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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-24 are pending. Claims 1 and 16 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-24 are still pending herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAUTISTA (US-10,824,159) in view of SUN (US 20190231156 A1).
Regarding claim 1, BAUTISTA discloses:
A mobile robot comprising:
a robot body; a drive system supporting the robot body above a floor surface for maneuvering the mobile robot across the floor surface (Fig. 1, and 2; Col. 4, Lines 25-40)
a bumper coupled to the robot body, constrained with respect to the robot body to inhibit translation of an entirety of the bumper with respect to the robot body and extending at least a part of a periphery of the mobile robot, the bumper configured to bend in response to an impact event (Col. 4, Lines 30-40; Fig. 1-2);
and a bumper impact system including a proximity sensor configured to: generate a first signal indicative of a first distance between the robot body and the bumper; and generate a second signal indicative of a second distance between the robot body and the bumper (Col. 6, Lines 9-35; Col. 6, Lines 45-55; Col. 2, Lines 65-67; Col. 3, Lines 1-10),
a change to at least one of the first distance or the second distance indicating bending of the bumper due to the impact event without requiring translation of the entirety of the bumper with respect to the robot body (Col. 6, Lines 45-67; Col 7, Lines 1-25; Fig. 4; Difference between D3 and D4, hit zone, the movement distance D is broadly interpreted to indicate the bending of the bumper; Note: the bending of the bumper is broadly interpreted to yield the fact that the translation of the entirety of the bumper by virtue of the function of the bumper).
However, BAUTISTA does not explicitly state the bumper includes an elastic material, and the bumper is configured to deform in shape in response to the impact and return to an original shape after the impact event.
On the other hand, SUN teaches the bumper includes an elastic material, and the bumper is configured to deform in shape in response to the impact and return to an original shape after the impact event ([0018]; [0162]-[0163]: “When the rotating body 461 is pressed by an obstacle or the like, the elastic member 426 is elastically deformed to accumulate the elastic force. The rotating body 461 may be rotated backward. When the external force is removed from the rotating body 461 , the rotating body 461 may be rotated forward again due to the elastic force of the elastic member 426 “).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the BAUTISTA reference and include features from the SUN reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so prevents scratches and provides less damage to the bumper upon contact with an obstacle.
Regarding claim 2, BAUTISTA discloses the bumper extends around an entire periphery of the mobile robot (Fig 1, Bumper frame 130).
Regarding claim 3, BAUTISTA discloses the proximity sensor comprises: a first proximity sensor attached to the robot body and configured to generate the first signal indicative of the first distance between the robot body and the bumper; and a second proximity sensor attached to the robot body and configured to generate a second signal indicative of the second distance between the robot body and the bumper, and wherein the second proximity sensor peripherally spaced from the first proximity sensor along a periphery of the robot body (Fig. 2, 3; Col. 4, Lines 49-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-5; Col. 5, Lines 10-27).
Regarding claim 15, BAUTISTA discloses wherein the bumper and the robot body are one monolithic part (Fig. 1; Fig.2).
Regarding claim 16, BAUTISTA discloses a method detecting a location of an impact event for a mobile robot, the mobile robot including a robot body and a bumper constrained with respect to the robot body to inhibit translation of an entirety of the bumper with respect to the robot body and extending a periphery of the mobile robot, the bumper configured to bend in response to an impact event the method comprising: receiving, with a processor, a first signal from a proximity sensor attached to the robot body (Col. 4, Lines 25-40; Fig. 1-2),
the first signal indicative of a first distance between the bumper and the robot body at a first location of the bumper, the first distance between the bumper and the robot body at the first location of the bumper indicative of the bumper bending in response to an impact; receiving a second signal from the proximity sensor attached to the robot body, the second signal indicative of a second distance between the bumper and the robot body at a second location of the bumper, the second distance between the bumper and the robot body at the second location of the bumper indicative of the bumper bending in response to an impact event; and determining the location of the impact event by comparing the first signal and the second signal to at least one of a plurality of reference signals (Col. 3, Lines 1-10; Col. 6, Lines 9-35; Col. 6, Lines 45-55; Col. 2, Lines 65-67; Col 7, Lines 1-25; Lines 35-50; Fig. 4; Difference between D3 and D4, hit zone, the movement distance D is broadly interpreted to indicate the bending of the bumper; Note: the bending of the bumper is broadly interpreted to be yielded by the fact that the bumper is divided into multiple zones and only the zone affected by the impact will be moved, which is broadly interpreted to read on the bending of the bumper without translation of the entire bumper).
However, BAUTISTA does not explicitly state the bumper includes an elastic material, and the bumper is configured to elastically deform in shape in response to the impact.
On the other hand, SUN teaches the bumper includes an elastic material, and the bumper is configured to elastically deform in shape in response to the impact ([0018]; [0162]-[0163]: “When the rotating body 461 is pressed by an obstacle or the like, the elastic member 426 is elastically deformed to accumulate the elastic force. The rotating body 461 may be rotated backward. When the external force is removed from the rotating body 461 , the rotating body 461 may be rotated forward again due to the elastic force of the elastic member 426 “).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the BAUTISTA reference and include features from the SUN reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so prevents scratches and provides less damage to the bumper upon contact with an obstacle.
Claims 4-14, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAUTISTA (US-10,824,159) and SUN.
Regarding claim 4, BAUTISTA discloses the proximity sensor comprises: a proximity sensor attached to the robot body and configured to generate a signal indicative of a distance between the robot body and the bumper (Col. 4, 5, and 6; Fig. 3-10) except for a third proximity sensor attached to the robot body and configured to generate a third signal indicative of a third distance between the robot body and the bumper.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to include a third proximity sensor to perform the same/similar functions as the first and second sensors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Regarding claim 5, BAUTISTA discloses a first magnet attached to the bumper; a second magnet attached to the bumper; and wherein the first magnet, and the second magnet are peripherally spaced along the bumper (Fig. 3-10, Col. 4-6) except for a third magnet attached to the bumper.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to include a third proximity sensor to perform the same/similar functions as the first and second sensors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Regarding claim 6, BAUTISTA discloses a memory including stored reference bumper deformation datasets, an individual reference bumper deformation data set of the reference bumper deformation datasets having a corresponding bumper location of impact (Tables 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 7, BAUTISTA discloses a processor configured to determine a location of the impact event by comparing the first signal and the second signal to at least one of the reference bumper deformation datasets (Table 2, Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 8, BAUTISTA discloses the processor combines the first signal, the second signal to generate an impact profile (Col. 6, Lines 9-20) except for using the third signal to generate the impact profile.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to include a third signal from the third sensor to perform the same/similar functions as the first and second signals, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Regarding claim 9, BAUTISTA discloses processor compares the impact profile to one or more of the reference bumper deformation datasets to determine the location of the impact event on condition that the impact profile corresponds to at least one of the reference bumper deformation datasets (Col. 6, Lines 33-57).
Regarding claim 10, BAUTISTA discloses the location of the impact event is the corresponding bumper location of impact for one or more of the corresponding reference bumper deformation datasets (Tables 1 and 2; Fig. 3-10).
Regarding claim 11, BAUTISTA discloses a bumper extending from the robot body and extending at least a part of the periphery of the mobile robot, the bumper configured to bend in response to the impact event (Abstract, Fig. 1-3) except for a second bumper extending from the robot body and extending at least a part of the periphery of the mobile robot, the bumper configured to bend in response to the impact event, wherein the second bumper is attached to the robot body opposite the bumper; and one or more reference second bumper deformation datasets stored on the memory, an individual reference second bumper deformation data set of the reference second bumper deformation datasets having a corresponding second bumper location of impact.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to include a second bumper to perform the same/similar functions as the first bumper, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Regarding claim 12, BAUTISTA discloses the claimed invention except for the second bumper comprising: a fourth magnet attached to the second bumper; a fifth magnet attached to the second bumper; and a sixth magnet attached to the second bumper; wherein the fourth magnet, the fifth magnet, and the sixth magnet are peripherally spaced along the second bumper.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to include a second bumper to perform the same/similar functions as the first bumper, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Regarding claim 13, BAUTISTA discloses the claimed invention except for the bumper impact system comprises: a fourth proximity sensor attached to the robot body and configured to generate a fourth signal indicative of a fourth distance between the robot body and the second bumper; a fifth proximity sensor attached to the robot body and configured to generate a fifth signal indicative of a fifth distance between the robot body and the second bumper; and a sixth proximity sensor attached to the robot body and configured to generate a sixth signal indicative of a sixth distance between the robot body and the second bumper wherein the fourth proximity sensor, the fifth proximity sensor, and the sixth proximity sensor are peripherally spaced along the periphery of the robot body, and wherein changes to the fourth distance, the fifth distance, or the sixth distance indicate the deformation of the second bumper from the impact event.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to include a second bumper to perform the same/similar functions as the first bumper, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Regarding claim 14, BAUTISTA discloses the claimed invention except for combining the fourth signal, the fifth signal, and the sixth signal to generate a second impact profile, and wherein the processor compares the second impact profile to one or more of the reference second bumper deformation datasets, and wherein the processor finds the location of the impact event on condition that the second impact profile corresponds to at least one of the reference second bumper deformation datasets.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to include a second bumper with second set of sensors to perform the same/similar functions as the first bumper, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Regarding claim 17, BAUTISTA discloses the claimed invention except for receiving a third signal from the proximity sensor attached to the robot body, the third signal indicates a third distance between the bumper and the robot body at a third location of the bumper.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to include a third sensor to perform the same/similar functions as the first and second sensors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Regarding claim 18, BAUTISTA discloses a first sensor including a Hall effect sensor configured to sense a first distance between a first magnet and the robot body; a second sensor including a Hall effect sensor configured to sense a second distance between a second magnet and the robot body; wherein the first magnet, the second magnet are attached to the bumper (Fig. 3-10; Col. 5-6) except for a third sensor attached to the bumper including a Hall effect sensor configured to sense a third distance between a third magnet and the robot body.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to include a third sensor to perform the same/similar functions as the first and second sensors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Regarding claim 19, BAUTISTA discloses the first magnet is located toward a forward portion of the mobile robot, the second magnet is peripherally spaced counterclockwise from the first magnet and rearward relative to the first magnet (Fig. 3-10) except for the third magnet is peripherally spaced clockwise from the first magnet rearward relative to the first magnet.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to include a third sensor to perform the same/similar functions as the first and second sensors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Regarding claim 20, BAUTISTA discloses generating an impact profile with the first signal, the second signal (Col. 4-6) except for the third signal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to include a third sensor to perform the same/similar functions as the first and second sensors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Regarding claim 21, BAUTISTA discloses the reference signals are stored on a reference database (Table 1 and Table 2).
Regarding claim 22, BAUTISTA discloses determining a location of the impact event on condition that the impact profile corresponds to at least one reference signal of the plurality of reference signals (Table 1 and Table 2).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAUTISTA and SUN, in further view of WHITTAKER (US-20100026555-A1).
Regarding claim 23, BAUTISTA discloses determining a uniform impact across the bumper on condition that the impact profile corresponds to at least one of the plurality of reference signals (Tables 1 and 2).
However, BAUTISTA does not explicitly state identifying the impact event as grass; and ignoring the impact event on condition that the impact event is identified as grass.
On the other hand, BAUTISTA teaches identifying the impact event as grass; and ignoring the impact event on condition that the impact event is identified as grass ([0037]; [0055]; [0056]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the BAUTISTA reference and include features from the WHITTAKER reference, with a reasonable expectation of success. Filtering false positives improves the reliability of obstacle detection in environments with vegetation.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAUTISTA and SUN in further view of GAO (WO-2018133878-A1; Examiner relied on English translation attached herein).
Regarding claim 24, BAUTISTA does not explicitly state tracking a geographic location of the mobile robot as the mobile robot moves about an environment with a positioning sensor; determining the geographic location of the mobile robot during the impact event; and storing the geographic location of the mobile robot during the impact event on a memory.
On the other hand, GAO teaches tracking a geographic location of the mobile robot as the mobile robot moves about an environment with a positioning sensor; determining the geographic location of the mobile robot during the impact event; and storing the geographic location of the mobile robot during the impact event on a memory (Pages 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the BAUTISTA reference and include features from the GAO reference with a reasonable expectation of success to store a geographic location of the mobile robot. Doing so provides more accurate and precise tracking of the mobile robot to provide a more precise maneuvering.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 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, SCOTT BROWNE can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/SHAHIRA BAAJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3666