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 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 14 is 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. Claim 14 recites the limitation "repeating determination of the search zone based on the target zone". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 includes the step of “determining a search zone of the autonomous mobile device”, but this is not done based on the target zone. Therefore, it is unclear if the determination that is being repeated in claim 14 is the same determining of the search zone done performed in claim 1.
Applicant is recommended to remove “based on the target zone” from claim 14, or to add said limitation to the determining of a search zone in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
“determining a search zone of the autonomous mobile device”. This is a mental process as a human is capable of mentally determining an area around an autonomous mobile device in which to search;
“determining a sub-zone in the search zone that reflects the laser as a candidate zone”. This is a mental process as a human, when given data of reflected laser intensities in the search zone, is capable of determining a candidate within that search zone based on those intensities;
“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”. This is a mental process as a human, when given data of reflected laser intensities in the search area, is capable of determining an area where intensities are within a pre-set range as the target zone;
“determining reflection points in the candidate zone, … wherein light intensities of reflected lights corresponding to the reflection points are within the pre-set light intensity range”. This is a mental process as a human, when given data of reflected laser intensities in the search area, is capable of determining points where the reflected laser intensity is within a pre-set range;
“obtaining a rating score of the identifier”. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation this is an abstract idea, such as a mental process, as a person is capable of determining a score of a zone based on these reflection points. However, dependent claims 3-4 and 6 redefine this process as an abstract idea in the form of a mathematical calculation as it explicitly defines the equations used to obtain the rating score of the identifier;
“determining that the candidate zone is the target zone when the rating score is within a pre-set score range”. This is a mental process as a person is capable of determining whether a given score is within a pre-set score range, and determining that the candidate zone is the target zone based on that; and “obtaining 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”. This is an abstract idea in the form of a mathematical concept as is further described in the equations present in dependent claims 3-4 and 6.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because there is insufficient extra-solution activity present in the claims. In terms of additional elements and/or extra-solution activity, Claim 1 adds “emitting a laser toward the search zone”, and that “the reflection points are points where the laser impinging onto the identifier is reflected by the identifier”. These are recognized as pre-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering as this is the process in which a traditional LIDAR sensor emits a laser and receives laser reflection intensity values. This receiving of laser reflection intensity values merely provides input data to the abstract ideas to be performed, and does not add any significant extra-solution activity, such as a post-solution use of the determined target zone, as necessary to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The dependent claims fail to remove these processes from being considered judicial exceptions under BRI, and fail to add significant extra-solution activity necessary to integrate them into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because they fail to add limitations to the claim that sufficiently go beyond the abstract ideas of the independent claim 1 so as to demonstrate an inventive concept. As stated above, the additional elements relate to the emitting of a laser to detect reflection points where the laser is impinging onto the identifier. The generality in which these are described fails to demonstrate an inventive concept over how LIDAR sensors are well-understood in the art to operate. The dependent claims fail to add significantly more to these additional elements.
Therefore, claims 1-14 are ineligible under 101. Claims 15 and 16-20 claim some combination of the judicial exceptions established in claim 1 and fail to integrate them into a practical application, and are thus rejected under the same grounds.
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, 14-18 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).
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:
obtaining 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, obtaining the rating score of the identifier includes:
obtaining 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).
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 obtaining 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
obtaining 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 obtaining the rating score of the identifier, the recharging method also comprises:
obtaining 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 obtaining 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
obtaining 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
obtaining 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 explicit 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 obtaining the rating score of the identifier, the recharging method also comprises:
repeating the determination of the search zone based on the target 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 determination module, configured 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),
wherein the determination module is configured to determine a sub-zone in the search zone that reflects the laser as a candidate zone, ([0072-0073]: obtains information of several scanning points);
wherein the determination module is also configured to 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).
Although Kou teaches an obtaining module ([0054] and [0064-0065]: control unit 24 obtains all values and performs the disclosed method), it 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:
obtaining 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).
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).
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:
obtaining 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, obtaining the rating score of the identifier includes:
obtaining 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).
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 obtaining 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
obtaining 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 would be allowable if rewritten if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
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