DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Priority
Request for priority to App. No. 17/065,441 filed 10/7/2020 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the present Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0050634 to White et al.
Regarding claim 1, White et al. discloses:
A mobile computing device comprising:
a user input device comprising a display (Figure 1, Ref. No. 108 smartphone); and
a controller operably connected to the user input device (¶ [0016] describing the controller of the display unit), the controller configured to:
receive, from an autonomous cleaning robot (Figure 1, Ref. No. 1 robot):
data corresponding to a detected error condition of the autonomous cleaning robot (¶ [0079] describing the mobile device receiving status and condition associated with the robot; ¶ [0114] describing the robot detecting an error and transmitting data associated with the error to the mobile device), and
imagery captured by the autonomous cleaning robot, the imagery being associated with the detected error condition (¶ [0041] describing the mobile robot transmitting captured images to the smartphone), and
responsive to receiving the data corresponding to the detected error condition, present a representation of the imagery on the display and an indicator of the detected error condition (Figure 7 depicting the mobile device displaying a representation of the imagery 112 and an indicator of the detected error condition 113; ¶ [0040] describing the light indicator system displayed on the display of the mobile device is indicative of the images captured by the robot, in other words the light system is a representation of the imagery captured by the robot; ¶ [0080] describing displaying graphic indication and a message corresponding to the status of the service condition of the robot on the user display; ¶ [0121] describing displaying an indicator of the detected error, which can be loss of battery, problems with a wheel, bumper, or other serviceable element; ¶ [0131] describing displaying an error with the drive wheel; ¶ [0162] describing displaying an indicator of an error with the rollers).
Regarding claim 2, White et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. White et al. further discloses:
wherein the imagery associated with the detected error condition is captured proximate to a location of the autonomous cleaning robot when the autonomous cleaning robot detects the detected error condition (Figure 7 depicting the location of the detected error condition and the location of the robot when error is detected; ¶ [0131] describing illuminating the light indicator system (that is generated from the images taken from the mobile robot) at the time and location of the detected error).
Regarding claim 5, White et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. White et al. further discloses:
wherein the data corresponding to the detected error condition comprises at least one of a location of the autonomous cleaning robot when the autonomous cleaning robot detects the detected error condition, a time when the autonomous cleaning robot detects the detected error condition, or a type of the detected error condition (¶ [0131] describing the type detected error condition; Figure 7 depicting the location 700A of the robot when the robot detects the error condition).
Regarding claim 6, White et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 5. White et al. further discloses:
wherein the type of error condition is associated with a component of the autonomous cleaning robot, wherein the component comprises at least one of a drive system (¶ [0131] describing the error condition being associated with a drive wheel), a cleaning assembly (¶ [0114] describing the error condition as unable to receive additional debris, which is part of the cleaning assembly), or a brush (¶ [0114] describing the error condition being associated with a roller, or brush).
Regarding claim 8, White et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 5. White et al. further discloses:
wherein the type of error condition is associated with a limited mobility of the autonomous cleaning robot (¶ [0114] describing the error condition from preventing the robot from continuing to clean).
Regarding claim 9, White et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 8. White et al. further discloses:
wherein the limited mobility of the autonomous cleaning robot comprises an inability to complete a mission or an inability to navigate to a dock (¶ [0114] describing the error condition as being associated with the inability to continue the cleaning mission).
Regarding claim 10, White et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. White et al. further discloses:
wherein the indicator of the detected error condition comprises a label of a type of error condition (Figure 7 depicting the indicator 113 labeling the detected error condition as “right wheel error”).
Regarding claim 11, White et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. White et al. further discloses:
wherein the indicator of the detected error condition comprises a representation of a location of the autonomous cleaning robot when the autonomous cleaning robot detects the detected error condition (Figure 7 depicting the detected error condition displayed as a representation of a location of the robot on a map when the error occurs; see also ¶ [0131] describing detecting the error and the representation of the indication).
Regarding claim 12, White et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 11. White et al. further discloses:
wherein the representation of the location comprises an indicator on a map (Figure 7 depicting the detected error condition displayed as a representation of a location of the robot on a map when the error occurs; see also ¶ [0131] describing detecting the error and the representation of the indication).
Claims 13, 14, and 16-20 contain all the limitations of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11. Therefore, the supporting rationale for the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11 apply equally as well to claims 13, 14, and 16-20.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al.
Regarding claim 3, White et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
White et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the imagery comprises a video clip.
However, White et al. does disclose that the robot can capture a live video feed and transmit that video feed to the user device (¶ [0172] describing capturing and transmitting video to the user’s device).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify White et al.’s invention to incorporate receiving live video, based on White et al.’s own teachings, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the user with a virtual experience of seeing the recorded area (White et al. at ¶¶ [0172], [0174]).
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0093134 to Kim et al.
Regarding claim 4, White et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
White et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the controller is configured to: receiving, from a user of the mobile computing device, a selection of an operation to be performed by the autonomous cleaning robot based on the detected error condition.
Kim et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving user input in response to a detected error (¶¶ [0151], [0172] describing detecting an obstacle preventing the robot from cleaning a specific area, transmitting notification to the user device, and receiving an operation command to either clean around the obstacle or move to another space where the obstacle does not exist).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify White et al.’s invention to incorporate receiving operational input from the user device in response to detecting an error, as taught by Kim et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in avoiding areas that the robot cannot clean and/or may become trapped (Kim et al. at ¶¶ [0120], [0141], [0151], [0172]).
Claim 15 contains all the limitations of claim 4. Therefore, the supporting rationale for the rejection of claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 15.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0089040 to Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al.
Regarding claim 7, White et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
White et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the component is identified for replacement.
Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches identifying a component for replacement when the component is worn out (¶ [0262] describing replacing the brush when the brush is worn out).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify White et al.’s invention to incorporate indicating a component for replacement, as taught by Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in eliminating the tedious task of realigning components when the are completely removed for cleaning (Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. at ¶ [0262]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 20210268652 to Narayana et al. teaches a mobile cleaning robot that detects errors and comprising a display (¶¶ [0111] – [0116]);
U.S. Pub. No. 20230341866 to Han teaches a mobile cleaning robot that detects errors and displays them (¶¶ [0187] – [0190]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0287534 to Jang et al. teaches a mobile cleaning robot that detects errors of components of the robot and displaying the error on a user terminal (¶¶ [0143] – [0150], [0248]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/JOHN D HOLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights