throbber
www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/378,427
`
`07/16/2021
`
`Renji Honda
`
`083710-3353
`
`4087
`
`McDermott Will and Emery LLP
`The McDermott Building
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`YASHARPOUR,EMILY HANNAH
`
`1714
`
`05/17/2023
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`mweipdocket@mwe.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-6 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`Cj} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected.
`1) Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)1) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1... Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1) Certified copies of the priority documents have beenreceived in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20230509
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/378 ,427
`Hondaetal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`EMILY H YASHARPOUR
`1714
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 03/21/2023.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)[¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA 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.
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`The amendmentfiled on 03/21/2023 has been entered. Claims 1-6 remain pendingin the
`
`application. Applicant’s amendmentsto the claims are acknowledged.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. — An element ina 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-AlA 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
`
`meaningof the claim languagein 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-AlA 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-AlIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 3
`
`(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-AlA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AlA 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-AlA 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
`
`except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 4
`
`This application includes one or moreclaim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but
`
`are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
`
`because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language
`
`withoutreciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not
`
`preceded bya structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "target person acquisition unit that
`
`displays options representing a plurality of target persons on the display unit” in claims 1 and 6.
`
`Becausethis/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA
`
`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.
`
`If applicant does not intend to havethis/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
`
`pre-AlA 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-AlA 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-AlIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`Regarding a "target person acquisition unit that displays options representing a plurality of
`
`target persons on thedisplay unit" in claim 1, applicant appears to have met the limitations set forth in
`
`MPEP § 2181, and examiner has turned to the specification for clarification. In the specification,
`
`applicant discloses that the “Terminal device 120 includes... target person acquisition unit 126... as
`
`processing units implemented by executing programs in a processor (notillustrated) included in
`
`terminal controller 129” (See Specification, Page 10, Lines 4-8) and that “target person acquisition unit
`
`126 maydisplay options representing a plurality of types of target persons on display unit 161 using
`
`graphical user interface (GUI) 162 or the like” (See Specification, Page 14, Lines 10-12) as comprising a
`
`dedicated software for interpreting information received by the vacuum cleaner. Equivalent structures
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 5
`
`may include thosethat perform the function specified in the claim, structures that are not excluded by
`
`any specific definition provided in the specification for an equivalent, or is a structural equivalent of the
`
`corresponding elementdisclosed in the specification. See MPEP 2183.
`
`The interpretation of (1) “an object information acquisition unit that acquires object information
`
`based on a sensor included in the vacuum cleaner” in claims 1 and 6, (2) “a danger determination unit
`
`that determines danger of the object based on the acquired object information”in claims 1, 2, 4, and 6,
`
`(3) “a map acquisition unit that acquires a map of an area where the vacuum cleaner runs” in claims 1
`
`and 6, (4) “a dangerous position display unit that causes the display unit to display the danger of the
`
`object determined by the danger determination unit and the acquired position of the object on the map
`
`in association with each other” in claims 1, 5, and 6, (5) “a danger managementunit that acquires
`
`danger managementinformation in which a type of the danger and a danger degreethatis a degree of
`
`the danger are associated with the object information, wherein the danger determination unit
`
`determines the danger of the object based on the acquired danger managementinformation”in claim 4
`
`in the previous office action are maintained.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a
`
`prior Office action.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
`
`directed to an abstract idea withoutsignificantly more.
`
`Claim 1 recites “an object information acquisition unit that acquires object information based
`
`ona sensor included in the vacuum cleaner ... a danger determination unit that determines danger of
`
`the object/person based on the acquired object information or target information acquired by the
`
`target person acquisition unit; a map acquisition unit that acquires a map of an area where the vacuum
`
`cleaner runs; a dangerousposition display unit that causes the display unit to display the danger of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 6
`
`object determined by the danger determination unit and the acquired position of the object on the map
`
`in association with each other, and a target person acquisition unit that displays options representing a
`
`plurality of target persons on the display unit, wherein the danger determination unit determines the
`
`dangerbased on the target information acquired by the target person acquisition unit”. Specifically, the
`
`steps describe a process for detecting and recording information about an obstacle (human or
`
`inanimate) and displaying it on a display unit it in a manner to convey which obstacles are more
`
`“dangerous”.
`
`The limitations of acquiring object information and assessing it to determine whether an object
`
`or person is “dangerous” and compiling information to create a map, underits broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of an “an object
`
`information acquisition unit”, “target person acquisition unit”, “danger determination unit”, a “map
`
`acquisition unit”, and a “a dangerous position display unit” that comprises such executable instructions,
`
`nothing in the claim element precludesthe limitations from being practically performed in the mind. For
`
`example, “acquir[ing] object information based on a sensor”is a step that can be performedin the
`
`mind, but for the limitation specifying the presence of a “an object information acquisition unit” in
`
`whichinstructions for the step are stored. Similarly, the step of “determin[ing] danger of the object
`
`based on the acquired object information”is a step that can be performedin the mind, but for the
`
`limitation specifying the presence of a “danger determination unit” in which instructions for the step are
`
`stored. The step of “acquir[ing] a map of an area where the vacuum cleaner runs”is a step that can be
`
`performedin the mind, but for the limitation specifying the presence of a “map acquisition unit” in
`
`whichinstructions for the step are stored. The step of “caus[ing] the display unit to display the danger of
`
`the object determined by the danger determination unit and the acquired position of the object on the
`
`map in association with each other”is a step that recites the function of a generic computer component.
`
`The step of “display[ing] options representing a plurality of target persons on the display unit” is a step
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 7
`
`that recites the function of a generic computer component. While the claims recite hardware elements,
`
`these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as being “significantly more” than the abstract idea. The
`
`“terminal” that the “target person acquisition unit”, “object information acquisition unit”, “danger
`
`determination unit”, a “map acquisition unit”, and a “a dangerous position display unit” is storedin is
`
`understood to be merely conventional computer component, commonly knownin industry. (See
`
`Specification, Page 10, Lines 4-8)
`
`If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer
`
`components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the
`
`claim recites an abstract idea.
`
`This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because Federal Register,
`
`Vol. 84, page 55 details that the considerations for a “practical application” are: The claim fails to recite
`
`any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the
`
`computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular
`
`article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in
`
`some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
`
`technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to
`
`monopolize the exception. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. The claim does not improve any technology, or have a
`
`technological improvement. Moreover, limitations that are “not” indicative of integration into a
`
`practical application include adding the words “apply it’, or mere instructions to implement an abstract
`
`idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the
`
`abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing
`
`the abstract idea, and thereis still no improvement to a technology or using the judicial in some
`
`“meaning way beyond linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
`
`environment.” The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 8
`
`The claim doesnotinclude additional elements that are sufficient to amountto significantly
`
`more than the judicial exception. The claims recite “a dangerous position display unit that causes the
`
`display unit to display the danger of the object or person determined by the danger determination unit
`
`and the acquired position of the object on the map in association with each other” which is understood
`
`to be a screen that displays the map information. However, this application is well-known, routine, and
`
`conventional. The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field,
`
`improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a
`
`transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional
`
`steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond
`
`generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 79 Fed. Reg. 74624.
`
`Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims that transform the exception into a patenteligible
`
`application such that the claim amountsto significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are
`
`rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
`
`Claims 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as claim 1 because
`
`claims 3, 5, and 6 merely recite further parameter details of the operation of the “object information
`
`acquisition unit”, “danger determination unit”, and “map acquisition unit”. Claims 3, 5, and 6 do not
`
`include additional elements that are sufficient to amountto significantly more than the judicial
`
`exception. It is well-understood, routine, and conventional that parameter details can be programmed
`
`into a cleaning machine’s “terminal device”.
`
`Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract
`
`idea without significantly more. The claim recites “a danger managementunit that acquires danger
`
`managementinformation in which a type of the danger and a danger degree that is a degree of the
`
`dangerare associated with the object information, wherein the danger determination unit determines
`
`the danger of the object based on the acquired danger managementinformation”, essentially a piece of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 9
`
`software that determines and categorizes features of an obstacle that an autonomous vacuum cleaner
`
`encounters.
`
`That is, other than reciting “the danger management unit,” nothing in the claim element
`
`precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “danger
`
`determination unit” feature, “acquires” and “determines” in the context of this claim encompasses the
`
`user manually analyzing and keeping track of obstacle information. The “terminal” that the “danger
`
`managementunit” is stored in is understood to be merely conventional computer component,
`
`commonly knownin industry. (See Specification, Page 10, Lines 4-8) Under its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, the limitation covers performance that maybe carried out in the mind but for the
`
`recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, covers performanceof the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic
`
`computer components,thenit falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
`
`Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
`
`This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because Federal Register,
`
`Vol. 84, page 55 details that the considerations for a “practical application” are: The claim fails to recite
`
`any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the
`
`computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular
`
`article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in
`
`some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
`
`technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to
`
`monopolize the exception. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. The claim does not improve any technology, or have a
`
`technological improvement. Moreover, limitations that are “not” indicative of integration into a
`
`practical application include adding the words “apply it’, or mere instructions to implement an abstract
`
`idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 10
`
`abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing
`
`the abstract idea, and thereis still no improvement to a technology or using the judicial in some
`
`“meaning way beyond linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
`
`environment.” The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
`
`The claim doesnotinclude additional elements that are sufficient to amountto significantly
`
`more than the judicial exception. The “danger managementunit” only acquires and determines
`
`parameters based on an obstacle which are then used to display information on a screen, according to
`
`the claims. However, this application is well-known, routine, and conventional. The claim fails to recite
`
`any improvements to another technologyor technical field, improvements to the functioning of the
`
`computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular
`
`article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular
`
`useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to
`
`a particular environment. See 79 Fed. Reg. 74624. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims
`
`that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amountsto
`
`significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed
`
`to non-statutory subject matter.
`
`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.
`
`The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
`
`103 are summarized as follows:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 11
`
`1. Determining the scope and contentsofthe 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 obviousnessor
`
`nonobviousness.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`US20190332121A1 to Kim etal in view of JP2005216021Ato Takao etal.
`
`As to claim 1, Kim discloses a vacuum cleaner system including a vacuum cleaner that performs
`
`cleaning while autonomously running and a display unit that displays information acquired from the
`
`vacuum cleaner, (See Kim, Paragraph [0002], [0009], and [0091], Fig. 1, 5, ref. # 1 and 300, which
`
`teaches an autonomous cleaning robot that carries out cleaning based on a map which maybe displayed
`
`ona screen).
`
`the system comprising: an object information acquisition unit that acquires object information
`
`based ona sensor included in the vacuum cleaner, the object information being information on an
`
`object present around the vacuum cleaner; (See Kim, Paragraph [0009], [0059]-[0061], [0071], Fig. 3, ref.
`
`# 11, 100, 140 which teaches an object sensing unit which detects an obstacle from the image acquiring
`
`unit, which possesses a digital camera, analogous to a sensor)
`
`a map acquisition unit that acquires a map of an area where the vacuum cleaner runs; (See Kim,
`
`Paragraph [0009], [0086], [0097]-[0101], Fig. 5, ref. # 200, 220, which teaches that the map generating
`
`unit generates a map of the cleaning area)
`
`Kim further discloses a danger determination unit that determines danger of the object based
`
`on the acquired object information; and a dangerous position display unit that causes the display unit to
`
`display the danger of the object determined by the danger determination unit and the acquired position
`
`of the object on the map in association with each other. Kim discloses that the obstacle recognition unit
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 12
`
`(read as a danger determination unit) determines the shape and height (analogous to danger) of the
`
`obstacle (See Kim, Paragraph [0076]-[0081], [0091], [0095]-[0097], Fig. 5, ref. # 210, 220) and that the
`
`map creator “displays obstacles larger than a predetermined size on a map and doesnotdisplay
`
`obstacles smaller than the predetermined size” (read as a dangerous position display unit) on a screen.
`
`Since the map changesthe size of certain obstacles on the map,this indicates that the map conveys
`
`which objects are larger or more “dangerous”.
`
`Kim fails to disclose a target person acquisition unit that displays options representing a plurality
`
`of target persons on the display unit, wherein the danger determination unit determines the danger
`
`based on the target information acquired by the target person acquisition unit.
`
`However, Takao discloses an autonomous traveling robot cleaner comprising human body
`
`detection sensors specifically, which displays sensor detection information to an information station
`
`(See Takao, Paragraphs [0006]-[0007], [0021], Fig. 3, ref. # 23), which would cause the obstacle
`
`recognition unit (read as a danger determination unit) to determine the shape and height (analogous to
`
`danger) of the human obstacle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
`
`modified the vacuum cleaner of Kim with the human detection and display functionality of Takao in
`
`orderto provide a mobile floor cleaning robot that may move autonomously even when a person is
`
`detected and for detecting home intruders (See Takao, Paragraphs [0002]-[0005], [0021]).
`
`As to claim 2, Kim discloses that the vacuum cleaner includes, as the sensor, at least a first
`
`sensor that acquiresfirst object information that is one piece of the object information
`
`and a second sensor that acquires second object information of a type different from a type of
`
`the first object information, (See Kim, Paragraphs [0059]-[0061], Fig. 1, 5, ref. #150).
`
`and the danger determination unit determines the danger of the object based on the first object
`
`information and the second object information, (See Kim, Paragraph [0076]-[0081], [0115], and [0095]-
`
`[0097], Fig. 5, ref. # 100, 150, and 220, which teaches that the map which displays the obstacle’s size
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 13
`
`(danger) is created based on information received from the sensor unit, which possessesa plurality of
`
`sensorsof different types).
`
`The reference discloses multiple sensors can be used; therefore, although not explicitly
`
`disclosed,it is reasonably expected that the map of Kim would display the map based on features
`
`acquired by both sensors, if more than one is used. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able
`
`to modify the vacuum of Kim such that information obtained from both sensorsis used to assess
`
`obstacle danger.
`
`As to claim 3, Kim discloses an object detector that causes a running controller included in the
`
`vacuum cleaner to execute information acquisition running for acquiring the object information (See
`
`Kim, Paragraph [0076]-[0077], Fig. 5, ref. # 200, 240, 210, which teachesthat the control unit stores the
`
`acquired image in the data unit and the obstacle recognition unit analyzes the image).
`
`As to claim 4, Kim discloses that a danger managementunit that acquires danger management
`
`information in which a type of the danger and a danger degree that is a degree of the danger are
`
`associated with the object information, (See Kim, Paragraph [0076]-[0081] and [0096]-[0098], Fig. 5, ref.
`
`# 210, which teaches that the obstacle recognition unit determines the size and shape of the obstacle
`
`and can differentiate between a piece of furniture versus a small toy).
`
`wherein the danger determination unit determines the danger of the object based on the
`
`acquired danger management information. (See Kim, Paragraph [0076]-[0081], Fig. 5, ref. #150, 210,
`
`which teaches that the obstacle recognition unit determines the size (danger) of the obstacle based on
`
`information from the sensor unit, shown further in figure 5)
`
`As to claim 6, Kim discloses a dangerous position posting method in a vacuum cleaner system
`
`including a vacuum cleaner that performs cleaning while autonomously running and a display unit that
`
`displays information acquired from the vacuum cleaner (See Kim, Paragraph [0017], [0091], Fig. 1, 5, ref.
`
`# 1 and 300).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/378,427
`Art Unit: 1714
`
`Page 14
`
`the method comprising: causing an object information acquisition unit to acquire object
`
`information from the vacuum cleaner, the object information being information on an object present
`
`around the vacuum cleaner; (See Kim, Paragraph [0017], [0009], [0059]-[0061], [0071], Fig. 3, ref. #11,
`
`100, 140 which teaches an object sensing unit which detects an obstacle from the image acquiring unit)
`
`causing a map acquisition unit to acquire a map of an area where the vacuum cleaner runs; (See
`
`Kim, Paragraph [0009], [0086], [0097]-[0101], Fig. 5, ref. 200, 220, which teaches that the map
`
`generating unit generates a map of the cleaning area)
`
`Kim further discloses causing a danger determination unit to determine the danger of the object
`
`based on the acquired object information; and causing a dangerous position display unit to cause a
`
`display unit to display the danger of the object determined by the danger determination unit and the
`
`acquired position

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket