DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 17, 19-20, 22 and 28 have been amended. Claims 7-16, and 18 have been previously cancelled. Claims 1-6, 17, and 19-31 remain pending in the application.
Claims 1, 17 and 19 are independent.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This action is final.
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 and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. As a result, each and every 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding 35 USC § 103 rejections with respect to amended claims have been fully considered but in moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant amended independent claims to further specify:
wherein the receiving the child lock activation instruction comprises:
in response to a first press operation on a preset button, determining a first press duration corresponding to the first press operation;
determining the child lock activation instruction corresponding to the first press operation if the first press duration is greater than a duration threshold.
HAMAGUCHI JP 2000014623 A is introduced in response to amended claims. The teachings of Case, Alexander, QIU and Ha as disclosed in the previous office action are hereby incorporated by references to the extent applicable to the amended claims.
Another iteration of claim analysis has been made. Referring to the corresponding sections of the claim analysis below for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6, 17, 19-20 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case US 20220151450 A1 in view of Alexander US 20170042373 A11 and HAMAGUCHI JP 2000014623 A.
Regarding claim 1, Case teaches a child lock control method, applied to a robot comprising at least one button (Fig. 4B & 6A [0147] a mobile robot with physical button to initiate a cleaning mission and a mobile device with user interface for robot control), and comprising:
receiving a child lock activation instruction; and turning off a button response corresponding to the at least one button according to the child lock activation instruction ([0170] receiving instruction from mobile device UI to disable the physical button “a child lock activation instruction” to prevent initiating a cleaning mission; the recited “child lock” is merely an intended use for the lock function that does not bear the weight of patentability).
Case does not explicitly further teach:
the child lock activation instruction is received when the robot is in a charging state;
the receiving the child lock activation instruction comprises: in response to a first press operation on a preset button, determining a first press duration corresponding to the first press operation; determining the child lock activation instruction corresponding to the first press operation if the first press duration is greater than a duration threshold.
Alexander explicitly teaches in an analogous art:
the child lock activation instruction is received when the robot is in a charging state (Fig. 22 [0358] [0371] – [0373] the plates are placed on charging location for charging, the limited function switches can be actuated to disable one or more operation modes of the plate, via communication for instructions from the charging station to the plates, i.e. “receiving a child lock activation instruction when the robot is in a charging state”); and
HAMAGUCHI explicitly teaches in an analogous art:
the receiving the child lock activation instruction comprises: in response to a first press operation on a preset button, determining a first press duration corresponding to the first press operation; determining the child lock activation instruction corresponding to the first press operation if the first press duration is greater than a duration threshold (Fig. 8 page 3 paragraph 1-10 from the bottom, steps 96 and 97, setting and releasing child clock by depressing redefined switch continuously for 5 seconds or other length of time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Case to incorporate the teachings of Alexander and HAMAGUCHI, because they all directed to child lock control, to make the method wherein the child lock activation instruction is received when the robot is in a charging state; the receiving the child lock activation instruction comprises: in response to a first press operation on a preset button, determining a first press duration corresponding to the first press operation; determining the child lock activation instruction corresponding to the first press operation if the first press duration is greater than a duration threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to prevent child operating the undesired function, as Alexander teaches in [0373], and to activate and deactivate child lock function, as HAMAGUCHI teaches page 3 paragraph 1-10 from the bottom.
Regarding claim 6, Case in view of Alexander further teaches after the child lock is activated, in response to a press operation on the at least one button, playing a warning voice indicating that the press operation is invalid ([0373] an indication of child lock mode is sent when the disabled key is pressed, [0367] the indication can be audible sound).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Case to incorporate the teachings of Alexander, because they all directed to child lock control, to make the method wherein after the child lock is activated, in response to a press operation on the at least one button, playing a warning voice indicating that the press operation is invalid. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to inform the user the child lock is activated, as Alexander teaches in [0373].
Regarding claim 17, it is directed to a robot of carrying out the method with similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. Since Case, Alexander and HAMAGUCHI teach the claimed method, they teach the method steps for implementing the robot.
In addition, Case further teaches:
a robot, comprising an electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises: one or more processors; and a storage apparatus, configured to store one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement a child lock control method (Fig. 3 [0135] the processor and memory storage element of the electronic circuit of the mobile robot).
Regarding claim 19, it is directed to an electronic device of carrying out the robot with similar limitations as set forth in claim 17. Since Case, Alexander and HAMAGUCHI teach the claimed robot, they teach the electronic device for implementing the robot.
Regarding claims 20 and 28, Case in view of Alexander further teaches:
if a child lock ON/OFF control in a mobile client is in an ON state, receiving the child lock activation instruction sent by the mobile client ([0352] [0374] the child lock mode can be turned on/off using buttons of remote control).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Case to incorporate the teachings of Alexander, because they all directed to child lock control, to make the method/device wherein if a child lock ON/OFF control in the mobile client is in an ON state, receiving the child lock deactivation instruction sent by the mobile client. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to disable the child lock mode, as Alexander teaches in [0373].
Claims 2-5, 22-27 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case in view of Alexander and HAMAGUCHI as applied to claims 1, 6, 17, 19-20 and 28 above, further in view of QIU US 20210401044 A12.
Regarding to claim 2, the combination of Case, Alexander and HAMAGUCHI does not explicitly further teach acquiring first voice information; receiving the child lock activation instruction when the first voice information comprises first preset voice information.
QIU explicitly teaches in an analogous art that acquiring first voice information; receiving the child lock activation instruction when the first voice information comprises first preset voice information ([0312] [0313] [0318] user speaks a preset voice command for instructing the device to stand by child lock state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Case, Alexander and HAMAGUCHI to incorporate the teachings of QIU, because they all directed to child lock control, to make the method wherein acquiring first voice information; receiving the child lock activation instruction when the first voice information comprises first preset voice information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to trigger the lock mode, as QIU teaches in [0318].
Regarding claim 3, Case in view of Alexander further teaches receiving a child lock deactivation instruction after the child lock is activated; and turning on the button response corresponding to the at least one button according to the child lock deactivation instruction ([0373] disable child lock mode on plate by entering unlock combination button-sequence).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Case, Alexander and HAMAGUCHI to incorporate the teachings of Alexander, because they all directed to child lock control, to make the method wherein receiving a child lock deactivation instruction after the child lock is activated; and turning on the button response corresponding to the at least one button according to the child lock deactivation instruction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to let the user to control the operation, as Alexander teaches in [0373].
Regarding claim 4, Case in view of QIU further teaches acquiring second voice information; receiving the child lock deactivation instruction when the second voice information comprises second preset voice information ([0290] preset voice command for waking up device from standby state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Case, Alexander and HAMAGUCHI to incorporate the teachings of QIU, because they all directed to child lock control, to make the method wherein acquiring second voice information; receiving the child lock deactivation instruction when the second voice information comprises second preset voice information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to disable the lock mode, as QIU teaches in [0290].
Regarding claim 5, Case in view of HAMAGUCHI further teaches after the child lock is activated, in response to a second press operation on the preset button, determining a second press duration corresponding to the second press operation; determining the child lock deactivation instruction corresponding to the second press operation if the second press duration is greater than the duration threshold; turning on button responses corresponding to buttons other than the preset button according to the child lock deactivation instruction (Fig. 8 page 3 paragraph 1-10 from the bottom, steps 96 and 97, setting and releasing child clock by depressing redefined switch continuously for 5 seconds or other length of time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Case, Alexander and HAMAGUCHI to incorporate the teachings of HAMAGUCHI, because they all directed to child lock control, to make the method wherein after the child lock is activated, in response to a second press operation on the preset button, determining a second press duration corresponding to the second press operation; determining the child lock deactivation instruction corresponding to the second press operation if the second press duration is greater than the duration threshold; turning on button responses corresponding to buttons other than the preset button according to the child lock deactivation instruction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to activate and deactivate child lock function, as HAMAGUCHI teaches page 3 paragraph 1-10 from the bottom.
Regarding claim 22, Case in view of Alexander further teaches if the child lock ON/OFF control in the mobile client is in an OFF state, receiving the child lock deactivation instruction sent by the mobile client ([0352] [0374] the child lock mode can be turned on/off using buttons of remote control).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Case, Alexander and HAMAGUCHI to incorporate the teachings of Alexander, because they all directed to child lock control, to make the method wherein if the child lock ON/OFF control in the mobile client is in an OFF state, receiving the child lock deactivation instruction sent by the mobile client. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to disable the child lock mode, as Alexander teaches in [0373].
Regarding claim 23, Case in view of Alexander further teaches the robot comprises a reset button, and the receiving the child lock deactivation instruction comprises: receiving the child lock deactivation instruction in response to a press operation on the reset button ([0374] pushing and holding predetermined buttons for a period of time to disable child lock mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Case, Alexander and HAMAGUCHI to incorporate the teachings of Alexander, because they all directed to child lock control, to make the method wherein the robot comprises a reset button, and the receiving the child lock deactivation instruction comprises: receiving the child lock deactivation instruction in response to a press operation on the reset button. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to let the user control the operation, as Alexander teaches in [0373].
Claims 24-27 recite similar limitations to that of claims 2-5, respectively, therefore are rejected on the same basis, respectively.
Claims 30-31 recite similar limitations to that of claims 22-23, respectively, therefore are rejected on the same basis, respectively.
Claims 21 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case in view of Alexander as applied to claims 1, 6, 17, 19-20 and 28 above, further in view of Ha US 20140197934 A13.
Regarding claims 21 and 29, the combination of Case, Alexander and HAMAGUCHI does not explicitly further teach turning off button responses corresponding to buttons other than the preset button according to the child lock activation instruction.
Ha explicitly teaches in an analogous art that turning off button responses corresponding to buttons other than the preset button according to the child lock activation instruction (Fig. 11 [0278] child lock inactivating all input means except a power button).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Case, Alexander and HAMAGUCHI to incorporate the teachings of Ha, because they all directed to child lock control, to make the method/device wherein turning off button responses corresponding to buttons other than the preset button according to the child lock activation instruction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to prevent the buttons to trigger operations, as Ha teaches in [0278].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GAMA DE 602005002768 T2 teaches activating child lock by pressing switch period of time or longer.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on (571)272-2279. 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.
/M.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Case and Alexander are the prior arts of record
2 QIU is the prior art of record
3 Ha is the prior art of record
Prosecution Insights