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.
Claims 2 and 4-6 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 2 recites the limitation "or the fence" in line 3. There is insufficient or unclear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous mention of the object is “a post of a pole or a post of a fence” and not the entire fence, making the limitation indefinite.
The term “hard for the distance measuring device to detect” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hard for the distance measuring device to detect” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Paragraph [0067] of the Specification merely gives examples such as “poles..or posts of a fence with a wire net suspended between them”.
With regard to claim 5, the clause “emits electromagnetic waves while changing an angle in a vertical direction every predetermined angle without changing the support state” is unclear. It is unclear how the direction in which electromagnetic waves are emitted can change, without changing the support state (that in turn changes the vertical angle, as described in the Specification and shown in Fig. 5).
With regard to claim 6, the clause “a rate of change of an angle.. is smaller than the predetermined angle” doe not make sense, because a rate of change has units of reciprocal time, while an angle has units of degrees or radians.
Clarification and correction of the claims are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2018/0239022).
With regard to claim 1, Lee et al. disclose a control device that is mounted in a mobile object (Fig. 2, paragraph [0032-0034]) (vehicle 44 e. g. cleaning robot), the control device comprising:
a distance measuring device (scanning unit 42) that is mounted in a mobile object and that emits electromagnetic waves (from light-emitting unit 42a) to detect an object on the basis of a result of detection of the electromagnetic waves bouncing back from the object (via light-receiving unit 42b);
a support device that supports the distance measuring device (vehicle 44 support the scanning unit 42; although no shown, a support device is inherent); and
a controller (processing unit 40) configured to detect a prescribed object present in a traveling direction of the mobile object and to control a state of the support device such that a support state of the distance measuring device changes between at least a first posture and a second posture or changes between a first position and a second position wherein, when the object has been detected, the controller is configured to cause the distance measuring device to emit electromagnetic waves in a state in which the distance measuring device is supported in the first posture or at the first position and then to cause the distance measuring device to emit electromagnetic waves in a state in which the distance measuring device is supported in the second posture or at the second position to which a direction or a position of the distance measuring device changes in at least one of an upward direction and a downward direction from the first posture or the first position by controlling the support device (vertical angle of direction for emitted light is adjusted from a first angle to a second angle when determining an obstacle is in front of the vehicle, para. [0039] & Figs 3-4).
With regard to claim 3, Lee et al. disclose a control device that is mounted in a mobile object (Fig. 2, paragraph [0032-0034]) (vehicle 44 e. g. cleaning robot), the control device comprising:
a distance measuring device (scanning unit 42) that is mounted in a mobile object and that emits electromagnetic waves (from light-emitting unit 42a) to detect an object on the basis of a result of detection of the electromagnetic waves bouncing back from the object (via light-receiving unit 42b);
a support device that supports the distance measuring device (vehicle 44 support the scanning unit 42; although no shown, a support device is inherent); and
a position recognizer configured to recognize a position of the mobile object (processor records locations of obstacles (objects) relative to the mobile object within a space according to scanning results, para. [0043])
a controller (processing unit 40) configured to control a state (vertical angle) of the support device a state of the support device such that a support state of the distance measuring device changes between at least a first posture and a second posture or changes between a first position and a second position
wherein, when it is determined that the mobile object reaches or approaches a prescribed range on the bases of a result of recognition from the position recognizer, the controller is configured to cause the distance measuring device to emit electromagnetic waves in a state in which the distance measuring device is supported in the first posture or at the first position and then to cause the distance measuring device to emit electromagnetic waves in a state in which the distance measuring device is supported in the second posture or at the second position to which a direction or a position of the distance measuring device changes in at least one of an upward direction and a downward direction from the first posture or the first position by controlling the support device (vertical angle of direction for emitted light is adjusted from a first angle to a second angle when determining horizontal distance to an obstacle in front of the vehicle, para. [0039] & Figs 3-4).
With regard to claim 11, Lee et al. disclose a control method that is performed by a computer (processor 40) of a mobile object (vehicle 44 e. g. cleaning robot), including a distance measuring device (scanning unit 42) that is mounted in a mobile object and that emits electromagnetic waves to detect an object on the basis of a result of detection of the electromagnetic waves bouncing back from the object and a support device that supports the distance measuring device (scanning unit 42 including light-emitting unit 42a, light receiving unit 42b) , the control method comprising:
a step of detecting a prescribed object present in a traveling direction of the mobile object;
a step of controlling a state of the support device such that a support state of the distance measuring device changes between at least a first posture and a second posture or changes between a first position and a second position (vertical angle of direction for emitted light is adjusted from a first angle to a second angle when determining an obstacle is in front of the vehicle, para. [0039] & Figs 3-4; and
a step of, when the object has been detected, causing the distance measuring device to emit electromagnetic waves in a state in which the distance measuring device is supported in the first posture or at the first position and then causing the distance measuring device to emit electromagnetic waves in a state in which the distance measuring device is supported in the second posture or at the second position to which a direction or a position of the distance measuring device changes in at least one of an upward direction and a downward direction from the first posture or the first position by controlling the support device (emission angle of the light-emitting unit is adjusted to a rising angle so that it can emit a light beam along an angle greater than 0 degrees, para. [0038]).
With regard to claim 10, the controller is configured to cause the mobile object to avoid an obstacle when the obstacle is detected (para. [0046]).
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) 2, 4-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Yoshioka et al. (US 5461357).
With regard to claims 2 and 4, Lee et al. do not specifically disclose, but Yoshioka et al. teach in the same field of endeavor, that the prescribed object to be detected includes an installation by a road such as a guardrail or pole. Specifically, the distance between the vehicle and the installation is determined (Yoshioka 2nd col. lines 38-40). Detection of distance to such objects as a guardrail or fence, or the absence of such objects which would obviously indicate an entrance of a parking lot or facility, which may be harder to detect than e. g. other vehicles on a road, would have been desirable for applying the control device of Lee to a vehicle on a road, to assess a rank of danger when there is a plurality of obstacles in an area ahead of the vehicle (1st col. lines 37-41). Therefore, the prescribed object to be detected in Lee similarly being a pole or post of a fence, or an entrance of a parking lot or facility, as suggested by Yoshioka would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application.
With regard to claims 5, 7 and 9, Lee et al. do not specifically disclose the distance measuring device is controlled to change the angle in the vertical direction every predetermined, equally spaced angle in a plurality of postures. However, in the same field of endeavor Yoshioka et al. teach a distance measuring device wherein a (in this case horizontal) angle is changed in a vertical direction by a predetermined angle in a plurality of equally-spaced positions in which obstacles are detected (“split zones” 1st col. lines 47-55). The plurality of horizontal angles (scanning positions) for detection would have been obvious to apply to the vertical angles of the scanner of Lee et al. by one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application, to more precisely detect the position of obstacles (1st col. lines 42-44).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eshel et al. (US2025/0327932).
With regard to claim 6, Lee et al. do not specifically disclose, but Eshel et al. teach a rate of change of an angle in which the distance measuring device emits light due to change of the distance measuring device from the first posture to the second posture is dependent on the largest angle of deflection (para. [0093] & Fig. 2A). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application, to configure a scanning mirror or reflector array (e. g. Fig. 3) to produce the different angles at which the distance measuring device of Lee emits light as suggested in the device of Eshel, and therefore it would also have a rate of change of an angle depending on the largest angle of deflection.
With regard to claim 8, Lee et al. do not disclose, but Eshel et al. teach that the reference emission directions of the plurality of postures when the distance measuring device emits light while changing the angle in the vertical direction every predetermined angle for each of the plurality of postures are included in the predetermined angle and do not overlap (Fig. 2A, plurality of scan lines form the predetermined vertical angles by rotating mirror 114A and para. [0240], [0258]). It would have been desirable to scan a large field of view while avoiding unnecessary motions of the scanning mirror; therefore the teaching of Eshel to change the angle for each of the plurality of postures so that they do not overlap would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on June 24, 2025, July 14, 2023, and Jan. 18, 2023 have been considered by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC L BOLDA whose telephone number is 571-272-8104. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30am to 5pm.
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 on 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.
/ERIC L BOLDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645