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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that nowhere do the cited references disclose or suggest the newly introduced feature. The argument is not persuasive, as the limitation amounts to a requirement that the spatial extent of the mobile work device be a factor in the drive of the work device. As Lincoln discloses sensing objects for collision avoidance, it is implied that the “spatial extent” of the mobile work device is considered in determining corrective action to avoid the obstacle, e.g. [0003]: “in response to detecting presence of a potential obstacle, output a control command configured to cause a changed movement of the autonomous moving object”. Nonetheless, additional reference is made to Gritsenko which explicitly discusses operating the drive system of the robot at least as a function of a spatial extent of the robot frame.
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.
Claim(s) 14, 18-21, 23-24, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lincoln et al. (US 2021/0302569) in view of Cho (US 2018/0120852) and Gritsenko et al. (US 2020/0069125).
Concerning claims 14 and 21, Lincoln discloses an autonomous mobile work device and associated method, the device comprising: at least one device frame (Fig. 1); at least one drive unit configured to generate a propulsion force ([0060]); at least one detection unit, situated in or at the device frame, configured to detect surroundings of the device frame, the detection unit including at least one synthetic aperture radar (SAR) sensor (110, Abstract); and at least one control or regulation unit (130) configured to control or regulate the drive unit and/or the detection unit, the control or regulation unit being configured to activate the drive unit in such a way that a self-rotation of the device frame about a vertical axis of the device frame takes place ([0060]: “The drive sub-system may further be configured to allow the autonomous moving object 100 to change its direction, for instance by rotating in a clockwise and counterclockwise direction around a vertical axis extending through a substantially central portion of the body of the autonomous moving object 100; [0068]: “The controller 130 may output a control command to the drive sub system of the autonomous moving object 100 in case the movement of the autonomous moving object 100 is to be controlled”). Lincoln also discloses moving the device along a curvilinear path to generate a three-dimensional synthetic aperture ([0075]),
wherein the SAR is “rotatably fixedly, rigidly connected to the device frame”, i.e. is connected to and does not move relative to the device frame (Figure 1).
While Lincoln discloses the ability of the device to rotate about its vertical axis and generating a 3D SAR image via travel on a curvilinear path, Lincoln is not found to strictly indicate self rotation takes place such that a “circular” synthetic aperture is formed. Cho discloses a similar autonomous moving object (robot) which uses radar sensors for navigation, where the robot rotates 360 degrees to build a map ([0052], [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device and associated method of Lincoln to use the rotation capability of the device of Lincoln such that a 3D circular synthetic aperture is formed as suggested by Cho in order to build a complete map for path planning. As the SAR is fixed to the device frame, the self-rotation of Lincoln in view of Cho is synchronized with movement of the SAR sensor and an angular range detectable by the circular synthetic aperture is rotated about the vertical axis as a function of the device frame.
It is submitted that it is implicit from the disclosure of Lincoln concerning “peripheral pre-defined volumes”, which are defined so as to detect objects on a collision course with the robot ([0099]), that the control or regulation unit of Lincoln is configured to activate the drive unit to propel the device frame at least as a function of a spatial extent of the device frame and/or accessories as claimed, i.e. the spatial extent of the robot frame would be implicitly used to determine where the robot may drive without colliding with an obstacle. However, in the event this cannot be considered implicit, Gritsenko discloses a robot vacuum and explicitly discusses operating the drive system of the robot at least as a function of a spatial extent of the robot frame (see e.g. Fig. 1, [0025], Fig. 3A, [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the drive control of Lincoln to activate the drive at least as a function of a spatial extent of the robot in a manner described by Gritsenko with a reasonable expectation of success so as to avoid collision with obstacles while vacuuming as close to the obstacles as practicable (Gritsenko [0070]).
Concerning claim 18, Lincoln discloses the radar sensor is offset relative to the vertical axis (Figure 1).
Concerning claims 19-20 and 23, Lincoln discloses two synthetic aperture radar sensors offset relative to the vertical axis (Figure 7). As modified in view of Cho, the sensors together would form the 360 degree circular synthetic aperture.
Concerning claim 24, in disclosing the rotation for building a map, Cho discloses rotating at an angle “such as 360 degrees”, anticipating embodiments where the robot is rotated by an angle of less than 360 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in modifying the two-radar embodiment of Lincoln (Figure 7) to rotate by an angle of less than 360 degrees because a complete rotation would not be required for 360 degree mapping, reducing the time required to scan.
Regarding claim 27, a “spiral-shaped” synthetic aperture is a product of imaging during the claimed translatory and rotary movement of the device. As Lincoln discloses both translatory and rotary movement capability ([0060]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rotate the device of Lincoln as modified by Cho while in translational motion in order to save time while navigating and imaging the environment, the imaging resulting in the predictable result of a spiral shaped aperture.
Regarding claim 28, Lincoln discloses evaluating the synthetic aperture data for obstacle detection and avoidance (e.g. [0010]) including in a 3D volume ([0015]). It is apparent that this qualifies as “SLAM” but even if not, Cho discloses that the map is built by SLAM algorithm, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use SLAM in the invention of Lincoln as modified in view of Cho in order to plan a path in the environment, e.g. to efficiently vacuum, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 29, Lincoln discloses the control or regulation unit is configured to activate the drive unit to propel the device frame at least as a function of data measured via the synthetic aperture, for a collision-free operation ([0087]).
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lincoln in view of Cho and Gritsenko as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Ruffner (US 2002/0156556).
In disclosing the rotation for building a map, Cho discloses rotating at an angle “such as 360 degrees”, anticipating embodiments where the robot is rotated by an angle of less than 360 degrees but does not specifically anticipate rotating a maximum of 180 degrees. Ruffner discloses an autonomous mobile work device (Figure 2) where imaging radar sensors (36, 37) are positioned facing in front of and behind the device ([0134]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the invention of Lincoln in view of Ruffner to add a rear facing sensor, such that a rotation of 180 degrees or less is required to image in all directions, reducing the time required to scan.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lincoln in view of Cho and Gritsenko as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Trotta (10,399,393).
Knowledge of the rotational position of the radar sensor is implicitly required in order to form and update the 3D map of Lincoln in view of Cho, however neither disclosure of radar on rotating robots is found to disclose specifically how rotational position of the sensor is obtained. Trotta discloses an approach for rotating radar where rotational position of the radar sensor is determined based on radar data, in particular by analyzing the reflected signal signature (column 7, lines 20-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to apply this teaching to the method of Lincoln as modified by Cho so that elements or sensors in addition to the radar to monitor position are not required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi discloses a mobile robot which m ay determine that traveling is impossible if a width of a movement passage is less than a predetermined reference width in which the mobile robot may be able to travel.
Dalfra discloses an autonomous lawn mower which implements short-distance non-contact obstacle avoidance in accordance with a preset distance of less than or equal to 35% of a width of the housing.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM- 4:30PM; Fri 8:00 AM-12 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646