The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
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 use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “traveling unit” in Claim 1, “power supply unit” in Claim 1, “charging unit” in Claims 1, 8, 9, and 17, “communication unit” in Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9-11,14, 16, 18, and 20, “transmission unit” in Claims 2, 11, and 20, “envelope detection unit” in Claims 5, 6, 14, and 20, “reception unit” in Claims 5, 7, 14, 16, and 20, “sensor unit” in Claim 10, “power transform unit” in Claim 17, and “robot system” in Claims 18-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 5, and therefore dependent Claim 6, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the processor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a processor has not been previously claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 13, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abramson et al. US 2013/0274920 (hereafter Abramson et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Abramson et al. anticipates:
[Claim 1] A mobile robot (robot 100) comprising:
a main body (housing of robot 100 shown in Figure 1) in which a battery (robot battery 203) is accommodated;
a traveling unit (internal driving mechanism allowing autonomous travel as shown in Figure 8) configured to move the main body to a station (charging station 101) for charging the battery (Figure 1); and
a power supply unit (SW202 power connection to battery 203 controlled by robot control circuit 120, Figure 2) including a charging unit (charging circuit 115) configured to receive power (through charging pins 102) from the station through a charging cable (two power lines 109) to charge the battery (Figure 1), and a power line communication unit (robot control circuit 120) configured to perform power line communication with the station through the charging cable (bi-directional communication between robot and charging station described in Paragraphs [0020]-[0026]).
Regarding Claim 7, Abramson et al. anticipates:
[Claim 7] The mobile robot according to claim 1, wherein the power line communication unit (robot control circuit 120) includes a reception unit (part of robot control circuit 120 that creates reads 402 signal, Figure 4) configured to demodulate an on-off keying (OOF) modulated received signal (modulated discrete voltage-level signals)(necessary for bi-directional communication between robot and charging station described in Paragraphs [0020]-[0026]).
Regarding Claim 9, Abramson et al. anticipates:
[Claim 9] A docking station (charging station 101) comprising: a charging terminal (charging station pins 212) electrically connected to a terminal (charging receptacles 214) of a mobile robot (robot 100); a charging unit (charging circuit section 104) configured to supply power for charging a battery (robot battery 203) of the mobile robot through a charging cable (two power lines 109); and a power line communication unit (microprocessor control circuit 106) configured to perform power line communication with the mobile robot through the charging cable (bi-directional communication between robot and charging station described in Paragraphs [0020]-[0026]).
Regarding Claim 13, Abramson et al. anticipates:
[Claim 13] The docking station according to claim 11, further comprising a processor (microprocessor of microprocessor control circuit 106) configured to generate the carrier signal (charging power signals) and the serial communication signal (On-Off signal pattern consistent with digital information) and having a first terminal (ground terminal of mating charging pins 102) through which the carrier signal is output and a second terminal (voltage terminal of mating charging pins 102) through which the serial communication signal is output, the first terminal and the second terminal being connected to the mixer (part of microprocessor control circuit 106 that creates callout 401 signal, Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 16, Abramson et al. anticipates:
[Claim 16] The docking station according to claim 9, wherein the power line communication unit (microprocessor control circuit 106) includes a reception unit (part of microprocessor control circuit that creates reads 301 signal, Figure 3) configured to demodulate an on-off keying (OOF) modulated received signal (modulated discrete voltage-level signals)(necessary for bi-directional communication between robot and charging station described in Paragraphs [0020]-[0026]).
Regarding Claim 18, Abramson et al. anticipates:
[Claim 18] A robot system comprising: a mobile robot (robot 100) configured to travel (autonomous travel as shown in Figure 8) on the basis of power stored in a battery (robot battery 203); and a docking station (charging station 101) configured to supply power through a charging cable (two power lines 109) to charge the battery, wherein the mobile robot and the docking station each include a power line communication unit (microprocessor control circuit 106 and robot control circuit 120) configured to perform power line communication through the charging cable (bi-directional communication between robot and charging station described in Paragraphs [0020]-[0026]).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Claims 2, 4, 8, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson et al. US 2013/0274920 (hereafter Abramson et al.) in view of common knowledge.
Regarding Claim 2, Abramson et al. teaches:
[Claim 2] The mobile robot according to claim 1, wherein the power line communication unit (robot control circuit 120) comprises:
a mixer (part of robot control circuit 120 that creates callout 302 signal, Figure 3) configured to mix a serial communication signal (On-Off signal pattern consistent with digital information) with a carrier signal (charging power signals) to generate an on-off keying (OOK) modulated transmission signal (modulated discrete voltage-level signals); and
a transmission unit (part of robot control circuit 120 that transmits callout 302 signal to charging station, Figure 3) including a capacitor (see discussion below) disposed between the mixer and the charging cable (two power lines 109).
Abramson et al. discloses bi-directional communication between robot and charging station that employs switches SW201 and SW202 to create predetermined signal patterns mixed with the power signals that are bi-directionally transmitted between the robot and the charging station. Abramson et al. does not disclose that a capacitor is disposed between the mixer and the charging cable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a capacitor as part of an electrical filter with the motivation to shape the signal or remove unwanted noise because it is old and well known, as predicted by the prior art, as having these benefit of improving the quality of the communication.
Regarding Claim 4, Abramson et al. teaches:
[Claim 4] The mobile robot according to claim 2, further comprising a processor (processor of robot control circuit 120, Paragraph [0027]) configured to generate the carrier signal (charging power signals) and the serial communication signal (On-Off signal pattern consistent with digital information) and having a first terminal (ground terminal of mating charging pins 102) through which the carrier signal is output and a second terminal (voltage terminal of mating charging pins 102) through which the serial communication signal is output, the first terminal and the second terminal being connected to the mixer (part of robot control circuit 120 that creates callout 302 signal, Figure 3)(Figures 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Abramson et al. teaches:
[Claim 8] The mobile robot according to claim 1, wherein the charging unit (charging circuit 115) includes an LC filter (see discussion below) disposed at the front of the battery (battery 203).
Abramson et al. discloses bi-directional communication between robot and charging station that employs switches SW201 and SW202 to create predetermined signal patterns mixed with the power signals that are bi-directionally transmitted between the robot and the charging station. Abramson et al. does not disclose that an LC filter is disposed between at the front of the battery. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a LC filter as part of the battery charger with the motivation to reduce voltage/current ripple from a switching power supply signal to protect batteries, improve efficiency, and reduce electromagnetic interference (EMI) because it is old and well known, as predicted by the prior art, as having these benefit of smoothing the charging waveform.
Regarding Claim 11, Abramson et al. teaches:
[Claim 11] The docking station according to claim 9, wherein the power line communication unit (microprocessor control circuit 106) comprises:
a mixer (part of microprocessor control circuit 106 that creates callout 401 signal, Figure 4) configured to mix a serial communication signal (On-Off signal pattern consistent with digital information) with a carrier signal (charging power signals) to generate an on-off keying (OOK) modulated transmission signal (modulated discrete voltage-level signals); and
a transmission unit including a capacitor (see discussion below) disposed between the mixer and the charging cable (two power lines 109).
Abramson et al. discloses bi-directional communication between robot and charging station that employs switches SW201 and SW202 to create predetermined signal patterns mixed with the power signals that are bi-directionally transmitted between the robot and the charging station. Abramson et al. does not disclose that a capacitor is disposed between the mixer and the charging cable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a capacitor as part of an electrical filter with the motivation to shape the signal or remove unwanted noise because it is old and well known, as predicted by the prior art, as having these benefit of improving the quality of the communication.
Regarding Claim 17, Abramson et al. teaches:
[Claim 17] The docking station according to claim 9, further comprising a power transform unit (power supply 103) configured to transform commercial power into charging power for the battery (battery 203), wherein the charging unit (charging circuit section 104) includes an LC filter (see discussion below) disposed between the charging cable (two power lines 109) and the power transform unit.
Abramson et al. discloses bi-directional communication between robot and charging station that employs switches SW201 and charging unit to create predetermined signal patterns mixed with the power signals that are bi-directionally transmitted between the robot and the charging station. Abramson et al. does not disclose that an LC filter is disposed between the power supply and power charging cable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a LC filter with the motivation to reduce voltage/current ripple from a switching power signal to improve efficiency and reduce electromagnetic interference (EMI) because it is old and well known, as predicted by the prior art, as having these benefit of smoothing the signal waveform.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson et al. US 2013/0274920 (hereafter Abramson et al.) in view of Choi et al. US 2023/0255418 (hereafter Choi et al.)
Regarding Claim 10, Abramson et al. in view of Choi et al. teaches:
[Claim 10] The docking station (Choi et al. – docking station 20) according to claim 9, further comprising: a suction unit (Choi et al. - assembly comprising second suction device 250, extension member 284, and trapping portion 292) including a dust collection chamber (Choi et al. - trapping portion 292) for receiving dust and a suction motor (Choi et al. - second suction device 250) for sucking dust in a dust bin (Choi et al. - dust collecting device 160) of the mobile robot (Choi et al. - robot cleaner 10) into the dust collection chamber; and a sensor unit (Choi et al. - trapping portion sensor 220) including a sensor for detecting the amount of dust collected in the dust collection chamber (Choi et al. - Paragraph [0146]), wherein the docking station transmits dust collection chamber emptying notification information to the mobile robot (Choi et al. - with communicator 230, Paragraph [0146]) through the power line communication unit (powerline communication taught by Abramson et al.) on the basis of data detected by the sensor.
Abramson et al. discloses a docking station for a robotic vacuum cleaner, however, the focus of his disclosure is on communication through the power connection and not additional features of prior art docking stations that include structural details that allow the dust bin of the robotic vacuum cleaner to be emptied into a larger dust collection bin inside the docking station. The reference Choi et al. disclose a prior art docking station for a robotic vacuum cleaner that includes the structure and sensors that allow the dust bin of the robotic vacuum cleaner to be emptied into a larger dust collection bin inside the docking station with sensors operating as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Abramson et al. charging-only docking station to include the common prior art structural features of the Choi et al. device as detailed with the motivation to allow the docking station to periodically empty the dust bin of the robotic cleaner and including sensors that monitor both the dust bin and the docking station dust collecting bin allowing them to communicate that they are full with a user.
Regarding Claim 19, Abramson et al. in view of Choi et al. teaches:
[Claim 19] The robot system according to claim 18, wherein the docking station(Choi et al. – docking station 20) transmits dust collection chamber (Choi et al. - trapping portion 292) emptying notification information (Choi et al. – from trapping portion sensor 220) to the mobile robot (Choi et al. - robot cleaner 10) through power line communication (powerline communication taught by Abramson et al.), and the mobile robot transmits the dust collection chamber emptying notification information to a predetermined server or a predetermined mobile terminal (Paragraph [0165]).
Abramson et al. discloses a docking station for a robotic vacuum cleaner, however, the focus of his disclosure is on communication through the power connection and not additional features of prior art docking stations that include structural details that allow the dust bin of the robotic vacuum cleaner to be emptied into a larger dust collection bin inside the docking station. The reference Choi et al. disclose a prior art docking station for a robotic vacuum cleaner that includes the structure and sensors that allow the dust bin of the robotic vacuum cleaner to be emptied into a larger dust collection bin inside the docking station with sensors operating as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Abramson et al. charging-only docking station to include the common prior art structural features of the Choi et al. device as detailed with the motivation to allow the docking station to periodically empty the dust bin of the robotic cleaner and including sensors that monitor both the dust bin and the docking station dust collecting bin allowing them to communicate that they are full with a user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but it would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of robots with recharging docking stations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723