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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/27/2024.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 § 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, 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
Yes claims 1, 4, 5 are directed towards an apparatus, method and a non-transitory computer-readable medium respectively.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The process in claims 1, 4, 5 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pen and paper and as such is directed toward and abstract idea. The claim consists of determining whether a voltage has reached an activation threshold, which is similar to a human determine if a charge has increased to more than 1% which indicates a device can be powered. Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding actual determination of the attitude of the device.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
An additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1, 4, 5 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations include causing the device to transition to power off state and power on state which is recited with high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering in the form of a signal to the device. Detecting drop level of battery is is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. the control a first/second movement range of a functional unit is recited with high level of generality and is considered apply it level of abstract idea on a computer since the functional unit is interested as a processing unit per applicant specification. The device and functional unit are recited with high level of generality and considered at the apply it level of the abstract idea.
Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer at the “apply it level”, which is indicative of the abstract solution having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1,4, 5 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations include causing the device to transition to power off state and power on state which is recited with high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering in the form of a signal to the device. Detecting drop level of battery is is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. the control a first/second movement range of a functional unit is recited with high level of generality and is considered apply it level of abstract idea on a computer since the functional unit is interested as a processing unit per applicant specification. The device and functional unit are recited with high level of generality and considered at the apply it level of the abstract idea.
. The transitioning steps referred to above are insignificant extra-solution activity, are not considered significantly more because acquiring step is mere data gathering or transmission of data over a network, which has been held to be routine and conventional activity. See Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1,4, 5: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that the claims are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Mackean (US20170238460) in view of Lee (US20120185684) and Kim (US20200006984).
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).
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 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.
Kim teaches control a first movement range of a functional unit of the device to be restricted ([0187]-[0197] disclosing when the voltage reaches the low threshold value to control the robot driving unit to move in a range of the wireless charging);
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 ([0187]-[0197], disclosing when the battery is at a lower threshold than the threshold for wireless charging to control the robot driving unit to move to touch the coil for faster charging, i.e., second movement range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kim with the teaching of Mackean as modified by Lee 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.
Regarding claim 2, Mackean as modified by Lee and Kim teaches the control apparatus for the device according to claim 1,
wherein the device charges the battery by receiving power through
electromagnetic induction from an external wireless charging device, and the second
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.
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 a voltage of a 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).
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].
Conclusion
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
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights