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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment and Request for Continued Examination (RCE) of 17 December 2025. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-17 and 19-22 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claims 3-4, 7, 10, 14 and 18 are cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the objections to the Drawings and Specification as set forth in the office action of 17 September 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections to the Drawings and Specification as set forth in the office action of 17 September 2025 have been withdrawn.
The Examiner notes that Applicant acknowledges the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f), as set forth in the office action of 17 September 2025, as such the Examiner does not repeat the interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) herein. See office action of 17 September 2025 under Claim Interpretation.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 17 September 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed towards the two limitations of “the first camera and the second camera are provided side by side horizontally at the connection part between the two laser emitters, so that the first environment image and the second environment image are at least partially overlapped” and “the first filter is provided on a side of the first camera away from the device body, and the second filter is provided on a side of the second camera away from the device body”.
Regarding “the first camera and the second camera are provided side by side horizontally at the connection part between the two laser emitters, so that the first environment image and the second environment image are at least partially overlapped”, Examiner notes: Jiang discloses the first [infrared] camera associated with the first environment image associated with the obstacle distance information, the second [RGB] camera associated with the second environment image associated with the obstacle type information and the two laser emitters working all together so that the first environment image and the second environment image are at least partially overlapped (see at least Jiang Figure 1, [0007], [0008], [0039] and [0040] and 35 USC 103 rejection below). While Jiang does not explicitly disclose how the first camera, the second camera and the two laser emitters are positioned in comparison to each other, Shan explicitly teaches the recited limitation. For example, see Figure 3a of Shan wherein the camera is provided horizontally at the connection part between the two laser emitters and see at least paragraph [0047] of Shan wherein the camera is said to be two cameras; therefore, looking at [0047] and Figure 3a of Shan, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the first camera and the second camera (e.g. the two cameras) are/would/could be provided side by side horizontally at the connection part between the two laser emitters (Shan: “the number of camera modules ... can be ... two”, “there are no limitations on ... the installation position relationship between the line laser emitter and the camera [module(s)]” and Figure 3a explicitly showing the camera module [that can be two modules/cameras] horizontally between the two laser emitters).
Regarding “the first filter is provided on a side of the first camera away from the device body, and the second filter is provided on a side of the second camera away from the device body”, Examiner notes: Jiang discloses a first camera provided on the device body (see at least Figure 1, [0007] and [0012]-[0015]) and a [first] filter allowing only infrared light provided in front of the lens of the first camera (see at least [0037]). A filter in front of the lens of a camera that is on a device body and is facing outwards to detect obstacle information is a filter that’s provided on a side of the camera (front of its lens) away from the device body (facing outwards). Therefore, Jiang discloses “the first filter is provided on a side of the first camera away from the device body” in at least (see at least [0035], [0037] and [0038]). And Jeong teaches “the second filter is provided on a side of the second camera away from the device body” in at least [0006], [0136], [0137], [0166], [0255], [0256] and [0277]-[0279]), specifically [0006] wherein Jeong also teaches that the [second] filter allowing only visible light is provided between the lens and the camera thereby in front of (provided on a side of) the camera and away from the device body.
See 35 USC 103 below for further clarification on how Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan discloses each and every limitation of the independent claims 1 and 11, as argued, under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1, 5-6, 8-9 and 21 be found allowable, claims 11-13, 15, 16 and 22, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9, 11-13, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1 and 11 are directed to a device. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
An autonomous mobile device, comprising:
a device body;
a first camera, at least one laser emitter, a first image processor, and a first filter all being provided on the device body, wherein the at least one laser emitter is configured to emit a line laser with a linear projection toward outside of the device body, the first camera is configured to capture a first environment image containing the line laser, the first image processor is configured to acquire obstacle distance information based on the first environment image, the line laser is infrared line light, the first camera is an infrared camera, and the first filter is configured to allow only infrared light to enter the first camera; and
a second camera, a second image processor, and a second filter all being provided on the device body, wherein the second camera is configured to capture a second environment image, the second image processor is configured to acquire obstacle type information based on the second environment image, the second camera is an RGB camera, and the second filter is configured to allow only visible light to enter the second camera, wherein
the device body comprises a first end, a second end, and a connection part connecting the first end and the second end,
the at least one laser emitter comprises two laser emitters respectively provided at the first end and the second end,
the first camera and the second camera are provided side by side horizontally at the connection part between the two laser emitters, so that the first environment image and the second environment image are at least partially overlapped, and
the first filter is provided on a side of the first camera away from the device body, and the second filter is provided on a side of the second camera away from the device body
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, acquiring information in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, captured, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An autonomous mobile device, comprising:
a device body;
a first camera, at least one laser emitter, a first image processor, and a first filter all being provided on the device body, wherein the at least one laser emitter is configured to emit a line laser with a linear projection toward outside of the device body, the first camera is configured to capture a first environment image containing the line laser, the first image processor is configured to acquire obstacle distance information based on the first environment image, the line laser is infrared line light, the first camera is an infrared camera, and the first filter is configured to allow only infrared light to enter the first camera; and
a second camera, a second image processor, and a second filter all being provided on the device body, wherein the second camera is configured to capture a second environment image, the second image processor is configured to acquire obstacle type information based on the second environment image, the second camera is an RGB camera, and the second filter is configured to allow only visible light to enter the second camera, wherein
the device body comprises a first end, a second end, and a connection part connecting the first end and the second end,
the at least one laser emitter comprises two laser emitters respectively provided at the first end and the second end,
the first camera and the second camera are provided side by side horizontally at the connection part between the two laser emitters, so that the first environment image and the second environment image are at least partially overlapped, and
the first filter is provided on a side of the first camera away from the device body, and the second filter is provided on a side of the second camera away from the device body
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the emitting a laser, capturing image(s) and allowing only certain light(s) steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering and/or amounts to mere post solution action, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1 and 11 further recite the “An autonomous mobile device, comprising: a device body; a first camera, at least one laser emitter, a first image processing module, and a first filter ..., wherein the at least one laser emitter is configured to ..., the first camera is configured to ..., the first image processing module is configured to ..., the line laser is infrared line light, the first camera is an infrared camera, and the first filter is configured to ...; and a second camera, a second image processing module, and a second filter ..., wherein the second camera is configured to ..., the second image processing module is configured to ..., the second camera is an RGB camera, and the second filter is configured to ..., wherein the device body comprises a first end, a second end, and a connection part connecting the first end and the second end, the at least one laser emitter comprises two laser emitters respectively provided ..., the first camera and the second camera are provided ..., the first filter is provided ... and the second filter is provided ...” which merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of emitting a laser, capturing image(s) and allowing only certain light(s) are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner and because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performances are well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16-17 and 19-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16-17 and 19-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 5-6, 9, 11-13, 16-17 and 19-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1-2, 11 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN212932957U – translation attached) in view of Jeong (US20190293765A1) in further view of Shan (CN111093019A – translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses an autonomous mobile device (see at least [0004], [0015], [0026] and [0029]), comprising: a device body (see at least [0015], [0026] and [0029]); a first camera, at least one laser emitter, a first image processor, and a first filter all being provided on the device body (see at least Figure 1, [0007], [0012]-[0015] and [0037]), wherein the at least one laser emitter is configured to emit a line laser with a linear projection toward outside of the device body (see at least [0006] and [0007]), the first camera is configured to capture a first environment image containing the line laser (see at least [0007], [0008], [0039] and [0040]), the first image processor is configured to acquire obstacle distance information based on the first environment image (see at least [0008], [0012]-[0014], [0027] and [0029]), the line laser is infrared line light (see at least [0035]), the first camera is an infrared camera (see at least [0007], [0008] and [0035]), and the first filter is configured to allow only infrared light to enter the first camera (see at least [0035], [0037] and [0038]); and a second camera, and a second image processor all being provided on the device body (see at least Figure 1, [0007], [0010], [0011] and [0015]), wherein the second camera is configured to capture a second environment image (see at least [0007]), the second image processor is configured to acquire obstacle type information based on the second environment image (see at least [0008], [0010], [0011] and [0026]), the second camera is an RGB camera (see at least [0007]-[0010] and [0015]), wherein the at least one laser emitter comprises two laser emitters (see at least [0006] and [0023]), and the first camera and the second camera are provided with the two laser emitters, so that the first environment image and the second environment image are at least partially overlapped (see at least Figure 1, [0007], [0008], [0039] and [0040]); and the first filter is provided on a side of the first camera away from the device body (see at least [0035], [0037] and [0038]). .
Jiang fails to explicitly disclose a second filter provided on the device body and the second filter is configured to allow only visible light to enter the second camera, and wherein the device body comprises a first end, a second end, and a connection part connecting the first end and the second end, the two laser emitters respectively provided at the first end and the second end, the first camera and the second camera are provided side by side horizontally at the connection part between the two laser emitters, and the second filter is provided on a side of the second camera away from the device body.
Jeong teaches a second filter provided on the device body and the second filter is configured to allow only visible light to enter the second camera (see at least [0006], [0064], [0068], [0136], [0137], [0158], [0159], [0162] and [0256]), and wherein the second filter is provided on a side of the second camera away from the device body (see at least [0006], [0136], [0137], [0166], [0255], [0256] and [0277]-[0279]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang to incorporate the teachings of Jeong which teaches a second filter provided on the device body and the second filter is configured to allow only visible light to enter the second camera, and wherein the second filter is provided on a side of the second camera away from the device body since they are all directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Jeong would increase accuracy and thereby increase safety and reliability of the overall system by using the appropriate filter depending on the system’s need from the particular camera (see at least Jeong [0071], [0076], [0166], [0186], [0222] and [0224]).
Shan teaches wherein the device body comprises a first end, a second end, and a connection part connecting the first end and the second end (see at least Figures 3a-3e, [0047] and [0067]), the two laser emitters respectively provided at the first end and the second end (see at least Figures 3a-3e, [0047] and [0067]), and the first camera and the second camera are provided side by side horizontally at the connection part between the two laser emitters (see at least Figure 3a, [0012], [0043], [0046], [0047] and [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang as modified by Jeong to incorporate the teachings of Shan which teaches wherein the device body comprises a first end, a second end, and a connection part connecting the first end and the second end, the two laser emitters respectively provided at the first end and the second end, and the first camera and the second camera are provided side by side horizontally at the connection part between the two laser emitters since they are all directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Shan would increase utility, flexibility and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 2, Jiang fails to disclose wherein the first image processor acquires the obstacle distance information based on triangulation. However, Jeong teaches wherein the first image processor acquires the obstacle distance information based on triangulation (see at least [0157]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang to incorporate the teachings of Jeong which teaches wherein the first image processor acquires the obstacle distance information based on triangulation since they are all directed to line laser modules and incorporating the teachings of Jeong would increase accuracy and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is commensurate in scope with claim 1. See above for rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein the second image processor comprises: a first processor, configured to perform a feature extraction on the second environment image to obtain feature information; and an second processor, configured to input the feature information into an obstacle identification model to identify the obstacle type information. However, Jeong teaches wherein the second image processor comprises: a first processor, configured to perform a feature extraction on the second environment image to obtain feature information; and an second processor, configured to input the feature information into an obstacle identification model to identify the obstacle type information (see at least [0064], [0068], [0069], [0144]-[146], [0159], [0162], [0167]-[0169]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang to incorporate the teachings of Jeong which teaches wherein the second image processor comprises: a first processor, configured to perform a feature extraction on the second environment image to obtain feature information; and an second processor, configured to input the feature information into an obstacle identification model to identify the obstacle type information since they are all directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Jeong would increase reliability and safety of the overall system by using neural network/machine learning/training data to increase accuracy.
Regarding claim 20, Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein the second image processor further comprises: a third processor, configured to generate the obstacle identification model through collected training data. However, Jeong teaches wherein the second image processor further comprises: a third processor, configured to generate the obstacle identification model through collected training data (see at least [0064], [0068], [0069], [0144]-[146], [0159], [0162], [0167]-[0169]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang to incorporate the teachings of Jeong which teaches wherein the second image processor further comprises: a third processor, configured to generate the obstacle identification model through collected training data since they are all directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Jeong would increase reliability and safety of the overall system by using neural network/machine learning/training data to increase accuracy.
Regarding claim 21, Jiang discloses wherein the autonomous mobile device further comprises a primary control unit, wherein each of the at least one laser emitter comprises: a line laser generator, configured to generate the line laser (see at least Figure 1, [0008] and [0031]).
Jiang fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the at least one laser emitter further comprises: a laser driving circuit connected with the primary control unit, wherein the laser driving circuit controls the laser emitter based on operation instructions sent by the primary control unit, and wherein the autonomous mobile device further comprises a device controller, configured to control movement of the autonomous mobile device based on the obstacle distance information and the obstacle type information.
Jeong teaches wherein the autonomous mobile device further comprises a device controller, configured to control movement of the autonomous mobile device based on the obstacle distance information and the obstacle type information (see at least [0064], [0068], [0069], [0071], [0144]-[146], [0159], [0162], [0167]-[0169] and [0222]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang to incorporate the teachings of Jeong which teaches wherein the autonomous mobile device further comprises a device controller, configured to control movement of the autonomous mobile device based on the obstacle distance information and the obstacle type information since they are all directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Jeong would increase accuracy and thereby increase safety and reliability of the overall system (see at least Jeong [0071], [0076], [0166], [0186], [0222] and [0224]).
Shan teaches wherein each of the at least one laser emitter further comprises: a laser driving circuit connected with the primary control unit, wherein the laser driving circuit controls the laser emitter based on operation instructions sent by the primary control unit (see at least Figure 3f and [0074]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang as modified by Jeong to incorporate the teachings of Shan which teaches wherein each of the at least one laser emitter further comprises: a laser driving circuit connected with the primary control unit, wherein the laser driving circuit controls the laser emitter based on operation instructions sent by the primary control unit since they are all directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Shan would increase utility, flexibility and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is commensurate in scope with claim 21. See above for rejection of claim 21.
Claims 5-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Jeong, in further view of Shan, and in yet further view of Xin (CN211508646U – translation attached).
Regarding claim 5, Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan fails to disclose further comprising: a positioning device for docking, provided on the device body and configured to communicate with a charging station. However, Xin teaches further comprising: a positioning device for docking, provided on the device body and configured to communicate with a charging station (see at least [0033], [0037], [0038], [0041], [0046], [0054] and [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan to incorporate the teachings of Xin which teaches a positioning device for docking, provided on the device body and configured to communicate with a charging station since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 6, Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan fails to disclose wherein the positioning device for docking comprises an infrared emitter and at least two infrared receiving devices, wherein the infrared emitter is configured to send a first infrared signal to the charging station, and the at least two infrared receiving devices are configured to receive a second infrared signal from the charging station. However, Xin teaches wherein the positioning device for docking comprises an infrared emitter and at least two infrared receiving devices, wherein the infrared emitter is configured to send a first infrared signal to the charging station, and the at least two infrared receiving devices are configured to receive a second infrared signal from the charging station (see at least [0033], [0037], [0038], [0041], [0046], [0054] and [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan to incorporate the teachings of Xin which teaches wherein the positioning device for docking comprises an infrared emitter and at least two infrared receiving devices, wherein the infrared emitter is configured to send a first infrared signal to the charging station, and the at least two infrared receiving devices are configured to receive a second infrared signal from the charging station since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, claims 12 and 13 are commensurate in scope with claims 5 and 6, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 5 and 6.
Claims 8, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Jeong, in further view of Shan, and in yet further view of Wu (US20220369890A1).
Regarding claim 8, Jiang as modified by Jeong fails to disclose wherein the laser driving circuit comprises: a first amplification circuit, configured to receive a control signal sent by the primary control unit, amplify the control signal and send the amplified control signal to the laser emitter. However, Shan teaches wherein the laser driving circuit comprises: a first amplification circuit, configured to receive a control signal sent by the primary control unit, amplify the control signal and send the amplified control signal to the laser emitter (see at least [0074], [0056] and [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang as modified by Jeong to incorporate the teachings of Shan which teaches wherein the laser driving circuit comprises: a first amplification circuit, configured to receive a control signal sent by the primary control unit, amplify the control signal and send the amplified control signal to the laser emitter since they are all directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Shan would increase utility and reliability of the overall system.
Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the laser driving circuit comprises: the first amplification circuit, configured to send the amplified control signal to the laser emitter, so as to control the laser emitter to turn on or turn off; and a second amplification circuit, configured to receive an adjustment signal sent by the primary control unit, amplify the adjustment signal and send the amplified adjustment signal to the laser emitter, so as to control emission power of the laser emitter. However, Wu teaches wherein the laser driving circuit comprises: the first amplification circuit, configured to send the amplified control signal to the laser emitter, so as to control the laser emitter to turn on or turn off; and a second amplification circuit, configured to receive an adjustment signal sent by the primary control unit, amplify the adjustment signal and send the amplified adjustment signal to the laser emitter, so as to control emission power of the laser emitter (see at least [0057]-[0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan to incorporate the teachings of Wu which teaches wherein the laser driving circuit comprises: the first amplification circuit, configured to send the amplified control signal to the laser emitter, so as to control the laser emitter to turn on or turn off; and a second amplification circuit, configured to receive an adjustment signal sent by the primary control unit, amplify the adjustment signal and send the amplified adjustment signal to the laser emitter, so as to control emission power of the laser emitter since they are all directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Wu would increase utility and accuracy and thereby reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is commensurate in scope with claim 8. See above for rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan disclose the camera module comprising the first camera and the second camera (see at least Jiang [0007], [0008] and [0015]).
Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan fails to disclose further comprising: a buffer component, provided on a front side of the device body, wherein the camera module, and the at least one laser emitter are provided between the buffer component and the device body. However, Wu teaches a buffer component, provided on a front side of the device body, wherein the camera module, and the at least one laser emitter are provided between the buffer component and the device body (see at least [0083] and [0114]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan to incorporate the teachings of Wu which teaches a buffer component, provided on a front side of the device body, wherein the camera module, and the at least one laser emitter are provided between the buffer component and the device body since they are all directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Wu would increase protection of the overall system.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Jeong, in further view of Shan, and in yet further view of Lai (CN211012988U– translation attached).
Regarding claim 9, Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan does not explicitly disclose wherein a first optical axis of the first camera is inclined downward with respect to a horizontal direction, and a second optical axis of the second camera is inclined upward with respect to the horizontal direction. However, Lai teaches wherein a first optical axis of the first camera is inclined downward with respect to a horizontal direction, and a second optical axis of the second camera is inclined upward with respect to the horizontal direction (see at least [0006], [0007], [0012] and [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan to incorporate the teachings of Lai which teaches wherein a first optical axis of the first camera is inclined downward with respect to a horizontal direction, and a second optical axis of the second camera is inclined upward with respect to the horizontal direction since they are all directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Lai would increase accuracy and thereby increase safety and reliability of the overall system (see at least Lai [0006], [0012] and [0030]).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is commensurate in scope with claim 9. See above for rejection of claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667