiner points to at least MPEP 2145(III), and the cases cited therein, which states that "[i]t is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements."
5. Notably, Applicant contradicts the statement made in Argument 1. that "Vicenti's wall following sensor … serves only for ground obstacle detection, SLAM re-localization, and map correction," by asserting here that "Vicenti's wall following sensor 113 only enables wall-following and re-localization for floor robots [sic]." The examiner further notes that Applicant's assertion that "[Vicenti] cannot solve missed cleaning, path deviation, or irregular pool adaptation" is irrelevant, because there is nothing claimed regarding the missed cleaning, path deviation, or irregular pool adaptation. Further still, the examiner notes that as claimed, there is no requirement the pool cleaner operate underwater. The presented path planning method of claim 1, as presently claimed, could very reasonably be taking place in a dry pool.
Regarding Applicant's final set of arguments, specifically those regarding the combination of Vicenti and Man, the examiner argues the following, with the numbering of the argument corresponding to the numbering of the argument presented above.
1. Applicant merely asserts that there would be no teaching, motivation, or reasonable expectation of success, without sufficient evidence to support these assertions. Per MPEP § 2145(I), "argument does not replace evidence where evidence is necessary."
2. Applicant again fundamentally misunderstands the teachings of Man. The control method of Man is specifically designed to work with pools of varying shapes, as the inventors of Man recognized that previous conventional control methods were insufficient when cleaning a pool that was not rectangular (see at least [0055]-[0056] of Man).
3. Applicant argues against bodily incorporation of the sensor of Vicenti. The examiner points to at least MPEP 2145(III), and the cases cited therein, which states that "[i]t is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements."
4. Applicant argues that the previously provided motivation to combine was insufficient, and that "[o]bviousness requires a convincing motivation to combine prior art references … [t]he mere possibility of "increasing accuracy" is not a legally valid motivation absent specific teaching in the prior art," pointing to MPEP § 2143. The examiner notes that Applicant does not point to any particular portion of MPEP § 2143. The examiner further notes that Applicant's assertion that motivation be expressly stated in the prior art is incorrect, as MPEP 2144(I) explicitly states that "[t]he rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law (emphasis added)."
Hence, in view of the above, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a sensor unit configured to obtain first distance information and second distance information…” and “a control unit configured to … control…” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man (US 20220229440 A1), hereafter Man, in view of Vicenti (US 20160271795 A1), hereafter Vicenti.
Regarding claim 1, Man teaches a path planning method applied to a pool cleaning robot with a first sub-sensor unit configured on a first side of the pool cleaning robot (0028, cleaning equipment controlled to stop running straight when a collected first ADC value is greater than a first preset value, distance of the cleaning equipment to a pool wall determined in advance through the ADC value, 0037, ADC is collected in real-time by an infrared sensor, Examiner's note: the infrared sensor operates while the cleaning equipment is moving, and captures the sensor data in the direction of movement), comprising:
Obtaining first distance information via the first sub-sensor unit, wherein the first distance information indicates a first distance between the first side of the pool cleaning robot and an edge of the pool (0037, when the cleaning equipment runs straight, a first ADC value is collected in real-time by an infrared sensor, and when the first ADC value is greater than a first preset value, the cleaning equipment is controlled to stop running straight, 0028, a distance of the cleaning equipment to a pool wall may be determined in advance through the ADC value);
When the first distance information meets a first condition, controlling the pool cleaning robot at a first location to rotate by a first angle (0037, when the cleaning equipment runs straight, a first ADC value is collected in real-time by an infrared sensor, and when the first ADC value is greater than a first preset value, the cleaning equipment is controlled to stop running straight, 0040, the cleaning equipment is controlled to turn in a preset direction, and when the cleaning equipment turns, a second ADC value collected in real-time by the infrared sensor is acquired, and the cleaning equipment is controlled to stop turning once the second ADC value is less than a second preset value, 0056, the cleaning equipment is controlled to turn at a corresponding angle according to an angle between a running direction of the cleaning equipment and an obstacle ahead, see also Fig. 2B),
Controlling the pool cleaning robot to travel to a second location (0044, the first turn angle and the first running distance are calculated based on angle data uploaded by an angular velocity sensor, 0050, cleaning equipment controlled to run straight forward for the first running distance).
Man fails to teach, however, wherein the pool cleaning robot has at least one second sub-sensor unit configured on a side of the pool cleaning robot, and wherein the method includes:
Wherein the first angle enables a sensing signal emitted by the at least one second sub-sensor unit to reach the edge of the pool, and the first angle is determined based on a sensing result of the at least one second sub-sensor unit;
Obtaining second distance information via the at least one second sub-sensor unit, wherein the second distance information indicates a second distance between the second side of the pool cleaning robot and the edge of the pool; and
Controlling the pool cleaning robot while keeping the second distance information meeting a second condition.
Vicenti, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein a cleaning robot has at least one second sub-sensor unit configured on a side of the cleaning robot (0026, A wall following sensor 113 on the right side of the robot 100 is an IR sensor that can determine when the robot 100 is following a wall. The left side L of the robot 100 can also have a wall following sensor.), and wherein the method includes:
Wherein the first angle enables a sensing signal emitted by the at least one second sub-sensor unit to reach the edge of the operating area, and the first angle is determined based on a sensing result of the at least one second sub-sensor unit (0063, In some implementations of the wall following behavior, the controller 190 uses the wall following sensors to determine at what orientation to stop rotating the robot 100. When the wall following sensors determine that the side of the robot 100 is substantially parallel to the obstacle, the controller 190 ceases rotation);
Obtaining second distance information via the at least one second sub-sensor unit, wherein the second distance information indicates a second distance between the second side of the cleaning robot and the edge of the operating area (0044, The robot 100 can also use the wall following sensors 113 to estimate the angle that the robot 100 turns in order to move in a direction parallel to the obstacle. The wall following sensors 113 are time-of-flight sensors that can identify a distance from an obstacle. The controller … can respond to the data of the wall following sensors such that either of the lateral sides L and R of the robot 100 are a set distance from the obstacle as the robot 100 moves in the forward direction F.); and
Controlling the pool cleaning robot while keeping the second distance information meeting a second condition (0044, The robot 100 can also use the wall following sensors 113 to estimate the angle that the robot 100 turns in order to move in a direction parallel to the obstacle. The wall following sensors 113 are time-of-flight sensors that can identify a distance from an obstacle. The controller … can respond to the data of the wall following sensors such that either of the lateral sides L and R of the robot 100 are a set distance from the obstacle as the robot 100 moves in the forward direction F.).
Man and Vicenti are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic cleaning systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the pool cleaning system of Man to have included the second distance determination of Vicenti in order to provide a means of ensuring the pool cleaner follows the wall. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the pool cleaner maintains a set distance from the wall while traveling along the wall (see at least 0044 of Vicenti).
Claims 11 and 20 are similar in scope to claim 1, and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Man and Vicenti teaches the path planning method according to claim 1, and Man teaches it further comprising:
Determining preset path information based on contour information of the edge of the pool, cleaning coverage requirement, or size information of the pool cleaning robot (0047-0049, first running distance calculated based on a set distance S in the range of 0.5 < S < 2D, wherein D represents a body width of the cleaning equipment), wherein the preset path information comprises at least one of the following: traveling rules, a traveling direction, a path spacing, and a traveling sequence of paths of the pool cleaning robot (0061, distance between the two back and forth paths of the cleaning equipment may be the set distance S so that the cleaning path of the cleaning equipment can be kept regular and orderly).
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Man and Vicenti teaches the path planning method according to claim 2, and Man further teaches wherein the first distance information indicates the first distance between the first side and the edge of the pool in the traveling direction based on the preset path information (0037, when the cleaning equipment runs straight, a first ADC value is collected in real-time by an infrared sensor, and when the first ADC value is greater than a first preset value, the cleaning equipment is controlled to stop running straight, 0028, a distance of the cleaning equipment to a pool wall may be determined in advance through the ADC value).
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Man and Vicenti teaches the path planning method according to claim 3, and Man further teaches wherein a third distance between the first location and the second location in a translation direction perpendicular to the traveling direction meets a third condition (0061, distance between the two back and forth paths of the cleaning equipment may be the set distance S so that the cleaning path of the cleaning equipment can be kept regular and orderly).
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Man and Vicenti teaches the path planning method according to claim 4, and Man further teaches wherein the first condition comprises that the first distance is less than or equal to a first predetermined distance (0037, when the cleaning equipment runs straight, a first ADC value is collected in real-time by an infrared sensor, and when the first ADC value is greater than a first preset value, the cleaning equipment is controlled to stop running straight, 0028, a distance of the cleaning equipment to a pool wall may be determined in advance through the ADC value) and the third condition comprises that the third distance is equal to a third predetermined distance or the traveling duration between the second location and the first location reaches a preset duration (0061, distance between the two back and forth paths of the cleaning equipment may be the set distance S so that the cleaning path of the cleaning equipment can be kept regular and orderly).
Man fails to teach, however, wherein the second condition comprises that the second distance is within a second predetermined distance range.
Vicenti, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the second condition comprises that the second distance is within a second predetermined distance range (0044, The robot 100 can also use the wall following sensors 113 to estimate the angle that the robot 100 turns in order to move in a direction parallel to the obstacle. The wall following sensors 113 are time-of-flight sensors that can identify a distance from an obstacle. The controller … can respond to the data of the wall following sensors such that either of the lateral sides L and R of the robot 100 are a set distance from the obstacle as the robot 100 moves in the forward direction F.).
Man and Vicenti are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic cleaning systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified the pool cleaning system of Man to have included the second distance determination of Vicenti in order to provide a means of ensuring the pool cleaner follows the wall. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the pool cleaner maintains a set distance from the wall while traveling along the wall (see at least 0044 of Vicenti).
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Man and Vicenti teaches the path planning method according to claim 5, and Man further teaches wherein the third predetermined distance comprises an integer multiple of the path spacing (0061, distance between the two back and forth paths of the cleaning equipment may be the set distance S so that the cleaning path of the cleaning equipment can be kept regular and orderly).
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Man and Vicenti teaches the path planning method of claim 2, and Man teaches it further comprising:
Controlling the pool cleaning robot at the second location to rotate by a second angle and continue to travel based on the preset path information (0050-0052, cleaning equipment controlled to run straight forward for the first running distance and then stop running straight, cleaning equipment controlled to turn the first turn angle in the preset direction, and cleaning equipment controlled to run straight).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Man and Vicenti teaches the path planning method according to claim 7, and Man further teaches wherein the second angle comprises a second preset angle value, or the second angle is determined based on the traveling direction of the path or based on a yaw angle given by an inertial measurement unit (0046, first turn angle is calculated based on the angle data of the first angle and the second angle uploaded by the angular velocity sensor).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Man and Vicenti teaches the pool cleaning robot according to claim 11, and Man teaches wherein the first side comprises a front side (0028, cleaning equipment controlled to stop running straight when a collected first ADC value is greater than a first preset value, distance of the cleaning equipment to a pool wall determined in advance through the ADC value, 0037, ADC is collected in real-time by an infrared sensor, Examiner's note: the infrared sensor operates while the cleaning equipment is moving, and captures the sensor data in the direction of movement).
Man fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the second side comprises a left side or a right side.
Vicenti, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the second side comprises a left side or a right side (0026, A wall following sensor 113 on the right side of the robot 100 is an IR sensor that can determine when the robot 100 is following a wall. The left side L of the robot 100 can also have a wall following sensor.).
Man and Vicenti are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic cleaning systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified the pool cleaning system of Man to have included the second distance sensor of Vicenti in order to provide a means of ensuring the pool cleaner follows the wall. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the pool cleaner maintains a set distance from the wall while traveling along the wall (see at least 0044 of Vicenti).
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 BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/BLAKE A WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights