Introduction

In recent years, robotics cleaners have taken major attention in robotics

research due to effectiveness in assisting humans in floor cleaning applications at
homes, hotels, restaurants, offices, etc. Basically, robotic cleaners are
distinguished on their cleaning expertise like floor mopping, dry vacuum cleaning
etc. Some products are based on simple obstacle avoidance using infrared
sensors while some utilize laser mapping technique. Each cleaning and operating
mechanism of robotic floor cleaners has its own advantages and disadvantages.
For example, robots utilizing laser mapping are relatively faster, less time
consuming and energy efficient but costly, but obstacle avoidance based robots
are relatively time consuming and less energy efficient due to random cleaning
but less costly.
An autonomous device invented in the United States of America relates to
floor cleaning devices. The said invention aims to achieve a cleaning device that
is operable without any human intervention to clean designated areas. Another
objective of the invention is to provide such an autonomous cleaning device that
is designed and configured to optimize the cleaning capability and efficiency of its
cleaning mechanisms for synergy operations while concomitantly minimizing the
power requirements of such mechanisms (Jones, J.L. et al 2009).
In the Philippines, Castillote et al (2018) created a device that is controlled
through a microcontroller and functions as a floor cleaner machine. They
conducted their study in the University of Rizal System. Based on the summary of
design results, the researchers come up with these conclusions. The researchers
were able to make the Remote Controlled Floor Cleaning Machine. The
performance of the Remote Controlled Floor Cleaning Machine was not as
efficient as expected by the researchers. The weight carried by the Remote
Controlled Floor Cleaning Machine greatly affects its performance.
In this project, the researcher’s goal is to create a machine that is effective
in cleaning floor surfaces that is cheap, durable and convenient to use. The
researchers ought to compare the innovative machine to the traditional floor
cleaning methods. Therefore, this will give people a chance to gain access to an
inexpensive technology that aid their floor cleaning chores.
Statement of the Problem
This project aims to introduce a new modification of a floor cleaning
device. The efficiency of the new model of the floor cleaning device will also be
determined.
Specifically, this project seeks to answer the following questions:

1. Is the Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot an effective alternative to

the commercial vacuum cleaner:
1.1 efficiency;
1.2 convenience; and
1.3 physical properties?
 2. Is there any significance difference between the Remote Control floor
Cleaning Robot and the commercialized vacuum in terms of:
1.1 efficiency;
1.2 convenience; and
1.3 physical properties?

Null Hypothesis
Ho.1 The innovative device will be inefficient and would require more advanced
modelling and engineering.
Scope and Delimitations
The focus of this study is to discover the effectiveness of the Remote
Control Floor Cleaning Robot as an alternative way to clean the floor. This study
was held in the Davao Doctors College in Davao City.
This project is delimited only to the effectiveness of the Remote Control
Floor Cleaning Robot as an alternative to commercialized vacuum cleaners alone
and would not go any further. This study is conducted within a four-month school
year duration.
Significance of the Study
This study is beneficial to the following people:
To the people who do cleaning chores, the Remote Control Floor
Cleaning Robot will make cleaning efficient for them. They can remain stationary
and will be able to clean a wide range of space.
To the parents, who find it hard to make their children clean. They can
give the floor cleaning device to them as a toy, and as the children play with it,
they are at the same time cleaning their home.
To the people with disabilities, specifically the people who have lost
function of their lower body. The device will help them accomplish floor cleaning
chores with ease. Their disabilities won’t be a hindrance anymore in terms of
being able to do floor cleaning tasks.
To future researchers, the ideas presented may be used as their
reference data in conducting new research. This study can be a basis of a new
project that will lead to new innovations.
Conceptual Paradigm
In this study, the researchers will present a diagram that represents the
Input-Process-Output conceptual paradigm that the researchers are utilizing.

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Materials for Follow the step- Produce an
making a Remote by-step process of efficient and
Control Floor making a Remote functional Remote
Cleaning Robot Control Floor Control Floor
Cleaning Robot Cleaning Robot

Figure 2.1 The figure above presents the IPO conceptual paradigm for the
Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot

Definition of Terms

Floor Cleaner - A floor cleaner is a multipurpose cleaning product created,

designed and used to clean various types of flooring . (Carter, M., 2015)

Remote Control - According to Webster’s New World College (2010), remote control
is a hand-held device used to control the operation of a television set,
videocassette recorder, etc. from a distance.

Vacuum Cleaner - According to Webster's New World College (2010), a vacuum

cleaner is an electrical household appliance used for cleaning floors, carpets,
furniture, etc., by suction.
METHODOLOGY

Research Design
The researchers will employ the experimental research design,
specifically, the causal-comparative research design where one observes the
impact of the independent variable to the dependent variable. It is used to
compare the two variables of this study, the Remote Control Floor Cleaning
Robot and The Commercialized Vacuum Cleaner.

Compare the
output to the
Materials and Output/ commercial
Tools Product product
Comparison
between the
Remote Control
Floor Cleaning
Robot and the
Commercial Perceived
Vacuum Assemble the efficiency,
Cleaner Materials and convenience
Tools Apply T-test and physical
properties

Figure 3.1 The figure above presents the research design that this study utilizes

Subjects of the Study

The Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot were taken as the subject of
the study and were compared to commercial vacuum cleaners. The subject
propose great advantage to the researchers in terms of cost-efficiency and
convenience in floor cleaning activities since vacuum cleaners are well-known as
effective floor cleaner, which composes the ideal of the study.
Research Instrument/Materials

Questionnaire. The researchers utilized a self-made survey questionnaire that

was validated by credible validators, as a tool for the data gathering process. A
survey questionnaire is a necessity for the researchers in order to collect data
that will determine how efficient the Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot is.

Range of Means Descriptive Verbal Interpretation

Equivalent Description

This indicates that

4.51-5.00 Excellent High respondents have
experience and
evaluated
“excellent” to the
specific question.
This indicates that
3.51-4.40 Very Satisfactory Above Average respondents have
experienced and
evaluated “very
satisfactory” to the
specific question.
This indicates that
2.51-3.50 Satisfactory Average respondents have
experienced and
evaluated
“satisfactory” to
the specific
question.
This indicates that
1.51-2.50 Fair Below Average respondents have
experienced and
evaluated “fair” to
the specific
question.
This indicates that
1.00-1.50 Poor Low respondents have
experienced and
evaluated “poor”
to the specific
question.
Materials

This part entails the materials needed upon the conduction of this experiment.

Material/Tools Description Quantity

PVC pipe The PVC pipe will be

used as the holder of the
bristles and rotates as a 1 pc.
manner of cleaning the
floor.

DC motor The DC motor is

connected to the pipe
and powers its rotation
1pc.

Chipboard Will be used as the

casing for the robot’s
components
5 plies

Wheels Wheels are used to

lessen the friction
between the floor and
the robot and allows it to
2 pcs.
move smoothly

Geared Motor Geared motors are

attached to the wheels
and is responsible for the
machine’s movement
2 pcs.

Switch is used to turn the

machine on and off

Switch
1 pc.
 Cutter Cutter is used for cutting
the materials that needs
to be cut
1 pc.

Glue Gun Used for melting stick

glues

1 pc.

Stick Glue Stick glues are used for

fastening the parts
together
10 pcs.

Brush Only the bristles of the

brush are utilized to
make a rotating bristle
1 pc.

AAA Battery Batteries are used for the

power supply of the
machine 4 pcs.

9V Battery 9V battery is to utilized

as the power supply of
the rotating bristle 2 pcs.

9V Battery Connector The connector is used to

connect the rotating
bristle to the 9V battery 1 pc.

Receiver Circuit Board The most essential part

of the machine. It
receives the signal from 1 pc.
the controller and sends
instructions to the wheels
 Universal Wheels Universal wheels are put
behind the machine for
smooth movement 2pcs.

Data Gathering Procedure

Process

Cutting and sticking boards to make the body of the robot

Installment of the Wheels and connecting it to the Receiver Board.

 Install the Rotating Brush to the front of the Robot

Install lid to the Robot in order to contain the pieces of garbage

Statistical Treatment
The researchers will utilize T-test for the data analysis of this study. A T-
test is a type of inferential statistics used to determine if there is a significant
difference between the means of two variables, which may be related in certain
features. T-test will be used to compare the current invention to the other
methods of cleaning.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot an effective alternative to the

commercial vacuum machine
In order to determine the significant difference between the Remote
Control Floor Cleaning Robot and the commercial vacuum cleaner, both variables
are tested using the statistical tool, T-test. T-test is used to get the mean of both
variables to distinguish the significant difference.

Efficiency. Table 4.1 presents the mean per item statement of the
variable, efficiency. The variable got a weighted average of 3.97 and a standard
deviation of 0.73, a very satisfactory remark and with an above average verbal
description.

Table 4.1 Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot (efficiency)

Item Statement Mean SD Remark Verbal

Description
1.) Collects pieces of garbage of 4.17 0.83 Very Above
different sizes effectively. Satisfactory Average
2.) Works without malfunction 3.97 0.67 Very Above
with multiple test runs Satisfactory Average
3.) Improves floor cleaning tasks 3.93 0.74 Very Above
Satisfactory Average
4.) Consistency of movement 3.8 0.66 Very Above
and capacity, and with ease as it Satisfactory Average
perform its task
5.) The machine functions 3.97 0.96 Very Above
according to its purpose Satisfactory Average

Overall 3.97 0.73 Very Above

Satisfactory Average
Legend:
4.51-5.00 = Excellent
3.51-4.50 = Very Satisfactory
2.51-3.50 = Satisfactory
1.51-2.50 = Fair
1.00-1.50 = Poor

The results are supported by the study Anderson (2015) which he stated
that the field of smart robots in general is moving towards the peak of inflated
expectations and with the high and growing market share of robotic vacuums, it
could be argued that they are already close to the plateau of productivity, leading
the way for more task robots. This goes to say that the study Remote Control
Floor Cleaning Robot as an Alternative to Commercial Vacuum Cleaner has
similar property that of a commercial robotic cleaner in terms of efficiency.

According to the outcome of the statistical treatment has a high internal

validity for the data had been validated by instructors expert in the field of physics
and computer science and the numerical data had been calculated by a credible
statistician.

Efficiency. Presented in the Table 4.2 is the overall mean of the variable,
efficiency, for the Commercial Vacuum Cleaner. The variable got an overall mean
of 4.06 for the efficiency of the commercial vacuum cleaner and a standard
deviation of 0.80. Because of these values the commercial vacuum cleaner got a
very satisfactory remark and has a verbal description of above average.

Table 4.2 Commercial Vacuum Cleaner (efficiency)

Item Statement Mean SD Remark Verbal

Description
1.) Collects pieces of garbage of 4.27 0.73 Very Above
different sizes effectively. Satisfactory Average
2.) Works without malfunction 4.16 0.79 Very Above
with multiple test runs Satisfactory Average
3.) Improves floor cleaning tasks 4.00 0.79 Very Above
Satisfactory Average
4.) Consistency of movement 4.03 0.76 Very Above
and capacity, and with ease as it Satisfactory Average
perform its task
5.) The machine functions 3.80 1.18 Very Above
according to its purpose Satisfactory Average

Overall 4.06 0.80 Very Above

Satisfactory Average
Legend:
4.51-5.00 = Excellent
3.51-4.50 = Very Satisfactory
2.51-3.50 = Satisfactory
1.51-2.50 = Fair
1.00-1.50 = Poor

Presented in the Table 4.2 is the overall mean of the variable, efficiency,
for the Commercial Vacuum Cleaner. The variable got an overall mean of 4.06 for
for the efficiency of the commercial vacuum cleaner and a standard deviation of
0.80. Because of these values the commercial vacuum cleaner got a very
satisfactory remark and has a verbal description of above average.

Table 4.3 The weighted average of the efficiency of Remote Control Floor
Cleaning Robot as an Alternative to Commercial Vacuum Cleaner

Remote Control Floor Commercialized

Cleaning Robot Vacuum Cleaner

Efficiency 3.97 4.06

 According to the results, the Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot is less
effective than the traditional floor cleaners. In the study conducted by Castillote et
al., (2018), it implies the ineffectiveness of the student-made robotic floor cleaner
compared to the commercialized vacuum cleaner. Through conducting the
experiment, the researchers observed that the Remote Control Floor Cleaning
Robot collects fewer variety of sizes of trash than the commercial vacuum
cleaner.

Convenience. Table 4.4 presents the overall mean for the convenience
variable of the study. The convenience variable got a mean of 4.03 and a
standard deviation of 0.81. These values are indicators that the convenience
variable got a remark of Very Satisfactory and an Above Average verbal
description.

Table 4.4 Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot (convenience)

Item Statement Mean SD Remark Verbal
Description
1.) The controls are user friendly 4.20 0.71 Very Above
Satisfactory Average
2.) Using the machine is less 4.10 0.80 Very Above
tiring than traditional way of floor Satisfactory Average
cleaning
3.) The trash collected by the 3.83 0.91 Very Above
machine is easy to dispose Satisfactory Average
4.) Consistency of movement 3.80 0.89 Very Above
and capacity, and with ease as it Satisfactory Average
perform its task
5.) The battery span of the robot 4.20 0.92 Very Above
is efficient Satisfactory Average

Overall 4.03 0.81 Very Above

Satisfactory Average
Legend:
4.51-5.00 = Excellent
3.51-4.50 = Very Satisfactory
2.51-3.50 = Satisfactory
1.51-2.50 = Fair
1.00-1.50 = Poor

This result is support by the article published by Ouchida (2018) where he

stated that robotic cleaners are convenient in cleaning hardwood floors and are
good at picking up debris, pet hair and other small objects found on floor
surfaces.
 Convenience. The data presented in the Table 4.5 is the mean tabulation
of the convenience variable. The convenience variable for the Commercial
Vacuum Cleaner got a mean of 4.12 and a standard deviation of 0.77 and these
numerical values indicates that the device got an overall remark of Very
Satisfactory and a verbal description of above average.

Table 4.5 Commercial Vacuum Cleaner (convenience)

Item Statement Mean SD Remark Verbal
Description
1.) The controls are user 4.03 0.85 Very Above
friendly Satisfactory Average
2.) Using the machine is less 4.07 0.83 Very Above
tiring than traditional way of Satisfactory Average
floor cleaning
3.) The trash collected by the 4.13 0.94 Very Above
machine is easy to dispose Satisfactory Average
4.) Consistency of movement 4.07 0.70 Very Above
and capacity, and with ease as Satisfactory Average
it perform its task
5.) The battery span of the 4.30 0.75 Very Above
robot is efficient Satisfactory Average

Overall 4.12 0.77 Very Above

Satisfactory Average
Legend:
4.51-5.00 = Excellent
3.51-4.50 = Very Satisfactory
2.51-3.50 = Satisfactory
1.51-2.50 = Fair
1.00-1.50 = Poor

This outcome of the statistics supported the statement of Jackson (2014)

where he stated that the vacuum cleaners have always been popular because it’s
convenient and easy to use, and there seems to be no sign of changes of that
popularity anytime soon.

Table 4.6 Weighted average intensity of convenience of Remote Control

Floor Cleaning Robot and the commercialized vacuum cleaner
Remote Control Floor Commercial Vacuum
Cleaning Robot Cleaner

Convenience 4.03 4.12

As the results have shown, the Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot
provides slight convenience to its user. The result supported the statement
House (2017), where he mentioned that robotic cleaners can’t replace the regular
vacuum just yet, it will only make the cleaning tasks a little easier because the
commercial vacuum cleaner still has a lot of functions that the autonomous
cleaner could not accomplish.

Physical Properties. Table 4.7 presents the data about the relationship of
the physical properties of the Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot and the
commercial vacuum cleaner. The Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot got an
average mean of 4.03 and it got a standard deviation of 0.852. These numerical
values suggest that the physical property indicator got a very satisfactory remark
and a verbal description that says the result is above average.

Table 4.7 Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot (physical properties)

Item Statement Mean SD Remark Verbal
Description
1.) The device is lightweight 3.93 0.82 Very Above
Satisfactory Average
2.) The durability of the device 4.00 0.91 Very Above
is evident based on physical Satisfactory Average
appearance
3.) The machine is identifiable 3.93 1.08 Very Above
as a vacuum based on how it Satisfactory Average
looks
4.) The switches are easy to 4.03 0.89 Very Above
locate Satisfactory Average
5.) The nozzle is functional 4.27 0.74 Very Above
Satisfactory Average
Overall 4.03 0.85 Very Above
Satisfactory Average

Legend:
4.51-5.00 = Excellent
3.51-4.50 = Very Satisfactory
2.51-3.50 = Satisfactory
1.51-2.50 = Fair
1.00-1.50 = Poor

The results have shown that in terms of the functionality of the physical
property of the Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot did a very satisfactory
performance. This result goes with the statement of Afonia (2018) that says that
the physical property of a cleaning machine plays an important role in the
effectiveness of the cleaning ability of the machine. Placing the switches of the
rotating brushes and the receiver board of the robot in places that is visible for
the user to easily comprehend how and what the switches, rotating brushes and
wheels are for.
 Physical Properties. Table 4.8 presents the breakdown of means per
item statement of the physical property indicator and its overall mean. In this
table it shown that the physical property indicator of the commercial vacuum
cleaner got an overall mean of 4.05 and a standard deviation of 0.69. These
numerical values equate to the very satisfactory remark and an above average
verbal description.

Table 4.8 Commercial Vacuum Cleaner (physical properties)

Item Statement Mean SD Remark Verbal
Description
1.) The device is lightweight 3.96 0.72 Very Above
Satisfactory Average
2.) The durability of the device 4.10 0.76 Very Above
is evident based on physical Satisfactory Average
appearance
3.) The machine is identifiable 3.93 0.64 Very Above
as a vacuum based on how it Satisfactory Average
looks
4.) The switches are easy to 4.20 0.85 Very Above
locate Satisfactory Average
5.) The nozzle is functional 4.07 0.69 Very Above
Satisfactory Average
Overall 4.05 0.69 Very Above
Satisfactory Average
Legend:
4.51-5.00 = Excellent
3.51-4.50 = Very Satisfactory
2.51-3.50 = Satisfactory
1.51-2.50 = Fair
1.00-1.50 = Poor

According to the results, the Commercial Vacuum Cleaner has physical

properties that gained a very satisfactory remarks which means that the users
find it easy to comprehend it’s suppose function. According to Longo (2019)
design of the buttons with different functions is important. It allows the user of the
specific machine to operate the machine with free of hassle.

Table 4.7 Weighted average intensity between the physical property of Remote
Control Floor Cleaning Robot and commercial vacuum cleaner
Remote Control Floor Commercial Vacuum
Cleaning Robot Cleaner

Physical Properties 4.03 4.05

According to the results, the statistical data implies that the Remote
Control Floor Cleaning Robot’s physical properties provide easier cleaning to its
user. Based on the article written by House (2017), the traditional vacuum
cleaners is more convenient than the autonomous robotic cleaner for the reason
that the autonomous cleaner cannot clean cluttered surfaces and the obstacles
such as wires and threads may wrap around the wheels and may cause
malfunction. In contrast, an upright vacuum cleaner has bigger chances of
cleaning tight areas because of its long nozzle.
Significant difference between Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot and
commercialized vacuum cleaner

Efficiency. Table 4.1 presents the significant difference between the

Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot and the commercialized vacuum cleaner.
The t-test presented a result of t-value= 0.471 and T-critical= 2.000. This
statistical tool is utilized to differentiate one variable from another variable. For
the reason that the t-value is lesser than the t-critical, the null hypothesis is
accepted. Therefore, the Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot and the
commercial vacuum cleaner has no significant difference in terms of efficiency.

Table 4.8 The significant difference between the effectiveness of Remote Control
Floor Cleaning Robot and the commercial vacuum cleaner

Variable t-critical t-value Decision

Efficiency 2.0 0.471 Accept Ho1

The results of the statistical calculation of Remote Control Floor Cleaning

Robot and the commercialized vacuum cleaner showed no significant difference.
The result is supported by the article of Powitz (2014) which he stated that one of
the methods of measure the effectiveness of a cleaning machine is by the visible
cleanliness. Visible Cleanliness is provides a before and after comparison and
the tool is used to enhance what we see.

Convenience. Table 4.2 presents the statistic calculation of data, which

shows the outcome of the T-test. The t-value of the variable convenience is 0.459
which is lower than the t-critical of 2.000, which means that the null hypothesis is
to be accepted. Moreover, the Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot presents no
significant difference with the commercial vacuum cleaner in terms of
convenience.

Table 4.9 The significant difference between the convenience of the Remote
Control Floor Cleaning Robot and commercial vacuum cleaner

Variable t-critical t-value Decision

Convenience 2.000 0.459 Accept Ho1

 Based on the study of Colwell (2009), convenience is measured by
undergoing in a cross-sectional survey methodology which the researchers also
utilized. In conclusion, there is no significant difference between measuring the
convenience of Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot and commercial vacuum
cleaner.

Physical Properties. Table 4.3 presents the result of the calculated data
for the significant difference of Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot and the
commercial vacuum. The outcome of the calculation presented a t-critical of
2.000 and a t-value of 0.100. In the case of having lower t-value than the t-critical,
the null hypothesis is to be accepted. This concludes that there is no significant
difference between the Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot and commercial
vacuum cleaner.

Table 4.10 The significant difference between the physical properties of the
Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot and commercial vacuum cleaner

Variable t-critical t-value Decision

Physical Properties 2.000 0.100 Accept Ho1

As the results have shown, there is no significant difference in measuring

the convenience and efficiency of the physical properties of the Remote Control
Floor Cleaning Robot and commercialized vacuum cleaner.

CONCLUSION

Upon learning the outcome of the study, the following conclusion were
drawn:

1. The Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot has a potential of being another
method of cleaning the floor surfaces but will not be as effective as the
commercial vacuum cleaner in terms of efficiency, convenience and physical
property.

2. In terms of efficiency, convenience and physical properties between the

Remote Control Floor Cleaning Robot and the commercial vacuum cleaner, there
is no significant difference.

Recommendation

Upon interpreting the findings of this paper, the researchers would like to
recommend the following:

To the people who do cleaning chores. The machine created by the

researchers is still a functional device despite it being less effective than
commercial vacuum cleaner. The device will still be of aid in doing the floor
cleaning chores.
 Parents. This study recommends the parents to make their children use
the device as entertainment and at the same time clean the floor surfaces.

People with Disabilities. This product is recommendable for people with

disability, specifically from the waist-down. This device will make their cleaning
tasks a little bit easier.

Future Researchers. The data of this project can be of use by the future
researchers that can serve as a starting point for a more advance and more
modified machine.
References

Afonja T.M., Alade, H.O., Asafa T.B., Olaniyan E.A. (2018). Development of a
Vacuum Cleaner Robot. Retrived from:
https://wwww.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S11100116818300899#
Bellis, M. (2020). The Invention and History of The Vacuum Cleaner. Retrieved
from: https://www.thoughtco.com/invention-and-history-of-vacuum-
cleaners-1992594
Castillote, D., Dela Torre, R., Manosig, E., Pendon, C.M., SanDiego, J.E.,
Serafica, K., Sexon, M.N., Soreño, S. (2018). Remote Controlled Floor
Cleaning Machine .Retrieved from
https://www.coursehero.com/file/29188217/Remote- Controlled-Floor-
Cleaning-Machine/
Colwell S. (2009). Toward a measure of service convenience: Multiple-item scale
development and empirical test. Retrieved From:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235306549_Toward_a_measure
_of_service_convenience_Multiple-item_scale_development_and_emperic
al_test
Dooley, M., Romanov, N., & Case, J. P. (2016). U.S. Patent No. 9,427,127.
Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
House A. (2017). Can a Robot Vacuum Replace a Normal Vacuum. Retrieved
from: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.householdme.com/can-a-robot-
replace-a-normal-vacuum/amp/
Hussain, J. H., & Sharavanan, R. (2017). Floor Cleaning Machine by Remote
Control. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Volume
116 No. 14 2017, 461-464
Jang, S. R. (2010). U.S. Patent No. 7,650,666. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and
Trademark
Jones, J. L., Mack, N. E., Nugent, D. M., & Sandin, P. E. (2009). U.S. Patent No.
7,571,511. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Ko, J. Y., Jeung, S. J., Song, J. G., Kim, K. M., Lee, J. S., & Lim, K. S.
(2009). U.S. Patent No. 7,489,985. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office.
Longo L. (2019). Best Practices for Buttons: The User Experience of Colours. Retrieved
from: https://designexcellent.com/best-practices-for-buttons-the-user-
experience-of-colors/

Mangiardi, J. R. (2012). U.S. Patent No. 8,127,396. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent

and Trademark Office.
May S. (2017). What Is Robotics?. Retrieved from:
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-
knows/what_is_robotics_58.html
Ouchida, R.C. (2018). Robotic Vacuums Make Chores Easier For Busy Families.
Retrieved from: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.
reviewjournal.com/life/homme-and-garden/robotic -
vacuums-make-chores-easier-for-busy-families-1593575/amp/
Park, J. I. (2010). U.S. Patent No. 7,765,635. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office.k Office
Powitz R.W. (2014) .Measuring Cleanliness. Retrived From:
http://digitaledition.qwinc.com/publication/
Song, J. G., Lee, K. M., Moon, S. B., Lee, S. Y., & Ko, J. Y. (2009). U.S. Patent
No. 7,480,958. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Sawalski, M. M., Harwig, J. L., Leonard, S. B., Laru, K. M., Gipp, M. M., &
Jaworski, T. (2010). U.S. Patent No. 7,784,139. Washington, DC: U.S.
Patent andTrademark Office
Yan, J. (2009). U.S. Patent No. 7,568,259. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office.
Ziegler, A., Gilbert, D., Morse, C. J., Pratt, S., Sandin, P., Dussault, N., & Jones,
A. (2013). U.S. Patent No.8,387,193. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office.