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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The currently presented claims have been amended to now include the feature of, “the plurality of UWB antennas including at least three UWB antennas arranged at the same height.” This was not previously presented in the independent claims and hence the claim combination has changed and required a new 103 rejection to be made for this new feature as presented below. The new amendment has been addressed below using the prior art of Biber and hence applicant arguments are moot.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 & 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber et al., US PG Pub 2017/0127608 A1., (hereafter Biber).
Regarding claim 1 where it is disclosed by Biber to have an autonomous working device which can autonomously dock with a docking station for the purpose of recharging as shown in at least figures 2-4. Where it is also disclosed by Biber to have;
“A method of controlling a robot cleaner, the method comprising: initiating a homing operation of moving the robot cleaner to a charger [at least paragraphs 6-7 & 37, where they describe “targeted docking” of the robot to the base station to allow the robot to recharge its batteries]; detecting, by an ultra-wideband antenna of the robot cleaner [at least paragraphs 17, 21 & 45 where they describe their system including, “it is proposed that the transmitting and/or receiving unit of the base station includes at least one ultra-wideband element for a communication at least with the autonomous implement. By an “ultra-wideband element” in this context is to be understood, in particular, an element that is provided for a communication, at least for the most part, by means of ultra-wideband waves. The at least one ultra-wideband element may take the form, at least partly, of a half-field emitter or of a directional antenna, or may have been designed in another way appearing useful to a person skilled in the art, as a result of which a communication with the autonomous implement over a preferably large distance and within an advantageously large directional range can be achieved. In this connection, the at least one ultra-wideband element can, for example, be utilized additionally as a marker point for a navigation. By virtue of the at least one ultra-wideband element, an advantageously flexibly employable and structurally simple configuration of the transmitting and/or receiving unit can be achieved.”], a plurality of UWB signals output from a plurality of UWB antennas included in the charger [see at least paragraphs 17, 21 & 45, as well as citation above]…; identifying position information of the charger and position information of the robot cleaner based on the detected plurality of UWB signals [see at least paragraphs 17, 21, 45 & 57-59]; and controlling the robot cleaner to move to the charger based on the identified position information of the charger and the identified position information of the robot cleaner [see at least paragraphs 17, 21, 45 & 57-59].”
However where applicant has now included the feature of, “…the plurality of UWB antennas including at least three UWB antennas arranged at a same height;…”
It is disclosed by Biber in at least paragraphs 0045, 0057 & 0058 to have “The ultra-wideband elements 28, 36 are provided to emit the radio waves as pulses. The ultra-wideband elements 28, 36 take the form of UWB transmitting elements 62, 64. The transmitting and/or receiving unit 24 of the autonomous implement 10…” Where this may only state having two emitters/antennas, including another antenna would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Biber whom does include having two antennas that emit UWB signals, where Biber is in the same field of endeavor of robot control and movement to a base station. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance the modification of Biber to have three or more UWB antennas at the same height, where they initially have two would have been a mere duplication of parts. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to increase the number of antennas and place them at the same height, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. For example in this instance the duplication of the antenna and placement at the same height would merely increase the number of signals being sent out and received which would have allowed for more increase coverage for the homing signal.
Regarding claim 2 where it is disclosed by Biber in at least paragraphs 57-59 to have their system also, “the identifying of the position information includes identifying coordinates of the charger and coordinates of the robot cleaner in a coordinate system having an origin at any one of the three UWB antennas included in the charger.”
However where applicant has now included the feature of, “…the plurality of UWB antennas including at least three UWB antennas arranged at a same height;…”
It is disclosed by Biber in at least paragraphs 0045, 0057 & 0058 to have “The ultra-wideband elements 28, 36 are provided to emit the radio waves as pulses. The ultra-wideband elements 28, 36 take the form of UWB transmitting elements 62, 64. The transmitting and/or receiving unit 24 of the autonomous implement 10…” Where this may only state having two emitters/antennas, including another antenna would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Biber whom does include having two antennas that emit UWB signals, where Biber is in the same field of endeavor of robot control and movement to a base station. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance the modification of Biber to have three or more UWB antennas at the same height, where they initially have two would have been a mere duplication of parts. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to increase the number of antennas and place them at the same height, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. For example in this instance the duplication of the antenna and placement at the same height would merely increase the number of signals being sent out and received which would have allowed for more increase coverage for the homing signal.
Regarding claim 14 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 1 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15 which is the corresponding computer program product claim for method claim 1 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber in view of Yamauchi et al., US PG Pub 2010/0066587 A1 (hereafter Yamauchi).
Regarding claim 3 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Biber as described above. Biber does discloses that their system includes the feature of having the robot move back to the charging station, as described above.
Where it is not specifically disclosed by Biber to have their system also, “the controlling of the robot cleaner to move to the charger includes: identifying a movement direction of the robot cleaner to move to the charger, by using the identified position information of the charger and the identified position information of the robot cleaner, identifying an object in front of the robot cleaner by using a detection value of a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor of the robot cleaner, and determining a movement path of the robot cleaner based on information about the identified object in front of the robot cleaner.”
Yamauchi is directed to a method and system for control a remote robot. Yamauchi in at least paragraphs 6-9 discloses their system is able to, “the controlling of the robot cleaner to move to the charger includes: identifying a movement direction of the robot cleaner to move to the charger, by using the identified position information of the charger and the identified position information of the robot cleaner [GPS device shown in at least figures 9-10, would help device determine its location], identifying an object in front of the robot cleaner by using a detection value of a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor of the robot cleaner [at least paragraph [0008] where they cite, “The system comprises: a LIDAR sensor, a stereo vision camera, a UWB radar sensor, and a GPS; a sensory processor configured to process data from one or more of the LIDAR sensor, the stereo vision camera, the UWB radar sensor, and the GPS; and a remote vehicle primary processor configured to receive data from the sensory processor and utilize the data to perform the obstacle avoidance behavior. Data from the UWB radar sensor is integrated with data from the LIDAR sensor to yield data for the obstacle avoidance behavior that represents solid impassable objects rather than rain, snow, fog, and smoke.”], and determining a movement path of the robot cleaner based on information about the identified object in front of the robot cleaner [at least paragraph [0009], “The present teachings further provide a method for allowing a remote vehicle to discern solid impassable objects from rain, snow, fog, and smoke for the purposes of performing an obstacle avoidance behavior. The method comprises integrating data from a LIDAR sensor with data from a UWB radar sensor to yield data for the obstacle avoidance behavior that represents solid impassable objects rather than rain, snow, fog, and smoke.”].”
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Biber by the teachings of Yamauchi, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of controlling robotic devices. Where one would with a reasonable expectation of success modify Biber by the teachings of Yamauchi, by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance the modification of Biber whom does not specifically use LIDAR to help navigate where this is advantageous as the combination of both data from the UWB and LIDAR sensors would allow the system to determine a solid object which has to be avoid versus rain, snow, fog or smoke, which can all confuse other sensors. This is described by Yamauchi in at least paragraph [0009], see above.
Claim(s) 4 & 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber in view of Santhoff et al., US PG Pub 2004/0240565 A1 (hereafter Santhoff).
Regarding claim 4 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Biber as described above. Where it is not specifically disclosed by Biber to have their system also, “obtaining reliability information of the detected plurality of UWB signals; and controlling a movement speed of the robot cleaner based on the obtained reliability information.”
Santhoff is directed to an ultra-wideband communication device and where they further describe in their system in at least figures 1-8 and paragraphs 56 & 58-60. This is read upon by applicants claim to, “obtaining reliability information of the detected plurality of UWB signals; and controlling a movement speed of the robot cleaner based on the obtained reliability information.”
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Biber by the teachings of Santhoff, where they are both in the same field of endeavor of control systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Biber by Santhoff, by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance the modification of Biber whom does not specifically have their system check the reliability of the detected signals to ensure that the noise and errors have been removed to improve detection and determination of the signals being received by the UWB sensor, as taught by Santhoff, see paragraphs [0007-0008].
Regarding claim 6 where all the limitations of claim 4 are disclosed by Biber & Santhoff as described above.
Santhoff is directed to an ultra-wideband communication device and where they further describe in their system in at least figures 1-8 and paragraphs 56 & 58-60. This is read upon by applicants claim to, “based on reliability of the detected plurality of UWB signals indicated by the obtained reliability information being less than a reference value, controlling an interval of detection of the plurality of UWB signals to be less than or equal to a reference interval; and based on the reliability of the detected plurality of UWB signals indicated by the obtained reliability information being greater than or equal to the reference value, controlling the interval of detection of the plurality of UWB signals to be greater than or equal to the reference interval.”
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Biber by the teachings of Santhoff, where they are both in the same field of endeavor of control systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Biber by Santhoff, by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance the modification of Biber whom does not specifically have their system check the reliability of the detected signals to ensure that the noise and errors have been removed to improve detection and determination of the signals being received by the UWB sensor, as taught by Santhoff, see paragraphs [0007-0008].
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber in view of Cohen et al., US PG Pub 2005/0156562 A1 (hereafter Cohen).
Regarding claim 9 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Biber as described above. Where Biber does as described above in claim disclose the feature of having the UWB system detect the position and location of the docking station.
Where it is not specifically disclosed by Biber to have their system also include the features of, “the charger includes … and an IR communication module, and the identifying of the position information includes: …, and identifying one of the first candidate position and the second candidate position as a position of the robot cleaner, based on an infrared (IR) signal output from an IR signal module.”
Cohen is directed to an autonomous robot auto-docking and energy management system. Where it is disclosed by Cohen in at least figure 4C and paragraphs 61-64 to have their system also include the feature of, “the charger includes … and an IR communication module, and the identifying of the position information includes: …, and identifying one of the first candidate position and the second candidate position as a position of the robot cleaner, based on an infrared (IR) signal output from an IR signal module.”
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Biber by the teachings of Cohen, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of docking systems for robotic devices. Furthermore, where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Biber by Cohen, by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance the modification of Biber, who does not have their system include IR emitters and detectors to allow for better alignment of the robot during docking between the two when the battery becomes low on the robotic device, as taught by Cohen, also see paragraphs [0005-0006].
Regarding claim 10 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Biber as described above.
Where it is not specifically disclosed by Biber to have their system also include the features of, “the charger further includes an IR communication module, and the method further comprises: detecting an IR signal output from the IR communication module; initiating a docking operation of docking the robot cleaner to the charger based on the detected IR signal; and docking the robot cleaner to the charger such that a charging port of the charger and a charging port of the robot cleaner come into contact with each other, based on the detected IR signal.”
Cohen is directed to an autonomous robot auto-docking and energy management system. Where it is disclosed by Cohen in at least figure 4C and paragraphs 61-64 to have their system also include the feature of, “the charger further includes an IR communication module [at least figures 4A-C], and the method further comprises: detecting an IR signal output from the IR communication module [at least paragraphs 13-15 and figures 4A-C & 6-7]; initiating a docking operation of docking the robot cleaner to the charger based on the detected IR signal [at least paragraphs 13-15 and figures 4A-C & 6-7]; and docking the robot cleaner to the charger such that a charging port of the charger and a charging port of the robot cleaner come into contact with each other, based on the detected IR signal [at least paragraphs 13-15 and figures 4A-C & 6-7].”
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Biber by the teachings of Cohen, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of docking systems for robotic devices. Furthermore, where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Biber by Cohen, by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance the modification of Biber, who does not have their system include IR emitters and detectors to allow for better alignment of the robot during docking between the two when the battery becomes low on the robotic device, as taught by Cohen, also see paragraphs [0005-0006].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber and Cohen and in further view of Naito et al., US PG Pub 2018/0286147 A1 (hereafter Naito).
Regarding claim 11 where all the limitations of claim 10 are disclosed by Biber and Cohen as described above. Where neither Biber nor Cohen specifically disclose the feature of, “the IR communication module is configured to output a wide IR signal, a right IR signal, a left IR signal, and a center alignment IR signal, the initiating of the docking operation includes initiating the docking operation based on detecting the wide IR signal, and the docking of the robot cleaner includes docking the robot cleaner based on the right IR signal, the left IR signal, and the center alignment IR signal.”
Naito is directed to a system including a base station connectable with mobile robots and the method for controlling the docking station. Naito describes in at least figure 5 to have their docking station include the features of, “the IR communication module is configured to output a wide IR signal, a right IR signal, a left IR signal, and a center alignment IR signal, the initiating of the docking operation includes initiating the docking operation based on detecting the wide IR signal, and the docking of the robot cleaner includes docking the robot cleaner based on the right IR signal, the left IR signal, and the center alignment IR signal.”
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Biber and Cohen, (hereafter Biber), by the teachings of Naito, where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of robotic control system that include docking stations. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify both Biber and Cohen, by the teachings of Naito, by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Where in this instance the modification of Biber and Cohen who have IR devices and emitters that have a pattern that allows the robot to use this for docking but by using the better pattern as taught by Naito. Where the IR pattern in Naito allows for more precise docking as the robot has more IR signals to detects its precise positions as compared to Biber and Cohen where there are just two, this would allow for quicker docking of the robot to the station.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-8 & 12-13 are 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
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is directed to Form PTO-892, where all the pertinent art that was found has been cited as well as all references that were used in the rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVESH V AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3255. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur, 8-6:30, 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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
BHAVESH V. AMIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/BHAVESH V AMIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights