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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/12/2023 and 09/24/2024 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 30-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 30, the limitations “guidance wire segments”, “a pair of the guidance wire segments” and “a pair of the wire segments” as recited in lines 5-7 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether they are related to each other. Applicant is suggested to use “the” or “said” to refer to the same claimed subject matter that has been introduced, and use different terminology to refer to different claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 31, the limitation “said guidance wire segments” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it is referring to “two adjacent guidance wire segments” as recited in the claim, or one of the “wire segments” as recited in claim 30.
Regarding claim 32, the limitation “the first functional portion and the second functional portion construct a pair of the guidance wire segments of the guidance cables into an electrical circuit” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which pair of “wire segments” as recited in claim 30 the limitation is referring to.
Regarding claim 33, the limitations “two first functional portions are provided”, “the pair of first wire segments are electrically connected to the pair of guidance wire segments respectively” render the claim indefinite because of the following reasons:
The claim fails to clearly define relationship between “two first functional portions” recited in the claim and “first functional portion” recited in claim 32;
The claim fails to clearly define which one of the “wire segments” as recited in claims 30 and 32 the limitation is referring to.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “two first functional portions with the pair of first segments are provided” renders the claim indefinite because of the following reasons:
The claim fails to clearly define relationship between “two first functional portions” recited in the claim and “first functional portion” recited in claims 32 and 33;
The claim fails to provide sufficient antecedence basis for “the pair of first segments”, and it is unclear whether the limitation is referring to one of the defined “wire segments” in claims 30 and 32, or “pair of first wire segment” in claim 33;
The claim fails to clearly define relationship between “two second functional portions” recited in the claim and “second functional portion” recited in claim 32.
Regarding claim 35, the limitations “one first functional portion”, “the other first functional portion is a first connecting wire segment connecting the pair of guidance wire segments” and “one second functional portion” render the claim indefinite because of the following reasons:
the claim fails to clearly define relationship between “one first functional portion” and “the other first functional portion” as recited in the claim, and “two first functional portions” recited in the claims 33 and 34;
it is unclear which one of the “guidance wire segments” as recited in claims 30-34 the limitation is referring to;
the claim fails to clearly define relationship between “one second functional portion” as recited in the claim, and “second functional portions” as recited in the claim 32.
Regarding claim 36, the limitations “the second functional portion” and “the two guidance wire segments symmetrical relative to the centerline are connected to the same second wire segment” render the claim indefinite because of the following reasons:
The claim fails to clearly define relationship between “the second functional portion” as recited in the claim and “second functional portion” as recited in claims 32 and 35;
The claim fails to clearly define whether “the two guidance wire segments” recited in the claim is referring to which one of the “two guidance wire segments in different said guidance cables” as recited in the claim, and “guidance wire segments” as recited in claims 30, 32, and 35.
Regarding claim 38, the limitations “one first functional portion” and “the two guidance wire segments symmetrical relative to the centerline are connected to the same first wire segment” render the claim indefinite because of the following reasons:
The claim fails to clearly define relationship between “one first functional portion” as recited in the claim and “a first functional portion” as recited in claim 32;
The claim fails to clearly define whether “the two guidance wire segments” recited in the claim is referring to which one of the “two guidance wire segments in the different guidance cables” as recited in the claim, and “guidance wire segments” as recited in claims 30 and 32.
Regarding claim 39, the limitations “two second functional portions” and “a pair of second wire segments extending obliquely towards the centerline” render the claim indefinite because of the following reasons:
The claim fails to clearly define relationship between “two second functional portion” as recited in the claim and “a second functional portion” as recited in claim 32;
The meaning of wire segments extending “obliquely” towards the centerline is unclear. Does it mean it is extending toward centerline by connecting to extra elements? Does it mean it is extending toward centerline with an angle? If that’s the case, can it be interpret as extending opposite to the centerline with 180 degree offset? The claimed limitation is indefinite because of too many different ways to interpret the claimed limitation; thus, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear.
Regarding claim 40, the limitation “the distance between the pair of guidance wire segments of the guidance cable is D1” renders the claim indefinite because: i) the claim fails to provide sufficient antecedence basis for “the distance”, and ii) there are more than one pair of guidance wire segments defined in claims 30, 32 and 39; it is unclear which pair of guidance wire segments the claimed limitation is referring to.
Regarding claim 41, the limitation “the angle between the second wire segment and the guidance wire segment” renders the claim indefinite because: i) the claim fails to provide sufficient antecedence basis for “the angle”, and ii) there are more than one “second wire segment” and “guidance wire segment”; it is unclear which one of them the claimed limitations are referring to.
Regarding claim 43, the limitation “two second functional portions” render the claim indefinite because: i) the claim fails clearly define relationship between “two second functional portions” as recited in the claim and “a second functional portion” as recited in claim 32, and ii) there are more than one pair of “guidance wire segment”; it is unclear which one of them the claimed limitations are referring to.
Regarding claim 44, the limitations “the pair of guidance wire segments comprises an inner guidance wire segment…an outer guidance wire segment”, “the distances between the sensor and the outer guidance wire segment and the inner guidance wire segment that are located at the same side of the centerline as the sensor are C0 and Ci” and “the distances between the sensor and the outer guidance wire segment and the inner guidance wire segment that are located on two sides of the centerline are F0 and Fi” render the claim indefinite because of the following reasons:
The claim fails to clearly define which of the “sensors” the limitation “the sensor” is referring to when determining distances;
The claim fails to provide sufficient antecedence basis for “the distances”;
Locations of the pair of sensors are not defined, and more than one “inner guidance wire segment” and “outer wire segment” are defined in the claim; it is unclear which one of the sensors as relative to which one of the inner/outer wire segments the claim is referring to when determining the distances.
Claims 37, 42 and 45-49 are indefinite because they are either directly or indirectly depend on claims 30-36, 38-41 and 43-44.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(10 and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bergvall et al. (US 6,465,982 B1).
Regarding claim 30, Bergvall discloses a robot guidance device (e.g. Fig. 1 & Abstract), comprising a pair of guidance cables (e.g. Fig. 1: cables a-b), wherein the pair of guidance cables are disposed symmetrically relative to a centerline (e.g. Fig. 1: cables a-b are symmetrically disposed relative to a centerline from signal generator 3) and spaced apart from each other to form a spacing region (e.g. Fig. 1), and a magnetic field in the spacing region is used to guide a robot to adjust its heading (e.g. Abstract); and the guidance cables each comprises a pair of electrically connected guidance wire segments (e.g. Fig. 1: each of cables a-b comes in a pair), a pair of the guidance wire segments are oppositely disposed and spaced apart from each other, and a direction in which a pair of the guidance wire segments are spaced apart is consistent with a direction in which the pair of guidance cables are spaced apart (e.g. Fig. 1: the portion of cables a-b come out from signal generator 3 that are parallel to each other).
Regarding claim 31, Bergvall discloses directions of current in two adjacent guidance wire segments of each of the guidance cables are opposite, and directions of current in two said guidance wire segments symmetrical relative to the centerline are opposite (e.g. Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 32, Bergvall discloses the guidance device has a first end and a second end along extension directions of the guidance cables; and the guidance device comprises a first functional portion (e.g. Fig. 1: 3) connected to a side of each of the guidance cables facing the first end (e.g. Fig. 1: position of 3 is considered as first end) and a second functional portion (e.g. Fig. 1: loop end of cable b as second end of cable b, and signal generators 4-5 as second end of cable a) connected to a side of each of the guidance cables facing the second end, and the first functional portion and the second functional portion construct a pair of the guidance wire segments of the guidance cables into an electrical circuit (e.g. Fig. 1).
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) 33-36 and 38-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergvall et al. (US 6,465,982 B1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0265718 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Bergvall discloses two first functional portions are provided (e.g. Fig. 1: connections of cables a-b at generator 3 are each considered as one first functional portion).
Bergvall fails to disclose, but Lee teaches at least one of the first functional portions comprises a pair of first wire segments (e.g. Fig. 13: 291a-b); wherein the pair of first wire segments are electrically connected to the pair of guidance wire segments (e.g. Fig. 13: portion of 291a-b directly come out of 200) respectively; and the pair of first wire segments at least partially overlap each other (e.g. Fig. 13: 295 overlap); or the pair of first wire segments are spaced apart (e.g. Fig. 13: 291a-b are spaced apart).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Bergvall with the teachings of Lee to arrange wire segments of cables in a shape that is known in the art to improve accuracy for moving robot to return to charging station (e.g. Lee: [0147-0149]).
Regarding claim 34, Bergvall discloses two first functional portions (e.g. Fig. 1: connections of cables a-b at generator 3 are each considered as one first functional portion), and two second functional portions are provided, and are connected to sides of the pair of guidance cables respectively facing the second end (e.g. Fig. 1: loop end of cable b as second end of cable b, and signal generators 4-5 as second end of cable a).
Lee teaches two first functional portions with the pair of first segments are provided (e.g. Fig. 13: 291a-b), both extend towards the centerline, and are electrically connected to a control module (e.g. Fig. 13: 200).
Regarding claim 35, Bergvall discloses one first functional portion with the pair of first segments is provided (e.g. Fig. 1: connections of cables a-b at generator 3 are each considered as one first functional portion with wire segments), wherein one second functional portion is provided and connected to the pair of guidance cables (e.g. Fig. 1: loop end of cable b as second end of cable b, and signal generators 4-5 as second end of cable a).
And, Lee teaches the other first functional portion is a first connecting wire segment connecting the pair of guidance wire segments (e.g. Fig. 13: 291a-b).
Regarding claim 36, Bergvall discloses the second functional portion comprises a pair of second wire segments oppositely disposed (e.g. Fig. 1: loop end of cable b); two ends of each of the second wire segments are connected to two guidance wire segments in different said guidance cables respectively (e.g. Fig. 1: cables a-b are constructed in different circuits), and the two guidance wire segments symmetrical relative to the centerline (e.g. Fig. 1: a portion of cables a-b are symmetrical relative to the centerline) are connected to the same second wire segment (e.g. lines segments of cable b are connected at loop end of cable b and lines segments of cable a are connected to generators 4-5).
Regarding claim 38, Bergvall discloses the first functional portion (e.g. Fig. 1), and Lee teaches one first functional portion is provided and comprises a pair of first wire segments extending in the same direction (e.g. Fig. 13: first portion of 291a-b come out directly from 200); and two ends of each of the first wire segments are connected to two guidance wire segments (e.g. Fig. 13: 291a-b) in the different guidance cables (would be obvious to have the same line segments as taught by Lee in different cables when viewing in combination with Bergvall) respectively, and the two guidance wire segments symmetrical relative to the centerline are connected to the same first wire segment (e.g. Fig. 13: 291a-b are connected to parallel lines, i.e. portions come out directly from 200).
Regarding claim 39, Bergvall discloses two second functional portions are provided and spaced apart from each other (e.g. Fig. 1: loop end of cable b as second end of cable b, and signal generators 4-5 as second end of cable a); and at least one of the second functional portions comprises a pair of second wire segments extending obliquely towards the centerline (e.g. Fig. 1: wires corresponding to loop portion of cable b); wherein the pair of second wire segments are electrically connected to the pair of guidance wire segments respectively (e.g. Fig. 1: wires of loop portion of cable b are connected to wires of cable b come out directly from generator 3).
Regarding claim 40, Bergvall and Lee both discloses the distance between the pair of guidance wire segments of the guidance cable is D1 (e.g. Fig .1 of Bergvall and Fig. 13 of Lee).
Both Bergvall and Lee fail to explicitly discloses the distance between the pair of second wire segments is D2, wherein 1/2D1<D2<2/3D1.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to implement the wires in a distance spaced apart from each other based on application of the invention (both Bergvall and Lee in their respective drawings show different distance between wires). Applicant does not disclose that the claimed distance solve any particular problem other than the known reasons to improve accuracy and/or design need (e.g. Lee: [0147-0149]); thus, it would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Bergvall and Lee with any suitable wire distance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 41, Lee teaches the angle between the second wire segment and the guidance wire segment connected thereto is a, and 90°<a<180° (e.g. Fig. 13: the incline angle between 291a-b and the portions directly come out of station 200 is about 135 degree).
Regarding claim 42, Lee teaches 100°<a<135° (e.g. Fig. 13: the incline angle between 291a-b and the portions directly come out of station 200 is about 135 degree).
Regarding claim 43, Bergvall discloses two second functional portions are provided (e.g. Fig. 1: loop end of cable b as second end of cable b, and signal generators 4-5 as second end of cable a); and at least one of the second functional portions comprises a second connecting wire segment (e.g. Fig. 1: wires corresponding to loop portion of cable b) connecting the pair of guidance wire segments (Fig. 1: wires of cable b come out directly from generator 3). wherein the second connecting wire segment is an arc wire segment or a straight wire segment (e.g. Fig. 1: loop portion comprises both arc and straight wire segment).
Regarding claims 44-47, Bergvall discloses the pair of guidance wire segments comprises an inner guidance wire segment (e.g. Fig. 1: cable b) closer to the centerline and an outer guidance wire segment (e.g. Fig. 1: cable a) farther from the centerline; a pair of sensors (e.g. Fig. 8: 8, 10 together sense area state 16, 17, 18, 31, 32, 33 of the robot; thus, 8 and 10 are considered as sensors) are disposed on the robot (e.g. Figs. 1-2: 2), which are used to detect a working magnetic field generated by the guidance device and control the robot to adjust its heading according to the detected working magnetic field (e.g. Abstract); and when the pair of sensors are located at symmetrical positions relative to the centerline, the distances between the sensor and the outer guidance wire segment and the inner guidance wire segment that are located on the same side of the centerline as the sensor are CO and Ci, respectively; and the distances between the sensor and the outer guidance wire segment and the inner guidance wire segment that are located on two sides of the centerline are FO and Fi, respectively (e.g. Figs. 1-2: the distance between the sensor of the robot and the cables a-b are inherently disclosed when the robot returning to charging station 3).
Both Bergvall and Lee fail to explicitly discloses the claimed range “Ci<CO<Fi< Fo, 1/2C0<Ci<4/5C0, and 1/2Fi<CO<Fi”.
However, the claimed range would have been an obvious matter of design choice based on the size of the robot, location of sensors within the robot, and location of the cables. Applicant does not disclose that the claimed range solve any particular problem; thus, it would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Bergvall and Lee based on design needs to achieve the claimed range or within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 48, Bergvall discloses a charging station (e.g. Fig. 2) comprises a base plate (e.g. Fig. 2: 3), a charging terminal (e.g. Fig. 2: 3), and the guidance device according to claim 30, wherein the guidance device is disposed on the base plate (e.g. Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 49, Bergvall discloses a robot system (e.g. Figs. 1-2 & Abstract), comprises: a robot (e.g. Figs. 1-2: 2) provided with a pair of sensors (e.g. Fig. 8: 8, 10 together sense area state 16, 17, 18, 31, 32, 33 of the robot; thus, 8 and 10 are considered as sensors); a boundary surrounding a work area for the robot to work (e.g. Fig. 1); and the charging station according to claim 48.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 37 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the 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 KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at (571) 272-2060. 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.
/KAWING CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights