DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 10/31/2016. In the amendment, claims 1, 4-5 and 7-10 have been amended, and claims 2-3 and 6 are now canceled. Overall, claims 1, 4-5 and 7-10 are pending in this application.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “wireless positioning until” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub No. US 2020/0042008 A1 to Strandberg (Strandberg) in view of Pub No. US 2021/0161067 A1 to Ko et. al. (Ko).
In Reference to Claim 1
Strandberg teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A robot (2) automatic charging method, comprising the steps of:
controlling the robot (2) to start working within a working region (4) (Strandberg teaches “the robotic mower 2 is during operation configured to move across an area A surrounded by a boundary wire 4”) (see Strandberg Fig.1 and paragraph 59);
when the robot needs to be charged, controlling the robot (2) to move towards a charging station (11) by wireless positioning until the robot (2) moves into a range covered by a target signal (Strandberg teaches “in step S100 in which the robotic mower 2 receives a return signal from the control unit 22, which commands the robotic mower 2 to return to the charging station 11. Step S100 may be triggered by detecting that the power in the battery 18 is lower than a predetermined limit. The predetermined limit is set such that the robotic mower 2 may safely return to the charging station 11 before the battery 18 is empty, even if it happens to be the longest possible way back to the charging station 11”) (see Strandberg Fig.7 and paragraph 69), wherein the target signal is a signal from a charging station or a guiding device (10), wherein the guiding device (4a, 8, 10) is an electronic boundary line (10) and the charging station (11) is set upon the electronic boundary line (10), the electronic boundary line (10) being spaced apart from a perimeter of the working region (4) (see at least Strandberg Figs. 1, 5 and paragraphs 61-62);
detecting a strength of the target signal in the working region (4) during the movement of the robot (2); controlling the robot (2) to adjust its moving direction based on detected changes in the strength of the target signal to control the robot (2) to move towards the electronic boundary line (10) (Strandberg teaches “the strength of the magnetic field generated by the charging station loop 10 and/or the boundary wire loop 4a is higher adjacent the respective loop wire than directly above the loop wire. This may be caused by the strong magnetic field in and around the charging plate of the charging station 6 due to the limited space for all the cables and wires. In order to ensure that the robotic mower 2 properly follows the charging loop 10, the front sensor 12, 14 located furthest away from the boundary wire 4, and thus, the charging station 11, may be used” such that it requires the robot (2) to detect the signal) (see at least Strandberg paragraph 74)); and
controlling the robot to move towards the electronic boundary line (10) and then move along the electronic boundary line (10) to the charging station (11) (Strandberg teaches “the robotic mower 2 will follow the charging station loop 10, including making a 90 degree turn as the charging station loop 10 turns 90 degrees, until a crossing between the charging station loop 10 and the boundary wire loop 4a is detected, in step S108, by means of the at least one sensor 12, 14, 16. The detection of the crossing triggers the robotic mower 2 to follow the charging station loop 10, in step S110, a first predetermined distance after the detection of the crossing. This first predetermined distance is long enough to straighten up the robotic mower 2 such that it runs parallel with the charging station loop 10. When the robotic mower 2 has moved the first predetermined distance it continues, in step S112, to drive the robotic mower 2 in a direction straight forward for a second predetermined distance. After this step S112 the robotic mower 2 is in a position that generally will be the same and that will ensure that the docking between the robotic mower 2 and the charging contacts in the charging station 11 will run smoothly”) (see Strandberg paragraph 72) (see at least Strandberg Figs. 1-8 and paragraphs 59-77).
Strandberg is silent (bolded and italic recitations above) as to controlling the robot (2) to move towards a charging station (11) by wireless positioning until the robot (2) moves into a range covered by a target signal. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to controlling the robot to move towards a charging station by wireless positioning until the robot moves into a range covered by a target signal. For example, Ko teaches controlling the robot (10) to move towards a charging station (500) by wireless positioning until (such as transmitter (200), the terminal (300), and the GPS satellite (400)) the robot (10) moves into a range covered by a target signal. Ko further teaches that performing such step provides an optimal path to return to the charging station and an accurate traveling direction to dock on the charging station may be determined (see at least Ko Figs. 1-8 and paragraphs 18, 26, 53-55, 65, 68, 76, 98). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Strandberg to perform the step of controlling the robot to move towards a charging station by wireless positioning until the robot moves into a range covered by a target signal as taught by Ko in order to provides an optimal path to return to the charging station and an accurate traveling direction to dock on the charging station may be determined.
In Reference to Claim 7
A robot automatic charging system for a robot, wherein during operation of the robot, the robot performs the steps of the robot automatic charging method of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above).
In Reference to Claim 8
The robot automatic charging system according to claim 7 (see rejection to claim 7 above), wherein the charging station (11) is set on an electronic boundary line (10, 4a), and after the robot (2) moves into a range covered by the electronic boundary line (10, 4a) signal through wireless positioning, the robot (2) moves to the electronic boundary line (10, 4a) along a direction where a signal strength of the electronic boundary line (10, 4a) becomes stronger and then moves along the electronic boundary line (10, 4a) to the charging station (11) (see at least Strandberg Figs. 1-8 and paragraphs 59-77).
In Reference to Claim 9
A robot comprising a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program, wherein the processor executes the computer program to achieve the steps of the robot automatic charging method of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above).
In Reference to Claim 10
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored, wherein the steps of implementing the robot automatic charging method in claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above) are implemented when the computer program is executed by a processor.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strandberg in view of Ko and further in view of Pub No. CN 108519774A to Liu (Liu).
Examiner’s Note: Machine translation of Liu will be used in the rejection below.
