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 .
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 09/04/2025. Claims 1-2, 4, and 8-13 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 09/04/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 6 that Lee et al. US 20040210346 A1 (“Lee”) in view of Moore et al. US 20190155296 A1 (“Moore”) do not sufficiently teach the elements of the amended claim 1. More specifically, applicant argues that Moore does not teach “determining if a deflection angle is not less than a preset angle threshold and, if not less, rotating the robot while stopped before driving the robot in a straight line”. Applicant does not appear to address the actual teachings of Moore, which, as previously cited, includes “FIG. 30, Paragraph 181: the robot moves incrementally from pose 604 (current position C) to pose 602 (position B) along the control path 762. To prevent angular error, the robot travels around a radius r around a particular coordinate x3, y3. The robot must have a trajectory with the angle θD [Paragraph 178], which reads on having a threshold of 0 degrees. FIG. 31 further shows what happens when the angle is off, wherein the robot has to rotate because the deflection angle is greater than the preset angle threshold”. In the absence of arguments from the applicant regarding the actual disclosure of Moore, the rejection is upheld.
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) 1-2, 4, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 20040210346 A1 (“Lee”) in view of Moore et al. US 20190155296 A1 (“Moore”).
Regarding Claim 1. Lee teaches an automatic charging method for a robot, comprising the steps of:
S1, recording coordinates of a position A of a charging station (FIG. 6A, Paragraph 54: “P0 indicates the location of the docking station 210”);
S2, when the robot receives a charging instruction, recording coordinates of a current position B of the robot, a line between position B and position C being a vector BC (FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating a coordinate system representing a location of a mobile robot and a direction in which the mobile robot faces, including the origin O. While not explicit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to record these coordinates so as to allow the robot to store information on where it has been and where the charging station is located. Additionally, FIG. 6A shows the robot at several points, indicating the robot’s position could be recorded);
S3, after driving the robot to walk a preset distance straight with the coordinates of the position B as a starting point, recording coordinates of a current position C of the robot, and a line between position C and position A being a vector CA (FIG. 6A, paragraph 56: “P1, P2, P3, and P3’ indicate first through third locations and a third estimated location”, again implying the recording of coordinates. The naming convention of the lines is a matter of design choice, and it would be obvious to name them BC or CA or the like);
S4, calculating a deflection angle and a deflection direction of the robot relative to the charging station according to the coordinates of the position A, the position B, and the position C (FIG. 6A, paragraph 56: deflection direction P1-P2, deflection angle theta 12 between point P1, P0, and P2); and
S5, driving the robot to search for and arrive at the charging station according to the deflection angle and the deflection direction (Paragraph 10);
wherein between steps S2 and S3 performing the steps of:
calculating a distance between the robot and the charging station according to the coordinates of the position A and the position B (FIG. 4 shows the operation of the distance calculator at 223 of FIG. 2);
- if the distance between them is greater than a preset length threshold, performing step S3 (Paragraphs 56-58); and
- if the distance between them is not greater than the preset length threshold, driving the robot to search for the charging station directly (Paragraphs 56-58).
Lee does not teach:
wherein step S5 comprises:
determining whether the deflection angle is less than a preset angle threshold, if so, after replacing the recorded coordinates of the position B with coordinates of the current position C, performing steps S2 to S5 cyclically until arriving at the charging station;
otherwise, replacing the recorded coordinates of the position B with the coordinates of the current position C, rotating the robot the deflection angle on site based on the new coordinates of the position B, and then performing steps S2 to S5 cyclically until arriving at the charging station;
performing step S3 using a GPS positioning device on the robot; and
wherein the step of driving the robot to search for the charging station directly includes, instead of using the GPS positioning device, turning on a camera device on the robot, identifying the charging station through the camera device, and driving the robot to plan a walking path and arrive at the charging station according to the identification.
However, as best can be understood, Moore teaches:
wherein step S5 comprises:
determining whether the deflection angle is less than a preset angle threshold, if so, after replacing the recorded coordinates of the position B with coordinates of the current position C, performing steps S2 to S5 cyclically until arriving at the charging station;
otherwise, replacing the recorded coordinates of the position B with the coordinates of the current position C, rotating the robot the deflection angle on site based on the new coordinates of the position B, and then performing steps S2 to S5 cyclically until arriving at the charging station (FIG. 30, Paragraph 181: the robot moves incrementally from pose 604 (current position C) to pose 602 (position B) along the control path 762. To prevent angular error, the robot travels around a radius r around a particular coordinate x3, y3. The robot must have a trajectory with the angle θD [Paragraph 178], which reads on having a threshold of 0 degrees. FIG. 31 further shows what happens when the angle is off, wherein the robot has to rotate because the deflection angle is greater than the preset angle threshold);
performing step S3 using a GPS positioning device on the robot (paragraph 136); and
wherein the step of driving the robot to search for the charging station directly includes, instead of using the GPS positioning device, turning on a camera device on the robot, identifying the charging station through the camera device, and driving the robot to plan a walking path and arrive at the charging station according to the identification (Paragraphs 122-123).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Lee with wherein step S5 comprises: determining whether the deflection angle is less than a preset angle threshold, if so, after replacing the recorded coordinates of the position B with coordinates of the current position C, performing steps S2 to S5 cyclically until arriving at the charging station; otherwise, replacing the recorded coordinates of the position B with the coordinates of the current position C, rotating the robot the deflection angle on site based on the new coordinates of the position B, and then performing steps S2 to S5 cyclically until arriving at the charging station; performing step S3 using a GPS positioning device on the robot; and wherein the step of driving the robot to search for the charging station directly includes, instead of using the GPS positioning device, turning on a camera device on the robot, identifying the charging station through the camera device, and driving the robot to plan a walking path and arrive at the charging station according to the identification as taught by Moore so as to allow the robot to avoid colliding with the charging station or trying to dock at the wrong angle, and because the applicant admits in paragraph [0093] of the specification that the element of turning on the camera device, identifying the charging station through the camera and driving the robot to arrive at the charging station is a known element in the art.
Regarding Claim 2. Lee in combination with Moore teaches the automatic charging method for a robot according to claim 1.
Lee does not teach:
wherein the step of calculating the deflection angle comprises: configuring the deflection angle as an angle of a vector CA and a vector BC and representing the deflection angle as Angle; and configuring each recorded position to be represented by latitude and longitude coordinates; then:
Angle = ACOS(((x3-x2)*(x1-x3)+(y3-y2)(y1-y3))/((sqrt((x3-x2)2*(y3-y2)2)*(sqrt(x1-x3)2*(y1-y3)2))
where
(x1,y1) represents longitude and latitude coordinates of the position A,
(x2,y2) represents longitude and latitude coordinates of the position B,
(x3,y3) represents longitude and latitude coordinates of the position C,
x1, x2, x3 represent longitude coordinate values, and
y1, y2, y3 represent latitude coordinate values.
Lee does teach calculating the deflection angle in FIG. 6A, paragraphs 53-56, and FIG. 4, paragraph 33. However, it is silent as to the specifics of applying mathematical formula for calculating the deflection angle.
Nevertheless, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means for deriving the deflection angle as shown by Lee. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding Claim 4. Lee in combination with Moore teaches the automatic charging method for a robot according to claim 1.
Lee does not teach:
wherein the step of calculating the deflection direction comprises:
calculating a deflection parameter D of the robot relative to the charging station according to the coordinate of the position A, the position B and the position C, where
D = (x2-x1)(y3-y1)-(y2-y1)(x3-x1);
if the deflection parameter is less than 0, driving the robot to deflect to the right.
Lee does teach calculating the deflection direction in FIG. 6A, paragraphs 53-56, and FIG. 4, paragraph 33. However, it is silent as to the specifics of applying mathematical formula for calculating the deflection direction.
Nevertheless, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means for deriving the deflection direction as shown by Lee. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding Claim 8. Lee in combination with Moore teaches an automatic charging for a robot configured to perform the method according to claim 1.
Lee also teaches:
the system comprising:
an acquisition module, configured to perform steps S1 – S3 (FIG. 3, the travel controller at 326); and
a processing module, configured to perform steps S4 and S5 (FIG. 3, the distance calculator at 323).
Regarding Claim 9. Lee teaches a robot, comprising a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program, wherein the processor implements the steps of the automatic charging method for the robot according to claim 1 when executing the computer program (FIG. 2, the robot at 220, paragraph 13).
Regarding Claim 10. Lee in combination with Moore teaches a readable storage medium, storing a computer program thereon, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, the steps of the automatic charging method for the robot according to claim 1 are implemented (FIG. 2, the robot at 220, paragraph 13).
Regarding Claim 11. Lee in combination with Moore teaches an automatic charging for a robot configured to perform the method according to claim 1.
Lee also teaches:
wherein the preset distance of step S3 is predetermined according to a distance accuracy of the positioning device (In operation 610 for calculating the first direction angle, at the first location P1 where the mobile robot 220 completes a predetermined job or needs charging, a first distance R1 between the mobile robot 220 and the docking station 210 is calculated in operation 611. By the control of the travel controller 226, the mobile robot travels to the second location P2 in operation 612. At the second location P2, a second distance R2 between the mobile robot 220 and the docking station 210 is calculated in operation 613 [paragraph 56]. The apparatus further includes a compensator which receives inputs of a linear velocity command and an angular velocity command provided by the travel controller, the location and direction information of the mobile robot provided by the encoder, and distance information calculated by the distance calculator, and by using a Kalman filtering technique, compensates for an error between a travel distance measured by the encoder and the actual travel distance [paragraph 12]. By using a Kalman filtering technique, the compensator 225 compensates for an error caused by slipping on the ground and the like, between the travel distance measured in the encoder 224 and the actual travel distance [paragraph 27], which means that the accuracy of the positioning system is used for determining the distance of step S3).
Lee does not teach:
The positioning device is a GPS positioning device.
However, Moore teaches:
The positioning device is a GPS positioning device (paragraph 136).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Lee with the positioning device is a GPS positioning device as taught by Moore because a GPS is a common device for positioning, well-known in the art, and would provide a highly predictable chance of success.
Regarding Claim 12. Lee in combination with Moore teaches an automatic charging for a robot configured to perform the method according to claim 11.
Lee does not teach:
wherein the preset distance of step S3 is greater than the distance accuracy of the GPS positioning device.
Lee in combination with Moore are silent as to the specifics of how great the preset distance of S3 is in comparison to the accuracy of the positioning device.
Nevertheless, applying any distance, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because there are only three options for the distance, to be greater than, equal to, or less than the distance accuracy of the positioning device, and selecting the distance that is greater than the distance accuracy of the GPS positioning device fails to provide novel or unexpected results, and so selecting the option of a distance greater than the distance accuracy of the positioning device would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding Claim 13. Lee in combination with Moore teaches an automatic charging for a robot configured to perform the method according to claim 11.
Lee does not teach:
wherein the preset distance of step S3 is at least two times as large as the distance accuracy of the GPS positioning device.
Lee in combination with Moore are silent as to the specifics of how great the preset distance of S3 is in comparison to the accuracy of the positioning device.
Nevertheless, applying any distance, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because there are only three options for the distance, to be greater than, equal to, or less than the distance accuracy of the positioning device, and selecting a distance that is at least two times as large as the distance accuracy of the GPS positioning device fails to provide novel or unexpected results, and so selecting the option of a distance that is at least two times as large as the distance accuracy of the positioning device would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 20040210346 A1 (“Lee”) in combination with Moore et al. US 20190155296 A1 (“Moore”) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Petersson et al. US 20050267629 A1 (“Petersson”).
Regarding Claim 7. Lee in combination with Moore teaches the automatic charging method for a robot according to claim 5.
Lee also teaches:
wherein the step of driving the robot to search for the charging station directly comprises:
driving the robot to search for and arrive at the nearest charging station (Paragraph 10).
Lee does not teach:
wherein the step of driving the robot to search for the charging station directly comprises:
driving the robot to search for and arrive at a charging cable connected to the nearest charging station, and after arriving at the charging cable, driving the robot to arrive at the charging station along the charging cable.
However, Petersson teaches:
wherein the step of driving the robot to search for the charging station directly comprises:
driving the robot to search for and arrive at a charging cable connected to the nearest charging station, and after arriving at the charging cable, driving the robot to arrive at the charging station along the charging cable (Paragraph 26 teaches the cable as an electric conductor as the navigational control station).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Lee with wherein the step of driving the robot to search for the charging station directly comprises: driving the robot to search for and arrive at a charging cable connected to the nearest charging station, and after arriving at the charging cable, driving the robot to arrive at the charging station along the charging cable as taught by Petersson, in part because using a charging cable is a design choice, and because the applicant admits in paragraph [0093] of the specification that this element is known in the art, in the form of returning to the charging station along a boundary.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AARON G CAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 7:30am - 4:30pm EST to Friday 7:30pm - 4:30am.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/A.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656