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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 29th, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, Claims 1-13 and 18-20 in the reply filed on December 9th, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Inventions I and II are directed to “a single inventive concept characterized by detecting contaminants through an optical sensor and controlling the movement of the mobile robot in response to the detection, with only minor differences in the inclusion and expression of certain ancillary components that do not rise to the level of distinct inventions. This is found persuasive, therefore the requirement for restriction is withdrawn and all claims are being examined together.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7-9, 11, 14 and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 16: “control to avoid” should be revised to “control the robot to avoid” for additional clarity on what the processor(s) is/are controlling.
Claim 7 Line 1: “wherein the at least processor” should be revised to “wherein the at least one processor”.
Claim 8 Line 7: “avoid a position” should be revised to “control the robot to avoid a position” for additional clarity.
Claim 9 Line 8: “avoid a position” should be revised to “control the robot to avoid a position” for additional clarity.
Claim 11 Line 9: “control to avoid” should be revised to “control the robot to avoid” for additional clarity.
Claim 14 Line 17: “controls to avoid” should be revised to “controls the robot to avoid” for additional clarity.
Claim 14 Line 20: “controls to move” should be revised to “controls the robot to move” for additional clarity.
Claim 18 Line 8: “controlling to avoid” should be revised to “controlling the robot to avoid” for additional clarity.
Claim 19 Line 6: “avoiding a position” should be revised to “controlling the robot to avoid a position” for additional clarity.
Claim 20 Line 6: “avoiding a position” should be revised to “controlling the robot to avoid a position” for additional clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 10, 13-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jones (US Patent Pub. No. 2002/0016649 A1) in view of Meng et al. (CN Patent Pub. No. 100372658C), herein “Meng”, published March 5th, 2008.
Regarding Claims 1, 14 and 18, Jones discloses a robot and method for controlling a robot comprising:
a main body (See 0014, “[…] an autonomous robot comprising a housing which navigates in at least one direction […]”);
one or more optical sensors provided at a lower portion of the main body (See 0014, “[…] first sensor subsystem is aimed at the surface for detecting obstacles […] second sensor subsystem is aimed at least proximate the direction of navigation […] Each subsystem includes an optical emitter […]”);
memory storing at least one program (See 0081, “[…] a circuit embodied in microprocessor 302 which controls drive motion subsystem 304 of robot 300 […] detectors of each such subsystem provide an output signal to microprocessor 302 […] which is programmed according to the logic […]”); and
at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, electrically connected with the one or more optical sensors and the memory, and configured to execute at least one instruction of the program (See 0081 as referenced above. See also 0015, “A circuit in communication with the detector […]”),
wherein the at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to:
obtain first detection information based on two or more sensing values obtained through the one or more light receiving elements (See 0019, “[…] there are a plurality of sensor subsystems spaced from each other on the housing of the robot and the circuit includes logic for detecting whether any detector has detected a beam from an emitter.”);
control to avoid a position associated with the first detection information when the first detection information is obtained (See 0020, “[…] circuit includes logic which redirects the robot […]” See also 0075, “[…] an avoidance algorithm is initiated, step 17 to cause the robot to avoid any interfering obstacle. When a reflected signal is detected, processing continues […]”); and
(per Claim 14 only) obtain second detection information based on the second sensing value obtained through the second light receiving element and controls to move a predetermined distance or time in a direction opposite to a position associated with the second detection information when the second detection information is obtained (See 0019, 0020 and 0075 as referenced above. Examiner notes the disclosed robot emits and receives multiple light sources through a plurality of detectors prior to triggering an avoidance algorithm, thus making the presence of second detection information obvious, along with controlling to move a distance in an opposite direction being included in obstacle avoidance).
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical sensor includes one or more light emitting elements configured to emit light of a first wavelength band, one or more light receiving elements configured to receive light of a second wavelength band induced by the light of the first wavelength band, and one or more optical filter layers arranged on the one or more light receiving elements to pass the light of the second wavelength band.
Meng, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the optical sensor includes one or more light emitting elements configured to emit light of a first wavelength band, one or more light receiving elements configured to receive light of a second wavelength band induced by the light of the first wavelength band, and one or more optical filter layers arranged on the one or more light receiving elements to pass the light of the second wavelength band (See 008-0010, “[…] transmitting unit includes an infrared light emitting element and a trigger circuit […] receiving unit includes an infrared photosensitive receiving element and a front-end amplifier circuit […] band-pass filter includes a band-pass filter circuit composed of a programmable analog device and a second online programming interface, receives signals transmitted by various receiving units, and transmits the filtered signals to the control / judgment circuit […]”).
In view of Meng’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with infrared emitter and receiver subsystems on a robot for detecting and triggering avoidance operations as disclosed by Jones, optical filter layers on the receivers prior to triggering robot control, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Jones already implies filtering on the receivers for desired return on modulated signals, and the filtering process and components in both robots apply to infrared radiation bands.
Regarding Claim 10, Jones further discloses the robot of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, configured to:
periodically control the one or more light emitting elements in a turn-on mode or a turn-off mode (See 0068, “[…] emitted IR beam may be modulated and the return beam filtered […]” Examiner notes beam modulation supports periodic turn-on/turn-off for discrimination); and
obtain the first detection information based on a first sensing value obtained through the one or more light receiving elements in the turn-on mode and a second sensing value obtained through the one or more light receiving elements in the turn-off mode (See 0019, 0020 and 0075 as referenced above).
Regarding Claim 13, Jones further discloses the robot of claim 1, wherein the first wavelength band is a near-ultraviolet wavelength band, and the second wavelength band is a near-infrared wavelength band (See 0017, “The emitter typically includes an infrared light source and the detector then includes an infrared photon detector. A modulator connected to the infrared light source modulates the directed infrared light source beam at a predetermined frequency and photon detector is tuned to that frequency.” See also 0068, “[…] sunlight, IR-based remote-control units, fluorescent lights, and the like.” Examiner notes the phrase near-ultraviolet is a design choice, along with selection of any particular spectral bands).
Claims 2, 7, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jones (US Patent Pub. No. 2002/0016649 A1) in view of Meng et al. (CN Patent Pub. No. 100372658C) as applied to claims 1, 14 and 18 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0223785 A1), herein “Zhu”.
Regarding Claims 2, 11 and 15, Jones in view of Meng teaches the robot of claims 1 and 14, wherein the light receiving elements include first and second light receiving elements,
wherein the at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to:
obtain the first detection information based on a first sensing value obtained through the first light receiving element and a second sensing value obtained through the second light receiving element (See 0019-0020 of Jones as referenced above).
But does not explicitly teach wherein the first light receiving element is disposed adjacent to the one or more light emitting elements,
wherein the second light receiving element is disposed farther from the one or more light emitting elements than the first light receiving element is.
Zhu, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the first light receiving element is disposed adjacent to the one or more light emitting elements (See 0008, “[…] acquiring first infrared light received by a first reception module and second infrared light received by a second reception module, wherein the first reception module is disposed relative to the emission module […]”),
wherein the second light receiving element is disposed farther from the one or more light emitting elements than the first light receiving element is (See 0074, “[…] second reception module 230 is disposed relative to the emission module 210 such that the second infrared light is the infrared light […]” See also 0109, “[…] an appropriate farthest detection distance T and an appropriate radiation power, ensuring an isolation of the second reception module 230 from the emission module […]”).
In view of Zhu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the robot emitter and receiver subsystems detecting and triggering avoidance operations as disclosed by Jones in view of Meng, the positioning of the receivers to be relative and different with respect to the emitters, with a reasonable expectation of success, since both robots detect obstacles by monitoring reflected light, and the dual-receiver approach provides enhanced means for distinguishing reflected versus environmental light components and improves detection fidelity by using redundancy and differential sensing.
Regarding Claim 7, Jones in view of Meng does not explicitly teach the robot of claim 2, wherein the at least processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to:
obtain the first detection information when the first sensing value exceeds a preset first threshold, and the second sensing value is less than a preset second threshold.
Zhu, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the at least processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to:
obtain the first detection information when the first sensing value exceeds a preset first threshold, and the second sensing value is less than a preset second threshold (See 0041-0042, “[…] the first infrared light is compared with the second infrared light, and it is determined that the obstacle is detected when an energy difference between the first infrared light and the second infrared light is larger than a preset threshold […] preset threshold may be set according to a detected tolerance requirement, wherein the higher the preset threshold is, the higher the obstacle determination accuracy is.”).
In view of Zhu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the robot emitter and receiver subsystems detecting and triggering avoidance operations as disclosed by Jones in view of Meng, obtaining detection information with respect to a preset threshold, with a reasonable expectation of success, since both robots detect obstacles by monitoring reflected light, and using a preset threshold for determining detected information is common in the art for robot control when engaging or avoiding objects and obstacles.
Claims 3-6, 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jones (US Patent Pub. No. 2002/0016649 A1) in view of Meng et al. (CN Patent Pub. No. 100372658C) and Zhu et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0223785 A1) as applied to claims 2, 11 and 15 above, and further in view of Lutter et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2003/0201929 A1), herein “Lutter”.
Regarding Claims 3 and 16, Jones in view of Meng and Zhu does not explicitly teach the robot of claims 2 and 15, wherein the first and second light receiving elements are arranged on a single substrate.
Lutter, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the first and second light receiving elements are arranged on a single substrate (See 0005, “[…] multiple sensors that are integrated onto the same substrate forming a unitary multi-sensor platform that provides a known consistent physical relationship between the multiple sensors.”).
In view of Lutter’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the robot emitter and receiver subsystems detecting and triggering avoidance operations using multiple receiver elements as disclosed by Jones in view of Meng and Zhu, two light receiving elements to be arranged on a single substrate, with a reasonable expectation of success, since both robots share closely related sensing architectures, and the location of these elements is merely a design choice and is commonly expected to improve detection performance.
Regarding Claims 4 and 17, Jones in view of Meng and Zhu does not explicitly teach the robot of claims 2 and 15, wherein the first and second light receiving elements are arranged on different substrates, respectively, and wherein the different substrates are disposed to be spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance.
Lutter, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the first and second light receiving elements are arranged on different substrates, respectively, and wherein the different substrates are disposed to be spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance (See 0013, “[…] the two sensors 16 and 18 were not mounted on the same substrate 14, then each sensor would have to be separately mounted on the vehicle and then calibrated to a known alignment with respect to each other.”).
In view of Lutter’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the robot emitter and receiver subsystems detecting and triggering avoidance operations using multiple receiver elements as disclosed by Jones in view of Meng and Zhu, two light receiving elements to be arranged on different substrates, with a reasonable expectation of success, since both robots share closely related sensing architectures, and the location of these elements is merely a design choice and is commonly expected to improve detection performance.
Regarding Claims 5 and 12, Jones in view of Meng and Zhu does not explicitly teach the robot of claims 2 and 11, wherein the first and second light receiving elements are spatially separated by a barrier.
Lutter, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the first and second light receiving elements are spatially separated by a barrier (See 0016, “Depending on the substrate 14 and the types of sensors, different mounting techniques can be used. The sensors may be separate components that are glued or bolted onto the substrate 14. If the multi-sensor system 12 is an integrated circuit, then the sensors 16 and 18 may be integrally fabricated onto a silicon or alternative temperature resilient substrate 14 using known deposition processes.” Examiner notes two sensors being located on the same plane without overlapping their positions is spatial separation, and a barrier may be fabricated onto the substrate between them accordingly, thus being a barrier).
In view of Lutter’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the robot emitter and receiver subsystems detecting and triggering avoidance operations using multiple receiver elements as disclosed by Jones in view of Meng and Zhu, two light receiving elements to be spatially separated by a barrier, with a reasonable expectation of success, since both robots share closely related sensing architectures, and Lutter teaches towards dual receiver sensor systems for enhanced obstacle avoidance performance using sensor fusion and positioning, wherein the separation of two light receiving elements is routine engineering integration and not an inventive skill.
Regarding Claim 6, Zhu further teaches the robot of claim 5, wherein the one or more light emitting elements are disposed more adjacent to the barrier than the first light receiving element is (See 0008, 0074 and 0109 as referenced above).
Claims 8-9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jones (US Patent Pub. No. 2002/0016649 A1) in view of Meng et al. (CN Patent Pub. No. 100372658C) as applied to claims 1, 14 and 18 above, and further in view Brown (US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0169296 A1).
Regarding Claims 8 and 19, Jones in view of Meng teaches the robot of claim 1 and method of claim 18, wherein the at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to:
obtain second detection information when a sensing value obtained through the one or more moisture sensors exceeds a threshold (See 0019, 0020 and 0075 as referenced above); and
avoid a position associated with the second detection information when the second detection information is obtained, and disregards the first detection information when the second detection information is not obtained (See 0020 and 0075 as referenced above).
But does not explicitly teach the robot, further comprising one or more moisture sensors,
wherein the one or more moisture sensors are electrically connected with the at least one processor.
Brown, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the robot, further comprising one or more moisture sensors (See 0062, “The robot 10 can optionally include at least one moisture sensor 112 […]”),
wherein the one or more moisture sensors are electrically connected with the at least one processor (See 0062, “The moisture sensor 112 provides input to the controller that may direct operation of the robot 10 […]”).
In view of Brown’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the robot emitter and receiver subsystems detecting and triggering avoidance operations using multiple sensor values with reference to a preset threshold as disclosed by Jones in view of Meng, the sensors to include moisture sensors, with a reasonable expectation of success, since both robots are directed to autonomous operations in real-world environments, and would improve operational safety and robustness of the robot when encountering wet or liquid conditions.
Regarding Claims 9 and 20, Jones in view of Meng teaches the robot of claim 1 and method of claim 18, wherein the at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to:
obtain second detection information when a sensing value obtained through the one or more moisture sensors exceeds a threshold (See 0019, 0020 and 0075 as referenced above); and
avoid a position associated with the first and second detection information when both the first detection information and the second detection information are obtained (See 0020 and 0075 as referenced above); and
disregard the obtained first detection information or second detection information when at least a portion of the first and second detection information is not obtained (See 0019, 0020 and 0075 as referenced above).
But does not explicitly teach the robot, further comprising one or more moisture sensors,
wherein the one or more moisture sensors are electrically connected with the at least one processor.
Brown, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the robot, further comprising one or more moisture sensors (See 0062, “The robot 10 can optionally include at least one moisture sensor 112 […]”),
wherein the one or more moisture sensors are electrically connected with the at least one processor (See 0062, “The moisture sensor 112 provides input to the controller that may direct operation of the robot 10 […]”).
In view of Brown’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the robot emitter and receiver subsystems detecting and triggering avoidance operations using multiple sensor values with reference to a preset threshold as disclosed by Jones in view of Meng, the sensors to include moisture sensors, with a reasonable expectation of success, since both robots are directed to autonomous operations in real-world environments, and would improve operational safety and robustness of the robot when encountering wet or liquid conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryant Tang whose telephone number is (571)270-0145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 CST.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/BRYANT TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658