In Reference to Claim 4
Strandberg in view of Ko teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The robot automatic charging method according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the step of controlling the robot (2) to adjust its moving direction based on the detected changes in the strength of the target signal to control the robot (2) to move towards the electronic boundary line (10, 4a) comprises:
determining whether the strength of the target signal detected continues to increase, and:
when the strength of the target signal detected continues to increase, controlling the robot (2) to move without changing direction;
when the strength of the target signal detected does not continue to increase, controlling the robot to change direction and then move in a direction in which a strongest strength of the target signal is detected (Ko teaches “the main body 10 moves to the charging station 500, by determining a direction in which the charging station 500 is located based on a result of the sensing of the strength and the transmission direction of the one transmission signal” and Strandberg teaches that the “In some cases, the strength of the magnetic field generated by the charging station loop 10 and/or the boundary wire loop 4a is higher adjacent the respective loop wire than directly above the loop wire. This may be caused by the strong magnetic field in and around the charging plate of the charging station 6 due to the limited space for all the cables and wires. In order to ensure that the robotic mower 2 properly follows the charging loop 10”) (therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the robot in view of Strandberg in view of Ko would stop and change direction to the stronger signal direction as show in Figs. 5 of Strandberg) (see at least Ko Figs. 1-8 and paragraphs 100) (see Strandberg paragraph 72) (see at least Strandberg Figs. 1-8 and paragraphs 59-77).
Strandberg in view of Ko teaches to move the robot toward the charging station based on the strength of the detected target signal however do not explicitly teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to calculating or determining whether the strength of the detected target signal continues to increase and changing the movement based on the determination or calculation. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculating or determining whether the strength of the detected target signal continues to increase and changing the movement based on the determination or calculation. For example, Liu teaches calculating or determining whether the strength of the detected target signal continues to increase and changing the movement of the robot (21) based on the determination or calculation toward the charging station (20). Liu further teaches that performing such step provides characteristic signal accurate location, greatly reduce the search range, greatly improve the charging efficiency of the regression (see at least Liu Figs. 1-3 and page 3 lines 1-21, page 5). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Strandberg in view of Ko to include the steps of calculating or determining whether the strength of the detected target signal continues to increase and changing the movement of the robot based on the determination or calculation toward the charging station as taught by Liu in order to provides characteristic signal accurate location, greatly reduce the search range, greatly improve the charging efficiency of the regression.
In Reference to Claim 5
The robot automatic charging method according to claim 4 (see rejection to claim 4 above), wherein the step of controlling the robot (2) to change direction and then move in the direction in which the strongest strength of the target signal is detected comprises:
firstly, controlling the robot to stop moving (Lu teaches to rotate the robot in circle however since there are only two choices before rotating the robot such as stopping the robot first before rotating or without stopping before rotating therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that system of Strandberg in view of Ko and further in view of Lu would instruct the robot to stop before rotating the robot for detecting the signal with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so does not affect the rotating and the detecting and since there are only two choices to choose from);
then, controlling the robot to rotate in place for one cycle and while detecting the strength of the target signal to obtain the strongest signal value within the one cycle; and
finally, controlling the robot to rotate in place again while detecting the strength of the target signal until the detected signal value is closest to the strongest signal value detected within the one cycle, to stop rotating when the detected signal value is the closest, and after stopping rotation moving the robot in a particular direction in which the robot is facing upon stopping rotation (Lu teaches “rotating diameter D determined according to 21 of the working environment of the mobile robot, such as working environment dust-absorbing robot generally comparatively small, to 1 is suitable, and mowing robot working environment, can be determined to be 2m; fixed time T is the sampling period. The precision needs to be adjusted, it can be set as 1 seconds, the processor 1 the network name as parameter, sending the AT + CWLAP to the second WIFI module 3, first WIFI module capable of obtaining current position 19 of wireless network signal strength Ri. (3) adopting the data processing algorithm, calculating the direction α of the charging base 20. step 3, the data processing algorithm is configured to: the maximum and minimum values by comparing operation, wireless signal strength of Rmax and Rmin, namely i=max, the wireless signal intensity value R is maximum, i=min, minimum wireless signal strength value R; then calculating the direction of the charging base 20 is: α = with reference to FIG. 1, within a wireless network coverage area, the signal is first WIFI module 19 as centre to spread around. Therefore on the 21 of the circular motion track of the mobile robot, the position of the maximum value Rmax of wireless signal strength and the minimum value Rmin are respectively a first WIFI module pointing to the 19 distance between the first WIFI module 19 the most distant and closest position, two positions of the line. step 3, the data processing algorithm also can be set as: calculating difference value of radio signal strength, namely Δ Ri=Ri-Ri-1 when i=0, Δ R0 = R0-RN-1, where N is the number of recording data, and the maximum and minimum values of the difference value Δ: Δ Rmax and Rmin Δ, namely i=max, radio signal strength differential value Δ R; i=min, the differential of Δ R minimum wireless signal strength value; then calculating the direction of the charging base 20 is α = (θ min) /2 θ max” and Liu teaches to determine the where the greatest signal is received while turning and will turn to that location again where the signal was the greatest to head toward that received signal toward the recharging station) (see at least Liu Figs. 1-3 and page 3 lines 1-21, page 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-5 and 7-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 10,365,661 B2 to Jagenstedt et. al. (Jagenstedt) teaches to move the robot toward the charging station based on increasing field strength.
Pub No. US 2005/0267629 A1 to Petersson et. al. (Petersson) teaches electronic boundary line in the charging station which is being spaced apart from a perimeter of the working region.
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 BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 October 22, 2025