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 . Claims 1 and 3-20 were previously pending in this application. Claim 1 has been amended. No claims have been cancelled or newly added. Thus, claims 1 and 3-20 remain pending and have been examined in this application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/16/2026 has been entered.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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:
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;
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
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed 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: “drive system” in claims 1 and 3-20, “collision detection system” in claims 1 and 3-20, “first sensing means” in claims 1, 3-13, and 17-20, “second sensing means” in claims 1, 3-5, and 7-20, “first biasing means” in claim 12, and “second biasing means” in claims 13-16.
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.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “drive system” in claims 1 and 3-20, “collision detection system” in claims 1 and 3-20, “first sensing means” in claims 1, 3-13, and 17-20, “second sensing means” in claims 1, 3-5, and 7-20, “first biasing means” in claim 12, and “second biasing means” in claims 13-16 all use a generic placeholder “system” or “means” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Drive system (see page 6): “The drive system is operable to propel the robot 2 about its environment. The drive system includes a pair of traction units 14 located on either side of the robot 2, although it should be appreciated that the precise form of the traction units 14 is not central to the invention. However, in this particular embodiment, the traction units 14 are electrically driven caterpillar-track units having a continuous rubberized belt or track constrained around leading and trailing pulley wheels. The traction units 14 are mounted on opposite sides of the chassis 4 and are independently operable to enable the robot 2 to be driven in forward and reverse directions, to follow a curved path towards the left or right, or to turn on the spot in either direction depending on the speed and rotational direction of the traction units 14. Such an arrangement is well known, and so it will not be described in further detail here.”
Collision detection system (see pages 8-9): The control system 18 further comprises a collision detection system 46, which functions to detect when the robot 2 has collided with an obstacle - that is to say, the occurrence of a "collision event" and send one or more control signals causing the drive system to take corrective action. The collision detection system 46 comprises first and second principle parts of the robot 2, which, in this embodiment, are the shell 8 and bumper assembly 10 respectively. The collision detection system 46 further comprises first and second sensing means for sensing relative movement between the chassis 4, or the body 6 as it is fixedly secured to the chassis 4, and the shell 8 and bumper assembly 10, which is then used by the collision detection system 46 to gather information about collisions with objects in the path of the robot 2. The bumper assembly 10 has a mass substantially lower than the mass of the shell 8. The difference in mass more pronounced when the shell 8 is configured to carry and move with other components of the robot 2, such as, for example, the omnidirectional camera 13 and / or the user interface 26, which increases the effective mass of the shell 8.”
First sensing means (see page 10): “The first sensing means comprises a first switch array.”
Second sensing means (see page 11): “The second sensing means comprises a second switch array.”
First biasing means (see page 9): “The first and second biasing means comprises a plurality of spring-loaded devices.”
Second biasing means (see page 9): “The first and second biasing means comprises a plurality of spring-loaded devices.”
For all the units corresponding to a computer (hardware) the software (steps in an
algorithm/flowchart) should be included to indicate proper support.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 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 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2005/0021181 A1) in view of Ito (JP 2018-14963 A, a machine translation was provided with the Office action dated 10/16/2025 and is being relied upon) and Feng (US 2021/0186290 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a mobile robot (see at least Figs. 3-6, [0037] – robot cleaner) comprising: a chassis (110); a drive system (see at least [0038] – driving part); a collision detection system, the collision detection system comprising an outer shell (120) and a bumper assembly (200) of the mobile robot, the bumper assembly being separate from and moveable relative to the chassis in response to a collision with an object (see at least Figs. 3-6, [0041] - The bumper 200 is displaced from the first position to the second position when the robot cleaner collides with the obstacle, thereby effectively absorbing the shock to the cleaner body 110.); and second sensing means configured to sense relative movement between the chassis and the bumper assembly, and, in a collision event, to send a control signal causing the drive system to take corrective action (see at least Figs. 3-6, [0050, 0052, 0058] - The unexpected obstacle sensing means 300 is switched on and off in relation to the displacement of the bumper 200, and detects the appearance of the unexpected obstacle… When the micro switch 310 is switched on, the controller 400 determines in response to a signal from the micro switch 310 that the robot cleaner collides with an unexpected obstacle, and properly responds to it, for example, temporarily changes a running direction to avoid the obstacle.); and wherein the bumper assembly is exposed from the outer shell (see at least Fig. 3); wherein an outer surface of the bumper assembly defines an outer peripheral surface of the mobile robot at a first side thereof which faces a first direction, wherein the outer shell includes a top plate and a pair of side panels (see at least Fig. 3).
Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose the outer shell being separate from and moveable relative to the chassis in response to a collision with an object; first sensing means configured to sense relative movement between the chassis and the outer shell.
Ito, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the outer shell being separate from and moveable relative to the chassis in response to a collision with an object (see at least Fig. 5, [0026-0028] - When the brush cutter 1 collides with a foreign object while moving straight backward, an external force is applied that pushes the main body cover 2 forward as shown by arrow 57… so that the main body cover 2 moves forward relative to the main body chassis 10.); first sensing means configured to sense relative movement between the chassis and the outer shell (see at least [0026-0028] - When the brush cutter 1 collides with a foreign object while moving straight backward, an external force is applied that pushes the main body cover 2 forward as shown by arrow 57… so that the main body cover 2 moves forward relative to the main body chassis 10…Hall sensors 46, 47 are used to detect contact when the brush cutter 1 is moving straight forward or backward (straight-ahead state).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Ito into the invention of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to enable the device to detect contact with an obstacle when moving in the backward direction (Ito – [0005]), in addition to being able to detect contact with an obstacle when moving in the forward direction. This improves the overall capabilities of obstacle avoidance so that the device can accurately detect and then avoid obstacles from any direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to essentially duplicate Kim’s sensing means for use with the outer shell. This would improve the maneuverability of the device, and doing so would yield predictable results.
Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a mass of the bumper assembly is lower than a mass of the outer shell.
Although the drawings of Kim cannot be relied upon for explicitly disclosing that a mass of the bumper assembly is lower than a mass of the outer shell, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the outer shell (120) appears to be larger than the bumper assembly (200). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for Kim invention to include the bumper assembly having a lower mass than the outer shell. This could have been done with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would expect the mass of a smaller component (i.e., bumper assembly 200) to be less than the mass of a larger component (i.e., outer shell 120). Furthermore, implementing a lower mass bumper assembly and a higher mass outer shell would have yielded predictable results and is generally considered a matter of design choice.
Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein each side panel of the pair of side panels projects beyond the top plate in the first direction, and wherein the outer surface of the bumper assembly is spaced beyond the pair of side panels in the first direction.
Feng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein each side panel of the pair of side panels projects beyond the top plate in the first direction, and wherein the outer surface of the bumper assembly is spaced beyond the pair of side panels in the first direction (see at least Figs. 1-2, 4, [0051, 0057] – main body 200 includes a top plate indicated at 200 in Fig. 1, and sidewall panels that extend forward of the top plate… the outer surface of front bumper 600 is forward of the sidewall panels of main body 200 as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Feng into the invention of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is that the shape of the device is considered a matter of design choice, variations of which are considered to be generally obvious so long as the variations to not negatively impact the aesthetic or function of the device. Feng obviates this by teaching that the device may be constructed in any shape (Feng – [0052]). This modification in shape would be generally obvious and doing so would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the outer shell is displaceable relative to the chassis in the longitudinal and lateral directions.
Ito, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the outer shell is displaceable relative to the chassis in the longitudinal and lateral directions (see at least Figs. 5-7, [0026-0031] - When the brush cutter 1 collides with a foreign object while moving straight backward, moving to the right, or moving to the left side an external force is applied that pushes the main body cover 2 as shown by arrows 57, 58, and 59… so that the main body cover 2 moves relative to the main body chassis 10.).
The motivation to combine Kim and Ito is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising a first biasing means connected to the chassis for applying a restoring force to the outer shell following a lateral displacement of the outer shell in order to return the outer shell to its initial lateral position with respect to the chassis.
Ito, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a first biasing means connected to the chassis for applying a restoring force to the outer shell following a lateral displacement of the outer shell in order to return the outer shell to its initial lateral position with respect to the chassis (see at least Figs. 3, 5-7, [0008, 0014, 0026-0031] – The main body cover is held in a movable state relative to the main body chassis via cushioning materials such as leaf springs.).
The motivation to combine Kim and Ito is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising a second biasing means for applying a restoring force to the outer shell following a longitudinal displacement of the outer shell in order to return the outer shell to its initial longitudinal position with respect to the chassis.
Ito, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a second biasing means for applying a restoring force to the outer shell following a longitudinal displacement of the outer shell in order to return the outer shell to its initial longitudinal position with respect to the chassis (see at least Figs. 3, 5-7, [0008, 0014, 0026-0031] – The main body cover is held in a movable state relative to the main body chassis via cushioning materials such as leaf springs.).
The motivation to combine Kim and Ito is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first sensing means comprises a first switch array, each switch of the first switch array being located between the chassis and the outer shell, wherein the collision detection system is operable to cause the drive system to take corrective action if a switch of the first switch array is actuated by the displacement of the outer shell during the collision event.
Ito, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a second biasing means for applying a restoring force to the outer shell following a longitudinal displacement of the outer shell in order to return the outer shell to its initial longitudinal position with respect to the chassis (see at least Figs. 3, 5-7, [0008, 0014, 0026-0031] – The main body cover is held in a movable state relative to the main body chassis via cushioning materials such as leaf springs.).
The motivation to combine Kim and Ito is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein at least one switch of the first switch array is arranged to be actuated by a lateral displacement of the outer shell and at least one other switch of the first switch array is arranged to be actuated by the longitudinal displacement of the outer shell.
Ito, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a second biasing means for applying a restoring force to the outer shell following a longitudinal displacement of the outer shell in order to return the outer shell to its initial longitudinal position with respect to the chassis (see at least [0026-0028] - When the brush cutter 1 collides with a foreign object while moving straight backward, an external force is applied that pushes the main body cover 2 forward as shown by arrow 57… so that the main body cover 2 moves forward relative to the main body chassis 10…Hall sensors 46, 47 are used to detect contact when the brush cutter 1 is moving straight forward or backward (straight-ahead state.).
The motivation to combine Kim and Ito is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the second biasing means comprises an activating arm pivotally connected to the chassis, the activating arm being moveable by the longitudinal displacement of the outer shell to actuate the at least one other switch of the first switch array.
Ito, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the second biasing means comprises an activating arm pivotally connected to the chassis, the activating arm being moveable by the longitudinal displacement of the outer shell to actuate the at least one other switch of the first switch array (see at least Figs. 1-7, [0020, 0026-0028] - Mounting members 17a and 17b are provided near the bases of the mounting arms 11a and 11b on the main body chassis 10 to hold the leaf springs 16a and 16b, and are held so as to be slidable within a limited range in the vertical direction. The mounting members 17a, 17b are parts made of synthetic resin such as plastic, and are held so as not to fall off the mounting arms 11a, 11b. Similarly, mounting members 19a and 19b are provided on both rear sides of the main chassis 10 to hold the leaf springs 18a and 18b. The mounting members 19a and 19b may also be held so that they can slide within a limited range in the vertical direction, but since they are located away from the contact detection mechanisms such as the Hall sensors 46 and 47, the mounting members 19a and 19b may also be fixed so that they cannot move relative to the main body chassis 10 in the vertical direction… When the brush cutter 1 collides with a foreign object while moving straight backward, an external force is applied that pushes the main body cover 2 forward as shown by arrow 57… so that the main body cover 2 moves forward relative to the main body chassis 10…Hall sensors 46, 47 are used to detect contact when the brush cutter 1 is moving straight forward or backward (straight-ahead state.).
The motivation to combine Kim and Ito is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising at least one other component rigidly connected to the outer shell, wherein the mass of the outer shell is defined by the outer shell and the least one other component.
Ito, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: at least one other component rigidly connected to the outer shell, wherein the mass of the outer shell is defined by the outer shell and the least one other component (see at least Figs. 1-3, [0014] - support members 4 on the body cover 2).
The motivation to combine Kim and Ito is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses wherein the corrective action comprises a reflex action that immediately follows the collision event, the reflex action comprises reversing a maneuver of the robot immediately preceding the collision event (see at least [0058] - When the bumper 200 is pushed backwardly by the shock and thus displaced from the first position to the second position, the plate spring 320 is deformed from a position where the switch portion 310 a is in contact with the place spring 320, thereby switching on the micro switch 310. Then, the controller 400 determines that the robot cleaner collides with an unexpected obstacle, and controls the driving part to rotate in a reverse direction. The robot cleaner departs from the location of the obstacle.).
Claims 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ito, Feng, and Hsu (US 2010/0235000 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the bumper assembly comprises an inner bumper section comprising a plurality of rigid segments collectively arranged to extend laterally along one side of the mobile robot, the inner bumper section being configured such that each rigid segment of the plurality of rigid segments is displaceable relative to the other rigid segments of the plurality of rigid segments in response to a force applied thereto during the collision event.
However, Kim does disclose wherein the bumper assembly is arranged to extend laterally along one side of the mobile robot (see at least Fig. 3).
Hsu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the bumper assembly comprises an inner bumper section comprising a plurality of rigid segments collectively arranged to extend laterally along one side of the mobile robot, the inner bumper section being configured such that each rigid segment of the plurality of rigid segments is displaceable relative to the other rigid segments of the plurality of rigid segments in response to a force applied thereto during the collision event (see at least Figs. 1-5, [0028-0029] - Elastic housing 104 may provide buffer when impact occurs, allowing damages done to bumper structure 100 (and connected device) to be minimized. In addition, the force generated by the impact presses actuator section 110 downwards, allowing conductive terminal 106 of actuator section 110 to couple with the plurality of conductive sheets 108. Thus, the plurality of conductive sheets 108 will be connected and sends a signal to the control circuit of the moving device (not shown), directing the moving device to change directions.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Hsu into the invention of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is provide buffer protection during impacts and to provide a light weight, adaptable, reliable, and flexible method of fixing the components together (Hsu – [0007-0008]).
Regarding claim 4, Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of rigid segments are connected by flexible joints.
Hsu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the plurality of rigid segments are connected by flexible joints (see at least Figs. 1-5, [0028-0029] – elastic housing 104).
The motivation to combine Kim and Hsu is the same as in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the flexible joints are living hinges.
Hsu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the flexible joints are living hinges (see at least Figs. 1-5, [0028-0029] – elastic housing 104).
The motivation to combine Kim and Hsu is the same as in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses wherein the second sensing means comprises a second switch array (see at least Fig. 6, [0050-0052] – micro switches 310), each switch of the second switch array being located between the chassis the bumper assembly (see at least Fig. 6) and wherein the collision detection system is operable to cause the drive system to take corrective action if a switch of the second switch array is actuated by the displacement of the bumper assembly during the collision event (see at least Fig. 6, [0050-0052] - When the micro switch 310 is switched on, the controller 400 determines in response to a signal from the micro switch 310 that the robot cleaner collides with an unexpected obstacle, and properly responds to it, for example, temporarily changes a running direction to avoid the obstacle. If it is determined that the obstacle is avoided, the robot cleaner returns to its originally set running path to continue the cleaning operation.).
Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose each switch of the second switch array being located between the chassis and a respective rigid segment of the plurality of rigid segments and a switch of the second switch array is actuated by the displacement of its respective rigid segment of the plurality of rigid segments during the collision event.
Hsu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: each switch of the second switch array being located between the chassis and a respective rigid segment of the plurality of rigid segments and a switch of the second switch array is actuated by the displacement of its respective rigid segment of the plurality of rigid segments during the collision event (see at least Figs. 1-5, [0028-0029] – The force generated by the impact presses actuator section 110 downwards, allowing conductive terminal 106 of actuator section 110 to couple with the plurality of conductive sheets 108. Thus, the plurality of conductive sheets 108 will be connected and sends a signal to the control circuit of the moving device (not shown), directing the moving device to change directions.).
The motivation to combine Kim and Hsu is the same as in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses wherein the bumper assembly comprises an outer bumper section adjacent the inner bumper section, the outer bumper section being reversibly deformable in response to a force applied thereto during the collision event (see at least [0026-0028] - When the brush cutter 1 collides with a foreign object while moving straight backward, an external force is applied that pushes the main body cover 2 forward as shown by arrow 57… so that the main body cover 2 moves forward relative to the main body chassis 10…Hall sensors 46, 47 are used to detect contact when the brush cutter 1 is moving straight forward or backward (straight-ahead state).).
Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the bumper assembly comprises an outer bumper section adjacent the inner bumper section, the outer bumper section being reversibly deformable in response to a force applied thereto during the collision event to displace one or more rigid segments of the plurality of rigid segments.
Hsu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the bumper assembly comprises an outer bumper section adjacent the inner bumper section, the outer bumper section being reversibly deformable in response to a force applied thereto during the collision event to displace one or more rigid segments of the plurality of rigid segments (see at least Figs. 1-5, [0028-0029] – Elastic housing 104 may provide buffer when impact occurs, allowing damages done to bumper structure 100 (and connected device) to be minimized. In addition, the force generated by the impact presses actuator section 110 downwards, allowing conductive terminal 106 of actuator section 110 to couple with the plurality of conductive sheets 108. Thus, the plurality of conductive sheets 108 will be connected and sends a signal to the control circuit of the moving device (not shown), directing the moving device to change directions.).
The motivation to combine Kim and Hsu is the same as in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the outer bumper section defines a continuous surface extending across the plurality of rigid segments of the inner bumper section.
Hsu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the outer bumper section defines a continuous surface extending across the plurality of rigid segments of the inner bumper section (see at least Figs. 1-5, [0028-0030] – Bumper structure 100 comprises a base 102, an elastic housing 104 and a conductive terminal 106. As shown, a plurality of conductive sheets 108 is formed over base 102; elastic housing 104 is formed over base 102, with a protruding actuator section 110 formed within elastic housing 104, and actuator section 110 is parallel to conductive sheets 108; conductive terminal 106 is formed at the bottom of actuator section 110 but is not in contact with conductive sheets 108.... Different shapes of elastic housing may be utilized according to the exterior designs of the moving device, such as strip-like, granular, columnar, sheet-like, polygonal or irregular shaped etc.).
The motivation to combine Kim and Hsu is the same as in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the outer bumper section comprises corner sections covering intersections between the one side and adjacent sides of the mobile robot, the corner sections being deformable to displace the outermost rigid segments of the plurality of rigid segments in response to a force applied thereto during the collision with the object oblique to a direction of travel of the mobile robot.
Hsu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the outer bumper section comprises corner sections covering intersections between the one side and adjacent sides of the mobile robot, the corner sections being deformable to displace the outermost rigid segments of the plurality of rigid segments in response to a force applied thereto during the collision with the object oblique to a direction of travel of the mobile robot (see at least Figs. 1-5, 11, [0028-0030] – Bumper structure 100 comprises a base 102, an elastic housing 104 and a conductive terminal 106. As shown, a plurality of conductive sheets 108 is formed over base 102; elastic housing 104 is formed over base 102, with a protruding actuator section 110 formed within elastic housing 104, and actuator section 110 is parallel to conductive sheets 108; conductive terminal 106 is formed at the bottom of actuator section 110 but is not in contact with conductive sheets 108.... Different shapes of elastic housing may be utilized according to the exterior designs of the moving device, such as strip-like, granular, columnar, sheet-like, polygonal or irregular shaped etc.).
The motivation to combine Kim and Hsu is the same as in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the mass of the bumper assembly is defined by the inner and outer bumper sections.
Hsu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the mass of the bumper assembly is defined by the inner and outer bumper sections (see at least Figs. 1-5, [0028-0030] – Bumper structure 100 comprises a base 102, an elastic housing 104 and a conductive terminal 106. As shown, a plurality of conductive sheets 108 is formed over base 102; elastic housing 104 is formed over base 102, with a protruding actuator section 110 formed within elastic housing 104, and actuator section 110 is parallel to conductive sheets 108; conductive terminal 106 is formed at the bottom of actuator section 110 but is not in contact with conductive sheets 108.).
The motivation to combine Kim and Hsu is the same as in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ito, Feng, and Veenstra (US 2011/0140829 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses wherein the outer shell conceals at least a part of the chassis (see at least Figs. 3, 6, 10).
Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the outer shell and bumper assembly are moveable independently of one another.
However, Kim does disclose wherein the bumper assembly is movable independently (see at least Figs. 3-6, [0041] - The bumper 200 is displaced from the first position to the second position when the robot cleaner collides with the obstacle, thereby effectively absorbing the shock to the cleaner body 110.).
Ito, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the outer shell is moveable independently (see at least Figs. 3, 5-7, [0008, 0014, 0026-0031] – The main body cover is held in a movable state relative to the main body chassis via cushioning materials such as leaf springs.).
The motivation to combine Kim and Ito is the same as in the rejection of claim 1. In light of the combination of Kim and Ito, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the bumper assembly and outer shell would be moveable independently of one another to absorb shock from different directions.
Veenstra, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the outer shell and bumper assembly are moveable independently of one another (see at least Figs. 2-3, [0022] - The frame 6 is attached to the base part 1 by means of four helical springs 7 (two springs 7 are shown), so that the frame 6 can move in horizontal direction. The springs 7 are relative rigid, so that a relatively large force is required to displace the frame 6 with respect to the base part 1. At the front side of the module (in FIG. 1 the right side and in FIGS. 2 and 3 the left side) the frame 6 carries a bumper 8, while the frame carries a bumper 9 at the rear side of the module. The two bumpers 8,9 are attached to the frame 6 by means of helical springs 10,11 (represented in FIGS. 2 and 3), so that each bumper 8,9 can be displaced from its extended position (shown in FIG. 2) towards the frame 6 against the pushing force of the springs 10,11. Thereby, each bumper 8,9 will contact a micro switch 12,13, which micro switch 12,13 detects the displacement of the bumper 8,9.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Veenstra into the invention of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the freedom of maneuvering and allow the mobile device more freedom to move in order to escape from the trapped position (Veenstra – [0008, 0023]).
Regarding claim 20, Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a force required to move the bumper assembly relative to the chassis is less than a force required to move the outer shell relative to the chassis.
Veenstra, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein a force required to move the bumper assembly relative to the chassis is less than a force required to move the outer shell relative to the chassis (see at least Figs. 2-3, [0022] - The frame 6 is attached to the base part 1 by means of four helical springs 7 (two springs 7 are shown), so that the frame 6 can move in horizontal direction. The springs 7 are relative rigid, so that a relatively large force is required to displace the frame 6 with respect to the base part 1. At the front side of the module (in FIG. 1 the right side and in FIGS. 2 and 3 the left side) the frame 6 carries a bumper 8, while the frame carries a bumper 9 at the rear side of the module. The two bumpers 8,9 are attached to the frame 6 by means of helical springs 10,11 (represented in FIGS. 2 and 3), so that each bumper 8,9 can be displaced from its extended position (shown in FIG. 2) towards the frame 6 against the pushing force of the springs 10,11. Thereby, each bumper 8,9 will contact a micro switch 12,13, which micro switch 12,13 detects the displacement of the bumper 8,9.).
The motivation to combine Kim and Veenstra is the same as in the rejection of claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection which has been necessitated by the amendments does not rely on any 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, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Johnson (US 2022/0225854 A1) is directed to an autonomous floor cleaner that can include a brush chamber, a brush roll rotatably mounted in the brush chamber, a controller adapted to control the operation of the autonomous floor cleaner, and a fluid delivery system with a supply tank and at least one fluid distributor configured to deposit cleaning fluid onto a surface to be cleaned.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669