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 .
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.
Claim 4 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. Limitation “wherein the laser sensor or the cover is provided on the traveling body such that a minimum incident
angle of the laser light incident on the cover during rotation of the laser light decreases with an increase in a distance between the laser sensor and the cover.
“ is unclear. Nothing in claims indicate that the distance between sensor or cover can be changed, also it is unclear how minimum incident angle decreases(it is already minimum).
Claim 4 depend on claim 3 which recites a cover that accommodates the laser sensor, wherein the laser sensor or the cover is provided on the traveling body such that an incident angle of the laser light with respect to the cover is greater than 0 degrees and smaller than 90 degrees.
Clearly in that limitation both cover and the lidar are stationary and cover is tilted with respect to the lidar optical axis. Prior art teaches that at leas in figures. In claim 4 Applicant introduces “minimum incident angle of the laser light incident on the cover during rotation of the laser light” but does not clarify what is laser rotating around? Is the rotation real or imaginary. Why does distance between laser senor is changing.
Also It is unclear how “minimum incident angle “ can change. It is minimum an absolute value below which incident angle can not become.
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) 1 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 20180164829 A1.
Regarding claim 1 D1 teaches
1. (Original) A self-propelled device comprising:
a traveling body that is driven by a wheel;(fig. 3 21)
a laser sensor(fig. 5) that emits laser light while rotating the laser light around the laser sensor and receives reflected light of the laser light to output two-dimensional distance data representing a distance to an object located around the laser sensor for each angle around the laser sensor; [0029]and
a controller that controls traveling of the traveling body on a basis of the two- dimensional distance data output from the laser sensor,[0038] with [0007] and [0002]
wherein the laser sensor is provided on the traveling body such that a scan plane that is a region through which the laser light passes during rotation of the laser light has a predetermined angle with respect to a horizontal plane.(fig. 6)
wherein the predetermined angle is an angle other than zero degree(fig. 6),
, and the laser sensor is configured to output the two-dimensional distance data representing distances to objects located above the traveling body based on reflected light received from the objects located above the traveling body.[0029]
But does not explicitly teach
the laser sensor is configured to emit the laser light obliquely upward from the traveling body such that the scan plane is inclined upward with respect to the horizontal plane
Although D1 does not teach the laser sensor is configured to emit the laser light obliquely upward from the traveling body such that the scan plane is inclined upward with respect to the horizontal plane it is just matter of selectin of the desired FOV of investigation. For example Prior art in IDS US 4846297 A teaches as design choice scanning both upper plane and lower plane(see fig. 1), Although Examiner rejected as single reference 103 the reference from IDS can be also included in the rejection either as evidence or obviousness.
3. (Currently Amended) The self-propelled device according to claim 1
further comprising a cover(41) that accommodates the laser sensor(4),(implicit the sensor is behind optical window)
wherein the laser sensor or the cover is provided on the traveling body such that an incident angle of the laser light with respect to the cover is greater than 0 degrees and smaller than 90 degrees.(fig.1, 4 with fig. 6)
8. (Currently Amended) The self-propelled device according to claim 1 , wherein the traveling body includes three or more drive wheels.(fig. 1)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of Domel (see the NPL reference in IDS).
Regarding claim 2 D1 does not teach but Domel teaches
2. (Original) The self-propelled device according to claim 1, further comprising an arm robot provided on the traveling body,
wherein the laser sensor is provided on the traveling body such that the scan plane includes a movement range of the arm robot.(fig. 3 4 and page 5)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2 US 20180236654 A1.
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
5. (Currently Amended) The self-propelled device according to claim any one of claims 1 , wherein the controller sequentially acquires the two-dimensional distance data from the laser sensor while rotating the traveling body about a rotation axis in a vertical direction, and executes processing of generating three-dimensional data representing a space around the traveling body on a basis of the two-dimensional distance data that has been sequentially acquired.
It is just a matter of obvious modification commonly practiced in the field of LIDARs in order to achieve 3D imaging around the object as described in D2 [0025 0026] where head is rotated in order to achieve 3D coverage.
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
6. (Original) The self-propelled device according to claim 5, wherein the processing of generating the three-dimensional data is executed on a basis of a condition that the self-propelled device is included in a preset region.
7. (Currently Amended) The self-propelled device according to claim 5
wherein the self-propelled device is capable of communicating with a user terminal for operating the self-propelled device, and
the processing of generating the three-dimensional data is executed on a basis of reception of an execution command based on an operation for executing the processing from the user terminal.
Turning on or of by user can be simple operation of claim 7 and therefore can be considered a design choice , similarly operating robot in factory also can be considered design choices and therefore It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by *** with teaching by D1 in order to operate the robot in the factory environment.
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 at (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