DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This final office action is in response to the amendments filled on 01/20/2026. Claims 1-10 are canceled. Claims 13, 20 and 26 are amended. Claims 11-30 are pending and examined below.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 18-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18, which recites “the charging socket” there is lack of antecedent basis. It is unclear and indefinite since there is no charging socket is mentioned previously.
Dependent claim(s) 19-24 is/are also rejected because they do not resolve their parent deficiencies.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 18, 19 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0056801 (“Leary”), and further in view of US 2023/0040860 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 18 (and similarly claim 11 and 25), as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Leary discloses an apparatus for autonomously operating a charging station (see at least fig 1, where an autonomous (robotic) charging station is shown), comprising:
a programmable robot arm comprising a charging plug, wherein the programmable arm is configured for autonomous operation (see at least fig 1, where 102 robotic arm including a charging plug on distal end);
a camera unit, operatively coupled to the programmable robot arm (see at least [0023], where “the sensing device 106 includes two sensors such as cameras”; see also [0024], where “the sensing device 106 is integrated into the robotic charger 102.”); and
a processing apparatus, operatively coupled to the camera unit, wherein the processing apparatus is configured to visually identify the charging socket using image analysis of created images via the camera unit of the charging socket (see at least fig 1, where 104 is charging socket/inlet port. See also [0027]);
process image data of a surrounding area of the charging station to generate a digital map comprising a charging socket region in which the charging socket is configured (see at least fig 4, block 218. See also [0005], where a map is generated based on the images. The map include vehicle including inlet port);
move, via the programmable robot arm, the charging plug into a plug-in position, spaced apart from the charging socket (see at least fig 4, block 226);
process the digital map to generate a (see at least fig 3, where removed charging socket is shown); and
plug, via the programmable robot arm, the charging plug into the charging socket from the plug-in position, wherein the plug-in process is carried out based on the modified digital map (see at least fig 4, block 218-228).
Leary does not disclose the following limitation:
generate a modified digital map.
However, Lee discloses a system wherein generate a modified digital map (see at least fig 9A-B). For additional claim limitation of claim 25 image analysis via a neural network, see at least fig 7 and fig 12 of Lee.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Leary to incorporate the teachings of Lee by including the above feature for providing faster charging by modifying the map.
Regarding claim 12 (and similarly claim 19), Lee further discloses a method wherein the image analysis is carried out via a neural network pre-trained on the charging socket (see at least fig 7 and fig 12).
Claim(s) 13, 15-17, 20, 22-24, 26 and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0056801 (“Leary”), and in view of US 2023/0102948 (“Lee”), as applied to claim 11, 18 and 25 above, and further in view of US 2020/0311956 (“Choi”).
Regarding claim 13 (and similarly claim 20 and 26), Leary further discloses a method comprising: the image analysis of the localized charging socket using an algorithm (see citation above); and
moving the charging plug into a position (see at least fig 4).
Leary in view of Lee does not disclose the following limitations:
determining pose data…to determine a pose of the object using a Perspective-n-Point (PnP) algorithm; and
moving…into an intermediate position based on the determined pose data.
However, Choi discloses a system wherein determining pose data…to determine a pose of the object/socket using a Perspective-n-Point (PnP) algorithm (see at least [0234], where “Such multiple groups of control points placed in a single 3D coordinate frame are then passed to a computer vision algorithm for pose estimation such as Perspective-n-Point (PnP) algorithms to produce an estimate of the 6D pose of the object.”); and
moving the charging plug/gripper into an intermediate position based on the determined pose data (see at least [0183]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Leary in view of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Choi by including the above feature for increasing pose determination efficiency.
Regarding claim 15 (and similarly claim 22 and 28), Leary further discloses a method comprising: generating a depth image of the charging socket corresponding to the current position of the charging plug when the charging plug is in the (see citation above);
processing the generated depth image with a reference depth image corresponding to a reference position to determine a position deviation between the current position of the charging plug and the reference position (see at least [0029], where “reference point”; see also [0036]); and
moving the charging plug into the plug-in position based on the determined position deviation (see at least fig 4, where alignment is done by determining ICP iteratively).
Leary in view of Lee does not disclose the following limitations:
the charging plug is in the intermediate position.
However, Choi further discloses a system wherein the charging plug/gripper is in the intermediate position (see at least [0183]).
Regarding claim 16 (and similarly claim 23 and 29), Leary further discloses a method wherein the reference depth image comprises a reference depth image recorded from a predefined distance and/or position with respect to the charging socket (see at least [0005], [0016] and [0023]).
Regarding claim 17 (and similarly claim 24 and 30), Leary further discloses a method wherein the position deviation is determined using an Iterative Closest Point (ICP) algorithm (see at least [0015], [0019] and fig 4).
Claim(s) 14, 21 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0056801 (“Leary”), and in view of US 2023/0102948 (“Lee”), as applied to claim 11, 18 and 25 above, and in view of US 2020/0311956 (“Choi”), as applied to claim 13, 20 and 26 above, and further in view of US 2022/0105625 (“Guo”).
Regarding claim 14 (and similarly claim 21 and 27), Leary in view of Lee and Choi does not disclose claim 14. However, Guo discloses a method wherein the pose is determined by additionally determining the mean value of the pose data (see at least [0110], where “the Gaussian distribution (mean value and covariance of the Gaussian distribution) of the initial pose of object”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Leary in view of Lee and Choi to incorporate the teachings of Guo by including the above feature for increasing accuracy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filled on 01/20/2026, with respect to claims 11-30, have been considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends that:
“With respect to the allegation that claim 18 is indefinite due to reciting "the charging socket" without antecedent basis, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 18 itself expressly introduces "a charging socket" and thereafter consistently refers back to "the charging socket" as the same charging socket previously introduced in claim 18. Claim 18 expressly recites, for example, "visually identify the charging socket using image analysis of created images...of the charging socket," "generate a digital map comprising a charging socket region in which the charging socket is configured," and "plug...the charging plug into the charging socket." Accordingly, "the charging socket" recited in claim 18 plainly refers back to "a charging socket" previously introduced in claim 18, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the plug-in operation and related processing operations are performed with respect to that same charging socket.”
The Examiner disagrees:
Claim 18 recites “the charging socket” line 7 and “a charging socket region” line 10. The charging socket and a charging socket region are two different terminologies. The submitted specification does not mention that both the charging socket and a charging socket region are same. Claim 18 also recites “a charging plug” line 2. It is not clear charging socket is referring charging plug or not. Claim 18 does not mention “charging socket” without lack of antecedent basis.
The Applicant also contends that:
“Lee likewise does not remedy the deficiency as applied by the Office Action. The Office Action cites Lee Fig. 9A-9B for "generate a modified digital map." However, Lee Fig. 9A-9B and the corresponding disclosure are directed to correcting inaccuracies in a depth map of a charging socket due to dark inlets by performing interpolation within a bounding box (Lee 10070).
Lee describes that the depth map "inside the bounding box may be corrected by performing interpolations based on depth values of points outside the bounding box" (Lee 0070), and further describes subsequent plane fitting and transformation estimation using a corrected depth map (Lee 110069-0076). This disclosure pertains to depth-map correction for pose estimation, not to "processing the digital map" of "a surrounding area of the charging station" to generate a "modified digital map" of that surrounding area. Accordingly, the Office Action does not establish that Lee's depth-map correction is the same as the claimed "processing the digital map to generate a modified digital map," particularly where claim 11 requires the "digital map" to be generated from "image data of a surrounding area of the charging station," and further requires the plug-in process to be "carried out based on the modified digital map."
The Examiner also disagrees:
For the examination purposes the claim limitation “processing the digital map to generate a modified digital map comprising a removed charging socket region” is interpreted as a modified digital map is generated by processing the digital map and the modified digital map include a particular region. The particular region could be a removed charging socket region or any region. As long as the secondary reference discloses a method wherein a digital map is modified by processing and the modified map include a certain/particular region of a surrounding area. The primary reference, Leary discloses a method where in a charging socket is identified using image analysis and a digital map is generated that include the charging socket. The charging socket on the digital map also include empty or removed charging socket. See citation above.
Applicant agrees that (arguments submitted on 01/20/2026, page 9) Lee discloses a method wherein a digital map is corrected. Lee discloses a method wherein digital map (initial) is processed and a corrected/modified digital map is generated. The corrected/modified digital map includes a particular region. The motivation for processing the digital map could be different. However, the claim limitation as recited only requires to process the digital map and generate a modified digital map. Leary in view of Lee satisfy the rejection of claim limitation as recited.
The Applicant also contends that:
“Claim 11 further requires that "the plug-in process is carried out based on the modified digital map." The Office Action cites Leary Fig. 4 blocks 218-228 for this limitation. However, Leary's disclosed workflow uses a stored reference object, acquired point cloud generation, and iterative closest point alignment to generate rotation and translation data used for charging connector positioning (e.g., Leary 0029; Leary 10035-10037), and the Office Action does not identify where Leary teaches that a plug-in process is "carried out based on" the claimed "modified digital map" generated by "processing the digital map." Even accepting arguendo that Leary includes some "map" representation, the Office Action does not establish the specific causal relationship recited by the claim, namely that the plug-in process is carried out "based on" the "modified digital map" generated from processing the "digital map," as required.”
The Examiner also disagrees:
Leary discloses a method wherein plug-in process based on the digital map. Lee discloses a method wherein the digital map is modified. So, it would be obvious to utilize Lee for digital map modification for plug-in process as disclosed by Leary.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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 on 5712703976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657