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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11 are currently pending. Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claim Objections
In claim 1, consider --[[and]] the support wall abuts against the illuminator support--.
In claim 3, consider --further comprising an illuminator cover, wherein the illuminator cover is made of a material transparent to the light emitted by the illuminator--.
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:
“blocking member” in claims 9, and 11, corresponding to blocking member as illustrated in instant fig. 2, (i.e., a partition).
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-3, and 6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 which incorporates the limitations of claims 11-12) of U.S. Patent No. US 11864699 B2 in view of Gao (CN 205336383 U) and Chen (US 20090141461 A1).
Instant Application
Referenced Patent
1. (Currently amended) A cleaning apparatus, comprising: a device body; a bumper connected to the device body and comprising a bumper opening, the bumper opening comprising a photography opening and an illuminator opening; a camera oriented towards outside of the device body through the photography opening, the camera configured to pick up an image of the environment for object recognition; and an illuminator oriented outside of the device body through the illuminator opening, the illuminator configured to emit light to illuminate at least part of a recognition area of the camera, wherein the camera is mounted on the device body through a camera support, the illuminator is mounted on the device body through an illuminator support, the camera support and the illuminator support are separate elements, the camera support is provided with a support wall, having a positioning post, the illuminator support is provided with a positioning hole, and the support wall abuts against the illuminator support, and the positioning post passes through the positioning hole, to fix the illuminator support on the camera support.
11. A cleaning apparatus, comprising:
a device body; a bumper, connected to the device body and comprising a bumper opening; a camera, mounted on the device body; and an illuminator, disposed below the camera and mounted on the device body;
wherein both the camera and the illuminator are oriented outside of the device body through single bumper opening, wherein a mounting component is disposed outside of the device body and provided with a blocking member.
2. The cleaning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the illuminator opening is disposed in front of the illuminator such that light emitted by the illuminator and passing through the illuminator opening illuminates at least part of the recognition area of the camera.
12. The cleaning apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the mounting component is provided with an illuminator opening, which is disposed in front of the illuminator such that light emitted by the illuminator and passing through the illuminator opening illuminates at least part of a recognition area of the camera.
3. the illuminator cover is made of a material transparent to the light emitted by the illuminator.
13. The cleaning apparatus according to claim 12, wherein an illuminator cover is disposed at the illuminator opening, and the illuminator cover is made of a material transparent to the light emitted by the illuminator.
The difference in instant claim 1 with the instant limitation “the bumper opening comprising a photography opening and an illuminator opening” from the referenced patent is obvious from the arrangement recited in the referenced patent of “the camera and the illuminator are oriented outside of the device body through single bumper opening”, “mounting component is disposed outside of the device body and provided with a blocking member” and “the mounting component is provided with an illuminator opening, which is disposed in front of the illuminator such that light emitted by the illuminator and passing through the illuminator opening illuminates at least part of a recognition area of the camera” as it can be considered that there is a separate illuminator opening with a cover as part of the mounting component outside the device body, and because the illuminator and camera are arranged through a bumper opening.
The difference in instant claim 1 regarding “a camera oriented towards outside of the device body through the photography opening, the camera configured to pick up an image of the environment for object recognition” is obvious over the referenced patent because the referenced patent recites “the camera and the illuminator are oriented outside of the device body through single bumper opening”, and because the camera would functionally be able to pick up an image of the outside environment as it is oriented towards the outside.
Regarding the difference in instant claim 1 of “the photography opening is disposed outside of the camera” this is implied by the structure of “the camera and the illuminator are oriented outside of the device body through single bumper opening” of the reference patent, and as noted above, the presence of a separate illuminator opening.
Regarding, the limitation in instant claim 1 of wherein the camera is mounted on the device body through a camera support, the illuminator is mounted on the device body through an illuminator support, the camera support is provided with a support wall, Gao, in the same field of endeavor, related to robotic cleaners, provides of wherein the camera is mounted on the device body through a camera support (camera 2, fig. 1, [0023] is mounted on a camera support formed by a bottom surface of 1, fig .1 that connects to the overall body as shown by the upper part of fig. 2), the illuminator is mounted on the device body through an illuminator support (is mounted on the body though the plate of 3 fig. 2 and 4, also described as PCB board 31 [0023]) , the camera support is provided with a support wall (the bottom surface of the camera support on which the camera is mounted can be considered a wall). Gao teaches this arrangement improves intelligent cleaning at night ([0004]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the reference patent with camera and illuminator support of Gao, for the purpose of improving intelligent cleaning at night.
As for the specifics of the camera support is provided with a support wall having a positioning post, the illuminator support is provided with a positioning hole, the support wall abuts against the illuminator support, and the positioning post passes through the positioning hole, to fix the illuminator support on the camera support, Chen, reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved of assembly of electronic components, teaches of providing a circuit subassembly (200, fig. 2A, [0022], analogous to an illuminator support in being a circuit board [a PCB or printed circuit board is a type of circuit board]) with a positioning hole (210, fig .2A, [0022]), and a camera support with a support wall (support 101, fig .2, [0022], is analogous to instant camera support where components are mounted on, with a support wall on the top surface of 110, where 112 protrudes from) with a positioning post (post 112, on support wall as part of or an extension of the support wall consistent with the instant disclosure), the support wall abuts against the illuminator support (as assembled in fig. 3A), the positioning post passes through the positioning hole (also shown in ann. fig. 3a, where the dome shaped post passes through the hole). Chen teaches that this arrangement allows quick assembly of electronic components and saves labor ([0030]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the reference patent with the positioning hole and post arrangement of Chen, for the purpose of quick assembly of electronic components and saves labor. The result would be that the illuminator support is fixed on the camera support though the way Chen describes the mounting (a post extending from a bottom support to hold the PCB/illuminator support)
Regarding claim 6, wherein the illuminator is a surface mounted illuminator, this limitation is implied by the limitation in the reference patent claim 13, with “an illuminator, disposed below the camera and mounted on the device body” as the device body, being physically existing has a surface (on which the illuminator is directly or indirectly mounted).
Claim 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. US 11864699 B2 in view of Gao (CN 205336383 U) and Chen (US 20090141461 A1) further in view of Nam (US 20170336798 A1),
Regarding claim 5, the reference patent in claims 11-13 does not explicitly disclose wherein the illuminator and the camera are disposed apart, the illuminator is disposed farther from the device body with respect to the camera. Nam teaches of wherein the illuminator and the camera are disposed apart (camera 132c, fig. 5; [0076]), the illuminator is disposed farther from the device body with respect to the camera (132a, 132b, figs. 5-6 are further protruding than camera 132c, [0076]). Nam teaches that this arrangement provides for illuminators which can illuminate different regions with intersecting linear beams ([0080-0081]), and provides for positioning that does not interfere with photography ([0108]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the reference patent with the teachings of Nam regarding a camera and illuminator disposed apart, illuminator is disposed farther from the device body with respect to the camera, because this arrangement provides for different regions of illuminating, and positioning that does not interfere with photography.
Claim 7-9 and 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. US 11864699 B2 in view of Gao (CN 205336383 U) and Chen (US 20090141461 A1) and further in view of Kim (US 20140304937 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the reference patent in claims 11-13 does not explicitly disclose wherein the camera and the illuminator are respectively disposed in a first chamber and a second chamber which are separated from each other. Kim, in the same field of endeavor, relating to camera structures for robotic cleaners, teaches of wherein the camera and the illuminator are respectively disposed in a first chamber and a second chamber which are separated from each other (see camera 311, in a separate chamber with an opening, separate from illuminator 310, fig. 5, divided by wall 32; the overall arrangement providing a mounting component where the camera and illuminator are disposed within). Kim teaches that providing a partitioning the camera from the illuminator would shield the light from the sensor and prevent error in sensing ([0065-0066], the illuminator provided in slit 321, formed by wall 32).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the reference patent with the teachings of Kim, and have placed the camera and the illuminator are respectively disposed in a first chamber and a second chamber which are separated from each other, to prevent light from the illuminator from causing error in sensing by the camera.
Regarding claim 8, the reference patent modified by Kim, teaches of mounting component provided with an opening of the first chamber, which forms the photography opening (Kim, camera 311, separate chamber with an opening, separate from illuminator 310, fig. 5, the camera has an opening/photography opening to be able to sense; it is noted that in claim 13 of the reference patent).
Regarding claim 9, the reference patent modified by Kim, teaches of wherein the mounting component is provided with a blocking member which forms separation between the first chamber and the second chamber (Kim, wall 32, fig. 5; [0065-0066]; 112(f) equivalent to instant blocking member as partition).
Regarding claim 11, the reference patent provides for “a mounting component is disposed outside of the device body and provided with a blocking member” in claim 11; however, does not explicitly describe that the “blocking member which forms separation between the camera and the illuminator”. Kim, in the same field of endeavor, relating to camera structures for robotic cleaners, teaches of wherein the camera and the illuminator are respectively disposed in different chambers which are separated from each other by a wall/blocking member (see camera 311, in a separate chamber with an opening, separate from illuminator 310, fig. 5, divided by wall 32; wall 32 is 112(f) equivalent to instant blocking member as partition). Kim teaches that providing a partitioning the camera from the illuminator would shield the light from the sensor and prevent error in sensing ([0065-0066], the illuminator provided in slit 321, formed by wall 32).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the reference patent with the teachings of Kim, such that the blocking member “blocking member forms [a] separation between the camera and the illuminator”, to prevent error in sensing.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (CN 205336383 U) in view of Chen (US 20090141461 A1) and Tang (CN 105615778 B).
With respect to claim 1, Gao discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
506
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 1 (Gao)
PNG
media_image2.png
290
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 2 (Gao)
A cleaning apparatus ([0004] described a sweeping robot, however since the body of the claim is structurally complete, the preamble is not limiting - see MPEP 2111.02), comprising:
a device body (ann. fig. 2 above);
a bumper connected to the device body and comprising multiple bumper openings (bumper as shown in ann. fig. 2 above, with openings at 11 and 12, fig. 2, [0023]) the bumper including a photography opening and an illuminator opening (photography opening at 12 and infrared illuminator opening 11, fig. 2, [0023]);
a camera oriented towards outside of the device body through the photography opening (fog.1 shows the camera pointed outward with lens 23, [0023]), the camera configured to pick up an image of an environment for object recognition ([0026] describes the camera as a sweeper eyes which views a dark environment, for objects such as sofa seats in [0004]);
and an illuminator oriented outside of the device body through the illuminator opening (the illuminator as in [0008] is configured to view outside the window), the illuminator configured to emit light to illuminate at least part of a recognition area of the camera (the illuminator as in [0008] is configured to view outside the window which as in [0004,0026] provides for night vision for the camera - illuminating the camera view),
wherein the camera is mounted on the device body through a camera support (ann. fig .1, above)
the illuminator is mounted on the device body through an illuminator support (ann. fig. 1, above, specifically the PCB 31, fig. 4; [0023]),
the camera support and the illuminator support are separate elements (as shown in figs. 1 and 4, the illuminator support is attached to the camera support through posts and at screw holes 313, figs 1 and 4, [0025]),
the illuminator support is provided with a positioning hole, (screw holes 313, figs 1 and 4, [0025]),
Gao does not explicitly teach a [single] bumper opening, the bumper opening comprising [both] a photography opening and an illuminator opening; the camera support is provided with a support wall having a positioning post, and the support wall abuts against the illuminator support, and the positioning post passes through the positioning hole, to fix the illuminator support on the camera support.
As for the specifics of a [single] bumper opening, the bumper opening comprising [both] a photography opening and an illuminator opening, Tang, in the same field of endeavor, provides for a bumper recess (single opening at 12, fig, 3, described on the last 6 lines of page 4, and the first 5 lines of page 5 as for both the camera 2 and infrared lamp 10), with both a photography opening and an illuminator opening (as shown at 12, in fig. 3, the leader line points to two separate openings in the recess, and further there is a dustproof cover 4 that separates the camera 2 and lamp 10, fig. 2 page 4 lines 23-25, that correspond to the two different openings in the recess of 12, fig. 3). Tang teaches that this arrangement improves upon a problem of night vision, and makes the camera and illuminator more discrete [less visible] to the user (page 2 lines 8-27).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Gao with the camera and illuminator opening of Tang, for the reasons of improving upon night vision, and making the camera and illuminator more discrete.
As for the camera support is provided with a support wall having a positioning post, and the support wall abuts against the illuminator support, and the positioning post passes through the positioning hole, to fix the illuminator support on the camera support, Chen, reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved of assembly of electronic components, teaches of a camera support with a support wall (support 101, fig .2, [0022], is analogous to camera support of Gao where components are mounted on, including through the use of posts, with a support wall on the [flat] top surface of 110, where 112 protrudes from) with a positioning post (post 112, on support wall as part of or an extension of the support wall consistent with the instant disclosure), providing a circuit subassembly (200, fig. 2, [0022], analogous to an illuminator support in being a circuit board [a PCB or printed circuit board is a type of circuit board]) with a positioning hole (210, fig .2, [0022]), and the support wall abuts against the illuminator support (as assembled in fig. 3A), the positioning post passes through the positioning hole (also shown in ann. fig. 3a, where the dome shaped post passes through the hole). Chen teaches that this arrangement allows quick assembly of electronic components and saves labor ([0030]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Gao with the positioning hole and post arrangement of Chen, for the purpose of quick assembly of electronic components and saves labor. The result would be that the illuminator support is fixed on the camera support though the way Chen describes the mounting (a post extending from a bottom support to hold the PCB/illuminator support).
With respect to claim 2, Gao, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches: wherein the illuminator opening is disposed in front of the illuminator such that light emitted by the illuminator and passing through the illuminator opening illuminates at least part of the recognition area of the camera (Gao, the infrared illuminator opening 11, fig. 2, [0023] allows infrared light to pass through [by including a window], is then configured to view outside the window which as in [0004,0026] provides for night vision for the camera - illuminating the camera view).
With respect to claim 3, Gao, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches: the illuminator cover is made of a material transparent to the light emitted by the illuminator (Gao, the illuminator is provided with a cover in the form of a window 11, fig. 1 [0023], which is at where the opening is [for clarity, the window forms the opening - which is clarified in [0017] as a mouth], and because it allows the infrared through, to function, it is transparent to infrared light; alternatively the lens on the outside of 33, fig. 4, [0023] on the infrared lamps itself can be considered a cover that is transparent to the light)..
With respect to claim 6, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses: wherein the illuminator is a surface mounted illuminator (Gao, illuminator 3, fig. 1 is surface mounted in that it does not free float in space, therefore being mounted on a surface of some kind and is attached through posts and at screw holes 313, figs 1 and 4, [0025]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (CN 205336383 U) in view of Chen (US 20090141461 A1) and Tang (CN 105615778 B), and further in view of Nam (US 20170336798 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Gao, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the illuminator and the camera are disposed apart (Gao, see fig. 1 with position of camera 2 and illuminator 3; [0023]), however does not explicitly teach the illuminator is disposed farther from the device body with respect to the camera.
Nam teaches of wherein the illuminator and the camera are disposed apart (camera 132c, fig. 5; [0076]), the illuminator is disposed farther from the device body with respect to the camera (132a, 132b, figs. 5-6 are further protruding than camera 132c, [0076]). Nam teaches that this arrangement provides for illuminators which can illuminate different regions with intersecting linear beams ([0080-0081]), and provides for positioning that does not interfere with photography ([0108]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the Gao with the teachings of Nam regarding a camera and illuminator disposed apart, illuminator is disposed farther from the device body with respect to the camera, because this arrangement provides for different regions of illuminating, and positioning that does not interfere with photography.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (CN 205336383 U) in view of Chen (US 20090141461 A1) and Tang (CN 105615778 B), and further in view of Kim (US 20140304937 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Gao, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the camera and the illuminator are respectively disposed in a first chamber and a second chamber which are separated from each other.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, relating to camera structures for robotic cleaners, teaches of wherein the camera and the illuminator are respectively disposed in a first chamber and a second chamber which are separated from each other (see camera 311, in a separate chamber with an opening, separate from illuminator 310, fig. 5, divided by wall 32; [0062] the overall arrangement, the partitions wall 32 dividing the camera and illuminator, providing a mounting component where the camera and illuminator are disposed within). Kim teaches that providing a partitioning the camera from the illuminator would shield the light from the sensor and prevent error in sensing ([0065-0066], the illuminator provided in slit 321, formed by wall 32).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the Gao with the teachings of Kim, and have placed the camera and the illuminator are respectively disposed in a first chamber and a second chamber which are separated from each other, to prevent light from the illuminator from causing error in sensing by the camera.
With respect to claim 8, Gao, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 7 above, and further teaches further comprising a mounting component provided with an opening of the first chamber, which forms the photography opening (as described in the rejection of claim 7, above the overall arrangement of Kim, specifically the partition wall 32 dividing the camera and illuminator provides for a mounting component that results in an opening of the first chamber where the camera and illuminator is disposed within).
With respect to claim 9, Gao, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 8 above, and further teaches wherein the mounting component is provided with a blocking member which forms separation between the first chamber and the second chamber (Kim, partition wall 32, fig. 5, is part of the mounting component, the partition is a 112(f) equivalent because it is a wall)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (CN 205336383 U) in view of Chen (US 20090141461 A1) Tang (CN 105615778 B), and Nam (US 20170336798 A1), and further in view of Kim (US 20140304937 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Gao, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, however does not explicitly teach further comprising a blocking member which forms separation between the camera and the illuminator.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, relating to camera structures for robotic cleaners, teaches of wherein the camera and the illuminator are respectively disposed separate chambers divided by a wall (see camera 311, in a separate chamber with an opening, separate from illuminator 310, fig. 5, divided by wall 32; [0062], the wall being a 112(f) equivalent to a blocking member as a partition). Kim teaches that providing a partitioning the camera from the illuminator would shield the light from the sensor and prevent error in sensing ([0065-0066], the illuminator provided in slit 321, formed by wall 32).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the Gao with the teachings of Kim, and have a blocking member which forms separation between the camera and the illuminator, to reduce error in sensing caused by the light.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the double patenting rejection (response page 5-6), the applicant argues that the secondary prior art references cannot be applied because they are under different ownership, and because they were not issued as a patent. MPEP 804 (B)(II)(3) provides that “Any secondary reference used to support an obviousness analysis for a nonstatutory double patenting rejection must be prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102”. It is not required that the secondary references be under the same ownership or issued as a patent.
Regarding the amended claim 1 (response pages 8-10), the examiner respectfully submits that the arguments are rendered moot in view of the rejection above, as Kim and Jin are not applied to instant claim 1. Instead, the examiner submits that Gao provides for much of the argued structure, including a camera and illuminator support that are separate. Chen is used to provide for the teachings of having a camera support and illuminator support with a corresponding hole and post, that meet the claimed limitations, when applied to a illuminator support, that is mounted onto a camera support, for quick assembly (the instant illuminator support is also mounted onto a camera support from behind).
Conclusion
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 Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights