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 08/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application JP2021-042124 filed on 03/16/2021.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 5 recites the limitation “functional unit” with the structure in specifications on page 12-13 “drive unit, motor. It is being interpreted as means plus function.
Claims 1, 5 recite the limitation “movable functional unit” with structure in the specification, on page 45 “head”. It is being interpreted as means plus function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Mackean (US20170238460) in view of Lee (US20120185684) and Ogawa (US20140005828).
Regarding claim 1, Mackean teaches a control apparatus for controlling a device, the control apparatus comprising (at least [0043]-[0050] disclosing a controller for a robotic device):
a processor configured to ([0043]-[0050] disclosing the processor):
cause the device to transition to a power-off state in response to detecting that a
voltage of a battery of the device has dropped below a movement reference ([0006]-0007] disclosing the robotic device that is de-energized when the battery drops below a predetermined level);
Mackean does not teach in a case where the device is in the power-off state and during charging of the battery, determine whether the voltage of the battery has reached or exceeded an activation reference voltage; in response to determining that the voltage of the charging battery has reached or exceeded the activation reference voltage, (i) cause the device to transition to a power- on state and (ii) control a first movement range of a functional unit of the device to be restricted; wherein the activation reference voltage is higher than the movement reference voltage of the device to control a second movement range of the functional unit during charging the battery.
Lee teaches in a case where the device is in the power-off state and during charging of the battery, determine whether the voltage of the battery has reached or exceeded an activation reference voltage ([0052]-[0057] disclosing while power is off and during charging determine if voltage reaches a power needed for rebooting a device);
in response to determining that the voltage of the charging battery has reached or exceeded the activation reference voltage, (i) cause the device to transition to a power-on state ([0052]-[0057] disclosing in response to the voltage reaching the activation voltage to turn on the device).
wherein the activation reference voltage has a higher ratio to a fully charged voltage of the battery than the movement reference voltage ([0052]-[0057] disclosing the boot threshold to activate the device is higher than a shutdown threshold to shut the device).
Mackean teaches charging the device when the battery is low and turning off the device, thus it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of turning on the device as taught by Lee yielding predictable results in order to determine the threshold voltage required to run the device is reached thus ensuring proper function of the device.
Mackean as modified by Lee does not teach control a functional unit of the device to perform a movement operation within a first movable range that is narrower than a second movable range within which the functional unit is operated while the device is in the power on state and the battery is not being charged, wherein the functional unit comprises a movable functional unit driven by at least one motor to move relative to a body of the device.
Ogawa teaches cause a functional unit of the device to perform a movement operation within a first movable range that is narrower than a second movable range within which the functional unit is operable while the device is in the power on state and the battery is not being charged ([0060]-[0070] disclosing the restriction of the movements of the arms while the robot is charging).
wherein the functional unit comprises a movable functional unit driven by at least one motor to move relative to a body of the device ([0060]-[0070] disclosing the restriction of the movements of the arms moved by the actuator while the robot is charging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Ogawa to restrict movements of the robot while charging yielding predictable results in order to avoid impermissible ranges that may disconnect the charger or cause collisions and to allow movements of the robot while the robot stays stably connected to the charger.
Regarding claim 3, Mackean as modified by Lee and Kim teaches the control apparatus for the device according to claim 1,
wherein the transition to the power-off state in response to detecting that the voltage of the battery has dropped below the movement reference voltage occurs independently of detection of a user power-off operation (Mackean [0006]-[0007] disclosing the device turns off independent of a user operation by determining a lower than a threshold voltage).
Mackean teaches charging the device when the battery is low and turning off the device, thus it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of turning on the device as taught by Lee yielding predictable results in order to determine the threshold voltage required to run the device is reached thus ensuring proper function of the device.
Regarding claim 6, Mackean as modified by Lee and Ogawa teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each of the first movable range and the second movable range is an angular range within which the functional unit is driven by the at least one motor to move relative to the body of the device (Ogawa [0060]-[0070] disclosing permissible angles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Ogawa to restrict movements of the robot while charging yielding predictable results in order to avoid impermissible ranges that may disconnect the charger or cause collisions and to allow movements of the robot while the robot stays stably connected to the charger.
Claims 4-5 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1, see above rejection. Mackean teaches a method and non-transitory computer storage medium [0043]-[0050].
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Mackean (US20170238460) in view of Lee (US20120185684) and Ogawa (US20140005828) and Kim (US20200006984).
Regarding claim 2, Mackean as modified by Lee and Ogawa teaches the control apparatus for the device according to claim 1,
Kim teaches wherein the device charges the battery by receiving power through
electromagnetic induction from an external wireless charging device, and the first
movement range is a range that prevents the device from moving away from the
external wireless charging device during charging (Kim [0187]-[0197] disclosing the device charges by wireless charging and remains in a range that prevents from leaving the area of charging).
The combination of the teaching of Kim is obvious yielding predictable results in order to allow the robot to charge while continuing its movement thus improving the robot efficiency of charging while functioning normally with some movement limitations and for selecting an efficient charging for the robot based on charge level.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/03/2026 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20110241616 disclosing the robot cleans and charges in the range of the wireless charging simultaneously.
US9397518 disclosing a second mode when the battery less than threshold that includes a range where wireless charging is available.
US20190087772 disclosing switching power off when battery is low.
US20200009741 disclosing the cutting off modalities of a modular robot based on threshold charge amount.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B
