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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/17/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following minor informality: “an docking area” appears as if it should instead read “a docking area” or equivalent.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Regarding claim 14, the claim falls under a statutory category as it recites a method including at least one step.
Step 2a) Prong One: Claim 14 recites a judicial exception. The claim recites:
“receiving… a strength indicator of a wireless communication signal in an docking area within a distance from the docking station, the wireless communication signal transmitting data between the mobile cleaning robot and the docking station or a mobile device; and
based at least in part on the received strength indicator of the wireless communication signal, determining whether to generate a recommendation to reposition the docking station.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
Step 2a) Prong Two: Claim 14 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites an element of “receiving”; the step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of extra-solution activity. Other than reciting “via a controller of the mobile cleaning robot” nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from being performed in the mind. For example, but for the controller language, the claim encompasses receiving data and making a determination, which is understood to be a simple judgment as the receiving and determining are recited at a high level of generality. The mere recitation of a controller does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The computer elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2b: Claim 14 is ineligible, as the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The step of receiving is not considered to be more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Similarly, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicates that storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the claimed element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims 15-18 and 20 do not add anything significantly more to the abstract idea, and merely recite additional abstract steps and insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner notes that independent claim 1 recites “a drive system configured to move the mobile cleaning robot about an environment including a docking area within a distance from the docking station” and dependent claim 19 recites “navigating the mobile cleaning robot to the docking station based on the user response” which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and therefore claims 1-13 and 19 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suvarna (US 2018/0299899 A1), in view of Chae (US 2020/0387164 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Suvarna discloses a mobile robot system, comprising:
a docking station (In paragraph [0020], Suvarna discloses that cleaning robot 102 can dock with a charging station 206); and
a mobile cleaning robot (In paragraph [0019], Suvarna discloses a cleaning robot), including:
a drive system configured to move the mobile cleaning robot about an environment including a docking area within a distance from the docking station (In paragraphs [0020-0021], Suvarna discloses that wheels 302 move the cleaning robot, and that cleaning robot 102 can dock with a charging station 206); and
a controller circuit (In paragraph [0024], Suvarna discloses that a cleaning robot 602 includes a processor 604 that operates a program downloaded to memory 606) configured to:
receive a strength indicator of a wireless communication signal in the docking area, the wireless communication signal transmitting data between the mobile cleaning robot and the docking station or a mobile device (In paragraph [0061], Suvarna discloses using signal quality and other data from a robot to optimize robot operation, where signal quality data for a WiFi or other wireless network or communication channel is analyzed to determine an optimum location for a charging base station for the robot; see also paragraph [0062] where Suvarna discloses that the autonomous robotic device may contain one or more sensors to detect quality of wireless signals of various types, including cellular signals (for example, GMS or CDMA), WiFi signals (whether some form of wireless signal according to the 802.11 standard, or another type of wireless signal), and detection of Bluetooth® and other signals); and
based at least in part on the received strength indicator of the wireless communication signal, determine a recommendation to position the docking station (In paragraph [0061], Suvarna discloses using signal quality and other data from a robot to optimize robot operation, where signal quality data for a WiFi or other wireless network or communication channel is analyzed to determine an optimum location for a charging base station for the robot; see also paragraph [0070] where Suvarna discloses that the signal quality map is constantly updated with each pass of the robot over the same area, and an average signal quality is used).
Suvarna does not explicitly disclose, based at least in part on the received strength indicator of the wireless communication signal, determining whether to generate a recommendation to reposition the docking station.
However, Chae teaches, based at least in part on the received strength indicator of the wireless communication signal, determining whether to generate a recommendation to reposition the docking station (In paragraphs [0099-0100], Chae teaches that the area for which the highest score is assigned by the score setting unit 186 may be recommended as a location where the charging station is to be placed where the user may re-place the charging station at the recommended location; in paragraph [0120], Chae teaches providing, to a terminal of a user, a recommendation that a location (P.sub.b) to be changed is more appropriate than an initial location (P.sub.a) of the charging station).
Chae is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to generating a recommendation to a user to reposition a docking station when a more suitable location is determined. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill art in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement recommending repositioning of the station from a previous location with the system as taught by Suvarna, where doing so may advantageously ensure that the location of the station may be continuously updated and improved, for example, based on changing circumstances and updated data.
Regarding claim 2, Suvarna further discloses wherein the wireless communication signal includes a Wi-Fi signal (In paragraph [0061], Suvarna discloses using signal quality and other data from a robot to optimize robot operation, where signal quality data for a WiFi or other wireless network or communication channel is analyzed to determine an optimum location for a charging base station for the robot; see also paragraph [0062] where Suvarna discloses that the autonomous robotic device may contain one or more sensors to detect quality of wireless signals of various types, including cellular signals (for example, GMS or CDMA), WiFi signals (whether some form of wireless signal according to the 802.11 standard, or another type of wireless signal), and detection of Bluetooth® and other signals).
Regarding claim 3, Suvarna further discloses the mobile device configured to detect the strength indicator of the wireless communication signal at the docking area (In paragraph [0062], Suvarna discloses that signal type, signal strength, and signal frequency may be detected; in paragraph [0065], Suvarna discloses an embodiment of a cleaning map indicating an optimum location for a cleaning device).
Regarding claim 4, Chae further teaches the mobile device configured to detect the strength indicator of the wireless communication signal in response to an initial setup, or a repositioning, of the docking station (In paragraphs [0055-0057] and figs. 7-9, Chae teaches a process of setting map data of a movement space in which a mobile robot moves, and assigning a score based on a type of an item located within a movement space, a process of assigning a score to a plurality of movement routes on which a mobile robot moves in a state in which map data illustrated in FIG. 7 has been set, and a process of recommending a location of a charging station based on a score assigned according to a type of an item and a score assigned according to a movement route of a mobile robot illustrated in FIGS. 7 and 8; see also steps S100, S200, and S300 in figs. 7-9 which depict starting the various modes).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Suvarna and Char discloses wherein the controller circuit is configured to determine a recommended location, different than a present location, for placing the docking station, the recommended location corresponding to a higher wireless communication signal strength than the present location of the docking station (In paragraph [0065], Suvarna discloses that Aa indicator 804 shows an optimum location for a charging station for the cleaning robot, where there is a good WiFi signal that allows the efficient upload and download of information while the cleaning robot is charging, and in one embodiment, multiple possible locations are shown, where the locations could be labelled in order of preference; in paragraphs [0099-0100], Chae teaches that the area for which the highest score is assigned by the score setting unit 186 may be recommended as a location where the charging station is to be placed where the user may re-place the charging station at the recommended location; in paragraph [0120], Chae teaches providing, to a terminal of a user, a recommendation that a location (P.sub.b) to be changed is more appropriate than an initial location (P.sub.a) of the charging station).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Suvarna and Char discloses wherein the controller circuit is further configured to receive strength indicators of the wireless communication signal at two or more candidate locations, and to select a recommended location from the two or more candidate locations for placing the docking station based at least in part on the strength indicators at the two or more candidate locations (In paragraph [0065], Suvarna discloses that Aa indicator 804 shows an optimum location for a charging station for the cleaning robot, where there is a good WiFi signal that allows the efficient upload and download of information while the cleaning robot is charging, and in one embodiment, multiple possible locations are shown, where the locations could be labelled in order of preference; in paragraphs [0099-0100], Chae teaches that the area for which the highest score is assigned by the score setting unit 186 may be recommended as a location where the charging station is to be placed where the user may re-place the charging station at the recommended location; in paragraph [0120], Chae teaches providing, to a terminal of a user, a recommendation that a location (P.sub.b) to be changed is more appropriate than an initial location (P.sub.a) of the charging station).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Suvarna and Char discloses the mobile device configured to display the recommendation to reposition the docking station to a user (In paragraph [0065], Suvarna discloses that Aa indicator 804 shows an optimum location for a charging station for the cleaning robot, where there is a good WiFi signal that allows the efficient upload and download of information while the cleaning robot is charging, and in one embodiment, multiple possible locations are shown, where the locations could be labelled in order of preference; in paragraphs [0099-0100], Chae teaches that the area for which the highest score is assigned by the score setting unit 186 may be recommended as a location where the charging station is to be placed where the user may re-place the charging station at the recommended location; in paragraph [0120], Chae teaches providing, to a terminal of a user, a recommendation that a location (P.sub.b) to be changed is more appropriate than an initial location (P.sub.a) of the charging station).
Regarding claim 9, Chae further teaches wherein the controller circuit is configured to receive from the mobile device a user response to the recommendation, and to navigate the mobile cleaning robot to the docking station in accordance with the user response (In paragraph [0100], Chae teaches that after the location where the charging station is to be placed is extracted and recommended, the relevant data may be transmitted to the driving unit 130, the driving unit 130 may be driven based on the transmitted data, and then the mobile robot 100 of which the battery requires charging may move to the charging station).
Regarding claim 10, Suvarna further discloses wherein the mobile cleaning robot includes one or more sensors (In paragraph [0025], Suvarna discloses a LIDAR module 616 and various sensors, such as a bump sensor 624 indicating contact with an object, proximity sensor 626 indicating closeness to an object, accelerometer and tilt sensors 628, which indicate a drop-off (e.g., stairs) or a tilting of the cleaning robot (e.g., upon climbing over an obstacle, a dirt sensor for detecting the amount of dirt being vacuumed, a motor current sensor for detecting when the motor is overloaded, such as due to being entangled in something, a floor sensor for detecting the type of floor, and an image sensor (camera) for providing images of the environment and objects),
wherein the controller circuit is configured to detect a presence or absence of an obstacle in the docking area using information sensed by the one or more sensors, and to determine whether to generate the recommendation to reposition the docking station further based on the detected presence or absence of the obstacle in the docking area (In paragraphs [0065-0066], Suvarna discloses that a location may be chosen that optimizes the cleaning time by optimizing the traversing path of the cleaning robot, and where in one embodiment, the cleaning robot includes a camera to perform object recognition, where electrical wall sockets can be recognized, and the presence of plugs already using the sockets can also be determined, where the recommendation on the location of the charging station can then take into account not only the strength of the WiFi signal, but also the availability of a wall socket, either with or without existing plugs using it).
Regarding claim 11, Suvarna further discloses wherein the one or more sensors include an imaging sensor (In paragraph [0025], Suvarna discloses an image sensor (camera) for providing images of the environment and objects).
Regarding claim 12, Suvarna further discloses wherein the one or more sensors include a bump sensor (In paragraph [0025], Suvarna discloses a bump sensor 624 indicating contact with an object).
Regarding claim 13, Suvarna further discloses wherein the one or more sensors include a proximity sensor (In paragraph [0025], Suvarna discloses proximity sensor 626 indicating closeness to an object).
Regarding claim 14, Suvarna discloses a method of guiding placement of a docking station for docking a mobile cleaning robot in an environment, the method comprising:
receiving, via a controller of the mobile cleaning robot, a strength indicator of a wireless communication signal in a docking area within a distance from the docking station, the wireless communication signal transmitting data between the mobile cleaning robot and the docking station or a mobile device (In paragraph [0061], Suvarna discloses using signal quality and other data from a robot to optimize robot operation, where signal quality data for a WiFi or other wireless network or communication channel is analyzed to determine an optimum location for a charging base station for the robot; see also paragraph [0062] where Suvarna discloses that the autonomous robotic device may contain one or more sensors to detect quality of wireless signals of various types, including cellular signals (for example, GMS or CDMA), WiFi signals (whether some form of wireless signal according to the 802.11 standard, or another type of wireless signal), and detection of Bluetooth® and other signals); and
based at least in part on the received strength indicator of the wireless communication signal, determining a recommendation to position the docking station (In paragraph [0061], Suvarna discloses using signal quality and other data from a robot to optimize robot operation, where signal quality data for a WiFi or other wireless network or communication channel is analyzed to determine an optimum location for a charging base station for the robot; see also paragraph [0070] where Suvarna discloses that the signal quality map is constantly updated with each pass of the robot over the same area, and an average signal quality is used).
Suvarna does not explicitly disclose, based at least in part on the received strength indicator of the wireless communication signal, determining whether to generate a recommendation to reposition the docking station.
However, Chae teaches, based at least in part on the received strength indicator of the wireless communication signal, determining whether to generate a recommendation to reposition the docking station (In paragraphs [0099-0100], Chae teaches that the area for which the highest score is assigned by the score setting unit 186 may be recommended as a location where the charging station is to be placed where the user may re-place the charging station at the recommended location; in paragraph [0120], Chae teaches providing, to a terminal of a user, a recommendation that a location (P.sub.b) to be changed is more appropriate than an initial location (P.sub.a) of the charging station).
Chae is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to generating a recommendation to a user to reposition a docking station when a more suitable location is determined. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill art in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement recommending repositioning of the station from a previous location with the method as taught by Suvarna, where doing so may advantageously ensure that the location of the station may be continuously updated and improved, for example, based on changing circumstances and updated data.
Regarding claim 15, Suvarna further discloses wherein the wireless communication signal includes a Wi-Fi signal (In paragraph [0061], Suvarna discloses using signal quality and other data from a robot to optimize robot operation, where signal quality data for a WiFi or other wireless network or communication channel is analyzed to determine an optimum location for a charging base station for the robot; see also paragraph [0062] where Suvarna discloses that the autonomous robotic device may contain one or more sensors to detect quality of wireless signals of various types, including cellular signals (for example, GMS or CDMA), WiFi signals (whether some form of wireless signal according to the 802.11 standard, or another type of wireless signal), and detection of Bluetooth® and other signals).
Regarding claim 16, Chae further teaches detecting the strength indicator of the wireless communication signal in the docking area using the mobile device in response to an initial setup, or a repositioning, of the docking station (In paragraphs [0055-0057] and figs. 7-9, Chae teaches a process of setting map data of a movement space in which a mobile robot moves, and assigning a score based on a type of an item located within a movement space, a process of assigning a score to a plurality of movement routes on which a mobile robot moves in a state in which map data illustrated in FIG. 7 has been set, and a process of recommending a location of a charging station based on a score assigned according to a type of an item and a score assigned according to a movement route of a mobile robot illustrated in FIGS. 7 and 8; see also steps S100, S200, and S300 in figs. 7-9 which depict starting the various modes).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Suvarna and Char discloses determining a recommended location, different than a present location, for placing the docking station, the recommended location corresponding to a higher wireless communication signal strength than the present location of the docking station (In paragraph [0065], Suvarna discloses that Aa indicator 804 shows an optimum location for a charging station for the cleaning robot, where there is a good WiFi signal that allows the efficient upload and download of information while the cleaning robot is charging, and in one embodiment, multiple possible locations are shown, where the locations could be labelled in order of preference; in paragraphs [0099-0100], Chae teaches that the area for which the highest score is assigned by the score setting unit 186 may be recommended as a location where the charging station is to be placed where the user may re-place the charging station at the recommended location; in paragraph [0120], Chae teaches providing, to a terminal of a user, a recommendation that a location (P.sub.b) to be changed is more appropriate than an initial location (P.sub.a) of the charging station).
Regarding claim 19, Chae further teaches receiving a user response to the recommendation, and navigating the mobile cleaning robot to the docking station based on the user response (In paragraph [0100], Chae teaches that after the location where the charging station is to be placed is extracted and recommended, the relevant data may be transmitted to the driving unit 130, the driving unit 130 may be driven based on the transmitted data, and then the mobile robot 100 of which the battery requires charging may move to the charging station).
Regarding claim 20, Suvarna further discloses detecting a presence or absence of an obstacle in the docking area using information sensed by one or more sensors associated with the mobile cleaning robot (In paragraph [0025], Suvarna discloses a LIDAR module 616 and various sensors, such as a bump sensor 624 indicating contact with an object, proximity sensor 626 indicating closeness to an object, accelerometer and tilt sensors 628, which indicate a drop-off (e.g., stairs) or a tilting of the cleaning robot (e.g., upon climbing over an obstacle, a dirt sensor for detecting the amount of dirt being vacuumed, a motor current sensor for detecting when the motor is overloaded, such as due to being entangled in something, a floor sensor for detecting the type of floor, and an image sensor (camera) for providing images of the environment and objects),
wherein determining whether to generate the recommendation to reposition the docking station is further based on the detected presence or absence of the obstacle in the docking area (In paragraphs [0065-0066], Suvarna discloses that a location may be chosen that optimizes the cleaning time by optimizing the traversing path of the cleaning robot, and where in one embodiment, the cleaning robot includes a camera to perform object recognition, where electrical wall sockets can be recognized, and the presence of plugs already using the sockets can also be determined, where the recommendation on the location of the charging station can then take into account not only the strength of the WiFi signal, but also the availability of a wall socket, either with or without existing plugs using it).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Examiner notes that claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hillen (US 2019/0018424 A1) teaches a method for operating an automatically moving service device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harrison Heflin whose telephone number is (571)272-5629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 1:00PM - 10:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/HARRISON HEFLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights