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 10/20/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 35 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 35 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 27, 29-31, 35-38, and 40-42 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Herron (Pub. No. US 2019/0183310; hereafter Heron) in view of Torres (Pub. No. US 2008/0117297; hereafter Torres), Huang (Pub. No. US 2016/0255260; hereafter Huang), and Hyers (Pub. No. US 2014/0072362; hereafter Hyers) does not disclose the newly amended claim limitation wherein “two elastic connecting parts are arranged in the first mounting groove, another two elastic connecting parts are arranges in the second mounting groove… thicknesses of the two elastic connecting parts and the another two elastic connecting parts are adjustable based on a preset distance between optical axes of the two cameras in the direction of the connection line” as called for in claim 27. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the teaching of Hyers, Examiner notes that Applicant does not argue that such a feature is not reasonably taught by Hyers, but that Hyers is non-analogous art since Hyers is drawn to “an adaptor device for connecting an electronic device having a camera to a range of optical devices, including but not limited to binoculars, monoculars, riflescopes, spotting scopes ,telescopes, and microscopes” (see Applicant’s remarks p. 9, emphasis yours), while the instant application is drawn to a cleaning robot.
In response to applicant's argument that the Hyers reference is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, it is both. The case is drawn to camera mounting, which is the same field of endeavor as Applicant’s invention. The problem to be solved is also analogous, as Applicant noted, Hyers is particularly interested in the problem of securely mounting a camera to “a range of optical devices.” One having ordinary skill in the art, especially in light of the Torres reference which discloses elastic grommets for securely mounting a camera, would have had ample motivation to search for the best implementation of elastic members for securely mounting the camera. The fact that the particular optical device of Applicant’s invention is a cleaning robot, which is a device not specifically mentioned by Hyers, does not negate the fact that the main concern of all of the references is how to securely mount a camera device.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “none of the embodiments… of Hyers discloses the above-identified features, which require arranging TWO elastic connecting parts in the first mounting groove, and arranging another TWO elastic connecting parts in the second mounting groove” (emphasis yours) one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The prior art of Herron already discloses two camera portions, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the each camera would require its own mounting structure. Therefore, the prior art of Hyers in combination with Herron, Torres, and Huang reasonably discloses providing at least two elastic connection parts per camera. Since there are two cameras in the prior art of Herron, the teaching of Hyers would reasonably suggest to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide two elastic connecting parts for the first camera, and another two elastic connecting parts for the second camera, as called for in the claims.
Additionally, Applicant has reentered language originally presented in claim 34, now canceled, which caused objections to the drawings (see Non-Final Rejection dated 9/5/2024). Since the claim language has been restored, the drawings are once again objected to as failing to show the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, as noted in the Non-Final rejection, such a feature is taught by Torres, which discloses that one of the benefits of using an elastic member is the ability to make “minor camera angle adjustments up to approximately five degrees in any direction” (see Torres paragraph [0036]).
Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive, and the rejections made in view of Herron, Torres, Huang, and Hyers are maintained and will be reproduced, below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the elastic connecting parts wherein “thicknesses of the two elastic connecting parts and the another two elastic connecting parts are adjustable” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 27, 29-31, 36-38 and 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herron et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0183310 A1; hereafter Herron) in view of Torres (Pub. No. US 2008/0117297 A1; hereafter Torres), Huang et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0255260 A1; hereafter Huang), and Hyers (Pub. No. US 2014/0072362 A1; hereafter Hyers).
Regarding claim 27 Herron discloses a cleaning robot, comprising a machine body (see Herron Fig. 1, item 102), a perception system (see Herron Fig. 6, items 620 and 642), a control system (see Herron Fig. 6, item 604), and a driving system (see Herron Fig. 6, item 610), wherein the perception system comprises a laser distance sensor and a camera (see Herron Fig. 6, items 616 and 642); the laser distance sensor is located on a top surface of the cleaning robot (see Herron Fig. 2, item 104); and a field of view of the camera comprises a traveling direction of the cleaning robot (see Herron Figs. 8 and 9, items 804 and 806).
Herron does not specifically disclose that the camera is mounted on the cleaning robot through a mounting bracket; wherein the mounting bracket is provided with a mounting groove matching the camera, and the camera is mounted in the mounting groove; wherein there are two cameras and two mounting grooves, the mounting grooves are arranged in a one-to-one correspondence with the cameras wherein the two mounting grooves comprises a first mounting groove and a second mounting groove, two elastic connecting parts are arranged in the first mounting groove, another two elastic connecting parts are arranged in the second mounting groove, the two elastic connecting parts are arranged opposite to each other in a direction of a connection line between center points of the two cameras, and the another two elastic connecting parts are arranged opposite to each other in the direction of the connection line.
Torres discloses a camera mounted on a camera bracket wherein the mounting bracket is provided with a mounting groove matching the camera, and the camera is mounted in the mounting groove; and thicknesses of the elastic connecting parts and the another elastic connecting parts are adjustable (see Torres Figs. 1B and 3, items 306 and 342. See also Torres paragraph [0036] which discloses that the elastic connecting allow adjustment of the position of the camera. The compressing of the elastic material can be construed as a thickness adjustment due to insertion of the camera.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to mount the cameras shown in Herron using a mounting bracket, as suggested by Torres in order to securely mount the cameras to the device, and to adjust the angle of the cameras, thereby adjusting the relative thicknesses of the elastic portions, based upon a preset distance between the optical axes of the two cameras in the direction of the connection line, so that they are properly aligned, as suggested by Torres.
Herron in view of Torres does not explicitly recite the mounting bracket is provided with a mounting groove matching the camera, and the camera is mounted in the mounting groove; wherein there are two cameras and two mounting grooves, the mounting grooves are arranged in a one-to-one correspondence with the cameras wherein the two mounting grooves comprises a first mounting groove and a second mounting groove, two elastic connecting parts are arranged in the first mounting groove, another two elastic connecting parts are arranged in the second mounting groove, the two elastic connecting parts are arranged opposite to each other in a direction of a connection line between center points of the two cameras, and the another two elastic connecting parts are arranged opposite to each other in the direction of the connection line.
Huang discloses a camera mounting bracket wherein there are two cameras and two mounting grooves, and the mounting grooves are arranged in a one-to-one correspondence with the cameras (see Huang Fig. 3, items 210 and 400).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a mounting bracket with two grooves, one for each of the cameras, in order to provide space to securely mount both cameras to the device.
Herron in view of Torres and Huang does not explicitly recite two elastic connecting parts are arranged in the first mounting groove, another two elastic connecting parts are arranged in the second mounting groove, the two elastic connecting parts are arranged opposite to each other in a direction of a connection line between center points of the two cameras, and the another two elastic connecting parts are arranged opposite to each other in the direction of the connection line.
Hyers explicitly teaches that it was well-known in the art at the time the invention was filed that a frictional engagement for a camera could be a single elastic ring, or a plurality of elastic connecting parts that are arranged at intervals in a circumferential direction of the mounting groove, exactly as called for in Applicant’s invention (see Hyers Fig. 6, which shows item 11, which is disclosed as “a frictional segment,” is a “flexible ring [that] is ideally made from an elastomeric material, such as silicone rubber,” meanwhile Fig. 5 shows that item 11 can be a formed of a plurality of protrusions.).
It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the ring of Torres could be instead formed as a plurality of protrusions for each of the two cameras, as taught by Hyers, as a simple substitution of one well-known element for another to achieve the predictable, desired results.
Regarding claim 29, Herron in view of Torres, Huang, and Hyers discloses the cleaning robot according to claim 27, Torres further discloses that a side wall of each of the two mounting grooves is connected to corresponding two elastic connecting parts (see Torres Fig. 3, items 308 and 340. In combination with Hyers, the grommet 308 would comprise the plurality of elastic parts.); and each of the two cameras is in interference fit with corresponding one of the two mounting grooves through the corresponding two elastic connecting parts (see Torres Fig. 3, items 306 and 308. See also Torres paragraph [0036] “Grommet 308 holds camera 306 securely in place using friction”); [claim 30] wherein each of the two cameras has a lens, and in a direction perpendicular to a central axis of the lens, a cross-sectional area of each of the two cameras is smaller than a cross-sectional area of corresponding one of the two mounting grooves, so that there is a gap between each of the two cameras and the corresponding one of the mounting grooves (see Torres Fig. 4, item 306, which is held in the gap by grommet 308); [claim 31] wherein the two elastic connecting parts are arranged in the gap, and a side of each of the two elastic connecting parts facing the corresponding one of the two mounting grooves is fixedly connected or detachably connected to the mounting bracket (see Torres Fig. 3, item 308, while Torres does not specify whether the grommet is fixed in place, it is inherently either fixed or detachable.); [claim 37] wherein the elastic connecting part and the mounting bracket are an integrated structure, and hardness of the elastic connecting parts is less than hardness of the mounting bracket (see Torres items 302 and 308. See also paragraphs [0032] and [0036]-[0037], which disclose that the frame is metal “such as steel or aluminum” while the elastic structure is rubber).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the mounting bracket of Herron in view of Torres and Hyers with a camera and mounting grommet like that in Torres to each of the cameras in Herron in order to provide “stable support for the camera lenses by frictional engagement” while enabling “minor camera angle adjustments” as taught by Torres (see Torres paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 36, Herron as modified discloses the cleaning robot according to claim 29, wherein two elastic connecting parts are arranged at intervals in a circumferential direction of corresponding one of the two mounting grooves (see Hyers Fig. 5, item 11.).
Regarding claim 38, Herron discloses a cleaning robot, comprising a machine body (see Herron Fig. 1, item 102), a perception system (see Herron Fig. 6, items 620 and 642), a control system (see Herron Fig. 6, item 604), and a driving system (see Herron Fig. 6, item 610), wherein the perception system comprises a laser distance sensor and two cameras (see Herron Figs. 6 and 8, items 616, 804, and 806); the laser distance sensor is located on a top surface of the cleaning robot (see Herron Fig. 2, item 104).
Herron does not specifically disclose that the cameras are mounted on the cleaning robot through a mounting bracket; wherein the mounting bracket is provided with mounting grooves matching the two cameras, and each camera is mounted in and in interference fit with the corresponding mounting groove; wherein there are two mounting grooves, the mounting grooves are arranged in a one-to-one correspondence with the cameras wherein the two mounting grooves comprises a first mounting groove and a second mounting groove, two elastic connecting parts are arranged in the first mounting groove, another two elastic connecting parts are arranged in the second mounting groove, the two elastic connecting parts are arranged opposite to each other in a direction of a connection line between center points of the two cameras, and the another two elastic connecting parts are arranged opposite to each other in the direction of the connection line.
Huang discloses the cameras are mounted on the cleaning robot through a mounting bracket; wherein the mounting bracket is provided with mounting grooves matching the two cameras, and each camera is mounted in the corresponding mounting groove (see Huang Fig. 3, items 210 and 400); wherein there are two mounting grooves, the mounting grooves are arranged in a one-to-one correspondence with the cameras wherein the two mounting grooves comprises a first mounting groove and a second mounting groove (see Huang Fig. 3, items 210 and 400).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a mounting bracket with two grooves, one for each of the cameras, in order to provide space to securely mount both cameras to the device.
Herron in view of Huang does not specifically disclose that the cameras are mounted via interference fit; two elastic connecting parts are arranged in the first mounting groove, another two elastic connecting parts are arranged in the second mounting groove, the two elastic connecting parts are arranged opposite to each other in a direction of a connection line between center points of the two cameras, and the another two elastic connecting parts are arranged opposite to each other in the direction of the connection line.
Torres discloses a camera mounted on a camera bracket wherein the mounting bracket is provided with a mounting groove matching the camera, and the camera is mounted in the mounting groove; and thicknesses of the elastic connecting parts and the another elastic connecting parts are adjustable (see Torres Figs. 1B and 3, items 306 and 342. See also Torres paragraph [0036] which discloses that the elastic connecting allow adjustment of the position of the camera. The compressing of the elastic material can be construed as a thickness adjustment due to insertion of the camera.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to mount the cameras shown in Herron in view of Huang using a friction fit, as suggested by Torres in order to securely mount the cameras to the device, and to adjust the angle of the cameras, thereby adjusting the relative thicknesses of the elastic portions, based upon a preset distance between the optical axes of the two cameras in the direction of the connection line, so that they are properly aligned, as suggested by Torres.
Herron in view of Torres and Huang does not explicitly recite two elastic connecting parts are arranged in the first mounting groove, another two elastic connecting parts are arranged in the second mounting groove, the two elastic connecting parts are arranged opposite to each other in a direction of a connection line between center points of the two cameras, and the another two elastic connecting parts are arranged opposite to each other in the direction of the connection line.
Hyers explicitly teaches that it was well-known in the art at the time the invention was filed that a frictional engagement for a camera could be a single elastic ring, or a plurality of elastic connecting parts that are arranged at intervals in a circumferential direction of the mounting groove, exactly as called for in Applicant’s invention (see Hyers Fig. 6, which shows item 11, which is disclosed as “a frictional segment,” is a “flexible ring [that] is ideally made from an elastomeric material, such as silicone rubber,” meanwhile Fig. 5 shows that item 11 can be a formed of a plurality of protrusions.).
It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the ring of Torres could be instead formed as a plurality of protrusions for each of the two cameras, as taught by Hyers, as a simple substitution of one well-known element for another to achieve the predictable, desired results.
Regarding claim 40, Herron as modified discloses the cleaning robot according to claim 38, but does not disclose that a side wall of each of the two mounting grooves is connected to corresponding two elastic connecting parts; and each of the two cameras is in interference fit with corresponding one of the two mounting grooves through the corresponding two elastic connecting parts [claim 41] wherein each of the two the cameras has a lens, and in a direction perpendicular to a central axis of the lens, a cross-sectional area of each of the cameras is smaller than a cross-sectional area of corresponding one of the mounting grooves, so that there is a gap between each of the two cameras and the corresponding one of the two mounting grooves (see Torres Fig. 4, item 306, which is held in the gap by grommet 308); and [claim 42] wherein the two elastic connecting parts are arranged in the gap, and a side of each of the two elastic connecting parts facing the corresponding one of the two mounting grooves is fixedly connected or detachably connected to the mounting bracket .
Torres discloses a side wall of each mounting groove is connected to an elastic connecting part; and after each camera is mounted in the corresponding mounting groove, each camera is in interference fit with the corresponding mounting groove through the elastic connecting part (see Torres Fig. 3, items 306 and 308); [claim 41] wherein the camera has a lens, and in a direction perpendicular to a central axis of the lens, a cross-sectional area of the camera is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the mounting groove, so that there is a gap between the camera and the mounting groove ; and [claim 42] wherein the elastic connecting part is arranged in the gap, and a side of the elastic connecting part facing the mounting groove is fixedly connected or detachably connected to the mounting bracket (see Torres Fig. 3, item 308, while Torres does not specify whether the grommet is fixed in place, it is inherently either fixed or detachable.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Herron as modified with a camera an elastic mounting portion like that in Torres as modified by Hyers for each camera in order to provide “stable support for the camera lenses by frictional engagement” while enabling “minor camera angle adjustments” as taught by Torres (see Torres paragraph [0036]).
Finality
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAM S REISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/NOAM REISNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 12/17/2025
Prosecution Insights