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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the election of invention filed July 8, 2026. Claims 14-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination, and claims 1-13 stand withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 14-20 in the reply filed on July 8, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on no particular grounds. This is not found persuasive because Applicant failed to provide any arguments for consideration.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Request for priority to Provisional App. No. 63/631,552 filed April 9, 2024 is acknowledged. Examiner notes Applicant may be requested to perfect one or more of the claims in the situation where applied prior art has priority falling between the filing date of the non-provisional application the date of the provisional application. No action by Applicant is requested at this time.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 recites plant instead of “path.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 14 and 16-18 along with the corresponding dependent claims 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation the executable path. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See next rejection below for interpretation for this Action.
Claim 14 recites sending the executable paths to the local planner module, the local planner module configured to send instructions to move the apparatus along the executable path. It is unclear if the executable path is intended to be the coverage path, the replanned coverage path, or the executable paths. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean the coverage path or the replanned coverage path.
Each of claims 14 and 18 recites computer-implemented before reciting that the autonomous cleaning apparatus comprises a processor, hardware, and software. It is unclear whether there is a computer and a local computer or if the processor, hardware, and software of the autonomous cleaning apparatus is the computer. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting the processor, hardware, and software to be the computer of the computer-implemented method.
The term small changes in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term small changes is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear when a change would be considered “small.” For purposes of this action, any change which is implemented to avoid an obstacle still within the environment is considered a small change.
The term larger changes in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term larger changes is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, there is nothing indicated in the claim to which the change may be compared to in order to determine if the change is a larger change. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting any change to qualify as a larger change.
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.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 14 is directed toward a method, and claim 18 is directed toward a method. Therefore, each of the independent claims 14 and 18 along with the corresponding dependent claims 15-17 and 19-20 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claims 14 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 14 is used for illustration:
A computer-implemented method for a semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus comprising a processor, hardware and navigation software, the cleaning apparatus configured for coverage re-planning of an environment with unknown obstacles (this limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer), the method comprising the steps of:
receiving a cleaning plan for an environment (receiving data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as explained further below);
sending the cleaning plan to a coverage planner module of the navigation software (sending data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as explained further below), the coverage planner module configured to compute a coverage path (a person may mentally determine a coverage path);
sending the computed coverage path to a local planner module and a coverage replanner module (sending data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as explained further below), the local planner module configured to split the coverage plan into one or more executable paths and the coverage replanner module configured for replanning the coverage path (a person may mentally split the coverage plan into executable paths, and a person may mentally replan the coverage path); and
sending the executable paths to the local planner module, the local planner module configured to send instructions to move the apparatus along the executable path (sending data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as explained further below);
wherein the navigation software modules are configured to provide feedback to create coverage paths and replanned coverage paths (a person may think about previous paths before mentally replanning a coverage path).
Additionally, the language of 18 is likewise used for illustration:
A computer-implemented method for a semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus comprising a processor, hardware and navigation software, the cleaning apparatus configured for coverage re-planning of an environment with unknown obstacles by solving an Optimal Axis- Parallel Rank Partitioning (OARP) approach (this limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer), the method comprising the steps of:
decomposing the environment into grid cells (a person may mentally think about an environment and mentally decompose the environment into grid cells);
using the decomposition to compute the minimum number of axis-parallel ranks (a person may mentally think about, for example, the width of a robot and compute the smallest number of axis-parallel ranks based on that width); and
finding an optimal tour of the ranks to obtain the coverage path (a person may mentally determine one or more tours until deciding on an optimal tour).
As explained above, each of independent claims 14 and 18 recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the mental processes judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claims 14 and 18 recite the additional elements of computer-implemented…, receiving…, and sending…. These limitations amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, add insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). More specifically,
a. computer-implemented… found in independent claims 14 and 18. This limitation amounts to merely implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer.
b. receiving… found in independent claim 1. This limitation is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as discussed further below.
c. sending… found in independent claim 1. This limitation is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as discussed further below.
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claims 14 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any 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 in Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, as discussed above, the limitations of receiving…, and sending…, as recited above, are considered insignificant extra solution activities.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitations of receiving…, and sending… are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, because they have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
a. receiving… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art."); and
b. sending… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 14 and 18 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 15-17 and 19-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 15-17 and 19-20, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 15-17 and 19-20 are patent ineligible. Therefore, claims 14-20 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner encourages Applicant to set an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0277027 (hereinafter, “Ramesh”).
Regarding claim 14, Ramesh discloses A computer-implemented method for a semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus comprising a processor, hardware and navigation software, the cleaning apparatus configured for coverage re-planning of an environment with unknown obstacles (see at least [0085]-[0087] and the publication generally; the tool may be a semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus or robot. Examiner notes that what the computer-implemented method is configured for is considered intended use, and Examiner has found no particular way in which a program must be modified to perform the method claimed via a semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus), the method comprising the steps of:
receiving a cleaning plan for an environment (see at least [0085]-[0088]; a plan of a cleaning environment is received);
sending the cleaning plan to a coverage planner module of the navigation software, the coverage planner module configured to compute a coverage path (see at least [0088]; a coverage path planning module may be used to compute a cleaning coverage path);
sending the computed coverage path to a local planner module and a coverage replanner module, the local planner module configured to split the coverage plan into one or more executable paths and the coverage replanner module configured for replanning the coverage path (see at least [0070], [0079], and [0088]; the coverage path may be iteratively updated and may include the use of a local planner which replans parts of the coverage plan. Either the iterative updates or the local planner module may be considered a coverage replanner model); and
sending the executable paths to the local planner module, the local planner module configured to send instructions to move the apparatus along the executable path (see at least [0086]; the plan may be executed at a local planner module of the semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus);
wherein the navigation software modules are configured to provide feedback to create coverage paths and replanned coverage paths (see at least [0070], [0079], and [0088]; the coverage path may be iteratively updated and may include the use of a local planner which replans parts of the coverage plan. Either the iterative updates or the local planner module may be considered a coverage replanner model. Both the iterative updates and the local planner module are implemented based on feedback to create the coverage paths and/or replanned coverage paths).
Regarding claim 15, Ramesh discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, Ramesh discloses wherein the coverage planner module configured to convert cleaning path plant to sectors or straight-line paths, avoid known obstacles and uses connection planner to connect sectors and compute a coverage path (see at least Fig. 2, [0049]-[0052], and [0064]; the coverage path may be based on straight-line paths and may avoid obstacles. The module used to connect the sectors and compute the coverage path may be considered the connection planner).
Regarding claim 16, Ramesh discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, Ramesh discloses wherein the local planner module splits coverage path to executable path for the local controller and makes small changes to the path to go around detected obstacles (see at least [0079]; a local planner at the robot may replan parts of the coverage plan if necessary to, for example, avoid obstacles in areas with small coverage lines).
Regarding claim 17, Ramesh discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, Ramesh discloses wherein if larger changes to path are required a request is sent to conduct a coverage replan (see at least [0079]; a local planner at the robot may replan parts of the coverage plan if necessary).
Regarding claim 18, Ramesh discloses A computer-implemented method for a semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus comprising a processor, hardware and navigation software, the cleaning apparatus configured for coverage re-planning of an environment with unknown obstacles by solving an Optimal Axis- Parallel Rank Partitioning (OARP) approach (see at least [0085]-[0087] and the publication generally; the tool may be a semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus or robot. Examiner notes that what the computer-implemented method is configured for is considered intended use, and Examiner has found no particular way in which a program must be modified to perform the method claimed via a semi-autonomous cleaning apparatus), the method comprising the steps of:
decomposing the environment into grid cells (see at least [0068]-[0069]; an OARP approach may be used which includes partitioning the map into a grid including horizontal and vertical ranks);
using the decomposition to compute the minimum number of axis-parallel ranks (see at least [0068]-[0071]; an OARP approach may be used which computes a minimum number of axis-parallel ranks such that the ranks are limited by the tool width); and
finding an optimal tour of the ranks to obtain the coverage path (see at least [0068]-[0070]; an OARP approach may be used which allows enough iterations to find the optimal coverage solution before terminating).
Regarding claim 19, Ramesh discloses all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Ramesh discloses wherein the axis-parallel ranks further comprising horizontal and vertical ranks (see at least [0068]-[0069]; an OARP approach may be used which includes partitioning the map into a grid including horizontal and vertical ranks).
Regarding claim 20, Ramesh discloses all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Ramesh discloses wherein the axis-parallel ranks further comprising long rectangles that match the width of the cleaning apparatus coverage tool while covering along a straight-line path (see at least Fig. 2 and [0068]-[0071]; an OARP approach may be used which computes a minimum number of axis-parallel ranks such that the ranks are limited by the tool width in a straight-line path, as shown in Fig. 2).
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0089255 which relates to an optimization problem for minimizing the number of turns a robot makes when covering a predefined region.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights