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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 02 December 2024. Claims 1-6 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0068358, filed on 03 June 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02 December 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS was considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Image quality of at least the following figures need to be improved:
Fig. 7, Fig. 10: text in the figures need to be legible.
Fig. 11: +x, +y are used to designate different parts in the figure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
storage unit in claim 6;
The structure of the storage unit is “a volatile memory or a non-volatile memory” (see para 0038 of the specification).
control unit in claim 6;
The structure of the control unit is a main processor and an auxiliary processor which is operable independently from or together with the main processor (see para 0042 of the specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: “determining distance and angle information from the terrain information”. Claim 1 recites “acquiring, …terrain information…” and further recites “clustering consecutive points from distance and angle information…”, while it is not clear how distance and angle information is acquired and what object the distance and angle information is related to. Further, it is not clear what the purpose of acquiring the terrain information nis and how the acquired terrain information is used. In addition, claim 1 recites the limitation “the charging station” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “…determining whether a left-right error between a center point of the charging system and a center point of the mobile robot exceeds a first threshold value…” which is ambiguous. It is not clear how “error” between two “points” (i.e., center point of the charging system and center point of the mobile robot) is defined. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 2 recites “…calculating a movement route…”, while claim 1, from which claim 2 is dependent, recites “…calculating a route…”. It is not clear if the “route” of claim 1 is the same route as the “movement route” of claim 2 or is a different route. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 3 recites “…a virtual line in a direction perpendicular to the charging station” which is ambiguous. It is not clear what reference of the charging station is used to determine the perpendicular direction. A charging station has multiple surfaces, edges and axes. The claim does not specify which surface, axis or reference direction is used to determine the perpendicular direction. As such, multiple different lines could satisfy the limitation based on which reference is selected. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 3 recites “…calculating a route moving to the target…”, while claim 1, from which claim 3 is dependent, recites “…calculating a route…”. It is not clear if the “route” of claim 1 is the same route as the “route” of claim 3 or is a different route. Further, it is not clear “…a route moving to the target…” means the route itself moving to the target… OR the route for the robot to move to the target… Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the corresponding candidate” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “comparing a length of the cluster and a length of the charging station, and when…, excluding the corresponding candidate from a candidate cluster”, while claim 1 recites “determine a location of the charging station from the cluster”. It is not clear if the cluster is “excluded” as recited in claim 5, how the location of the charging station is determined from “the cluster” in claim 1. Further, “a cluster” is formed in claim 1, and if the cluster formed in claim 1 is excluded in claim 5, it is not clear how the robot further identifies the docking station. In addition, it is not clear what the relation between the cluster and the “candidate” is, and it is not clear the candidate being excluded is the cluster or not. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 6 recites “a control unit determining, as an intermediate goal point, a point where a virtual line in a direction perpendicular to the charging station and a virtual circle surrounding the mobile robot by using the distance and angle information, and calculating a route moving to the intermediate goal point and a route to the charging station” which is ambiguous. It is not clear how the virtual line and the virtual circle are related to the “point”, i.e., the “where” clause is not a full sentence and the relation between the “point”, “line” and “circle” are not established. Further, it is not clear “a route moving to the intermediate goal point and a route to the charging station” are two separate routes leading from the current position of the robot to the intermediate goal point and charging station, respectively, OR the route to the charging station is a continuation of the route to the intermediate goal point. Further, it is not clear “…a route moving to the target…” means the route itself moving to the target… OR the route for the robot to move to the target… As to the “perpendicular…”, similar to claim 3, the “…perpendicular to the charging station” is not clear. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 2-5 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method for docking a mobile robot (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for docking a mobile robot with a docking system, the method comprising:
acquiring, by a LiDAR provided in the mobile robot, terrain information around the mobile robot;
clustering consecutive points from distance and angle information to form a cluster;
determining a location of the charging station from the cluster; and
calculating a route to the charging station.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “clustering...”, “determining…” and “calculating…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (e.g., a driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement in the mind or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for docking a mobile robot with a docking system, the method comprising:
acquiring, by a LiDAR provided in the mobile robot, terrain information around the mobile robot;
clustering consecutive points from distance and angle information to form a cluster;
determining a location of the charging station from the cluster; and
calculating a route to the charging station.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “acquiring, by a LiDAR provided in the mobile robot, terrain information...” the examiner submits that the limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the acquiring step from by a LiDAR is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the clustering…, determining…, calculating… steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation of “acquiring...” the examiner submits that this limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “acquiring ...” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the robot. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per Claim 6.
Claim 6, an apparatus claim (a mobile robot), includes limitations analogous to claim 1 a process claim (a method to), but adds a storage unit, a control unit and a determining step. Similar to claim 1, the determining… and calculating… steps constitute a “mental process”. The limitations of acquiring… and storing…constitute insignificant extra solution activities. The generically recited computer elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they merely amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-6 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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)(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong (US20210146552).
As to claim 1, Hong teaches a method for docking a mobile robot with a docking system (Hong, abstract, Fig. 1), the method comprising:
acquiring, by a LiDAR provided in the mobile robot, terrain information around the mobile robot (Hong, para 0034: The LiDAR sensor 110 included in the mobile robot device 100 may obtain information regarding physical characteristics related to a target object (a distance between the mobile robot device 100 and a target object…, para 0038);
clustering consecutive points from distance and angle information to form a cluster (Hong, para 0040-0042: …obtain the point cloud corresponding to the charging station 200 via the LiDAR sensor);
determining a location of the charging station from the cluster (Hong, para 0044-0046: The mobile robot device 100 may obtain a similarity value between a pattern of the point cloud corresponding to the charging station obtained via the LiDAR sensor 110 and a predetermined pattern… when the similarity value is identified to be equal to or greater than the threshold value, the mobile robot device 100 may move to the charging station 200 based on the first position relative to the charging station); and
calculating a route to the charging station (Hong, para 0046: when the similarity value is identified to be equal to or greater than the threshold value, the mobile robot device 100 may move to the charging station 200 based on the first position relative to the charging station; also see para 0060, para 0073, para 0086).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Park (KR20060100971, paragraph number cited based on attached machine translated copy).
As to claim 2, Hong teaches the method for docking a mobile robot with a docking system of claim 1.
Hong does not teach wherein the calculating of the route to the charging station includes:
determining whether a left-right error between a center point of the charging system and a center point of the mobile robot exceeds a first threshold value;
calculating a movement route based on an intermediate goal point closer to the mobile robot than the center point of the charging station in a front direction of the charging station when the left-right error exceeds the first threshold value; and
moving the mobile robot based on the calculated movement route.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park teaches…the controller 110 may determine an angle θ between the charging device recognition label directions, a distance from the robot 100 to the recognition labels 210a and 210b, and a distance X between the recognition labels 210a and 210b. Obtaining the angles (α, β) between the robot 100 by using, the control unit 110 is the angle between the direction of the charging device recognition signs (210a, b) and the robot 100 detected in the step (α, The path from the robot 100 to the charging device 200 is calculated using β, θ), the distances Y and Z, and the distance X between the charging device recognition marks 210a and b (S50). The path may be derived using the trigonometric functions X/sinθ =Y/sinα, Ysinθ=Xsinα, β=180°-α-θ as shown in FIGS. 6 to 8…When the angle β between the recognition mark 210b and the robot 100 is 90 °, the robot 100 is positioned forward at a right angle to the recognition mark 210b, so that the robot is left X/2…move to the left by 1/2 of the distance between the identification mark and move forward by the distance Y between the identification mark 210b and the robot to reach the charging device, and connect the charging terminal to the power terminal to charge the rechargeable battery…When the angle β between the recognition mark 210b and the robot 100 is smaller than 90°…the robot 100 may move to X/2-Ycosβ to the left and move to Ysinβ to the front to reach the charging device…When the motor 100 is driven according to the control signal, the robot 100 moves to the charging device 200 while rotating the charging terminal 143 in the same direction as the driving direction of the path, so that the charging terminal 143 is the power terminal (see at least Park, page 9, para 0004-0010, Fig. 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong so as to include determining whether a left-right error between a center point of the charging system and a center point of the mobile robot exceeds a first threshold value; calculating a movement route based on an intermediate goal point closer to the mobile robot than the center point of the charging station in a front direction of the charging station when the left-right error exceeds the first threshold value; and moving the mobile robot based on the calculated movement route in view of Park et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that path determination method of Park can used in Hong, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Hong and Park because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method for the robot to locate the charging station and determine a path for the robot to effectively align with and return to the docking station to charge the battery.
As to claim 3, Hong in view of Park teaches the method for docking a mobile robot with a docking system of claim 2.
Park further teaches wherein the calculating of the movement route includes:
determining a target intermediate goal point which comes in contact with a virtual circle surrounding the mobile robot among a plurality of candidate intermediate goal points which exist on a virtual line in a direction perpendicular to the charging station (see at least Park, page 9, para 0004-0010, Fig. 6-8); and
calculating a route moving to the target intermediate goal point (see at least Park, page 9, para 0004-0010, Fig. 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong so as to include determining a target intermediate goal point which comes in contact with a virtual circle surrounding the mobile robot among a plurality of candidate intermediate goal points which exist on a virtual line in a direction perpendicular to the charging station; and calculating a route moving to the target intermediate goal point in view of Park et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that path determination method of Park can used in Hong, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Hong and Park because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method for the robot to locate the charging station and determine a path for the robot to effectively align with and return to the docking station to charge the battery.
As to claim 4, Hong in view of Park teaches the method for docking a mobile robot with a docking system of claim 2.
Park further teaches calculating the movement route in the direction of reducing a heading angle calculated based on an angle between the front direction of the charging station and a movement direction of the mobile robot when the left-right error does not exceed the first threshold value; and moving the mobile robot through the calculated movement route (Park Fig. 6-8, page 9, para 0004-0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong so as to include calculating the movement route in the direction of reducing a heading angle calculated based on an angle between the front direction of the charging station and a movement direction of the mobile robot when the left-right error does not exceed the first threshold value; and moving the mobile robot through the calculated movement route in view of Park et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that path determination method of Park can used in Hong, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Hong and Park because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method for the robot to locate the charging station and determine a path for the robot to effectively align with and return to the docking station to charge the battery.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Makhal (US20230133113).
As to claim 5, Hong teaches the method for docking a mobile robot with a docking system of claim 1.
Hong further teaches obtaining similarity value between the point cloud and the charging station, when the similarity value is identified to be equal to or greater than the threshold value, the mobile robot device 100 may move to the charging station 200 based on the first position relative to the charging station (Hong para 0044-0046).
Hong does not explicitly teach comparing a length of the cluster and a length of the charging station, and when a difference value is greater than or equal to a predetermined size, excluding the corresponding candidate from a candidate cluster; and determining the location of the charging station among candidates whose difference values are less than the predetermined size.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Makhal teaches … if a comparative dimension measure indicates that the size difference (e.g. length, width, and/or height) between one of the objects on the top, visual layer and another object on the top, visible layer does not satisfy the comparative dimension threshold range, the processing element determines that the objects are not sufficiently similar in sizes and shapes…(Makhal para 0113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong so as to include calculating the movement route in the direction of reducing a heading angle calculated based on an angle between the front direction of the charging station and a movement direction of the mobile robot when the left-right error does not exceed the first threshold value; and moving the mobile robot through the calculated movement route in view of Makhal et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Hong and Makhal because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method for the robot to identify the charging station and thus allow the robot to determine a path to effectively align with and return to the docking station to charge the battery.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Park, and further in view of Cheon (US20220055223).
As to claim 6, Hong teaches a mobile robot comprising:
a LiDAR acquiring distance and angle information of surrounding objects of a mobile robot (Hong, para 0034: The LiDAR sensor 110 included in the mobile robot device 100 may obtain information regarding physical characteristics related to a target object (a distance between the mobile robot device 100 and a target object, a direction…, para 0038);
a storage unit storing reference information of a charging station (Hong, para 0044-0046).
Hong does not explicitly teach a control unit determining, as an intermediate goal point, a point where a virtual line in a direction perpendicular to the charging station and a virtual circle surrounding the mobile robot by using the distance and angle information, and calculating a route moving to the intermediate goal point and a route to the charging station.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park teaches a control unit determining, as an intermediate goal point, a point where a virtual line in a direction perpendicular to the charging station and a virtual circle surrounding the mobile robot by using the distance and angle information, and calculating a route moving to the intermediate goal point and a route to the charging station (Park page 9, para 4-10, Figs. 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong so as to include a control unit determining, as an intermediate goal point, a point where a virtual line in a direction perpendicular to the charging station and a virtual circle surrounding the mobile robot by using the distance and angle information, and calculating a route moving to the intermediate goal point and a route to the charging station in view of Park et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that path determination method of Park can used in Hong, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Hong and Park because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method for the robot to locate the charging station and determine a path for the robot to effectively align with and return to the docking station to charge the battery.
Hong modified by Park does not teach the control unit is a main processor and an auxiliary processor which is operable independently from or together with the main processor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cheon teaches the processor may include a main processor and an auxiliary processor that is operable independently from, or in conjunction with, the main processor (Cheon Fig. 1 and related text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong so as to include the control unit is a main processor and an auxiliary processor which is operable independently from or together with the main processor in view of Cheon et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Hong and Cheon because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007))
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664