Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/790,144

Infrared Transceiver Unit, Detection Apparatus, Multi-Infrared Detection Apparatus and Obstacle Avoidance Robot

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jun 30, 2022
Examiner
PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R
Art Unit
2178
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Amicro Semiconductor Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
41%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
5y 4m
To Grant
65%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 41% of resolved cases
41%
Career Allow Rate
96 granted / 232 resolved
-13.6% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
5y 4m
Avg Prosecution
142 currently pending
Career history
374
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
§103
43.5%
+3.5% vs TC avg
§102
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
§112
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 232 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "two groups of infrared receiving sources" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites the phrase “infrared receiving sources” in line 2, and it is not clear how the two elements of the claim are related: are they the same elements, a portion of the previous elements, or different elements? One of ordinary skill would not be apprised of the claim scope. The balance of claims are rejected based on dependence. Claim 1 recites the limitation "one group of infrared receiving sources" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites the phrase “two groups of infrared receiving sources” in line 8, and it is not clear how the two elements relate: is the one group one of the two groups previously recited, or different? One of ordinary skill would not be apprised of the claim scope. The balance of claims are rejected based on dependence. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1, 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIN et al. (KR 20060091131 A). Regarding claim 1, SHIN discloses an infrared transceiver unit, detection apparatus (sensor module), and obstacle avoidance robot (abstract), comprising: a mounting skewed slot (FIG 20), an infrared emitting source (128) and infrared receiver (129), wherein the mounting skewed slot comprises: a left mounting skewed slot and a right mounting skewed slot; the infrared emitting source is fixedly installed in the right mounting skewed slot, and an infrared receiver is fixedly installed in the left mounting skewed slot; and a sensing direction of the infrared receiver and an emitting direction of the infrared emitting source both face one side of a sensing center line of the mounting skewed slot. SHIN teaches a sensor module comprising an infrared receiver source, but does not specify wherein the sensor module includes a group of infrared receiving sources. However, duplicating the parts of an invention has not patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)) and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine with the teachings of SHIN. Regarding claim 2, SHIN discloses the infrared sensor receiving IR modulation light by means of respective light path channel ports at diffusion angles, so as to form a receiving range of the mounting skewed slot, the infrared emitting source emits the infrared modulation light by means of its light path channel port at a diffusion angle, so as to form an emitting range of the mounting skewed slot. SHIN does not specify a plurality of IR receivers, or wherein the receiving range is greater than the emitting range. As specified above, absent an unexpected result, duplicating the parts of an invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Additionally, providing a receiving range greater than an emitting range would have been obvious based on the fundamental principles of light scattering. If the IR source beam has an projection range of θ, the range of the projection will increase at a distance from the source. However, the wider the range the more powerful a source is necessary to projected a beam of sufficient intensity to enable detection of the reflection light. Furthermore, providing a greater detection range increases the likelihood of detecting an obstacle in a path of the robot. Thus, based on known principles of light as well as the constraints of the application at hand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the specifications of the invention. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIN et al. (KR 20060091131 A) in view of ZHANG et al. (CN 110522368 A). Regarding claim 5, SHIN does not specify a telescopic traction mechanism with a mounting relationship with a mounting surface of the mounting skewed slot for pulling the mounting skewed slot to perform telescopic movement. ZHANG discloses a sensor module comprising a telescopic traction mechanism, wherein the telescopic traction mechanism has a connection relationship with a mounting surface of the mounting skewed slot for pulling the mounting skewed slot to perform telescopic movement (FIG 1-3; abstract), with the advantage of optimizing a measurement distance. In light of the improved detection provided by the telescopic traction mechanism taught by ZHANG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine with the teachings of SHIN. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-22 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding independent claims 7, 9 and 12, the closest prior art, SHIN et al., discloses an infrared transceiver unit, detection apparatus (sensor module), and obstacle avoidance robot (abstract), comprising: a mounting skewed slot (FIG 20), an infrared emitting source (128) and infrared receiver (129), wherein the mounting skewed slot comprises: a left mounting skewed slot and a right mounting skewed slot; the infrared emitting source is fixedly installed in the right mounting skewed slot, and an infrared receiver is fixedly installed in the left mounting skewed slot; and a sensing direction of the infrared receiver and an emitting direction of the infrared emitting source both face one side of a sensing center line of the mounting skewed slot. However, the prior art fails to disclose wherein the infrared transceiver unit comprises a mounting skewed slot, an infrared emitting source and infrared receiving sources, wherein the mounting skewed slot comprises a left mounting skewed slot and a right mounting skewed slot: the infrared emitting source is fixedly installed in the left mounting skewed slot, and two groups of infrared receiving sources are fixedly installed in the right mounting skewed slot, or the infrared emitting source is fixedly installed in the right mounting skewed slot, and two groups of infrared receiving sources are fixedly installed in the left mounting skewed slot; and a sensing direction of one group of infrared receiving sources and an emitting direction of the infrared emitting source both face one side of a sensing center line of the mounting skewed slot, and the sensing direction of the other group of infrared receiving sources faces the other side of the sensing center line of the mounting skewed slot, so that one of the infrared receiving sources receives infrared modulation light emitted by the infrared emitting source and reflected by an obstacle. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P EST. 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, DAVE PORTA can be reached on 571-272-2244. 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. /DAVID P PORTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884 CASEY BRYANT Examiner Art Unit 2884 /CASEY BRYANT/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 30, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 09, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jan 07, 2025
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12247323
Continuous Preparation Method of Cellulose Fibers
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 11, 2025
Patent 9271028
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DECODING A DATA STREAM IN AUDIO VIDEO STREAMING SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 23, 2016
Patent 8239350
DATE AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 07, 2012
Patent 8229899
REMOTE ACCESS AGENT FOR CACHING IN A SAN FILE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 24, 2012
Patent 8209280
EXPOSING MULTIDIMENSONAL CALCULATIONS THROUGH A RELATIONAL DATABASE SERVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 26, 2012
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
41%
Grant Probability
65%
With Interview (+23.9%)
5y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 232 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month