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 .
Claim Interpretation: 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Interpretation: Controller Limitations
As currently constituted, in which the Office has provided extensive training to the Examiners thereon, the Applicant has claimed a “controller” subsequently followed merely by intended use recitations for said controller (i.e., “setting a traveling path based on object information detected by the sensing unit and controlling the traveling unit to move along the traveling path” for example in claim 1). As such, The Manual of Patent Examining Procedures specifically states that, "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114 II).
More specifically, claims reciting “a controller for setting a traveling path” or merely, “a controller setting a traveling path” does not intrinsically impart structural features into the claims in which the controller is configured in a manner such that the control circuitry of the apparatus is specifically designed in a way so as to perform the recited functions. Therefore, a controller capable of performing the recited functions will meet the limitations of the claims as currently constituted. It is highly suggested for the Applicant to amend to “a controller configured to set a traveling path” because such an amendment would necessarily incorporate the functional limitations stated such that the prior art would need to disclose said functional limitations in order to meet the recited claims.
Nonetheless, the current claims will be examined such that a controller that is capable of performing the recited functions will meet the limitations as claimed because said limitations merely state “a controller” followed by a functional limitation (i.e., “setting a traveling path based on object information detected by the sensing unit and controlling the traveling unit to move along the traveling path” for example in claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Strauss et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0296754).
Strauss discloses a sterilization robot (Figures 2-7) comprising:
A case (Figures 2-7);
A traveling unit (202) located in a lower part of the case and providing a traveling function (paragraphs 57 & 58);
A sterilization module (500/600/702 & 704) located on a side surface of the case; A sensing unit (214) detecting a nearby object; and
A controller (216) setting a traveling path based on object information detected by the sensing unit and controlling the traveling unit to move along the traveling path (paragraphs 43-48 and 62-65).
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Callahan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0346541).
Callahan discloses a sterilization robot comprising:
A case (100/1300; paragraph 142);
A traveling unit (132) located in a lower part of the case (100/1300) and providing a traveling function (paragraphs 68 & 69);
A sterilization module (138) located on a side surface of the case (Figures 2, 3, 7, 24, 25 and 38; paragraph 67);
A sensing unit (194) detecting a nearby object (paragraph 82); and
A controller capable of setting a traveling path based on object information detected by the sensing unit and controlling the traveling unit to move along the traveling path (paragraphs 82-84 and 91).
Regarding claim 2, Callahan continues to disclose that the controller is capable of determining a sterilization object (120) among objects detected by the sensing unit (192), and sets the traveling path to pass by the sterilization object (120) while maintaining a sterilization distance from the sterilization object (paragraphs 82-84).
Concerning claim 3, Callahan also discloses when a movement-direction width of the sterilization robot is equal to or greater than a first threshold width (Figures 1, 3 & 25), the controller sets a first travel path to maintain a first distance from the sterilization object and operates the sterilization robot in a first mode (paragraphs 82 & 83).
With respect to claim 4, the reference further discloses that a pair of sterilization modules (138) are located on both sides in a direction perpendicular to a traveling direction of the traveling unit (Figures 1, 3, 24 and 25), and wherein the controller is capable of turning on a sterilization module facing the sterilization object and turns off a sterilization module located opposite thereto, in the first mode (paragraphs 81, 87-90 & 147).
Regarding claim 5, Callahan also discloses that when there is no sterilization object among the detected objects, the controller is capable of setting a second traveling path for movement along a wall and operates the sterilization robot in a second mode (paragraphs 69, 77-79, 81-84 and 87-90).
Concerning claim 6, Callahan continues to disclose that the traveling unit is capable of moving at a first speed in the first mode and at a second speed in the second mode (paragraphs 6, 69, 85, 90, 106-110 and 122).
With respect to claim 7, Callahan further discloses that the controller is capable of turning off the sterilization modules in the second mode (paragraph 81).
Regarding claim 8, the reference also discloses that when the movement-direction width of the sterilization robot has a value between a second threshold width and the first threshold width, the controller is capable of setting a third traveling path running along a middle of the movement-direction width and operates the sterilization robot in a third mode (paragraphs 69, 90, 91 and 110; Figures 1, 3, 4 & 25).
Concerning claim 9, Callahan discloses that a pair of sterilization modules (138) are located on both sides in a direction perpendicular to a traveling direction of the traveling unit (Figures 1, 6, 24 and 25), and wherein the controller is capable of turning on the pair of sterilization modules (138) in the third mode, and capable of controlling the traveling unit to move at a third speed (paragraphs 6, 69, 81, 85, 90, 106-110 and 122).
With respect to claim 10, Callahan also discloses that when the third traveling path ends at a dead end, the controller controls the traveling unit to reverse a traveling direction turn around, and move back along the third traveling path (paragraphs 69, 90, 91 and 110).
Regarding claim 11, Callahan further discloses that the sterilization object is a door, and the first raveling path is set to be spaced from the door by a second distance greater than the first distance (paragraphs 81-84, 88 and 106).
Concerning claim 12, Callahan continues to disclose that when the set traveling path overlaps with a previously traveled traveling path, the controller is capable of controlling the traveling unit to move at a speed greater than a first speed used to move along the previously traveled traveling path (paragraphs 106-108 and 110-112).
With respect to claim 13, the reference discloses that the controller stores a traveling starting point by moving to an object at a location closest to a departure point, and upon arrival at the traveling starting point, turns off the traveling unit and the sterilization module (paragraphs 81, 90 and 91).
Concerning claim 14, Callahan discloses that when an unsterilized area remains upon arrival at the traveling starting point, the controller is capable of controlling the traveling unit and the sterilization module by setting a traveling path that does not overlap with a previously traveled traveling path (paragraphs 81-84, 90, 91, 106-108 and 110-112).
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.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauss et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0296754) in view of Callahan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0346541).
Strauss is relied upon as set forth above. While Strauss continues to disclose that the sterilization module includes a sterilization lamp emitting ultraviolet light (paragraph 74), the reference does not appear to disclose that said module includes a reflector reflecting the ultraviolet light on a rear surface of the sterilization lamp. Callahan discloses a sterilization robot that includes a case, a traveling unit, and a sterilization module with a UV lamp (140) located on a surface of the case (Abstract; Figures 1-6). The reference continues to disclose that the sterilization module includes a reflector reflecting the ultraviolet light on a rear surface of the sterilization lamp in order to direct all of the ultraviolet light to a desired direction (paragraphs 164-166). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sterilization module of Strauss with a reflector reflecting the ultraviolet light on a rear surface of the sterilization lamp in order to direct all of the ultraviolet light to a desired direction as exemplified by Callahan.
Thus, claim 15 is not patentable over Strauss in view of Callahan.
Concerning claims 16 & 17, Strauss continues to disclose that the sterilization module (Figures 5 & 6) includes a plurality of actuators (520A-D/560A-B/568A-B/532AB/571A-B/530A-B) protruding from the case and on a rear surface thereof for changing an angle (Figures 5 & 6); wherein the controller controls a position and a direction of the sterilization module by controlling a length change of the actuators (paragraphs 73-102).
With respect to claim 18, the sterilization robot of Strauss is fully capable of operating such that, when the sterilization object (580/682/712) is highly contaminated, the controller changes the direction of the sterilization module during traveling of the sterilization robot by controlling the actuator to direct the sterilization module toward the sterilization object (paragraphs 36-48 and 98-100).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights