DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicant’s remark on January 15th, 2026.
Claims 1 – 10 and 18 – 20, Species I, are elected with traverse with respect to previously supplied election requirement supplied on December 15th, 2025.
Claims 11 – 17 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s attention is further directed to Page 13 below where applicant’s remark has been further addressed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the recited claim limitation regarding, “deep angle” and “elevation angle” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu (US Pat Pub No.2018/0174322).
Regarding claim 1, Hu et shows a cleaning robot (See at least Para 0002 for cleaning robot also on figure 2) comprising:
a diffractive optical element (See at least Para 0006 and 0007 for diffractive optical element DOE);
a light source configured to emit light through the diffractive optical element to project a horizontal line pattern (See at least Para 0007 for laser light source through DOE creating transverse line 23 with respect to x axis on Para 0021 and figure 4);
an image sensor configured to acquire an image containing the horizontal line pattern (See at least Para 0019 for lense 30 capture image also on figure 2);
a processor configured to calculate an image size of an obstacle in the image (See at least Para 0020 for image processing unit 40 with 3D obstacle image size calculated in obstacle width based on the distance and position),
control the cleaning robot to move in a direction that keeps the image size fixed (See at least Para 0028 - 0031 for robot path detection system 20 for setting fixed angle light source and height difference predetermined capturing the image by image processing unit 40 during robot navigation control on Para 0023 ; also on Para 0030 for projection distance fixed for image capture).
Regarding claim 2, Hu shows the image sensor has a wide-angle lens to cause a field of view of the image sensor to be larger than a diameter of the cleaning robot (See at least figure 3 for image in forward path area 3 as the field of view, wider/larger than the diameter of the robot, captured by lens 30 on Para 0019 as wide angle lens).
Regarding claim 4, Hu shows the direction is parallel to a surface of the obstacle (See at least figure 4 for line 23 parallel to surface 22).
Regarding claim 5, Hu the processor is configured to calculate a relative distance from the obstacle upon the cleaning robot being moving toward the obstacle (See at least Para 0024 for relative distance calculation based on the transverse computation line on Para 0007).
Regarding claim 6, Hu shows the processor is configured to turn the cleaning robot to move in the direction when the relative distance is identical to a predetermined distance (See at least Para 0023 for predetermined distance with respect to relative distance for indoor mapping navigation without obstacle collision).
Regarding claim 19, Hu shows the processor is configured to change the moving direction to not toward the obstacle upon the relative distance being identical to a predetermined distance (See at least Para 0002 and 0007 for avoid collision with detected respective obstacle using the light projection upon the forward path based on the transverse line 23 detected upon front path with predetermined distance also on Para 0023 also on figure 2 and 3 for directional change P).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US Pat Pub No. 2018/0174322) in view of Piot (US Pat Pub No. 2005/0168445).
Regarding claim 3, Hu shows diffractive optical element (See at least Para 0006 and 0007 for diffractive optical element DOE);
Piot et al further shows another diffractive optical element (See at least Para 0052 for diffractive microlens array 360 as another diffractive optical element); another light source configured to emit light through the another diffractive optical element to project a speckle pattern (See at least Para 0012 for speckles pattern with light from coherent source),
the processor is configured to obtain two-dimensional distance information according to the speckle pattern (See at least Para 0013 for distance from lens to image plane).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide further optical positioning sensing as taught by Piot, toward the robot optical position sensing of Hu, in order to provide known optical positioning element of Piot, to the known optical positioning element of Hu, in order to yield predictable optical positioning result as desired and discussed by both Hu and Piot.
Regarding claim 18, Hu shows a cleaning robot comprising:
a first diffractive optical element (See at least Para 0006 and 0007 for diffractive optical element DOE);
a first light source configured to emit light through the first diffractive optical element to project a line pattern on an obstacle in a moving direction (See at least Para 0007 for laser light source through DOE creating transverse line 23 with respect to x axis on Para 0021 and figure 4);
a processor configured to calculate a relative distance from the obstacle according to the line pattern captured in the image (See at least Para 0024 for relative distance calculation based on the transverse computation line on Para 0007);
a light emitting diode configured to illuminate light with an emission angle to form a bright region on the obstacle in the moving direction (See at least Para 0007 for laser light source as from laser diode forming light source region as structured light projected upon the moving path/area as the bright region encountering obstacle on Para 0023);
an image sensor configured to acquire an image with a field of view toward the moving direction (See at least figure 3 for image in forward path area 3 as the field of view captured by lens 30 on Para 0019);
identify the relative distance from the obstacle according to an area of the bright region captured in the image (See at least Para 0024 for relative distance calculation based on the transverse computation line based upon light source projection on the forward path 3 as on Para 0007 and 0019); however, Hu does not further discuss the secondary diffractive element for speckle pattern.
Piot further shows a second diffractive optical element (See at least Para 0052 for diffractive microlens array 360 as another diffractive optical element);
a second light source configured to emit light through the second diffractive optical element to project a speckle pattern toward the moving direction (See at least Para 0012 for speckles pattern with light from coherent source; also on Para 0020 for detecting motion of the optical device 130);
obtain two-dimensional distance information according to the speckle pattern captured in the image (See at least Para 0060 for speckle field image obtained in relation to x-y plane with image displacement translation with correlation calculation).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide further optical positioning sensing as taught by Piot, toward the robot optical position sensing of Hu, in order to provide known optical positioning element using speckle of Piot, to the known optical positioning element of Hu, in order to yield predictable optical positioning calculation as desired and discussed by both Hu and Piot.
Claims 7, 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US Pat Pub No. 2018/0174322) in view of Lee et al (US Pat Pub No. 2009/0185800).
Regarding claim 7, Hu shows a light emitting diode configured to emit light toward a moving direction of the cleaning robot (See at least Para 0007 for laser light source as from laser diode),
Lee et al further shows the processor is configured to calculate a signal-to-noise ratio of the image (See at least Para 0058 for image signal noise ratio calculated by processor).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide a signal noise ratio for the object image captured by Lee et al, in order to correct and precise object distance calculation, as providing an known technique of object distance precising desired by the moving navigation utilizing captured image known method of Hu.
Regarding claim 8, Hu shows the processor is configured to turn on the light emitting diode and calculate a relative distance (See at least Para 0023 for relative distance calculated with laser light projection);
Lee et al further shows turn on the light according to a bright region area in the image upon the signal-to-noise ratio exceeding a predetermined threshold range (See at least Para 0010, 0012 for determining optimal exposure of a structured light/projecting means as turn on/off in dark/bright environment on Para 0008; also on Para 0013 for brightness SNR exceeding threshold toward a projected area on Para 0058).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide a signal noise ratio for the object image captured by Lee et al, in order to correct and precise object distance calculation, as providing an known technique of object distance precising desired by the moving navigation utilizing captured image known method of Hu.
Regarding claim 20, Hu et al shows turn on the first light source yet does not further discuss light source on/off determination;
Lee et al further the processor is configured to calculate a signal-to-noise ratio of the image to determine whether to turn on the light source (See at least Para 0010, 0012 for determining optimal exposure of a structured light/projecting means as turn on/off in dark/bright environment on Para 0008; also on Para 0013 for brightness SNR exceeding threshold toward a projected area on Para 0058).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide light turn on/off timing utilizing image analyze in Lee et al, in order to provide a clear image as providing an known technique by analyzing image noise ratio as desired by moving navigation utilizing captured image, an known method to yield a predictable result for Hu.
Response to Argument
In response to applicant’s remark and election with traverse of election requirement in the reply filed on January 15th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that subject matter of Species I and II are sufficiently related in one group and would not made serious burden for skilled in the art;
however, applicant’s remark does not find particularly persuasive because while both Species I and II related to one group of robot cleaner, the internal structure and design are widely different in concept and design and thus require further search divergent subject matter focus with multiple technology area classified by USPC or CPC classification and thus are not particularly persuasive.
Further, due the complexity different structure design within each species, skilled in the art indeed feel the burden where each individual robot structure design nature requires to be searched independently in multiple and thus applicant’s remark does not particularly persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the parent limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian JEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3274. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 5712703976. 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
/Ian Jen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights