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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding Claim 15, it is directed to a cleaning robot the same as claim 1; it recites limitations are substantially duplicate to claim 1’s, the main differences being that claim 15 does not recite “a body”, and that the “driving wheel” and “cleaning member” are installed on said body and are rotatably connected, and that the driving wheel and cleaning member have parallel axis of rotation to each other.
Despite missing these limitations, “a body” is an implicit and/or obvious part of a “cleaning robot”; (i.e. due to the multiple claimed components implicitly one would recognize that there is some physical structure connecting them (i.e. a body)) at the level of generality claimed and further claim 15 does recite (as part of the forward and backwards avoidance modes) that the robot has a head and tail which implies an overall structure i.e. a body. Regarding the missing limitations of the driving wheel and cleaning member, claim 15 recites that in the forward and reverse obstacle modes that the two (wheels and cleaning member) rotate in the same or opposite directions from each other; from these limitations it is known that (1) the cleaning member and wheels are both rotatably connected to the chassis/body of the cleaning robot and (2) that they have the parallel axis of rotation (i.e. parallel rotating shafts) to each other (as to rotate in the same or opposite directions two objects have to have parallel axis of rotation).
Thus claim 15, while not reciting all of the same limitations does cover substantially the same robot as claim 1 and thus is duplicate despite the slight differences in wording.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5-6, they both recite “and wherein a number of forward rotations“ (or equivalent language), this appears to be a literal translation from a foreign language and is idiomatically incorrect.
When the applicant’s specification is reviewed there is no recitation or teachings towards determining or calculating a “number of” forward rotations nor that the normal/strong modes have some set amount of brush rotations; instead in some embodiments the (strong) obstacle avoidance mode appears to have an increased speed of rotation for the cleaning brush during the strong mode compared to the normal mode.
Regarding Claim 5 the lack of clarity is further compounded in that claim 4 recites that normal obstacle-crossing the cleaning member rotates reversely (i.e. has no forward rotations) thus it becomes unclear if claim 5 meant to recite relationship between the number of “forward” rotations in both modes or if it meant to recite the speed of “reverse” rotations in the normal modes is less than the number of “forward” rotations in the strong mode.
Claims 7-14 depend on claim 6 and thus inherit the same literal translation issue.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “The cleaning robot of claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a number of consecutive failures of the cleaning robot in crossing an obstacle in an obstacle-crossing mode with the strongest obstacle-crossing ability” ; here “strongest obstacle-crossing ability” renders the scope of protection unclear in neither the applicant’s claims nor the specification make clear how to calculate an “obstacle-crossing ability” for a given obstacle crossing mode and it is functioning as a term of degree, further it does not appear to be a known standard/quantity in the art. Since as how to calculate this “ability” is not explained and does it not appear to be standard of the art, the scope of protection is indefinite in that two different people could reasonably calculate different crossing ability values for a given mode and thus disagree on if a given mode among a plurality of modes is the “strongest” or not.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 15-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240099531 A1, “HEIGHT ADJUSTABLE SELF-BALANCING AUTONOMOUS FLOOR CLEANER”, VanTongeren and further in view of US 20250089966 A1; and further in view of CN 211324796 U, “Cleaning Robot”, Cheng et al.
Regarding Claim 1, VanTongeren teaches “the cleaning robot comprising: a body, a driving wheel, and a cleaning member,”( [0042] FIG. 2 illustrates a bottom perspective view of the cleaner 10 in accordance with one non-limiting aspect of the present disclosure. The cleaner 10 may include a body 14 configured in accordance with the housing described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/007,450, filed Aug. 31, 2020, entitled Edge Cleaning Brushes for Floor Cleaner, the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated in its entirety by reference. The body 14 may similarly include or otherwise be coupled with a pair of edge cleaning brushes 16, a bumper 20, a suction nozzle 22, a suction source 26, a brushroll 34, a wiper blade 36, an electrical rechargeable power source 38, a pair of wheels 40, a caster 42, a controller 44, and/or the various functional systems described in the incorporated patent application. + see figure 2 posted below);” wherein both the driving wheel and the cleaning member are installed on the body and are rotatably connected with the body, wherein a rotating shaft of the driving wheel is parallel to a rotating shaft of the cleaning member,”(As can be seen in fig. 2 posted below roller brush (element 34) has a parallel axis of rotation to the wheels 40);” wherein, in the forward obstacle-crossing mode, a head of the cleaning robot faces an obstacle, the driving wheel rotates forward, and the cleaning member rotates in a first direction which is the same as or opposite to a rotation direction of the driving wheel”(Figs 2-3 + [0055] “when imparting or otherwise adjusting the balancing force 94 for purposes of inducing a corresponding change in the baseline force. The controller 44 may be operable in response to information derived from the level sensor 88 and/or the IMU 90 to facilitate controlling the actuators 60 and/or the force influencer 92 to achieve the desired balance, which may optionally include making related adjustments as the cleaner 10 autonomously cleans and/or moves around the floor surface 12. The cleaner 10 may be controlled in this manner to self-balance when lifted over an obstacle 56, optionally while simultaneously cleaning the obstacle 56 thereunder, i.e., the brushroll 34 may be positioned to clean a top of the obstacle 56.” Here teaches that as the robot traverse (forward direction) the brush roller 34 is position and cleans the top of the obstacle (i.e. is rotating); given the layout of the brush roller as seen in figure 2 posted below the direction of the roller would be in either the same or opposite direction of rotation as the wheels given the brush roller can only rotate along the single axis of rotation. As can be seen in figure 3 below the front (head) of the robot is approaching the obstacle i.e. is in a forward obstacle-crossing mode);
PNG
media_image1.png
672
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
348
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Vantongeren however does not teach a backwards obstacle crossing mode in which the wheels rotate reversely and the rotation direction of cleaning member is the same or opposite to the rotation direction as the cleaning member in the forward direction.
796U teaches a cleaning robot which includes both a forward and reverse obstacle crossing modes ([0018] Meanwhile, the traveling wheel assembly is positioned between the first guide wheel and the second guide wheel, and below the guide wheel assembly; and a track is wound around the surface of the transmission component, the guide wheel assembly, and the traveling wheel assembly to form a first inclined surface at least between the first guide wheel and the traveling wheel assembly and a second inclined surface between the second guide wheel and the traveling wheel assembly.
In this way, the cleaning robot has ramps in both the front and rear directions, which enhances its obstacle-crossing ability, enabling it to reliably overcome obstacles in both the forward and backward directions, thus providing dual obstacle-crossing capabilities”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Vantongeren to substitute the wheels for the tracked wheels of 796U; one would be motivated to implement 796U’s wheel system in order to allow for the vacuum to have improved obstacle crossing abilities in all directions. 796U teaches this motivation in ([0018] In this way, the cleaning robot has ramps in both the front and rear directions, which enhances its obstacle-crossing ability, enabling it to reliably overcome obstacles in both the forward and backward directions, thus providing dual obstacle-crossing capabilities.)
As to the direction of rotation of the cleaning member in the backwards obstacle crossing mode; Vantongeren teaches the operation of the Brush as part of the obstacle crossing, thus in the backward crossing direction (substitution of 796U above) the logical naturally flows that the cleaning member (brush) would still be operating a forward or reverse direction in order to continue cleaning.
Regarding Claim 2, Vantongeren is mute as to the direction of rotation of the brush during obstacle crossing; however the depicted brush can rotate in only two directions (forward or reverse) thus the specific implementations of brush direction-crossing mode pairings as recited in claim 2 would be obvious under the KSR rational of “obvious to try” in that for the given brush system of Vantongeren there are only two directions the brush can rotate in order to clean thus one of ordinary skill in the art would simply test which rotation direction for a given (obstacle crossing) movement direction results in the more effective cleaning and thus would implement such arriving at one of the claimed combination of directions as claimed.
Regarding Claim 15 it recites a robot which is substantially the same as claim 1’s (see claim object section above for more detailed analysis as why the claims are substantially duplicate despite slight differences in wording), it has the same grounds of rejections.
Regarding Claims 16-17, Vantongeren is mute as to the direction of rotation of the brush during obstacle crossing in the forward (as combined in claim 1/15 the backwards) obstacle crossing directions; however the depicted brush can rotate in only two directions (forward or reverse) thus the specific implementations of brush direction-crossing mode pairings as recited in claim 16 and 17 would be obvious under the KSR rational of “obvious to try” in that for the given brush system of Vantongeren there are only two directions the brush can rotate in order to clean thus one of ordinary skill in the art would simply test which rotation direction for a given (obstacle crossing) movement direction results in the more effective cleaning and thus would implement such arriving at one of the claimed combination of directions as claimed. As the level of generality claimed the specific direction of rotation of the brush would not be expected to change the underlying principle of operation.
Regarding Claim 19, Vantongeren teaches “. A method of navigating a cleaning robot around different obstacles, the method comprising:based on a first size of a first obstacle in a cleaning path of the cleaning robot,”( [0044] FIG. 3 illustrates a schematic functional view of the cleaner 10 in accordance with one non-limiting aspect of the present disclosure where a clearance between the underside 50 and the floor surface 12 is illustrated. When the cleaner 10 is actively cleaning the floor surface 12, i.e., when the suction nozzle 22, the brushroll 34, a mop, or other cleaning implement is positioned in close enough proximity to remove or otherwise properly clean debris from the floor surface 12, the clearance 54 may be required to be no greater than a cleaning height. The cleaning height may correspond with a maximum height for the clearance 54 that the cleaner 10 is able to maintain while retaining sufficient capabilities for cleaning the floor surface 12. The cleaning height is illustrated as being dependent on positioning the suction nozzle 22 and/or the brushroll 34 close enough to the floor surface 12 to be effective, however, the present disclosure fully contemplates the cleaning height varying depending on which cleaning implement is used. The employed cleaning implement, as such, may determine the cleaning height for the cleaner 10 such that the cleaning height may be generally characterized as a desired operational height of the clearance 54 for normally operating a cleaning implement.” Here teaches that the cleaning height is set in part on the height of detected obstacles, i.e. “based on a first size of a first obstacle”);”causing the cleaning robot to enter into a forward obstacle-crossing mode, wherein, in the forward obstacle-crossing mode, a head of the cleaning robot faces the first obstacle, a driving wheel of the cleaning robot rotates forward, and a cleaning member of the cleaning robot rotates in a direction the same as or opposite to the rotation direction of the driving wheel;”( Figs 2-3 + [0055] “when imparting or otherwise adjusting the balancing force 94 for purposes of inducing a corresponding change in the baseline force. The controller 44 may be operable in response to information derived from the level sensor 88 and/or the IMU 90 to facilitate controlling the actuators 60 and/or the force influencer 92 to achieve the desired balance, which may optionally include making related adjustments as the cleaner 10 autonomously cleans and/or moves around the floor surface 12. The cleaner 10 may be controlled in this manner to self-balance when lifted over an obstacle 56, optionally while simultaneously cleaning the obstacle 56 thereunder, i.e., the brushroll 34 may be positioned to clean a top of the obstacle 56.” Here teaches that as the robot traverse (forward direction) the brush roller 34 is position and cleans the top of the obstacle (i.e. is rotating); given the layout of the brush roller as seen in figure 2 posted below the direction of the roller would be in either the same or opposite direction of rotation as the wheels given the brush roller can only rotate along the single axis of rotation. As can be seen in figure 3 above the front (head) of the robot is approaching the obstacle i.e. is in a forward obstacle-crossing mode) in [0055] it is taught as the robot cleans the obstacle as it crosses over it is known that the brush is rotating, as can be seen in figure 1 the rotation of the brush would be in either the forward or reverse direction;) “and based on a second size of a second obstacle in the cleaning path of the cleaning robot, causing the cleaning robot to enter into a( [0045] An ability of the cleaner 10 to move around portions of the floor surface 12 may be limited by the clearance 54, at least in so far as the clearance 54 may prevent an obstacle 56 of a larger dimension from fitting under the cleaner 10 in a manner that avoids damaging or scraping the underside 50, the suction nozzle, and/or another cleaning implement. While the cleaner 10 may include onboard navigations systems to help with avoiding and moving around such obstacles 56, the avoidance of some obstacles 56 may be insufficient when it may be desirable or required for the cleaner 10 to traverse over an obstacle 56 incapable of fitting thereunder, or if the obstacle 56 can fit at least partially underneath, doing so in a manner that avoids damaging or scraping the cleaner 10. It may be desirable for the cleaner 10 to traverse over the obstacle 56 when the obstacle 56 blocks or otherwise prevents the cleaner 10 from reaching another room or another area desired for cleaning. Even in situations where obstacles 56 may not be present or the obstacle 56 is low, it may be desirable to lift the cleaner 10 above the cleaning height, such as to move over a carpet to another area without dragging a cleaning implement (nozzle, mop, brushroll, etc.) on the carpet.” Here VanTongeren teaches multiple obstacles, thus reasonably envisioning encountered a second obstacle and determining its height (size) and subsequently entering a obstacle crossing mode)
Vantongeren however does not teach a backwards obstacle crossing mode in which the wheels rotate reversely and the rotation direction of cleaning member is the same or opposite to the rotation direction as the cleaning member in the forward direction.
796U teaches a cleaning robot which includes both a forward and reverse obstacle crossing modes ([0018] Meanwhile, the traveling wheel assembly is positioned between the first guide wheel and the second guide wheel, and below the guide wheel assembly; and a track is wound around the surface of the transmission component, the guide wheel assembly, and the traveling wheel assembly to form a first inclined surface at least between the first guide wheel and the traveling wheel assembly and a second inclined surface between the second guide wheel and the traveling wheel assembly.
In this way, the cleaning robot has ramps in both the front and rear directions, which enhances its obstacle-crossing ability, enabling it to reliably overcome obstacles in both the forward and backward directions, thus providing dual obstacle-crossing capabilities”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Vantongeren to substitute the wheels for the tracked wheels of 796U; one would be motivated to implement 796U’s wheel system in order to allow for the vacuum to have improved obstacle crossing abilities in all directions. 796U teaches this motivation in ([0018] In this way, the cleaning robot has ramps in both the front and rear directions, which enhances its obstacle-crossing ability, enabling it to reliably overcome obstacles in both the forward and backward directions, thus providing dual obstacle-crossing capabilities.)
As to the direction of rotation of the cleaning member in the backwards obstacle crossing mode; Vantongeren teaches the operation of the Brush as part of the obstacle crossing, thus in the backward crossing direction (substitution of 796U above) the logical naturally flows that the cleaning member (brush) would still be operating a forward or reverse direction in order to continue cleaning.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Vantongeren teaches “The method of claim 19, wherein the first size and second size are different.”( 0044] FIG. 3 illustrates a schematic functional view of the cleaner 10 in accordance with one non-limiting aspect of the present disclosure where a clearance between the underside 50 and the floor surface 12 is illustrated. When the cleaner 10 is actively cleaning the floor surface 12, i.e., when the suction nozzle 22, the brushroll 34, a mop, or other cleaning implement is positioned in close enough proximity to remove or otherwise properly clean debris from the floor surface 12, the clearance 54 may be required to be no greater than a cleaning height. The cleaning height may correspond with a maximum height for the clearance 54 that the cleaner 10 is able to maintain while retaining sufficient capabilities for cleaning the floor surface 12. The cleaning height is illustrated as being dependent on positioning the suction nozzle 22 and/or the brushroll 34 close enough to the floor surface 12 to be effective, however, the present disclosure fully contemplates the cleaning height varying depending on which cleaning implement is used. The employed cleaning implement, as such, may determine the cleaning height for the cleaner 10 such that the cleaning height may be generally characterized as a desired operational height of the clearance 54 for normally operating a cleaning implement.” From [0045] teaches that there are multiple obstacles thus naturally these obstacles may be different sizes (i.e. “first” and “second” obstacles have different sizes))
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vantongeren as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20250089966 A1, “METHOD FOR CONTROLLING ROBOT CLEANER, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND ROBOT CLEANER”, Wang et al
Regarding Claim 3, Vantongeren while teaching a roller brush (i.e. configured for dry cleaning) and a mop cleaning implement ([0034]) it does not teach a roller configured for wet cleaning.
Wang teaches a similar cleaning robot which includes utilizing a roller mop (roller configured for wet cleaning); [0036] As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the mopping component is configured to mop and clean the region to be cleaned and is provided at the bottom of the body of the robot cleaner. The number of mopping components may be one or more. The mopping component may adopt a structure of a mopping roller brush or a structure of a vibrating mop 2. Specifically, the mopping roller brush includes a mopping roller 6 and a rotating motor capable of driving the rotation of the mopping roller 6. When the robot cleaner carries out the mopping operation, the rotating motor is utilized to drive the rotation of the mopping roller 6 to mop the region to be cleaned.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to substitute the dry roller of Vantongeren for the wet roller of Wang. Such a substitution would be obvious under the KSR rational of “Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another To Obtain Predictable Results”. (1) Vantongeren teaches the base device but differs in that it has a dry roller brush not a wet roller brush. (2) Wang teaches a similar robotic cleaner equipped with a wet roller brush which rotations on a parallel axis to the drive wheels, thus the different component is known in the art. (3) in the substitution one cleaning implement is being substituted for another, the substituted implement is being used for the same purpose (floor cleaning) and is being implemented on the same type of device (robotic cleaner), as such the results of the combination would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as no underlying principles of operation are being changed in the substitution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 and 18 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.
Regarding claims 4 and 18 no prior art was found to teach or render obvious the different directions of rotation of the cleaning member between a normal and strong obstacle-crossing mode.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20250328147 A1; US 20250302263 A1; US 20240329660 A1; CN 116414106 A; CN 115357016 A; CN 113961005 A; US 20210274987 A1; US 20200331545 A1; US 20190104908 A1; US 20190045988 A1; US 20150265125 A1;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/KENNETH M DUNNE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights