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 application filed on 29 September 2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) was/were submitted on 29 September 2025. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application CN202310325162.1 filed in People’s Republic of China on 29 March 2023 and PCT/CN2024/084856 filed on 29 March 2024.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome potential future rejections made using references falling between the filing date and the foreign priority date, because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. No action is required by Applicant at this time.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, and 12-13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Claim 2 (recited twice), and Claim 7: “historical trigger record of the cliff sensor” should be “historical trigger record of the built-in cliff sensor”;
Claim 6 and Claim 12: “a trigger point where the cliff sensor” should be “a trigger point where the built-in cliff sensor”;
Claim 7: “and control the driver to drive” should be “and control the built-in driver to drive”; and
Claim 13: “stores at least one executable instruction; the executable instruction” should be “stores at least one executable instruction; the at least one executable instruction”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
reference characters "42" and "44" have both been used to designate “communications interface”; and
reference character “44” has been used to designate both “communication bus” and “communications interface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
the “map collection module 33” from the specification (see paragraphs 0075 and 0076) is shown as “Collection module” in FIG. 4 (The part names should be consistent.); and
reference character “5” (shown on FIG. 5) does not appear to be attached to an identified part.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a map collector, configured to collect” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Corresponding structure: a generic computer (“Based on the above methods shown in FIGs. 1 to 2 and the embodiment of the self-propelled device as shown in FIG. 4, in order to realize the above objectives, a computer device is further provided according to one embodiment. As shown in FIG. 5, the computer device includes a processor 41, a communications interface 42, a memory 43, and a communication bus 44. The processor 41, the communications interface 42, and the memory 43 communicate with each other by using the communication bus 44. The communications interface 44 is configured to communicate with a network element of other devices, such as a client or other servers. The processor 41 is configured to execute programs, and specifically can execute related steps in the above embodiments of the methods for controlling anti-falling of the self-propelled device. Specifically, the programs may include program codes, and the program codes include computer operation instructions. The processor 41 may be a processor CPU or an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or the processor may be configured as one or more integrated circuits.” - Specification, 29 September 2025; para. 0093).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 10, 13-17, and 18-20 is/are 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first adjustment component" in the third line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the cliff sensor" in the fifth line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "self-propelled device" in the sixth line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the cliff sensor " in the sixth line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "self-propelled device" in seventh line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the method" in third line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As claims 15-17 and 18-20 depend on claims 13 and 14, respectively, they are similarly rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not fall under any of the four statutory categories of invention (processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter). Specifically, the claimed "executable instruction," stored on a “storage medium,” that causes “a processor to perform” the method claimed in the remainder of claim 13, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses a "signal per se", thus not having a physical or tangible form (MPEP § 2106.03).
Although random-access memory and magnetic tape are statutory media, carrier waves are not because they are signals similar to the transitory, propagating signals held to be non-statutory in Nuijten. 851 F.3d at 1294, 112 USPQ2d at 1133 (citing In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, because the BRI of the claims covered both subject matter that falls within a statutory category (the random-access memory), as well as subject matter that does not (the carrier waves), the claims as a whole were not directed to a statutory category and thus failed the first criterion for eligibility.
Correction is requested to remedy this deficiency (e.g. by claiming the non-transitory/non-volatile structure that is performing the claimed functions of the computer program/software). Therefore, claim(s) 13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed toward a non-statutory category of invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US-20240302839-A1, hereinafter “Lien”.
Regarding claim 7, and analogous claims 1, 13, and 14, Lien discloses A self-propelled device, configured with a built-in cliff sensor and a built-in driver (Lien, FIG. 1; FIGs. 2A-2B; para. 0029: “FIG. 1 illustrates a plan view of a mobile cleaning robot 100 [i.e., A self-propelled device] in an environment 40, in accordance with at least one example of this disclosure.”; para. 0044-0045: “The robot 100 can further include a sensor system with one or more electrical sensors…For example, cliff sensors 234 [i.e., configured with a built-in cliff sensor] (shown in FIG. 2A) can be located along a bottom portion of the body 202. The cliff sensors 234 can include an optical sensor that can be configured to detect a presence or absence of an object below the optical sensor, such as the floor surface 50. The cliff sensors 234 can be connected to the controller 212.”; para. 0036: “As shown in FIG. 2A, the robot 100 can include a drive system [i.e., a built-in driver] including actuators 208 a and 208 b, which can be, for example, motors. The actuators 208 a and 208 b can be mounted in the body 202 and can be operably connected to the drive wheels 210 a and 210 b, which can be rotatably mounted to the body 202 to support the body 202 above the floor surface 50. The actuators 208 a and 208 b, when driven, can rotate the drive wheels 210 a and 210 b to enable the robot 100 to autonomously move across the floor surface 50.”), comprising:
Regarding claim 1, Lien discloses A method (Lien, FIG. 4B; FIG. 5; Claims 12-17; para. 0003: “This disclosure describes examples of devices, systems, and methods that can help to address this problem such as by using additional data collected by the robot to modify a boundary of the environment.”), regarding claim 13, Lien discloses A storage medium, wherein the storage medium stores at least one executable instruction (Lien, Claims 1-11 and 19-22 FIG. 18; para. 0005: “For example, a non-transitory machine-readable medium, including instructions, which when executed, cause processing circuitry to perform operations to receive sensor data from a mobile cleaning robot based on interactions between the mobile cleaning robot and an environment.”), and regarding claim 14, Lien discloses A computer device, comprising a storage medium, a processor, and a computer program stored in the storage medium and executable by the processor (Lien, FIG. 18; para. 0037: “The controller (or processor) 212 can be located within the housing and can be a programmable controller, such as a single or multi-board computer, a direct digital controller (DDC), a programmable logic controller (PLC), or the like. In other examples the controller 212 can be any computing device, such as a handheld computer, for example, a smart phone, a tablet, a laptop, a desktop computer, or any other computing device including a processor, memory, and communication capabilities.”).
a map collector, configured to collect environmental data in an operating environment of the self-propelled device (Lien, para. 0058: “The sensor data can also be used by the controller 212 [i.e., a map collector] for simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) techniques in which the controller 212 extracts or interprets features of the environment represented by the sensor data [i.e., collect environmental data] and constructs a map of the floor surface 50 of the environment [i.e., an operating environment of the self-propelled device].”); and
a controller, configured to, generate an environmental map marked with an unreachable region based on the environmental data (Lien, para. 0058: “The sensor data can also be used by the controller 212 [i.e., a controller] for simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) techniques in which the controller 212 extracts or interprets features of the environment represented by the sensor data [i.e., based on the environmental data] and constructs a map [i.e., generate an environmental map] of the floor surface 50 of the environment…The map formed from the sensor data can indicate locations of traversable and non-traversable space [i.e., marked with an unreachable region] within the environment.”),
generate a task activity forbidden region for the self-propelled device in combination with a historical trigger record of the cliff sensor (Lien, para. 0044-0045: “The robot 100 can further include a sensor system with one or more electrical sensors…For example, cliff sensors 234 [i.e., the cliff sensor] (shown in FIG. 2A) can be located along a bottom portion of the body 202.”; para. 0059: “The sensor data collected by any of the sensors [i.e., of the cliff sensor] can be stored in the memory 213 [i.e., a historical trigger record of the cliff sensor]. In addition, other data generated for the SLAM techniques, including mapping data forming the map, can be stored in the memory 213. These data produced during the mission can include persistent data that are produced during the mission and that are usable during further missions. In addition to storing the software for causing the robot 100 to perform its behaviors, the memory 213 can store data resulting from processing of the sensor data for access by the controller 212. For example, the map can be a map that is usable and updateable by the controller 212 of the robot 100 from one mission to another mission to navigate the robot 100 about the floor surface 50.”; para. 0060: “The persistent data, including the persistent map, helps to enable the robot 100 to efficiently clean the floor surface 50. For example, the map enables the controller 212 to direct the robot 100 toward open floor space and to avoid non-traversable space [i.e., generate a task activity forbidden region for the self-propelled device]. In addition, for subsequent missions, the controller 212 can use the map to optimize paths taken during the missions to help plan navigation of the robot 100 through the environment 40.”), and
control the driver to drive the self-propelled device to perform a preset task outside the task activity forbidden region (Lien, para. 0060: “The persistent data, including the persistent map, helps to enable the robot 100 to efficiently clean the floor surface 50 [i.e., a preset task]. For example, the map enables the controller 212 to direct the robot 100 toward open floor space [i.e., control the driver to drive the self-propelled device to perform a preset task outside the task activity forbidden region] and to avoid non-traversable space. In addition, for subsequent missions, the controller 212 can use the map to optimize paths taken during the missions to help plan navigation of the robot 100 through the environment 40 [i.e., control the driver to drive the self-propelled device].”).
Regarding claim 8, and analogous claims 2, 15, and 18, Lien discloses The self-propelled device according to claim 7,
wherein the controller comprises a generation component, wherein the generation component is configured to extract an external environmental feature from the environmental data (Lien, para. 0058: “The sensor data can also be used by the controller 212 for simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) techniques in which the controller 212 [i.e., the controller comprises a generation component] extracts or interprets features of the environment represented by the sensor data [i.e., the generation component is configured to extract an external environmental feature from the environmental data] and constructs a map of the floor surface 50 of the environment.”), and
construct and generate an environmental map in the operating environment based on the external environmental feature, wherein the environmental map is marked with an unreachable region (Lien, para. 0058: “The sensor data can also be used by the controller 212 for simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) techniques in which the controller 212 extracts or interprets features of the environment represented by the sensor data and constructs a map of the floor surface 50 of the environment [i.e., construct and generate an environmental map in the operating environment based on the external environmental feature]…The map formed from the sensor data can indicate locations of traversable and non-traversable space [i.e., the environmental map is marked with an unreachable region] within the environment.”).
Regarding claim 10, and analogous claims 4, 17, and 20, Lien discloses The self-propelled device according to claim 7, wherein the controller further comprises
a first component (Lien, para. 0062: “In some examples, the mobile device 404 [i.e., a first component] can be a remote device that can be linked to the cloud computing system 406 and can enable a user to provide inputs. The mobile device 404 can include user input elements such as, for example, one or more of a touchscreen display, buttons, a microphone, a mouse, a keyboard, or other devices that respond to inputs provided by the user.”; Note: Examiner is interpreting “a first component” and “first adjustment component” as the same component.);
the first adjustment component is configured to display the task activity forbidden region to a user in the environmental map (Lien, para. 0064: “According to some examples discussed herein, the mobile device 404 [i.e., the first adjustment component] can include a user interface configured to display a map of the robot environment [i.e., display…to a user…the environmental map]. A robot path, such as that identified by a coverage planner, can also be displayed on the map. The interface can receive a user instruction to modify the environment map, such as by adding, removing, or otherwise modifying a keep-out zone in the environment [i.e., display the task activity forbidden region to a user in the environmental map]; adding, removing, or otherwise modifying a focused cleaning zone in the environment (such as an area that requires repeated cleaning); restricting a robot traversal direction or traversal pattern in a portion of the environment; or adding or changing a cleaning rank, among others.”), and
adjust, in response to a region adjustment instruction sent by the user, a position or a size of the task activity forbidden region in the environmental map (Lien, para. 0064: “According to some examples discussed herein, the mobile device 404 can include a user interface configured to display a map of the robot environment. A robot path, such as that identified by a coverage planner, can also be displayed on the map. The interface can receive a user instruction to modify the environment map, such as by adding, removing, or otherwise modifying a keep-out zone in the environment [i.e., adjust, in response to a region adjustment instruction sent by the user, a position or a size of the task activity forbidden region in the environmental map]; adding, removing, or otherwise modifying a focused cleaning zone in the environment (such as an area that requires repeated cleaning); restricting a robot traversal direction or traversal pattern in a portion of the environment; or adding or changing a cleaning rank, among others.”).
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(s) 3, 5-6, 9, 11-12, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lien, as applied to claims 7, 1, and 13-14 above, and further in view of CN-111568307-A, hereinafter “Pan”.
Regarding claim 9, and analogous claims 3, 16, and 19, Lien discloses The self-propelled device according to claim 7, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the controller comprises a determination component and an updating component; the determination component is configured to determine whether there is any region point in the unreachable region that matches a trigger point corresponding to the historical trigger record; and the updating component is configured to mark and update, in response to that there exists any region point in the unreachable region that matches the trigger point corresponding to the historical trigger record, the unreachable region as a task activity forbidden region for the self-propelled device in the environmental map.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Pan teaches:
wherein the controller comprises a determination component and an updating component (translated document of Pan, para. 0038: “The control module [i.e., the controller] is used to control the robot vacuum cleaner to perform cleaning work according to the no-go zone logic and/or anti-fall logic based on the instructions received from the user in response to the prompt message.”; para. 0051-0053: “In one possible implementation, the robotic vacuum cleaner further includes a detection module and a determination module [i.e., the controller comprises a determination component], wherein, The detection module is used to detect drop signals through preset sensors; The determination module is used to determine the area where the drop signal can be detected by the detection module as the preset area.”; para. 0081-0082: “In one possible implementation, the client also includes: an identification module, wherein, The identification module is used to identify areas in the environment map that are determined by the identification unit to be set as restricted areas [i.e., an updating component].”);
the determination component is configured to determine whether there is any region point in the unreachable region that matches a trigger point corresponding to the historical trigger record (translated document of Pan, para. 0053: “The determination module is used to determine the area where the drop signal can be detected [i.e., matches a trigger point corresponding to the historical trigger record] by the detection module as the preset area [i.e., determine whether there is any region point in the unreachable region].”); and
the updating component is configured to mark and update, in response to that there exists any region point in the unreachable region that matches the trigger point corresponding to the historical trigger record, the unreachable region as a task activity forbidden region for the self-propelled device in the environmental map (translated document of Pan, para. 0052-0053: “The detection module is used to detect drop signals through preset sensors; The determination module is used to determine the area where the drop signal can be detected by the detection module as the preset area [i.e., in response to that there exists any region point in the unreachable region that matches the trigger point corresponding to the historical trigger record].”; para. 0081-0082: “In one possible implementation, the client also includes: an identification module, wherein, The identification module is used to identify areas in the environment map that are determined by the identification unit to be set as restricted areas [i.e., the updating component is configured to mark and update…the unreachable region as a task activity forbidden region for the self-propelled device in the environmental map].”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Lien, with the concept of controlling a self-propelled device to perform a preset task and avoid a task activity forbidden zone that contains a fall risk, by using sensor data that helps identify the task activity forbidden zone, taught by Pan, in order to prevent the self-propelled device from being damaged from a fall while executing the preset task (translated document of Pan, para. 0090: “In other words, the client user can control whether the robot vacuum cleaner sets the area where a fall signal is detected as a no-go zone. This allows the robot vacuum cleaner to perform cleaning work according to the no-go zone logic and/or anti-fall logic, thereby preventing the robot vacuum cleaner from falling from a height during the cleaning process and thus improving the user experience.”).
Regarding claim 11, and analogous claim 5, Lien discloses The self-propelled device according to claim 7, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the controller further comprises a control component, wherein the control component is configured to control, in response to determining that current position coordinates of the self-propelled device coincide with contour coordinates of the task activity forbidden region, the self-propelled device to perform the preset task according to an anti-falling trajectory, wherein the anti-falling trajectory comprises: controlling the self-propelled device to move from a coincident contour coordinate point as a starting point toward any direction away from the task activity forbidden region, or controlling the self-propelled device to move from a coincident contour coordinate point as a starting point along an edge of the task activity forbidden region to other regions not belonging to the task activity forbidden region in the environmental map.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Pan teaches:
wherein the controller further comprises a control component (translated document of Pan, para. 0054: “In one possible implementation, the cleaning control module [i.e., the controller further comprises a control component] is specifically used to control the robot vacuum cleaner to perform cleaning work around the no-go zone when a no-go zone is detected; and/or…”),
wherein the control component is configured to control, in response to determining that current position coordinates of the self-propelled device coincide with contour coordinates of the task activity forbidden region, the self-propelled device to perform the preset task according to an anti-falling trajectory (translated document of Pan, para. 0054-0055: “In one possible implementation, the cleaning control module [i.e., the control component] is specifically used to control the robot vacuum cleaner to perform cleaning work around the no-go zone [i.e., the self-propelled device to perform the preset task] when a no-go zone is detected [i.e., determining that current position coordinates of the self-propelled device coincide with contour coordinates of the task activity forbidden region]; and/or, The cleaning control module is specifically used to detect a fall signal through a preset sensor. When a fall signal is detected, the module controls the robot vacuum to rotate until both wheels of the robot vacuum are parallel to the edge of the ground, and then controls the robot vacuum to perform cleaning work in a direction parallel to the edge of the ground [i.e., the self-propelled device to perform the preset task according to an anti-falling trajectory].”),
wherein the anti-falling trajectory comprises: controlling the self-propelled device to move from a coincident contour coordinate point as a starting point toward any direction away from the task activity forbidden region, or controlling the self-propelled device to move from a coincident contour coordinate point as a starting point along an edge of the task activity forbidden region to other regions not belonging to the task activity forbidden region in the environmental map (translated document of Pan, para. 0054-0055: “In one possible implementation, the cleaning control module is specifically used to control the robot vacuum cleaner to perform cleaning work around the no-go zone [i.e., the task activity forbidden region] when a no-go zone is detected; and/or, The cleaning control module is specifically used to detect a fall signal through a preset sensor. When a fall signal is detected, the module controls the robot vacuum to rotate until both wheels of the robot vacuum are parallel to the edge of the ground [i.e., the task activity forbidden region], and then controls the robot vacuum to perform cleaning work in a direction parallel to the edge of the ground [i.e., controlling the self-propelled device to move from a coincident contour coordinate point as a starting point along an edge of the task activity forbidden region to other regions not belonging to the task activity forbidden region in the environmental map].”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Lien, with the concept of controlling a self-propelled device to perform a preset task and avoid a task activity forbidden zone that contains a fall risk by following an anti-falling trajectory, taught by Pan, in order to prevent the self-propelled device from being damaged from a fall while executing the preset task (translated document of Pan, para. 0090: “In other words, the client user can control whether the robot vacuum cleaner sets the area where a fall signal is detected as a no-go zone. This allows the robot vacuum cleaner to perform cleaning work according to the no-go zone logic and/or anti-fall logic, thereby preventing the robot vacuum cleaner from falling from a height during the cleaning process and thus improving the user experience.”).
Regarding claim 12, and analogous claim 6, Lien discloses The self-propelled device according to claim 7, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the controller further comprises a second adjustment component; the second adjustment component is configured to: update the unreachable region in the environmental map based on a current task execution result of the self-propelled device in the operating environment; adjust, after acquiring coordinates of a trigger point where the cliff sensor is triggered, the task activity forbidden region in the environmental map based on the updated unreachable region and the coordinates of the trigger point; and control the self-propelled device to perform the preset task outside the adjusted task activity forbidden region.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Pan teaches:
wherein the controller further comprises a second adjustment component (translated document of Pan, para. 0055: “The cleaning control module…”);
the second adjustment component is configured to: update the unreachable region in the environmental map based on a current task execution result of the self-propelled device in the operating environment (translated document of Pan, para. 0054-0055: “In one possible implementation, the cleaning control module is specifically used to control the robot vacuum cleaner to perform cleaning work around the no-go zone when a no-go zone is detected [i.e., the self-propelled device in the operating environment]; and/or, The cleaning control module is specifically used to detect a fall signal through a preset sensor. When a fall signal is detected, the module controls the robot vacuum to rotate until both wheels of the robot vacuum are parallel to the edge of the ground, and then controls the robot vacuum to perform cleaning work in a direction parallel to the edge of the ground.”; para. 0056: “In one possible implementation, the first sending module is specifically used to send a notification message to the client [i.e., a current task execution] via a backend server.”; para. 0063: “When a prompt message carrying information about the corresponding preset area is received, the prompt message is displayed to ask the user whether to set the preset area as a restricted area.”; para. 0066: “When displaying the prompt message, an environment map is shown [i.e., the environmental map], which marks the corresponding area information of the preset area.”; para. 0069-0070: “When a user command triggered by a prompt message is detected [i.e., a current task execution result], the area to be set as a restricted area is determined from multiple preset areas; Send the user's command triggered by the prompt message to the robot vacuum cleaner. The command carries the area information corresponding to the area to be set as a no-go zone [i.e., update the unreachable region in the environmental map].”; para. 0072: “Mark the areas identified as restricted zones on the environment map.”);
adjust, after acquiring coordinates of a trigger point where the cliff sensor is triggered, the task activity forbidden region in the environmental map based on the updated unreachable region and the coordinates of the trigger point (translated document of Pan, para. 0054-0055: “When a fall signal [i.e., acquiring coordinates of a trigger point where the cliff sensor is triggered] is detected, the module controls the robot vacuum to rotate until both wheels of the robot vacuum are parallel to the edge of the ground, and then controls the robot vacuum to perform cleaning work in a direction parallel to the edge of the ground.”; para. 0056: “In one possible implementation, the first sending module is specifically used to send a notification message to the client via a backend server.”; para. 0063: “When a prompt message carrying information about the corresponding preset area is received, the prompt message is displayed to ask the user whether to set the preset area as a restricted area [i.e., adjust, after acquiring coordinates of a trigger point where the cliff sensor is triggered, the task activity forbidden region in the environmental map].”; para. 0066: “When displaying the prompt message, an environment map is shown [i.e., the environmental map], which marks the corresponding area information of the preset area [i.e., adjust, after acquiring coordinates of a trigger point where the cliff sensor is triggered, the task activity forbidden region in the environmental map].”; para. 0069-0070: “When a user command triggered by a prompt message is detected [i.e., a current task execution result], the area to be set as a restricted area is determined from multiple preset areas [i.e., based on the updated unreachable region and the coordinates of the trigger point]; Send the user's command triggered by the prompt message to the robot vacuum cleaner. The command carries the area information corresponding to the area to be set as a no-go zone [i.e., adjust, after acquiring coordinates of a trigger point where the cliff sensor is triggered, the task activity forbidden region in the environmental map].”; para. 0072: “Mark the areas identified as restricted zones on the environment map.”); and
control the self-propelled device to perform the preset task outside the adjusted task activity forbidden region (translated document of Pan, para. 0075: “The second sending module is used to send the user's command triggered by the prompt message to the robot vacuum cleaner when the user's command is detected, so that the robot vacuum cleaner can perform cleaning work according to the no-go logic and/or anti-fall logic.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Lien, with the concept of controlling a self-propelled device to perform a preset task and avoid a task activity forbidden zone that contains a fall risk by using and updating a map used by the self-propelled device that identifies the locations of areas with a fall risk, taught by Pan, in order to prevent the self-propelled device from being damaged from a fall while executing the preset task (translated document of Pan, para. 0090: “In other words, the client user can control whether the robot vacuum cleaner sets the area where a fall signal is detected as a no-go zone. This allows the robot vacuum cleaner to perform cleaning work according to the no-go zone logic and/or anti-fall logic, thereby preventing the robot vacuum cleaner from falling from a height during the cleaning process and thus improving the user experience.”).
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN-110338708-A (2019-10-18) | “The embodiment of the present application provides the cleaning control method and equipment of a kind of sweeping robot, and this method is applied to sweeping robot, to promote sweeping robot autonomous classification forbidden zone and release the ability of forbidden zone, so that sweeping robot is more intelligent. This method comprises: sweeping robot acquires the environmental information of the first entry region. When determining that first environment information and default environmental information are inconsistent, the first information is sent to terminal device or server, then the first instruction that receiving terminal apparatus or server are sent, according to the first instruction, by the first entry region in operation map be updated to first can operation area, and to first can operation area execute cleaning work.” Relevant to claims 1,7, 13, and 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leah N Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am - 5:30pm 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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/Leah N Miller/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights