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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 7, the limitation “the docking point” lacks antecedent basis as it has not been previously defined.
As per claim 17, there is an antecedent basis issue with the limitation “a service station” as it is already defined in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 1 and 19, the claim recites “in response thereto determine that the change is below a threshold acceptance level, and if so, updating…” which renders the claim unclear as to whether the change being determined to be below the threshold is positively recited due to the phrase “if so”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “in response thereto determine that the change is below a threshold acceptance level, and
Dependent claims 2-18 are rejected under the same rationale by virtue of dependency.
As per claim 7, it is unclear what the docking position being referred to is. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted to be the docking point.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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(s) 1, 11, 15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vogel (US 2018/0246518).
As per claims 1 and 19, Vogel discloses a robotic work tool arranged to operate in an operational area housing a service station (see at least para. 24-26 for a robot 100 performing a task within an environment containing base station 200 such as vacuuming), the robotic work tool comprising
a navigation sensor (navigation sensor 110),
a memory storing a map application of the operational area (see at least para. 24 and claims 17-18 for memory storing electronic map) and
a controller (see at least para. 5 and 72 for robot controller),
wherein the controller is configured to detect that there has been a change in a location of the service station, and in response thereto determine that the change is below a threshold acceptance level, and if so, updating the location of the service station in the map application of the operational area (see at least para. 44 for recognizing base station at a new position and if new position deviates by a distance of less than 1m from the former position then record the new position and delete the former position).
As per claim 11, Vogel further discloses wherein the threshold acceptance level relates to a distance (see at least para. 44 for the distance being less than 1m).
As per claim 15, Vogel further discloses wherein the navigation sensor includes a visual navigation sensor (see at least para. 25 for navigation sensor is a camera).
As per claim 17, Vogel discloses a robotic work tool system comprising:
the robotic work tool according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and
a service station (base station 200).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel in view of Zhou (US 2019/0369620).
As per claim 2, Vogel is silent regarding, however Zhou teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine that the accuracy of the navigation sensor used is above an accuracy threshold level, and if so update the location of the service station (see at least para. 209 for confirming positioning precision is high before recording new position of the charging station).
Zhou is directed towards a similar field of endeavor as Vogel as Zhou is also directed towards an autonomous mobile robot that performs a task and requires the need to register a new position of the charging station.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Vogel with the features of Zhou because it ensures that the recorded position of the charging station is precise as the precision of the positioning signal is high compared to when the precision is low.
As per claim 12, Vogel is silent regarding, however Zhou teaches wherein the robotic work tool is a robotic lawnmower (see at least para. 144 for self-moving device may be a lawn mower).
Zhou is directed towards a similar field of endeavor as Vogel as Zhou is also directed towards an autonomous mobile robot that performs a task and requires the need to register a new position of the docking station.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Vogel with the features of Zhou for use on a robotic lawnmower instead of a robotic vacuum because both robotic vacuums and robotic lawnmowers have docking stations that may be moved to a new or different position than is known and thus require an updated position for proper docking.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel.
As per claim 3, Vogel further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to update a docking point for the service station
Vogel is not explicit regarding doing this in response to the location of the service station being changed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the docking position would need to be updated when the position of the base station has changed otherwise successful charging of the battery would not be performed as it requires the robot to dock onto the base station at a certain position and orientation in order for the robot to come into contact with the charging contacts.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel in view of Rasam (US 2024/0036582).
As per claim 13, Vogel is silent regarding, but Rasam teaches wherein the navigation sensor includes a deduced reckoning sensor (see at least para. 96 for accelerometer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Vogel with the features of Rasam as it is well-known to use one or more of the sensors taught by Rasam, as they are interchangeable, for robotic navigation about a space.
As per claim 14, Vogel is silent regarding, but Rasam teaches wherein the navigation sensor includes a satellite navigation sensor (see at least para. 96 for GPS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Vogel with the features of Rasam as it is well-known to use one or more of the sensors taught by Rasam, as they are interchangeable, for robotic navigation about a space.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel in view of Gill (US 2020/0022553).
As per claim 16, Vogel is silent regarding, but Gill teaches wherein the navigation sensor includes a magnetic sensor arranged to sense a magnetic field emanating from the service station (see at least para. 90 for using a hall effect sensor to sense magnetic field generated by the docking station).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Vogel with the features of Gill to modify the device of Vogel with the features of Gill because it provides another means for detecting proximity to a docking station to perform automated charging.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel in view of Suvarna (US 2019/0061157).
As per claim 18, Vogel is silent regarding, but Suvarna teaches a server (see at least para. 31-32 for server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Vogel with the features of Suvarna as it was well-known that the means for control of a robotic vacuum may be implemented on an on-board processing system, a remote processing system, or a combination as both.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Additionally the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action must be overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM ET.
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, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619