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 with respect to claim(s) 03/05/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 15,27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans US 5040116 A (D1) in view of D02 US 20190179028 A1.
Regarding claims bellow D1 teaches
15, 27 (New) A robotic cleaning device configured to detect objects as the robotic cleaning device moves over a surface to be cleaned, the robotic cleaning device comprising(col 1 line 64-col2 line 2)
a first light source(38) configured to produce a close range wide light beam in front of the robotic cleaning device;(fig. 4, 5) the wide light beam having a first vertical radiation angle;(fig. 4)
a second light source(34) configured to produce a long range vertically-narrow light beam in front of the robotic cleaning device; and(fig. 4, 5) the first vertically-narrow light beam having a second vertical radiation angle less than the first vertical radiation angle, the first vertically-narrow light beam having a range longer than the wide light beam; (fig. 4, 5)
an array sensor configured to detect light reflected from one or more of the light sources to detect illuminated objects from which said light is reflected.(claim 2)
Also teaches calculating distance using the detection of the light(col 8)
a controller configured to control the light sources to emit light, one light source at a time, and to compute a respective time-of-flight of the light emitted from the respective light source and being reflected onto the array sensor, and to determine a position of an object from which the light is reflected based on the computed time-of-flight and the position of the reflected light on the array sensor;
D02 teaches TOF calculation from Lidar source[0106]
comprising a line array sensor, that is configured to detect light reflected from one or more of the light sources to detect illuminated objects from which said light reflected; and(fig. 8)
a controller coupled to the line array sensor and configured to sequentially operate the first and second light sources such that only one light source emits light at a time and the line array sensor only detects reflected light from one of the first and second light sources at a time[0180]
combination does not teach
wherein the first light source is arranged to emit light with a vertical radiation angle of 650 to 750.
wherein the third light source is arranged to emit light with a vertical radiation angle of 0.10 to 1.50.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D02 in order to calculate the distance as required in D1 and emit light one at the time in order to avoid interference.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention to modify apparatus by D1, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
16. (New) The robotic cleaning device of claim 15, further comprising:
a third light source(32) configured to produce a close range vertically-narrow light beam towards said surface in front of the robotic cleaning device.(fig. 4)
25. (New) The robotic cleaning device of claim 16, wherein:
the first light source comprises a light-emitting diode;(col 5)
the second light source comprises a laser; and(col 5 )
the third light source comprises a laser.(col 5)
26. (New) The robotic cleaning device of claim 15, wherein the array sensor comprises a line array sensor.(claim 2)
29. (New) The method of claim 27, further comprising:
controlling a third light source to produce a close range vertically-narrow light beam towards said surface in front of the robotic cleaning device and detecting, on the array sensor, light reflected from the third light source in order to detect illuminated objects from which said light is reflected.(fig. 4, 5)
D1 teaches
17, 31 (New) The robotic cleaning device of claim 15, further comprising:
wherein the second vertically-narrow light beam has a range shorter than the first vertically-narrow light beam(fig. 4,5 )
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
18, 33 (New) The robotic cleaning device of claim 15, wherein the light sources are arranged to emit light with a horizontal radiation angle of 60-120,
20. (New) The robotic cleaning device of claim 15, wherein the first light source is arranged to emit light with a vertical radiation angle of around 700.
22. (New) The robotic cleaning device of claim 15, wherein the second light source is arranged to emit light with a vertical radiation angle of about 10.
23, 32 (New) The robotic cleaning device of claim 16, wherein the third light source is arranged to emit light with a vertical radiation angle of 0.10 to 1.50.
24. (New) The robotic cleaning device of claim 16, wherein the third light source is arranged to emit light with a vertical radiation angle of about 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention to modify apparatus by D1, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention to modify apparatus by D1, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215(CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
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 HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on (571) 270-3603. 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.
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights