DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 12/28/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, which was 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 submitted on 12/28/2024 is in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and is being considered by the examiner.
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 2 and 18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2:
Claim 2 recites “wherein in the forward direction of the snow blower, it is projected on the snow blower from front to back.” However, it is unclear what the antecedent basis is for the word “it,” which leads to indefiniteness. For examination purposes, claim 2 is interpreted as if the word “it” refers back to “the snow blower,” and as if the limitation specifies that the snow blower is projected along the forward direction of the snow blower (i.e., the snow blower drives in a forward direction), consistent with pp. 6-7 of the instant specification. Regardless of whether this interpretation is correct, clarification is required.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 recites “wherein the working part is provided with a remote sensing monitoring device.” However, it is unclear whether this “remote sensing monitoring device” is the same as the “remote sensing detection device” introduced in claim 1, leading to indefiniteness. Note that the specification mentions both the “remote sensing monitoring device” and the “remote sensing detection device,” but uses the same reference character 500 for both devices. For examination purposes, the devices are interpreted as referring to the same device. Regardless of whether this interpretation is correct, clarification is required.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 20:
Step 1: Claim 20 is directed to an obstacle avoidance control method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 20 is directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 20 recites the abstract concept of reading sensor information. This abstract idea is described at least in claim 20 by the mental process step of reading sensor information corresponding to the contact detector in the detection signal, wherein the sensor information comprises identity tags corresponding to the contact detector one to one. This step falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas as it includes a human mentally analyzing received sensor information. The limitations as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover their performance in the human mind.
Step 2A, prong 2: The claims recite elements additional to the abstract concepts. However, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 20 recites a step of receiving a detection signal, comprising: receiving a detection signal sent by a sensor, wherein the sensor comprises the contact detector, and a plurality of the contact detectors are arranged corresponding to different directions, and the detection signal comprises a collision signal sent by the contact detector. This step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as it simply gathers data that is necessary to perform the abstract idea (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering). Also, the recited step of outputting an obstacle avoidance instruction, comprising: outputting a first obstacle avoidance instruction corresponding to the identity tag according to the identity tag is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as it a data output step that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. The recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 20 also recites that the method is “applied to the snow blower of claim 19.” However, merely specifying that the method is applied to a snow blower such as the snow blower of claim 19 is not sufficient for integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f) explains that such limitations that are equivalent to the words “apply it” fail to provide a practical application on their own absent some claimed technological solution to a technological problem. The limitation of claim 20 is recited at a high level of generality and fails to provide meaningful limitations clarifying how the abstract idea would be integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the recited contact detectors are anything other than conventional contact sensors that are capable of sending a collision signal. Further, Hillen (US 2018/0299902 A1) ¶¶ 4-5 teaches that such contact sensors are well-known in the art of cleaning robots. The use of such well-understood, routine, and conventional sensors does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, consistent with MPEP 2106.05(d).
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 the mere collection or output of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, the steps of receiving a detection signal and outputting an obstacle avoidance instruction are merely insignificant extra-solution activities that do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
MPEP 2106.05(f) explains that merely applying an abstract idea to a certain system without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim limitation specifying that the method is “applied to the snow blower of claim 19,” which is recited at a high level of generality and does not provide meaningful limitations clarifying how applying the method to such a snow blower would provide any technical benefit, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For the above reasons, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, whether considered individually or in combination. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claim 20 is not patent-eligible.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (CN 110554693 A), hereinafter referred to as Zhao.
Regarding claim 1:
Zhao discloses the following limitations:
“An obstacle avoidance system, applied to a snow blower, wherein the snow blower comprises a robot body, and the obstacle avoidance system comprises: a contact detection device, adapted to be arranged on a working part of the robot body.” (Zhao ¶¶ 41-49 and FIG. 1 reproduced below disclose a “snow sweeper body 101” and a control mechanism 105 that includes “a first obstacle detection module 1052,” where “the first obstacle detection module 1052 may further include at least one magnetic block disposed on the snowplow body 101 and a Hall sensor (not shown) for detecting whether the magnetic block has been displaced.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
671
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“a remote sensing detection device, adapted to be arranged at a side of the working part of the robot body facing a forward direction of the snow blower.” (Zhao ¶ 43: “the first obstacle detection module 1052 includes an obstacle detection control board 1054 connected to the main control module 1051 and a plurality of first sensors 1055 connected to the obstacle detection control board 1054. The plurality of first sensors 1055 are disposed on the snow sweeper body 101 and face the front of the snow sweeper's walking direction. … The obstacle detection control board 1054 determines whether there is a road obstacle in front of the snow sweeper's direction of travel based on the detection results.”)
“the remote sensing detection device is used for receiving signals reflected by an obstacle surface to detect the obstacle.” (Zhao ¶ 48: “the first sensor may be any one of an acoustic sensor, an electromagnetic sensor, and an infrared sensor.”)
“detection areas of the contact detection device and the remote sensing detection device do not overlap.” (Zhao ¶ 43: “The plurality of first sensors 1055 are disposed on the snow sweeper body 101 and face the front of the snow sweeper's walking direction.” Further, Zhao ¶ 49: “at least one magnetic block can be installed on the snow sweeper body 101 and face the front, rear and/or side of the snow sweeper's walking direction, and each magnetic block is correspondingly provided with a Hall sensor for detecting whether the magnetic block has been displaced.” A configuration with the magnetic blocks mounted on the rear and/or side of the snow sweeper’s walking direction would have detection areas that do not overlap with the detection area of the first sensors 1055.)
“and a control device, arranged on the robot body, the control device is used for controlling the snow blower to adjust a motion path according to detection signals of the contact detection device and the remote sensing detection device.” (Zhao ¶ 41: “When the first obstacle detection module 1052 detects a walking obstacle, the main control module 1051 adjusts the walking direction of the snow sweeper or stops walking according to the walking obstacle.” Also, Zhao ¶ 49 discloses that when a magnetic block is displaced, “the main control module 1051 controls the walking direction of the snow sweeper based on the judgment result of the obstacle detection control board 1054.”)
Regarding claim 2:
Zhao discloses “The obstacle avoidance system of claim 1,” and Zhao also discloses the following limitations:
“wherein in the forward direction of the snow blower, it is projected on the snow blower from front to back.” (Zhao ¶ 50: “The main control module 1051 then controls the intelligent snowplow to move forward.”)
“and a projection profile of the contact detection device is arranged at intervals from a projection profile of the remote sensing detection device.” (Zhao ¶ 49: “at least one magnetic block can be installed on the snow sweeper body 101 and face the front, rear and/or side of the snow sweeper's walking direction, and each magnetic block is correspondingly provided with a Hall sensor for detecting whether the magnetic block has been displaced.” Using multiple magnetic blocks located at different positions on the snow sweeper body is equivalent to arranging the contact detection devices at intervals; note that the examiner interprets the term “projection profile” as referring to the space that is encompassed by each respective detection device.)
“the projection profile of the contact detection device is located at a side of the projection profile of the remote sensing detection device away from the ground, or the projection profile of the contact detection device does not coincide with a position where the remote sensing detection device is located at the working part.” (Zhao ¶ 43: “The plurality of first sensors 1055 are disposed on the snow sweeper body 101 and face the front of the snow sweeper's walking direction.” Also, Zhao ¶ 49: “at least one magnetic block can be installed on the snow sweeper body 101 and face the front, rear and/or side of the snow sweeper's walking direction, and each magnetic block is correspondingly provided with a Hall sensor for detecting whether the magnetic block has been displaced.” Using a configuration with the magnetic blocks mounted on the rear and/or side of the snow sweeper’s walking direction would have a projection profile that does not coincide with a position of the first sensors 1055.)
Regarding claim 19:
Zhao discloses “the obstacle avoidance system of claim 1,” and Zhao further discloses “A snow blower, comprising: a robot body, used for clearing snow on the road; and the obstacle avoidance system … wherein the obstacle avoidance system is arranged on the robot body.” (Zhao ¶ 41 and FIG. 1 disclose “a snow sweeper body 101” and “a control mechanism 105” that respectively correspond to the “robot body” and “obstacle avoidance system.”)
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 3-6, 8, 13-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 209699084 U), hereinafter referred to as Wang.
Regarding claim 3:
Zhao discloses “The obstacle avoidance system of claim 1,” but Zhao does not explicitly disclose the limitations listed below. However, Wang does teach these limitations:
“wherein the contact detector comprises: a support element, adapted to be connected to an outside of the working part of the robot body; a static contact assembly, arranged on the support element; and a dynamic contact assembly, arranged on the support element.” (Wang ¶ 13: “collision detection strip includes a conductive collision layer, an insulating air isolation layer, and an inner conductive layer. The conductive collision layer is elastic. The conductive collision layer and the inner conductive layer are insulatedly connected and have a sealed cavity filled with insulating air to form the insulating air isolation layer. The conductive collision layer is located away from the robot body.” The collision detection strip, inner conductive layer, and conductive collision layer respectively correspond to the recited support element, static contact assembly, and dynamic contact assembly.)
“wherein the dynamic contact assembly and the static contact assembly are arranged oppositely at intervals.” (Wang ¶ 43 and FIG. 2 reproduced below disclose the sensor assemblies spaced at intervals along the inside of collision detection strip 230.)
PNG
media_image2.png
586
902
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“the dynamic contact assembly is able to get close to the static contact assembly under the action of external force, so as to realize electrical connection with the static contact assembly.” (Wang ¶ 11: “The conductive collision layer deforms towards the inner conductive layer, penetrates the insulating air isolation layer, connects to the inner conductive layer, and emits an electrical signal.”)
“when the external force on the support element is removed, the dynamic contact assembly is separated from the static contact assembly, and the electrical connection with the static contact assembly is cut off.” (Wang ¶ 11 states that “The conductive collision layer is elastic,” which suggests that it would return to its original shape and cut off the electric connection upon the external force being removed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zhao by incorporating the collision detection strip of Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Wang ¶ 20 teaches that this helps the robot to detect collisions, stop movement to avoid accidents, and turn or manually replan the path as needed.
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Zhao and Wang teaches “The obstacle avoidance system of claim 3,” and Wang further teaches “wherein the support element has a strip structure, and the support element extends around an outer contour of the working part in the forward direction of the [robot]; the static contact assembly and/or the dynamic contact assembly both extend along a length direction of the support element.” (Wang ¶ 43 and FIG. 2 disclose the sensor assemblies being spaced at intervals along the inside of collision detection strip 230, which extends along the entirety of the robot.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zhao by incorporating a collision detection strip that wraps around the robot body and includes an inner conductive layer and a conductive collision layer as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Wang ¶ 20 teaches that this can help the robot to detect collisions, stop movement to avoid accidents, and turn or manually replan the path as needed.
Note that while Wang does not explicitly state that the robot can be a “snow blower,” Zhao discloses a robot that functions as a snow blower as explained regarding claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Zhao and Wang teaches “The obstacle avoidance system of claim 3,” and Wang further teaches “wherein the support element comprises a static support part and a dynamic support part, and the dynamic support part is positioned at a side of the static support part; the dynamic support part and the static support part are arranged oppositely at intervals; the static contact assembly is arranged on the static support part, and the dynamic contact assembly is arranged on the dynamic support part.” (Wang FIG. 2 illustrates that the collision detection strip 230 includes structural support parts for the conductive collision layer and the inner conductive layer, where the support parts are oppositely arranged at intervals to correspond with each portion of the conductive collision layer and the inner conductive layer.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zhao by including support parts for the conductive collision layer and the inner conductive layer as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that the conductive collision layer and inner conductive layer would need to be properly supported to align the layers with each other and to avoid damage to these layers upon the robot colliding with an obstacle.
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Zhao and Wang teaches “The obstacle avoidance system of claim 5,” and Wang also teaches “wherein the dynamic support part has a deformable elastic structure; the support element further comprises an elastic reset part, and the elastic reset part is connected between the dynamic support part and the static support part.” (Wang ¶ 11: “The conductive collision layer is elastic. The conductive collision layer and the inner conductive layer are insulatedly connected and have a sealed cavity filled with insulating air to form the insulating air isolation layer.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zhao by using an elastic part for connecting the conductive collision layers as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this based on the recognition that elastic parts allow for deformation without causing permanent damage to the robot; therefore, the robot could withstand minor collisions without needing repairs.
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Zhao and Wang teaches “The obstacle avoidance system of claim 5,” and Wang additionally teaches “wherein the static contact assembly comprises a static contact conductor, and the static contact conductor is arranged on the static support part; the dynamic contact assembly is provided with a dynamic contact conductor, and the dynamic contact conductor is arranged on the dynamic support part.” (Wang ¶ 11: “the collision detection strip includes a conductive collision layer, an insulating air isolation layer, and an inner conductive layer.” The collision layer and the inner layer being “conductive” implies that they each include a conductor as claimed. Also, Wang FIG. 2 illustrates that the conductive collision layer and inner conductive layer are connected to different parts of the support frame.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zhao by including a static contact conductor and a dynamic contact conductor connected to the support frame of the robot as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Wang ¶¶ 11 and 20 teach that this allows for an electric signal to be emitted in response to collisions, which helps the robot to detect collisions, stop movement to avoid accidents, and turn or manually replan the path as needed.
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Zhao and Wang teaches “The obstacle avoidance system of claim 3,” and Wang also teaches “wherein the contact detector further comprises an anti-collision frame, the anti-collision frame is adapted to be connected to the robot body and surrounds at least part of a periphery of the working part of the robot body, and the support element is arranged on the anti-collision frame.” (Wang ¶ 56 and FIGS. 2-3 disclose that the collision detection strip 230 can include a “support frame” that extends along the periphery of the robot body.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zhao by including a support frame for the collision detection strip as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that the collision detection strip would need to be properly supported to mitigate damage upon the robot colliding with an obstacle.
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Zhao and Wang teaches “The obstacle avoidance system of claim 13,” and Wang also teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the anti-collision frame has a strip structure.” (Wang ¶ 43 and FIGS. 2-3 teach that the support frame has a strip structure with collision detection strip 230.)
“an extending direction of the anti-collision frame is perpendicular to the forward direction of the [robot]; the support element extends along a length direction of the anti-collision frame.” (Wang ¶ 62: “collision detection strip 230 consists of multiple arc-shaped strips connected to form a roughly loop-like structure. The robot body 100 is surrounded by multiple arc-shaped strips, which facilitates installation and can be adapted to robots of different sizes. Understandably, the robot can also be designed into any shape, such as a ring, rectangle, or other polygons, depending on its shape.” Installing the strips along the edge of a rectangular robot as described reads on the claimed configuration.)
“and the support element is adapted to be installed on a side of the anti-collision frame away from the robot body.” (Wang ¶ 43 and FIGS. 2-3 disclose “the collision detection strip 230 protruding outward around the robot body 100.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zhao by incorporating the collision detection component with a strip structure which protrudes outward around the perimeter of the robot body as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Wang ¶ 20 teaches that this can help the robot to detect collisions, stop movement to avoid accidents, and turn or manually replan the path as needed.
Note that while Wang does not explicitly state that the robot can be a “snow blower,” Zhao discloses a robot that functions as a snow blower as explained regarding claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Zhao and Wang teaches “The obstacle avoidance system of claim 14,” and Wang also teaches “wherein the anti-collision frame comprises an anti-collision main body part and two anti-collision extension parts; the two anti-collision extension parts are respectively connected to two ends of the anti-collision main body part in a length direction, each of the anti-collision extension parts is bent relative to the anti-collision main body part so that the two anti-collision extension parts are arranged oppositely at intervals; the support element is laid on the anti-collision main body part and the two anti-collision extension parts, and is positioned on a side of the anti-collision frame facing away from the working part.” (Wang ¶ 62: “collision detection strip 230 consists of multiple arc-shaped strips connected to form a roughly loop-like structure. The robot body 100 is surrounded by multiple arc-shaped strips, which facilitates installation and can be adapted to robots of different sizes. Understandably, the robot can also be designed into any shape, such as a ring, rectangle, or other polygons, depending on its shape.” Installing the strips along the edge of a rectangular robot as described reads on the claimed configuration.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zhao by incorporating the collision detection component with a strip structure which protrudes outward around the perimeter of the robot body as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Wang ¶ 20 teaches that this can help the robot to detect collisions, stop movement to avoid accidents, and turn or manually replan the path as needed.
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of Zhao and Wang teaches “The obstacle avoidance system of claim 13,” and Wang further teaches “wherein the contact detector further comprises an extension frame extending in a vertical direction, the extension frame is connected to the anti-collision frame and is adapted to be connected to the robot body, and the extension frame is used for supporting the anti-collision frame.” (Wang ¶ 43 and FIGS. 2-3 disclose a robot body 100 with several vertical support sections for supporting the collision detection strip 230. Further, Wang ¶ 46: “Preferably, multiple collision detection strips 230 are set at different heights along the robot body 100.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zhao by incorporating a vertical support section for supporting the anti-collision component as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Wang ¶ 46 teaches that this allows for collision detection strips to be set at different heights along the robot body. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this would allow for adjustment of the height of the anti-collision frame to facilitate arriving at a configuration in which the anti-collision frame is most likely to detect the obstacles with various heights that the robot would typically encounter.
Regarding claim 18:
The combination of Zhao and Wang teaches “The obstacle avoidance system of claim 17,” and Zhao also teaches “wherein the working part is provided with a remote sensing monitoring device.” (See Zhao ¶ 43 as cited regarding the “remote sensing detection device” of claim 1.)
Zhao does not specifically disclose “the extension frame is provided with an installation position for installing the anti-collision frame, the installation position and the working part are arranged at intervals in the vertical direction, so that the anti-collision frame is positioned above the working part and the remote sensing monitoring device, this prevents the anti-collision frame from blocking a detection path of the remote sensing detection device.” However, Wang does teach these limitations. (Wang ¶ 46 and FIG. 2 reproduced below: “Preferably, multiple collision detection strips 230 are set at different heights along the robot body 100.” Also, Wang ¶ 49 and FIG. 5 shown below: “Preferably, the infrared ranging sensor 240 is positioned outside the contact point between the robot body 100's moving wheel 111 and the ground, and is perpendicular to the ground to detect the ground conditions in advance. Preferably, multiple infrared ranging sensors 240 arrays are arranged around the robot body 100.” The figures below illustrate that the sensor 240 is located near the bottom of the robot and below the collision detection strips 230.)
PNG
media_image2.png
586
902
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
829
678
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zhao by incorporating installation positions for positioning the collision detection strips above the ranged sensor as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this based on recognizing that the ranged sensor needs a line of sight to detect obstacles and would not be able to function properly if it were blocked by the collision detection strips.
Claims 7, 9-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Wang as applied to claims 6, 8, and 13 above, and further in view of Leng et al. (CN 114237231 A), hereinafter referred to as Leng.
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Zhao and Wang teaches “The obstacle avoidance system of claim 6,” but does not explicitly teach the limitations listed below. However, these limitations are taught by Leng:
“wherein the support element has a tubular structure, and the support element is provided with a deformation space.” (Leng ¶ 58 and FIGS. 2-3 shown below disclose a “rubber strip-shaped pressure-sensitive switch 1” with a tubular structure and an empty inner space.)
PNG
media_image4.png
529
680
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
646
543
media_image5.png
Greyscale
“the dynamic support part and the static support part are arranged in parallel and at intervals in the forward direction of the snow blower.” (Leng ¶ 22: “the anti-collision strip includes a rubber strip-shaped pressure-sensitive switch, and the rubber strip-shaped pressure-sensitive switch has a first conductive silicone element and a second conductive silicone element arranged at intervals inside.”)
“the elastic reset part is connected between the dynamic support part and the static support part, and the dynamic support part, the static support part and the elastic reset part define a flexible hole; the static support part has a deformable elastic structure, and the static support part participates in defining a buffer chamber.” (Leng ¶ 58 and FIGS. 2-3: “the rubber strip-shaped pressure-sensitive switch 1 is provided with a first conductive silicone element 11 and a second conductive silicone element 12.” The strip being “rubber” implies that it is elastic; further, the figures illustrate the switch connecting the conductive silicone elements 11 and 12 to define a flexible hole and a buffer chamber as claimed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Zhao and Wang by using a tubular collision detection strip with an inner space and a rubber reset part to connect the static and dynamic support parts to form a flexible hole and a buffer chamber as taught by Leng with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Leng ¶¶ 3-4 teach that this helps provide a robot that can carry out operations while effectively detecting obstacles and avoiding collisions; also, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating the deformation space, flexible hole, and buffer chamber would allow the robot to withstand collisions of minor forces without taking damage.
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Zhao and Wang teaches “The obstacle avoidance system of claim 8,” but does not explicitly teach the limitations listed below. However, these limitations are taught by Leng:
“wherein the static contact conductor is convexly arranged at a side surface of the static support part facing the dynamic support part, a side of the static support part facing the dynamic support part is provided with an alignment groove, and the static contact conductor is positioned in the alignment groove; the dynamic contact conductor and the alignment groove are arranged oppositely at intervals.” (Leng ¶ 58 and FIGS. 2-3: “anti-collision strip includes a rubber strip-shaped pressure-sensitive switch 1, and the rubber strip-shaped pressure-sensitive switch 1 is provided with a first conductive silicone element 11 and a second conductive silicone element 12 arranged at intervals.” The figures illustrate the conductive elements 11 and 12 facing each other and also illustrate the second conductive silicone element 12 including an alignment groove as claimed.)
“and when the dynamic contact assembly approaches the static contact assembly under the action of external force, the dynamic contact conductor is able to be embedded in the alignment groove.” (Leng ¶ 60: “the anti-collision strip information is specifically open-loop state information or closed-loop state information; wherein, the open-loop state information is used to indicate that the anti-collision strip has not been collided with, and the closed-loop state information is used to indicate that the anti-collision strip has been collided with.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Zhao and Wang by incorporating an alignment groove for embedding the dynamic contact conductor as taught by Leng with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Leng ¶¶ 3-4 teach that this helps to provide a robot that can carry out operations while effectively detecting obstacles and avoiding collisions. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the alignment groove would help to align the static and dynamic conductors and avoid a situation where they fail to properly emit an electrical signal due to poor alignment.
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Zhao and Wang teaches “The obstacle avoidance system of claim 8,” but does not explicitly teach “wherein the static contact conductor is embedded in the static support part, the static contact conductor is at least partially positioned on a side surface of the static support part facing the dynamic support part; the dynamic contact conductor is embedded in the dynamic support part, and the dynamic contact conductor is at least partially positioned on a side surface of the dynamic support part facing the static support part.” However, Leng does teach this limitation. (Leng ¶ 58 and FIG. 3 reproduced below: “the anti-collision strip includes a rubber strip-shaped pressure-sensitive switch 1, and the rubber strip-shaped pressure-sensitive switch 1 is provided with a first conductive silicone element 11 and a second conductive silicone element 12 arranged at intervals.” Leng FIG. 3 illustrates the two conductors being embedded in the static and dynamic support parts to face each other as claimed.)
