Ex Parte Gilbert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 13, 2017

13537401 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/537,401 06/29/2012 Duane L. Gilbert JR. 09945-0067003 / SC-06C us 1036 108858 7590 10/17/2017 Fish fr Rirharfknn PC GROROTl EXAMINER P.O. Box 1022 Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022 CRANDALL, JOEL DILLON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3723 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/17/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time 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): patdoctc@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DUANE L. GILBERT, JR., MARCUS R. WILLIAMS, ANDREA M. OKERHOLM, ELAINE H. KRISTANT, SHEILA A. LONGO, DANIEL E. KEE, and MARC D. STRAUSS Appeal 2016-006602 Application 13/537,4011 Technology Center 3700 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Duane L. Gilbert, Jr. et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision in the Final Action (dated Apr. 3, 2015, hereafter “Final Act.”) rejecting claims 20—3 8.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 According to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (hereafter “Br.”), filed Oct. 13, 2015, the real party in interest is iRobot Corporation. Br. 2. 2 Claims 1—19 are canceled. Br. 11 (Claims. App.). Appeal 2016-006602 Application 13/537,401 SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to a cleaning robot “configured to perform autonomous cleaning tasks.” Spec. 1,11. 14—15. Claims 20, 30, and 34 are independent. Claim 20, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 20. An autonomous robot comprising: a body configured to move over a surface; two driven wheels carried by the body and defining a transverse axis, with each wheel carried on a respective side of the body; a stasis sensor carried by the body and responsive to inertia of the body; and a controller configured to perform a stasis detection routine by changing the rotation speed and direction of each wheel to rotate the body in a wiggle motion by repeatedly turning in substantially opposite directions, the controller in electrical communication with the stasis sensor and configured to determine a stasis condition based at least in part on the inertia sensed by the stasis sensor during the wiggle motion in response to the changed speed and direction of the wheels indicating that the robot is not moving, while at least one wheel has a non-zero speed. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: I. The Examiner rejected claims 25 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. 2 Appeal 2016-006602 Application 13/537,401 II. The Examiner rejected claims 20—22, 25—363, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson (.IMU Odometry, Encoder, July 2006) and Schur et al. (Stasis Logic, 2007, www.schursastrophotography.com/robotics/stasislogic.html (lasted visited Oct. 4, 2017), hereafter “Schur”)4. III. The Examiner rejected claims 23, 24, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson, Schur, and Song et al. (US 2006/0185690 Al, pub. Aug. 24, 2006, hereafter “Song”). ANALYSIS Rejection I The Examiner finds that claims 25 and 33 are indefinite because the phrase “the wheel modules” lacks proper antecedent basis. Final Act. 2. Nonetheless, the Examiner considers that “the wheels” should be recited instead. Prior to the mailing of the Final Action on Apr. 3, 2015, Appellants filed an Amendment on Feb. 4, 2015 (hereafter “Amendment”) addressing 3 The Examiner lists claims 27—29 under a separate heading in the Final Action (see Final Act. 10), but includes claims 27—29 in the body of Rejection II in the Examiner’s Answer, filed Apr. 26, 2016 (hereafter “Ans.”). See Ans. 5—7. Because each of claims 20—22, 25—36, and 38 are rejected as unpatentable over Anderson and Schur, we address each of these claims under Rejection II. 4 Although the Examiner refers to Schur as “Stasis Logic,” the authors of “Stasis Logic” are Chris Schur and Dawn Schur, and the Opinion uses “Schur” to refer to this reference for consistency with Appellants. 3 Appeal 2016-006602 Application 13/537,401 the 35 U.S.C. §112, 2nd paragraph rejection by amending the phrase “the wheel modules” in claims 25 and 33 to read “the wheels.” See Amendment 3^4. In the Final Action, the Examiner did not indicate that the Amendment was non-compliant, or otherwise indicate that the Amendment was not entered, and, thus, the Examiner’s rejection is not commensurate with the scope of the claims as amended. Accordingly, we do not sustain the indefmiteness rejection of claims 25 and 33. Rejection II Appellants have not presented arguments for the patentability of claims 21, 22, 25—36, and 38 apart from claim 20. See Br. 6—10. Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 20 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claims 21, 22, 25—36, and 38 standing or falling with claim 20. The Examiner finds that Anderson discloses most of the limitations of claim 20 including, inter alia, “a stasis sensor (the Inertial Measurement Unit and wheel encoders)” and a controller. Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner also finds that Anderson’s controller communicates with the stasis sensor and performs a stasis detection routine because “when the wheel encoders report that the robot is rotating and the IMU reports that it is not, the robot is probably stuck.” Id at 3. (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further finds that although “Anderson fails to disclose a wiggle motion determining a stasis condition during the wiggle motion,” nonetheless, Schur discloses using a reversing waddle to escape stasis. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to “have 4 Appeal 2016-006602 Application 13/537,401 modified Anderson’s robot with a waddle to aid it in escaping a stasis mode and to monitor the rotation while waddling to determine when the robot escapes stasis so that it may rotate the robot by a random amount so that it would not re-enter entrapment again.” Id. at 4. Appellants assert that Anderson’s controller does not “perform a stasis detection routine by changing the rotation speed and direction of each wheel to rotate the body by repeatedly turning in substantially opposite directions,” as required by the independent claims. Br. 7. According to Appellants, measuring and comparing the rate of rotation does not include “changing rotation speed mid direction of each wheel.” Id. The Examiner responds that Anderson discloses an escape routine that includes “wiggle left or right” that runs “until the trigger condition is no longer met.” Ans. 14. The Examiner notes that although “[t]he ‘wiggle’ motion of Anderson could conceivably be achieved by only driving one wheel, either the left or right,” Schur’s “‘waddle’ is ‘reversing’ which is a change in direction and ‘backing up one wheel at a time in succession’ meaning that the speed constantly changes from zero to non-zero.” Ans. 14— 15. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument for the following reasons. Appellants’ Specification discloses that “[t]he controller can control the rotational speed and direction of each wheel module 500, 501 independently” to maneuver the robot 10 in various different directions, including “a wiggle motion” so that “the robot 10 can make repeated alternating right and left turns such that the robot 10 rotates back and forth around the center vertical axis.” Spec. 15,11. 20-26. Thus, a “wiggle motion” consistent with Appellants’ Specification is a change of speed and 5 Appeal 2016-006602 Application 13/537,401 direction of each wheel by alternating left and right turns to rotate the robot back and forth. Similarly, Anderson’s escape routine wiggles one wheel left or right, forward and rearward until the robot determines that the wheels are no longer stuck, and Schur teaches applying an escape routine to the wheels in succession (alternating). See Anderson, p. 12, section IX. A and Schur, p. 4; see also Ans. 14. Thus, Anderson’s controller, as modified by Schur, alternately wiggles each wheel of Anderson’s robot back and forth. We also agree with the Examiner that as the wheels are moved in succession, there is a speed change from zero to non-zero. See Ans. 15. In contrast, Appellants do not explain adequately why Anderson’s “wiggle left or right” as modified by the teachings of Schur to move “one wheel at a time in succession,” as proposed by the Examiner, is not a change of speed and direction of each wheel. In other words, Appellants do not provide persuasive technical argument or evidence that there is a difference between changing the rotation speed and direction of each wheel using the claimed “wiggle motion,” and Anderson’s wiggle routine as modified by Schur. Appellants also argue that Schur does not remedy the deficiencies of Anderson because Schur’s robot first identifies “a stasis condition,” and then attempts “to extract itself from an obstruction or other feature that caused the robot to become immobile.” Br. 7—8. According to Appellants, Schur, similar to Anderson, uses “an escape routine that is executed after it has been determined that the robot has become stuck.” Id. at 8. Appellants assert that because the Examiner has not established that “either Schur or Anderson disclose[s] determining a stasis condition during the wiggle motion,” the Examiner has not provided evidence or reasoning “why one of ordinary skill in the art would have moved away from the explicit 6 Appeal 2016-006602 Application 13/537,401 disclosures in the cited references to do something not disclosed or suggested in any of the cited references.” Id. at 8—9. The Examiner responds that because “Anderson’s robot must monitor the trigger conditions to determine whether it should exit” “the escape behaviors of ‘wiggle left or right,’ then Anderson does indeed disclose ‘a controller configured to rotate the robot body in a wiggle motion and determine a stasis condition during the wiggle motion.’” Ans. 14 (emphasis omitted). For the following reasons we agree with the Examiner that Anderson determines a stasis condition during the wiggle motion. Although both Anderson and Schur perform an escape routine to move a stuck robot, because Anderson’s escape routine uses a wiggle left or right until the stuck “condition is no longer met,” Anderson’s escape routine begins execution after the robot has become stuck, and thus includes a loop that continuously determines the stuck condition (stasis condition) during the wiggle motion until the stuck condition is no longer met. See Anderson, p. 12, section IX. A. The claims are not limited to a wiggle motion to determine the onset of a stasis condition, and therefore, do not exclude determining that a stasis condition has occurred, beginning a wiggle motion, and, thereafter, continuing to determine a stasis condition during the wiggle motion until the stuck “condition is no longer met,” as specifically disclosed in Anderson. Appellants also argue that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Anderson “would require re-programming Anderson” in order to accurately determine the rate of rotation. Br. 9. Appellants thus assert that the Examiner’s proposed modification “would either make Anderson unsatisfactory for its intended purposes, by rendering Anderson unable to 7 Appeal 2016-006602 Application 13/537,401 accurately, analyze the rate of rotation, or the proposed modification would require impermissibly modifying the principle by which Anderson operates beyond the scope of anything disclosed by Anderson.” Id. at 10. In response, the Examiner states that to the extent that Anderson’s wiggle motion uses only one wheel, Schur moves “one wheel at a time in succession” so that both wheels change speed and direction. Ans. 14—15. According to the Examiner, “moving each wheel individually would not change the basic operating principal of Anderson as it would still be able to detect if it was stuck (comparing wheel movement to IMU movement),” and it would not make Anderson unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because Anderson’ robot “would still be able to navigate to a destination.” Ans. 15. We agree with the Examiner that moving both of Anderson’s wheels as part of Anderson’s wiggle routine does not amount to a modification of Anderson’s robot making it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. See id. The purpose of Anderson’s wheel rotation calculations is so that “the robot can know that it is stuck and take appropriate steps to get free.” Anderson, p. 12, section IX.B. Anderson’s disclosure of “wiggle left or right” does not exclude wiggle left and then wiggle right, as the Examiner proposes, because Anderson’s escape behavior continues and uses various escape behaviors until the robot is no longer stuck. See id., section IX.A. Thus, as Anderson’s robot could wiggle both left and right, Anderson’s robot will function as intended because it would allow the robot to come unstuck by wiggling, and then navigate to a destination. See Ans. 15. Moreover, because Anderson already discloses an encoder for each wheel and determines wheel rotation direction and velocity (see Anderson, pp. 2-4), determining the rate of rotation of both wheels would not require re- 8 Appeal 2016-006602 Application 13/537,401 programming, or modification of Anderson’s principle of operation, as Appellants argue, because Anderson would determine whether each or both wheels are stuck. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 20 as unpatentable over Anderson and Schur. Claims 21, 22, 25—36, and 38 fall with claim 20. Rejection III Appellants do not present separate arguments for the patentability of dependent claims 23, 24, and 37. See Br. 6—10. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above, we likewise sustain the rejection of claims 23, 24, and 37 over the combined teachings of Anderson, Schur, and Song. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 25 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as being indefinite, is reversed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 20—38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 9