DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicant’s remark on January 15th, 2026.
Claims 4 and 10 – 17 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9 and 18 are amended.
Claims 1 - 3, 5- 9 and 18 – 20.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 3 and 5 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
It is also noted that dependent claims based upon the rejected claims are also rejected based upon the dependency.
Regarding claim 1, applicant newly recited claim limitation regarding, “a light toward…a moving direction…a direction…keeps the image size fixed…the direction is parallel” does not distinctly and particularly set forth for what or which “the direction” is referring to as whether directs a light toward a moving direction or a direction keeps the image fixed that ought to be set forth particularly distinctly.
Further proper antecedent basis clarification is required if light toward a moving direction and a moving direction keeps image size fixed are the same in context. Please also see MPEP 2173.05(e) Similarly, if two different levers are recited earlier in the claim, the recitation of "said lever" in the same or subsequent claim would be unclear where it is uncertain which of the two levers was intended. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
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 1, 2 and 5 – 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US Pat Pub No.2018/0174322) in view of Noh et al (US Pat Pub No. 2016/0098039).
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).
Noh et al further shows a light emitting diode configured to emit light toward a moving direction of the cleaning robot (See at least Para 0031 for photodiode for image sensor, CCD/CMOS 121/120 also shown on figure 1 as pointing forward direction),
the direction is parallel to a surface of the obstacle (See at least figure 2 and 6 for the direction of image intended to be captured as in horizontal line parallel bottom and top surface of obstacle also on Para 0036 and 0037),
the light source is turned off when the light emitting led is turned on (See at least Para 0032 for image sensor using rolling shutter method with pixels sequentially exposed with method satisfying the SNR optimizing the output timing of laser light on Para 0040;
also on figure 7 further exhibited at the bottom x-axis for laser/light source time on/off where the exposure time of the rolling shutter when camera/LED on is at the LD, laser light, off also discussed on Para 0042 - 0046).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide the LED emitting light, for the front direction of robot as taught by Noh, to the front of the robot since it would have provided image forward object detection along with accurate image capture exposure as desired by Hu, at the time of filing.
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 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 7, Noh et al further shows the calculate the signal noise ratio of the image (See at least Para 0038 – 0040 for calculate the signal noise ratio).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide the LED emitting light, for the front direction of robot as taught by Noh, to the front of the robot since it would have provided image forward object detection along with accurate image capture exposure as desired by Hu, at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 9, Hu shows the camera lens is configured to emit light right ahead of the moving direction (See at least figure 2 for the camera lens 30 in the forward direction of robot also on Para 00109 ),
the light source is configured to emit light with a deep angle (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, provided by laser beam 21 in the range wider than the robot diameter as in wide angle exploited by the image capture using lens 30 - also in deep angle on Para 0017 – 0019); Hu does not further show the camera is with light emitting diode.
Noh further shows camera with light emitting diode to emit light (See at least Para 0031 for photodiode for image sensor, CCD/CMOS 121/120 also shown on figure 1 as pointing forward direction).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide the LED emitting light, for the front direction of robot as taught by Noh, to the front of the robot since it would have provided image forward object detection along with accurate image capture exposure as desired by Hu, at the time of filing.
Claims 3, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu modified 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.
Noh et al further shows the first light source is turned off when the light emitting diode turned on (See at least Para 0032 for image sensor using rolling shutter method with pixels sequentially exposed with method satisfying the SNR optimizing the output timing of laser light on Para 0040; also on figure 7 further exhibited at the bottom x-axis for laser/light source time on/off where the exposure time of the rolling shutter when camera/LED on is at the LD, laser light, off also discussed on Para 0042 - 0046). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide the LED emitting light, for the front direction of robot as taught by Noh, to the front of the robot since it would have provided image forward object detection along with accurate image capture exposure as desired by Hu, at the time of filing.
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 modified, 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 modified and Piot.
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).
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu modified in view of Lee et al (US Pat Pub No. 2009/0185800).
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 remark that applicant newly proposed claim limitation further commensurate to previously indicated allowable subject matter and thus are subjected to allowable condition; however, upon further review, applicant’s remark does not particularly comprehensive.
It is noted that each claim limitation as previously indicated allowable requires each and every claim limitation in precedent claim limitation incorporated.
Thus, in this instant case, applicant’s attention is directed to applicant newly supplied claim 7, subjected to incorporate with independent claim as previously required; however, upon further review, applicant’s attention is directed to Page 2 above where applicant newly recited claim limitation is now addressed.
In this instant case, newly recited reference Noh et al exhibited a forward image captured method while encountering the obstacle using external laser light projected utilizing light source (including Light source and OPPE) and camera (photodiode and imager) aiming to eliminating noise using Signal Noise Ratio, SNR, implementing rolling shutter method for camera sequentially detected where the exposure light from camera as the light on/off along with external light source on/off also exhibited on figure 7 for image light exposure elimination upon obstacle where the exposure of the camera on with laser light source off. Applicant’s attention is directed to Page 5 above where applicant newly recited claim limitation is now addressed.
It is also further noted that applicant’s attention is further directed to 37 CFR 1.121 (c) Claims. Especially for applicant submitted amended claim 7 status indication dated on June 3rd, 2026, Page 3.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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