PNG
media_image5.png
646
543
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Zhao and Wang by using two conductors embedded in the static and dynamic support parts to face each other as taught by Leng with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Leng ¶ 60 teaches that this allows for the anti-collision strip to indicate closed-loop information when the strip has been collided with, and Leng ¶¶ 3-4 teach that this helps to provide a robot that can carry out operations while effectively detecting obstacles and avoiding collisions. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the alignment groove would help to align the static and dynamic conductors and avoid a situation where they fail to properly emit an electrical signal due to poor alignment.
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Zhao and Wang teaches “The obstacle avoidance system of claim 8,” and Wang also teaches “wherein the support element has an insulating structure.” (Wang ¶ 11: “the collision detection strip includes … an insulating air isolation layer.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zhao by including an insulating layer as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Wang ¶ 11 teaches that this provides an isolated layer that can be deformed to allow the conductive layers to connect and emit an electrical signal, and Wang ¶ 20 teaches that this can help the robot to detect collisions, stop movement to avoid accidents, and turn or manually replan the path as needed.
The combination of Zhao and Wang does not explicitly teach that “the static contact assembly further comprises a static contact package, the static contact package covers a side surface of the static support part facing the dynamic support part and encapsulates the static contact conductor, and the static contact package is a conductor; and/or the dynamic contact assembly further comprises a dynamic contact package, the dynamic contact package covers a side surface of the dynamic support part facing the static support part and encapsulates the dynamic contact conductor, and the dynamic contact package is a conductor.” However, Leng does teach these limitations. (Leng ¶ 58 and FIG. 3 reproduced below disclose that the switch 1 includes “a first conductive element 11” and “a second conductive element 12” that are arranged oppositely from one another in a way that corresponds to the configuration of the instant claim.)
PNG
media_image5.png
646
543
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Zhao and Wang by incorporating a conductive static contact package and conductive dynamic contact package that face each other as taught by Leng with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Leng ¶ 60 teaches that this allows for the elements to connect and form a closed-loop state indicating that the strip has been collided with, and Leng ¶¶ 3-4 teach that this helps to provide a robot that can carry out operations while effectively detecting obstacles and avoiding collisions.
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Zhao, Wang, and Leng teaches “The obstacle avoidance system of claim 11,” and Leng further teaches “wherein the support element further comprises a connecting part, the connecting part is connected to the dynamic support part and the static support part, and a joint of the connecting part and the static support part is recessed in a direction away from the dynamic support part and an auxiliary groove is formed; two opposite groove walls of the auxiliary groove are a first extension surface and a second extension surface, the dynamic contact package extends to the auxiliary groove and covers the first extension surface, and the static contact package extends to the auxiliary groove and covers the second extension surface.” (Leng ¶¶ 58-59 and FIG. 2 reproduced below disclose “a rubber strip-shaped pressure-sensitive switch 1” that can be connected to fit within the groove of a “strip-shaped rubber sleeve 3.” It can be seen that the switch 1 includes two arms that correspond to the claimed “connecting part” and that extend from the top of the switch 1 to form an auxiliary groove with two opposite groove walls with a first extension surface and a second extension surface as claimed.)
PNG
media_image4.png
529
680
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Zhao and Wang by using a rubber strip switch with inner connection parts that extend down and form walls and grooves as taught by Leng with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that this design would allow forces to be transferred more directly from the strip to the conductors, which would remove the need for the entire inner chamber to be completely deformed before triggering the conductors to connect; therefore, the modification would allow the robot to more efficiently detect collisions even if they only transfer a small force to the robot.
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Zhao and Wang teaches “The obstacle avoidance system of claim 13,” but does not explicitly teach “wherein the anti-collision frame is provided with a first matching part, the support element is provided with a second matching part, and the first matching part is connected with the second matching part; the first matching part comprises a clamping groove, the clamping groove is arranged at a side of the anti-collision frame facing the support element; the second matching part comprises a clamping protrusion, arranged at a side of the support element facing the anti-collision frame, and the clamping groove cooperates with the clamping protrusion.” However, Leng does teach these limitations. (Leng ¶ 58 and FIG. 2 shown below disclose “a strip-shaped rubber sleeve 3” which corresponds to the claimed “first matching part.” The bottom portion of the “rubber strip-shaped pressure-sensitive switch 1” corresponds to the claimed “second matching part.” Further, Leng ¶ 59: “The rubber strip pressure-sensitive switch can be connected to different end pieces. After inserting it into the rubber sleeve and connecting it to the switcher, all components form a complete anti-collision strip.”)
PNG
media_image4.png
529
680
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Zhao and Wang by incorporating a clamping protrusion for fitting into a clamping groove as taught by Leng with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that this would allow for the collision detection strip to be easily assembled to the robot body and then later disassembled if needed for adjustments or repairs.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Dalfra et al. (US 2022/0121217 A1), hereinafter referred to as Dalfra.
Regarding claim 20:
Zhao discloses “An obstacle avoidance control method, applied to the snow blower of claim 19,” and Zhao also discloses the following limitations:
“receiving a detection signal, comprising: receiving a detection signal sent by a sensor, wherein the sensor comprises the contact detector, and a plurality of the contact detectors are arranged corresponding to different directions, and the detection signal comprises a collision signal sent by the contact detector.” (Zhao ¶ 49: “at least one magnetic block can be installed on the snow sweeper body 101 and face the front, rear and/or side of the snow sweeper's walking direction, and each magnetic block is correspondingly provided with a Hall sensor for detecting whether the magnetic block has been displaced. Each Hall sensor is connected to the obstacle detection control board 1054, thereby transmitting the specific data on whether the corresponding magnetic block has been displaced to the obstacle detection control board 1054.”)
“reading sensor information, comprising: reading sensor information corresponding to the contact detector in the detection signal.” (Zhao ¶ 49: “The obstacle detection control board 1054 determines whether there is a road obstacle in the corresponding direction of the snow sweeper based on the specific data on whether the displacement has occurred, and transmits the judgment result to the main control module 1051.”)
“and outputting an obstacle avoidance instruction, comprising: outputting a first obstacle avoidance instruction.” (Zhao ¶ 49: “obstacle detection control board 1054 determines whether there is a road obstacle in the corresponding direction of the snow sweeper based on the specific data on whether the displacement has occurred, and transmits the judgment result to the main control module 1051. In turn, the main control module 1051 controls the walking direction of the snow sweeper based on the judgment result of the obstacle detection control board 1054.”)
Zhao does not specifically disclose “wherein the sensor information comprises identity tags corresponding to the contact detector one to one” and “outputting a first obstacle avoidance instruction corresponding to the identity tag according to the identity tag.” However, Dalfra does teach these limitations. (Dalfra ¶ 84: “Detection data processed by a control module each time corresponds to a unique identity of the sensor that transmits and receives the detection signals, that is, each detection data has a unique combination mark of transmission and receiving of signals. … after detection results of different combinations are combined, the location of the obstacle can be determined more accurately. Therefore, the obstacle avoidance manner of the self-moving device can be more flexible, the obstacle avoidance is also more reliable, a non-contact obstacle avoidance function of the self-moving device can be reliably achieved, and the safety of the product is improved.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Zhao by associating a unique identifier with each sensor and using this unique identifier information when outputting obstacle avoidance instructions as taught by Dalfra with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Dalfra ¶ 84 teaches that with this modification, “the obstacle avoidance manner of the self-moving device can be more flexible, the obstacle avoidance is also more reliable, a non-contact obstacle avoidance function of the self-moving device can be reliably achieved, and the safety of the product is improved.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (US 2020/0225673 A1) ¶¶ 162, 167, and 563 disclose that a robot such as “a robotic snow plough” can include tactile sensors that “may be triggered when pressed and may notify the robot of contact with an object,” wherein “In some embodiments, at least some sensors may have a FOV that does not overlap with a FOV of another sensor.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662