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 .
Summary
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 14-16 are rejected herein. Claims 6, 7, 11-13, and 17-20 are withdrawn due to a Restriction Requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, and 14-16 is/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.
Regarding claim 1: The phrase “including a plurality of cliff detection sensors” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this phrase refers back to “robot cleaner” or to “main body.” It has been interpreted as the referring to “robot cleaner.” The Examiner recommends using language such as “wherein the robot cleaner includes a plurality of cliff detection sensors” or something similar.
Regarding claim 8: The phrases “is provided in two” and “is provided in three” are indefinite. It is unclear which pads are being referred to. The Examiner recommends using language such as “at least one first pad” and “at least one second pad” when the structures are introduced. Then the numbers can be specified in dependent claims using language such as “wherein two first pads are formed on the upper surface” or something similar.
Regarding claim 9: It appears that this claim should recite “has a smaller width than the first pads,” since claim 8 recites that there are two first pads, and similarly for “the first pad” at the end of the claim.
Regarding claims 9 and 10: Claims 9 and 10 appear to have an identical scope with both of them claiming that the each of the three second pads has a smaller width than the two first pads.
Regarding claims 14-16: These claims only appears to limit the structure of the cliff detection sensors which are not within the scope of the claim. The claim is only for “a robot cleaner charging device.” Therefore it is unclear what structural limitations, if any, specifying the position of the cliff detection sensors would have on the charging device.
Regarding claims 2-5, 8-10, and 14-16: These claims are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 14-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claims 14-16: Claims 14-16 only limit the structure of the robot cleaner, which is not within the scope of the claim. Therefore since they do not limit the charging device, they provide no further limitation to the structure of claim 5, and are therefore in improper dependent form.
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) 1-5, 8-10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHUDO (US 2016/0352112) in view of FONG et al. (US 2017/0105592).
Regarding claim 1: As best understood, SHUDO discloses: A robot cleaner charging device (FIG. 13) comprising: a main body (40) defining an outer appearance and provided to charge a robot cleaner (abstract; FIG. 4) including a plurality of cliff detection sensors (13c and 13d in FIG. 4); and an array plate (102 in FIG. 8) defining a lower part of the main body (FIG. 8) and having an upper surface, wherein a plurality of pads (115d, 115c, and the surfaces in between) provided to allow the robot cleaner to receive different signals through the plurality of cliff detection sensors are formed on the upper surface of the array plate (para. 102-104).
The terminals of SHUDO are not on the upper surface of the array plate. They are 41a and 41b in FIG. 8 and are therefore on a side of the upper part of the main body.
FONG however does teach their charging contacts (662A and 622B in FIG. 4D) on the upper surface of a lower part of the main body of a charging station (FIG. 4D).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to place the charging contacts on an upward facing surface so that the force of gravity assists in establishing the electrical contact necessary for charging. Furthermore, because the purpose of the invention is to accurately guide the robot cleaner along a specific path, the specific location of the charging contacts (which is only the end of that path) is not germane to the invention and the inventions of SHUDO, FONG and the present application will function the same whether the contacts are located on an upward facing surface of the lower part of the main body (as taught by FONG and the present application) or if they are on a side of the main body (as taught by SHUDO). Therefore a difference in the location of the contacts is merely an Obvious Rearrangement of Parts (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C) ).
Regarding claim 2: As best understood, SHUDO discloses: the plurality of pads include a first pad (115c and 115d in FIG. 13) and a second pad (white parts above, below, and in between 115c and 115d), and the first pad and the second pad are alternately and repeatedly disposed (FIG. 13).
Regarding claim 3: As best understood, SHUDO discloses: the first pad and the second pad have upper surfaces with the same height (no height differential is specified) and have different colors (FIG. 13).
Regarding claim 4: As best understood, SHUDO discloses: the first pad has black color (graphite in para. 78) and the second pad has white color (FIG. 13).
Regarding claim 5: As best understood, SHUDO discloses: wherein light generated from the plurality of cliff detection sensors toward the first pad is absorbed by the first pad, and light generated from the plurality of cliff detection sensors toward the second pad is reflected by the second pad (para. 26-27, 102-104.
Regarding claim 8: As best understood, SHUDO discloses: the first pad is provided in two (115c and 115d), the second pad is provided in three (above, below, and in between 115c and 115d in FIG. 13), and the two first pads have the same width (FIG. 13).
Regarding claims 9 and 10: As best understood, SHUDO discloses: the second pads at both edges of the array plate (above 115d and below 115c in FIG. 13) among the three second pads each have a smaller width than the first pad (FIG. 13).
The center area between 115c and 115d is shown in FIG. 13 to be wider than the first pads 115c and 115d. SHUDO specifies that the distance should equal the distance between the cliff sensors (para. 93). Therefore one skilled in the art will size the first and second pads based on the placement of cliff sensors which are not within the scope of the instant claims. Therefore any placement or size of pads will be obvious to the skilled artisan such that it allows the robot cleaner to be guided to the charging contacts as illustrated in FIG. 14 of SHUDO. FIG. 14a shows a correct orientation with both cliff sensors over the first pads and FIG. 14b shows an incorrect orientation where one sensor is over a first pad and the other is not. Therefore based on the number and arrangement of the cliff sensors, one skilled in the art can choose an appropriate positioning and size of the first and second pads. Therefore the difference in size between one of the second pads of claims 9 and 10 and the invention of SHUDO amounts to an Obvious Change in Shape (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B) ).
Regarding claim 14: As best understood, SHUDO discloses: the plurality of cliff detection sensors include a plurality of first cliff detection sensors for detecting an obstacle in front, and in a state in which center lines of center lines of the robot cleaner and the main body are aligned, the plurality of first cliff detection sensors are arranged only on one type of pad among the first pad and the second pad (This is the configuration shown in FIG. 14a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2896