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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, of which claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 14-16, 19, and 20 are presently amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 101 as set forth in the prior office action.
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 1-2, 7-12, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kou et al. (CN 110221617 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kou teaches a recharging method for an autonomous mobile device, comprising:
determining a search zone of the autonomous mobile device, and emitting a laser toward the search zone ([0072]: uses LIDAR to scan the surrounding environment, i.e. the search zone);
determining a sub-zone in the search zone that reflects the laser as a candidate zone ([0072-0073]: obtains information of several scanning points);
determining a target zone based on the candidate zone, wherein, light intensities of reflected lights reflected by an identifier in the target zone are within a pre-set light intensity range ([0080-0082]: scanning points over a “first predetermined value [that] is an intensity value” are clustered into segments and later identified as the target zone);
wherein determining the target zone based on the candidate zone, comprises:
determining reflection points in the candidate zone ([0080-0082]: points of reflection are determined),
wherein, the reflection points are points where the laser impinging onto the identifier is reflected by the identifier ([0059]: laser signals impinging onto the identifier are returned with the “laser reflector plate”),
wherein light intensities of reflected lights corresponding to the reflection points are within the pre-set light intensity range ([0059] and [0080-0082]: “laser strength fed back by the marking area 14 is significantly different from the signal strength fed back by ordinary objects”, and scanning points over a preset threshold are selected as valid reflection points), wherein the method further comprises:
controlling the autonomous mobile device to move to the charging station to perform charging ([0018], [0021]: “the movable chassis is controlled to move toward the robot charging base”).
Kou doesn’t explicitly teach the determining and use of a rating score as part of this embodiment. However, Kou teaches an additional method for determining “whether the identification area 14 is located at the calculated position” ([0099]), this method comprising:
calculating a rating score of the identifier ([0109]: a matching score of the identifier is determined);
determining that the candidate zone is the target zone when the rating score is within a pre-set score range ([0109]: “When the matching degree is high enough… the position of the marker can be determined”);
wherein, calculating the rating score of the identifier includes:
calculating the rating score based on the light intensities of the reflected lights corresponding to the reflection points and based on weights of the reflection points ([0109]: points that are previously filtered based on their light intensities have their weights assessed based on the lengths of clustered point segments according to the formula for calculating the matching degree, included below as Equation 1), and,
when the rating score of the identifier in the target zone is within the pre-set score range, determining that the identifier in the target zone is a charging station ([0109] and [0111]: “when the matching degree is high enough” such that “the two line segments obtained can be confirmed as line segments corresponding to the two strong reflection areas” and “it is determined whether the distance from the selected scanning point to the matching line segment matches the distance between the strong reflection area 141 and the weak reflection area 142”, it is determined that “the robot charging base 1 is located at the calculated position”).
PNG
media_image1.png
38
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Equation 1: Formula for calculating the matching degree F
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to combine these embodiments for the motivation of accurately determining “whether the identification area 14 is located at the calculated position” ([0099]).
Regarding claim 2, Kou teaches:
wherein the weights of the reflection points are Euclidean distances from the reflection points to an origin ([0098] and [0109]: the lines are determined based on the coordinates of each clustered point P, which are determined by taking “value closest to the origin as the coordinates of P”. The weight for the matching score is then determined from these lines per equation 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, Kou teaches:
wherein before calculating the rating score of the identifier, the recharging method also comprises:
determining a first length of a straight line formed by the reflection points ([0106]); and
calculating the rating score of the identifier when the first length is within a first pre-set length range ([0106-0107]: rating score is only determined on identifiers within a pre-set length range).
Regarding claim 8, Kou teaches:
wherein before calculating the rating score of the identifier, the recharging method also comprises:
calculating the rating score of the identifier when a first quantity of the reflection points is greater than a pre-set first quantity ([0085-0086: only groups having greater than a pre-set number of points are selected, where the rating score is only determined afterwards for these groups)
Regarding claim 9, Kou teaches:
wherein calculating the rating score of the identifier when the first quantity of the reflection points is greater than the first pre-set quantity, comprises:
determining a geometric feature formed by the reflection points when the first quantity of the reflection points is greater than the first pre-set quantity ([0087]: length of a line segment is determined); and
calculating the rating score of the identifier when a degree of similarity between the geometric feature and a pre-set geometric feature is greater than a pre-set degree of similarity ([0088]: length of the line segment must be less than a predefined value, which is recognized as checking if the length of a line is similar enough to an expected length to reasonably be indicative of the identifier).
Regarding claim 10, Kou teaches:
wherein the geometric feature includes a fitted straight line ([0088] and [0093]: “fitting a straight line…”).
Regarding claim 11, Kou teaches:
wherein determining the reflection points in the candidate zone, comprises:
determining a plurality of groups of reflection points in the candidate zone, wherein, light intensities of reflected lights corresponding to reflection points included in each group of reflection points are within a same light intensity range ([0081-0082] and [0085]): points are filtered so that only intensities over a predetermined value remain. These points are then put into sub-data groups),
wherein the reflection points included in each group of reflection points are adjacent to one another ([0083-0084]: points within a distance of each other are grouped and segmented from other points by determined segmentation points),
wherein light intensity ranges corresponding to two adjacent groups of reflection points are different ([0059-0060] and [0111]: marking area has weak and strong reflective areas adjacent to each other, so high-reflection groups are separated by a low-reflection group),
and wherein the light intensities of the reflected lights corresponding to the reflection points included in each group of reflection points are within a pre-set light intensity range ([0081-0082] and [0085]): points are filtered so that only intensities over a predetermined value remain. These points are then put into sub-data groups);
determining whether each group of reflection points satisfies a pre-set condition ([0097-0088]: groups must have line segments below a certain length); and
calculating the rating score of the identifier when each group of reflection points satisfies the pre-set condition ([0108]: rating score only determined if groups of points satisfy the length condition);
wherein determining whether each group of reflection points satisfies the pre-set condition, comprises:
determining a first light strip formed by the reflection points included in each group of reflection points ([0108] and [0111-0112]: light strips of both the strong and weak reflection areas are determined); and
determining that each group of reflection points satisfies the pre-set condition when a first arrangement formed by a plurality of first light strips is a first pre-set arrangement ([0111-0112]: the distance between the light strips being within a ration of the expected distance is checked as a condition).
Regarding claim 12, Kou teaches:
wherein determining that each group of reflection points satisfies the pre-set condition when the first arrangement formed by the plurality of first light strips is the first pre-set arrangement, comprises:
obtaining a second quantity of reflection points included in each of the first light strips when the first arrangement formed by the plurality of first light strips is the first pre-set arrangement ([0085-0086]: the second quantify of reflection points is the minimum number of points that are included in strong-reflection area groups. Kou teaches that any group with a number of points being less than a third predetermined value is removed);
determining that a first light strip associated with the second quantity that is greater than a second pre-set quantity as a standard light strip ([0060]: a standard light strip, i.e. lines of strong-reflection areas, are determined when the number of points in that area is greater than or equal to the third predetermined value, i.e. second pre-set quantity); and
determining that each group of reflection points satisfies the pre-set condition ([0087-0088]).
Kou doesn’t explicitly check whether a ratio between a quantity of the standard light strips and a total quantity of the first light strips is within a pre-set ratio range as the pre-set condition. However, Kou teaches the detection of these areas, and that these areas correspond to a preset ratio of strong reflection areas to weak reflection areas ([0060] and [0091-0092]). It also teaches that the marking area is “specifically designed ([0059]), and that the embodiment with 3 weak reflection areas and 2 strong reflection areas is only an embodiment of the invention ([0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kou to explicitly check if the ratio between a quantity of the standard light strips and a total quantity of the first light strips is within a pre-set ratio range for the motivation of ensuring the accuracy of detection in case of embodiments that exhibit a different number and orientation of zones on the identification area, such as 3 strong reflection areas and 4 weak reflection areas. This allows the invention of Kou to not be restricted to the identification of the embodied identification area of 3 weak reflection areas and 2 strong reflection areas.
Regarding claim 14, Kou teaches:
wherein after calculating the rating score of the identifier, the recharging method also comprises:
repeating the determination of the search zone, and returning to execute the step of emitting the laser toward the search zone ([0077]: “the entire processes needs to be restarted” when the identification area is not found).
Although Kou doesn’t explicitly teach this restarting when the rating score is not within a pre-set score range, as the rating score not being within a pre-set score range is indicative of the identification marker not being found ([0108-0109]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to restart the process when the rating score is not within a pre-set score range based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to find the identifier, i.e. the identification marker, so as to successfully perform charging.
Regarding claim 15, Kou teaches an autonomous mobile device, comprising:
a memory storing computer-executable instructions ([0065]: control unit includes a memory that “stores an executable program”);
a processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions, ([0065]: control unit includes a processor that “executes the executable program”), wherein when the computer-executable instructions are executed by the processor, the computer-executable instructions cause the processor to:
determine a search zone of the autonomous mobile device, and emit a laser toward the search zone ([0054]: control unit 23; [0072]: uses LIDAR to scan the surrounding environment, i.e. the search zone),
determine a sub-zone in the search zone that reflects the laser as a candidate zone, ([0072-0073]: obtains information of several scanning points);
determine a target zone based on the candidate zone, wherein, light intensities of reflected lights reflected by the identifier in the target zone are within a pre-set light intensity range ([0080-0082]: scanning points over a “first predetermined value [that] is an intensity value” are clustered into segments and later identified as the target zone),
and to determine reflection points in the candidate zone ([0080-0082]: points of reflection are determined),
wherein, the reflection points are points where the laser impinging onto the identifier is reflected by the identifier ([0059]: laser signals impinging onto the identifier are returned with the “laser reflector plate”),
wherein light intensities of reflected lights corresponding to the reflection points are within the pre-set light intensity range ([0059] and [0080-0082]: “laser strength fed back by the marking area 14 is significantly different from the signal strength fed back by ordinary objects”, and scanning points over a preset threshold are selected as valid reflection points), and
control the autonomous mobile device to move to the charging station to perform charging ([0018], [0021]: “the movable chassis is controlled to move toward the robot charging base”).
Kou doesn’t explicitly teach the determining and use of a rating score as part of this embodiment. However, Kou teaches additional processes for determining “whether the identification area 14 is located at the calculated position” ([0099]), this these processes including:
calculating a rating score of the identifier ([0109]: a matching score of the identifier is determined),
wherein, the rating score is obtained based on the determined light intensities of the reflected lights corresponding to the reflection points and based on weights of the reflection points ([0109]: points that are previously filtered based on their light intensities have their weights assessed based on the lengths of clustered point segments according to the formula for calculating the matching degree, included below as Equation 1), and,
when the rating score of the identifier in the target zone is within the pre-set score range, determining that the identifier in the target zone is a charging station ([0109] and [0111]: “when the matching degree is high enough” such that “the two line segments obtained can be confirmed as line segments corresponding to the two strong reflection areas” and “it is determined whether the distance from the selected scanning point to the matching line segment matches the distance between the strong reflection area 141 and the weak reflection area 142”, it is determined that “the robot charging base 1 is located at the calculated position”).
PNG
media_image1.png
38
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Equation 1: Formula for calculating the matching degree F
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to combine these embodiments for the motivation of accurately determining “whether the identification area 14 is located at the calculated position” ([0099]).
Regarding claim 16, Kou teaches:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which stores computer-executable instructions ([0065]: control unit includes a memory that “stores an executable program”),
wherein when the computer-executable instructions are executed by a processor ([0065]: control unit includes a processor that “executes the executable program”),
the instructions cause the processor to execute a recharging method for an autonomous mobile device comprising:
determining a search zone of the autonomous mobile device, and emitting a laser toward the search zone ([0072]: uses LIDAR to scan the surrounding environment, i.e. the search zone);
determining a sub-zone in the search zone that reflects the laser as a candidate zone ([0072-0073]: obtains information of several scanning points);
determining a target zone based on the candidate zone, wherein, light intensities of reflected lights reflected by an identifier in the target zone are within a pre-set light intensity range ([0080-0082]: scanning points over a “first predetermined value [that] is an intensity value” are clustered into segments and later identified as the target zone);
wherein determining the target zone based on the candidate zone, comprises:
determining reflection points in the candidate zone ([0080-0082]: points of reflection are determined),
wherein, the reflection points are points where the laser impinging onto the identifier is reflected by the identifier ([0059]: laser signals impinging onto the identifier are returned with the “laser reflector plate”),
wherein light intensities of reflected lights corresponding to the reflection points are within the pre-set light intensity range ([0059] and [0080-0082]: “laser strength fed back by the marking area 14 is significantly different from the signal strength fed back by ordinary objects”, and scanning points over a preset threshold are selected as valid reflection points), and wherein the method further comprises:
controlling the autonomous mobile device to move to the charging station to perform charging ([0018], [0021]: “the movable chassis is controlled to move toward the robot charging base”).
Kou doesn’t explicitly teach the determining and use of a rating score as part of this embodiment. However, Kou teaches additional processes for determining “whether the identification area 14 is located at the calculated position” ([0099]), these processes comprising:
calculating a rating score of the identifier ([0109]: a matching score of the identifier is determined);
determining that the candidate zone is the target zone when the rating score is within a pre-set score range ([0109]: “When the matching degree is high enough… the position of the marker can be determined”);
wherein, calculating the rating score of the identifier includes:
calculating the rating score based on the light intensities of the reflected lights corresponding to the reflection points and based on weights of the reflection points ([0109]: points that are previously filtered based on their light intensities have their weights assessed based on the lengths of clustered point segments according to the formula for calculating the matching degree, included below as Equation 1), and,
when the rating score of the identifier in the target zone is within the pre-set score range, determining that the identifier in the target zone is a charging station ([0109] and [0111]: “when the matching degree is high enough” such that “the two line segments obtained can be confirmed as line segments corresponding to the two strong reflection areas” and “it is determined whether the distance from the selected scanning point to the matching line segment matches the distance between the strong reflection area 141 and the weak reflection area 142”, it is determined that “the robot charging base 1 is located at the calculated position”).
PNG
media_image1.png
38
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Equation 1: Formula for calculating the matching degree F
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to combine these embodiments for the motivation of accurately determining “whether the identification area 14 is located at the calculated position” ([0099]).
Regarding claim 17, Kou teaches:
wherein the weights of the reflection points are Euclidean distances from the reflection points to an origin ([0098] and [0109]: the lines are determined based on the coordinates of each clustered point P, which are determined by taking “value closest to the origin as the coordinates of P”. The weight for the matching score is then determined from these lines per equation 1 above).
Regarding claim 20, Kou teaches:
wherein before calculating the rating score of the identifier, the recharging method also comprises:
determining a first length of a straight line formed by the reflection points ([0106]); and
calculating the rating score of the identifier when the first length is within a first pre-set length range ([0106-0107]: rating score is only determined on identifiers within a pre-set length range).
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kou as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (CN 113341396 A).
Regarding claim 5, Kao teaches that the weights for determining the score are based on the lengths of the lines determined ([0109] and see Equation 1). It does not teach that each weight corresponding to each reflection point is a ratio between a length of a light reflecting zone of the candidate zone in which the reflection point is located and a total length of the candidate zone.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhao teaches that each weight corresponding to each reflection point is a ratio between a length of a light reflecting zone of the candidate zone in which the reflection point is located and a total length of the candidate zone ([0063] and [0066-0067]: checks if the length of the reflective area, i.e. distance between the first and last points of the point cloud segment, is greater than the width of the charging pile, and discards the point cloud if it’s less. This is equivalent to checking if the ratio of the length of the reflective area, i.e. distance of the point cloud, to the length of the candidate zone, i.e. length of the charging pile, is >= 1). Zhou determines this ratio so as to perform point cloud segmentation if the ratio is greater than a value over 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Kou with a similar determination based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to prevent false determinations of the identification area.
Regarding claim 18, Kao teaches that the weights for determining the score are based on the lengths of the lines determined ([0109] and see Equation 1). It does not teach that each weight corresponding to each reflection point is a ratio between a length of a light reflecting zone of the candidate zone in which the reflection point is located and a total length of the candidate zone.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhao teaches that each weight corresponding to each reflection point is a ratio between a length of a light reflecting zone of the candidate zone in which the reflection point is located and a total length of the candidate zone ([0063] and [0066-0067]: checks if the length of the reflective area, i.e. distance between the first and last points of the point cloud segment, is greater than the width of the charging pile, and discards the point cloud if it’s less. This is equivalent to checking if the ratio of the length of the reflective area, i.e. distance of the point cloud, to the length of the candidate zone, i.e. length of the charging pile, is >= 1). Zhou determines this ratio so as to perform point cloud segmentation if the ratio is greater than a value over 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Kou with a similar determination based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to prevent false determinations of the identification area.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wan et al. (CN 110109450 A).
Regarding claim 13, Kou teaches:
wherein after determining the sub-zone in the search zone that reflects the laser as the candidate zone, the recharging method also comprises:
when all candidate zones are not the target zone, return to executing the step of determining the search zone of the autonomous mobile device ([0077]: entire process restarted when identification area is not determined).
Kou does not teach additionally controlling the autonomous mobile device to move for a pre-set distance when the identification area is not determined.
In the same field of endeavor Wan teaches:
controlling the autonomous mobile device to move for a pre-set distance ([0074]: move a pre-set distance to another room and scan again). Wan performs this process “since the robot may not be in the room where the charging dock is located” ([0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Kou to also perform the movement into another room based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Wan, of improving the efficiency of automatic recharging by better enabling the robot to find the charging dock when it is in an area where the charging dock may not be located ([0074]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6, and 19 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103 of the independent claims 1, 15, and 16, applicant argues that the references do not render the claims— in particular, the process of “calculating the rating score based on the light intensities of the reflected lights corresponding to the reflection points and based on weights of the reflection points”— obvious as “Kou merely discloses filtering data of scan points based on the signal strength or light intensities. Kou does not disclose or suggest calculating the matching degree based on the signal strength.”
Examiner notes the broadest reasonable interpretation of “based on” as a particular point of emphasis. Definitionally, if a first value is ”based on” a second value, it is understood that the first value is developed, at least in part, from the second value. Therefore, claim language indicating that a first value is “based on” a second value does not restrict the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation to a specific degree or manner in which the second value is used to produce the first value, such as by requiring that the first value be determined by inputting the second value directly into an equation or algorithm that produces the first value.
In context of the teachings of Kou, the calculation of the matching degree is based on the intensities of light as the line segments and their length are determined directly based on the intensities of light. As applicant themself states on page 15 of their remarks, “Kou discloses “remov[ing] the data of scan points with signal strength less than a first predetermined value [to] obtain the second data group." See, Par. [0102] of the English machine translation of Kou.” These filtered scanned points are then processed to form line segments and dividing points, upon which equation 1 as cited above is executed to produce the matching degree, i.e. the rating score. Thus, the calculation of the rating score of Kou is based on the light intensities, i.e. signal strength, of the reflected lights corresponding to the reflection points as the rating score is developed from the lengths of lines formed by filtered light intensities.
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that light intensities or signal strengths are directly an input into the equation for calculating the rating score) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK R BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights