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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The 03/21/2025 and 03/19/2026 Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) have been fully considered by the Examiner. However, the Examiner notes that neither IDS lists the two search reports that are included in the file wrapper. These two search reports should be included on an IDS form. Please contact the Examiner for further explanation if needed.
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 4-5, 6, 12, 14, and 17 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 claims 4-5, it is unclear what has started driving: the docking station itself, the driving part of the robot cleaner, or the controller. In other words, the claim may be interpreted as requiring that the docking station begin driving, or that the docking station is the reason the robot cleaner started driving. For the purposes of this Office Action, the Examiner elects the second interpretation.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “when heterogeneous docking stations are placed within the driving area.” It is unclear whether the term “heterogeneous docking stations” is intended to be the same as or different from the previously recited “heterogeneous docking stations” of claim 11.
Further, claim 12 recites “assigned unique docking signals are received from the heterogenous docking stations in the docking search operation.” It is unclear whether the assigned unique docking signals received are part of or different from the “all docking signals” received by “performing docking search at a first location” in claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites that “a matched docking station is located” when “all of the received docking signals match the docking station information.” Meanwhile, claim 11 appears to imply that the received docking signals are used to “determine the docking station to dock at.” Yet, if all received docking signals are used to locate one matched docking station, this implies that only one docking station is emitting all of the docking signals. It is unclear, therefore, whether each docking station emits its own docking signal or whether one docking station of the group of docking stations emits all of the docking signals.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “receiving the docking signal from the docking station.” There is no antecedent basis for “the docking signal” in the claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the phrase “performing docking search.” This appears to be a typo, and that the claim was intended to be written as “performing a docking search.”
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “the robot cleaner . . . dock to the docking station.” This is improper subject-verb agreement. Further, the claim recites “ . . and have different docking signals assigned according to their types.” This is grammatically incorrect and should be rewritten to recite something like “ . . . each having different docking signals assigned . . . .” Also, the claim recites “a robot cleaner receiving the docking signal from the docking station and attempts to dock.” This does not make grammatical sense.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “the unique docking signal is assigned as a digital signal of a predetermined bit, and if all the digital signals of the predetermined bit match” does not makes sense. The claim appears to assign only a single digital signal to the unique docking signal, then implies to the contrary in the matching condition that each docking signal actually has multiple digital signals assigned to it. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting “predetermined bit” and the matching thereof as the reading of a unique identifier in a digital signal, as digital signals comprise a plurality bits and any unique identifier sent via a digital signal comprises a predetermined arrangement of bits.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the provided machine translation of KR 20190003159 A to Ha, Sang Doo (“Ha”), further in view of US 11426046 B2 to Liggett, Melinda et al. (“Liggett”).
Regarding claim 1, Ha teaches a robot cleaner (FIG. 1) comprising:
a body (FIG. 2: Main body 10.);
a driving part moving the body (FIG. 5: Driving unit 19.);
a battery supplying power to the driving part (FIG. 5: Power supply unit 11 taught to be a battery.);
a sensor part receiving a docking signal from at least one docking station for charging the battery (FIG. 5: Communication unit 12. FIG. 8: Each robot receives a signal from each charging station with the stations identifier and position. This reads on the docking signal.);
controlling the driving part to dock to the docking station (“After the docking of the vacuum cleaner 100 is completed, the charging terminal 200 of the charging base 200 and the charging terminal of the vacuum cleaner 100 are electrically connected to the power source unit 11 ) Is automatically charged. Homing, docking, and charging processes can be combined to form automatic charging or autonomous charging.”).
Ha does not appear to expressly teach a controller determining a type of the docking station from the docking signal detected by the sensor part, determining a docking mode according to the type of the docking station.
However, Liggett teaches a controller determining a type of the docking station from the docking signal detected by the sensor part, determining a docking mode according to the type of the docking station ([6:17-24]: “In some instances, the optical indicium 308 can be used to indicate a docking station type such that the robotic cleaner 100 can engage in a docking action consistent with the docking station type corresponding to the docking station 300. For example, when the docking station 300 is configured to evacuate debris from a dust cup of the robotic cleaner 100, the robotic cleaner 100 can be configured to back into the docking station 300.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the robot receiving unique signals from a plurality of stations which are used to dock the robot of Ha with the signal indicating the type of docking station of Liggett. Doing so would have improved the robot’s ability to dock to the station by providing it with information on how to dock.
To summarize, Ha is relied upon to teach a robot that receives a plurality of unique signals, each from a separate station, for docking. Liggett is relied upon to teach a signal received from a docking station that indicates a type of the docking station, thus dictating how the robot docks with the station (the mode).
Claims 2-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the provided machine translation of KR 20190003159 A to Ha, Sang Doo (“Ha”) in view of US 11426046 B2 to Liggett, Melinda et al. (“Liggett”), and further in view of US 20230176584 A1 to Kamfors, Mattias (“Kamfors”).
Regarding claim 2, the above combination of Ha and Liggett teaches the robot cleaner of claim 1.
APOSITA would have understood that the combination made above further teaches extracting information indicating the type of docking station when one docking station is of a different type because Liggett teaches a different type of station (a dumping station) that has its own unique signal type.
However, this combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the controller extracts information indicating the type of the docking station from the docking signal when [more than one] docking station is of a different type.
However, Kamfors teaches multiple types of docking stations (interaction stations, see [0079] including a charging station and a dump station, each uniquely identifiable from a radar return signal (see [0080]).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the robot that communicates with stations, each station having its own unique identifier and one station identifier including a type, that emit signals of the above combination of Ha and Liggett with the multiple different kinds of stations, each having its own unique detectable identifying signal of Kamfors. Doing so would have improved the utility of the robot by offering it stations to get different tools or conduct different activities.
APOSITA would have understood in this combination that the controller extracts information indicating the type of the docking station from the docking signal when at least one docking station is of a different type because Ha teaches an environment where there are multiple stations, and Liggett teaches a uniquely approached dump station. Therefore, the combination of Ha and Liggett teaches a scenario where one docking station emits a docking signal indicating a station is a dump station (different from a charging station). Kamfors teaches that more than one station, like a charging station or other stations existing in the environment, has its own unique signal. Therefore, the combination of Ha, Liggett, and Kamfors teaches that the charging station of Ha may also emit a signal having a unique identifier of the station as a charging station. Thus, APOSITA would have understood that the combination made above would have further taught more than one station may emit a unique signal that comprises a station type.
Regarding claim 3, the above combination of Ha, Liggett, and Kamfors further teaches the robot cleaner of claim 2, wherein the controller includes docking station information indicating a type allocated to a plurality of heterogeneous docking stations (Kamfors teaches a plurality of heterogenous docking stations at [0079], each uniquely identifiable as taught in [0080]. Kamfors is relied upon to teach a type allocated to each of the docking stations, which must be kept in the controller for the controller to identify the stations.).
Regarding claim 4, the above combination of Ha, Liggett, and Kamfors further teaches the robot cleaner of claim 3, wherein, when the driving for docking starts, the controller controls the driving part to move toward a docking station which has started driving (Due to the unclarity discussed in the 112 rejections section above, the Examiner chooses to interpret this claim as saying that the robot was caused to start driving by selecting the closest charging station (i.e., the one that has started the driving). Ha teaches that the controller of the robot selects a closest station and drives the robot toward it using the driving unit.).
Regarding claim 5, the above combination of Ha, Liggett, and Kamfors further teaches the robot cleaner of claim 4, wherein the controller moves toward the docking station which has started driving (Ha: “The charging unit 200 refers to a charging station in which the vacuum cleaner 100 docks and automatically charges the driving power.”) and performs a docking detection operation at a first position to read all of the received docking signals (Ha: “Information received from the plurality of charging stations 200 to the communication unit 12 includes status information on the positions and current statuses of the plurality of charging stations 200 and identification information of the plurality of charging stations 200 Information.” The area which the robot cleans (see FIGS. 6-7, 9-10) reads broadly on the first position.).
The Examiner notes that the claim language above does not require that the controller moves toward the docking station and then performs a docking detection operation at the first position. As written, Claim 5 merely requires that the controller perform each of these functions. Thus, the fact that the controller of the above combination of Ha, Liggett, and Kamfors drives the robot toward the station and also receives information from the station, not necessarily in any order, reads on Claim 5 as written.
Regarding claim 9, the above combination of Ha, Liggett, and Kamfors further teaches the robot cleaner of claim 5, wherein the controller determines that the docking station is placed when the received docking signal matches all of stored assigned docking station information of the docking station (Ha Claim 7: “Wherein information on the plurality of charging stations is stored in advance . . . .” Storing the charging station information (locations and identification for each station) in advance broadly reads on the controller determining from the received signals what charging stations are available for it to connect to.).
Regarding claim 10, the above combination of Ha, Liggett, and Kamfors further teaches the robot cleaner of claim 9, wherein, when the docking station to which docking is to be performed is a multi-station or a dumping station, the controller determines the docking mode so that the robot cleaner drives backward to perform docking (Liggett [6:17-24]: “In some instances, the optical indicium 308 can be used to indicate a docking station type such that the robotic cleaner 100 can engage in a docking action consistent with the docking station type corresponding to the docking station 300. For example, when the docking station 300 is configured to evacuate debris from a dust cup of the robotic cleaner 100, the robotic cleaner 100 can be configured to back into the docking station 300.”).
The combination as made above does not appear to expressly teach when the docking station to which docking is to be performed is a general station, the controller determines the docking mode to be forward driving.
However, Kamfors further teaches when the docking station to which docking is to be performed is a general station, the controller determines the docking mode to be forward driving (FIGS. 1B, 4A; [0053]: “The robotic lawn mower 100 is adapted for a forward travelling direction D . . . .” Understood the mower drives into the charger in the forward direction D.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the robot system that is capable of docking with a charging station and a dumping station of the above combination of Ha, Liggett, and Kamfors with the docking methodology of docking with a charger in the forwards direction of Kamfors. Doing so would have simplified control of the mower during docking for charging by allowing it to continue driving forward instead of stopping, turning around, and reversing into the charger.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the provided machine translation of KR 20190003159 A to Ha, Sang Doo (“Ha”) in view of US 11426046 B2 to Liggett, Melinda et al. (“Liggett”) and US 20230176584 A1 to Kamfors, Mattias (“Kamfors”), further in view of US 8996292 B2 to Park, Jun-Ho et al. (“Park”).
Regarding claim 6, the above combination of Ha, Liggett, and Kamfors further teaches the robot cleaner of claim 5, wherein the controller reads all of the docking signals when performing the docking detection operation (Ha: “The position of each of the plurality of charging units 200 is determined . . . .” Understood that the robot looks at all of the station information signals to determine the position of each station.).
This combination does not appear to expressly teach that the controller rotates 360 degrees from the first position.
However, Park teaches that the controller rotates 360 degrees from the first position (FIG. 6: Park teaches building a map of an area by rotating 360 degrees.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the robot system that maps and cleans an area taught by the above combination of Ha, Liggett, and Kamfors with the robot that rotates 360 degrees to build a map of an area taught by Park. Doing so would have provided the robot with more map data, improving its navigational capability.
Regarding claim 7, the above combination of Ha, Liggett, Kamfors, and Park further teaches the robot cleaner of claim 6, wherein, when receiving all of the docking signals from at least two heterogeneous docking stations placed within a driving area, the controller determines whether there is a docking station with a set priority among the docking signals (Ha: “The control unit 20 determines the position information of the plurality of charging units 200 based on the communication result and determines the nearest charging unit at the current position among the plurality of charging units 200 based on the position information . . . .” Choosing a nearest charger reads broadly on setting a priority.).
Regarding claim 8, the above combination of Ha, Liggett, Kamfors, and Park further teaches the robot cleaner of claim 7, wherein the controller controls the driving part to perform docking to the docking station to which the priority is set (Ha: “ . . . . And controls the movement of the main body 10 so as to charge the driving power by docking to the determined adjacent charging stand.”).
Claims 11-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the provided machine translation of KR 20190003159 A to Ha, Sang Doo (“Ha”), and further in view of US 20230176584 A1 to Kamfors, Mattias (“Kamfors”).
Regarding claim 11, Ha teaches a method of controlling a robot cleaner, the method comprising:
driving in a driving area from a first docking station of the driving area and performing cleaning (Ha: “Here, the main charging unit may mean a main starting / returning point of the vacuum cleaner, or a main docking charging station.” Ha teaches charging station 200a as a main charging unit.);
driving toward the first docking station when docking is required (Ha: “For example, when the vacuum cleaner 100 is traveling in the first zone 1a, the first charging zone 200a closest to the first zone 1a controls the charging of the driving power . . . ” Understood that the cleaner drives toward charging unit 200a if it is in the first zone 1a.);
performing docking search at a first location and receiving all docking signals (Ha: “Information received from the plurality of charging stations 200 to the communication unit 12 includes status information on the positions and current statuses of the plurality of charging stations 200 and identification information of the plurality of charging stations 200 Information.” The area which the robot cleans (see FIGS. 6-7, 9-10) reads broadly on the first location. The list of chargers received by the robot includes all chargers in the area.);
comparing the docking signals with the docking station information to determine the docking station to dock at (Ha: “The control unit 20 determines the position information of the plurality of charging units 200 based on the communication result and determines the nearest charging unit at the current position among the plurality of charging units 200 based on the position information . . . .”); and
moving to a determined docking station and performing docking (Ha: “ . . . . And controls the movement of the main body 10 so as to charge the driving power by docking to the determined adjacent charging stand.”).
Ha does not appear to expressly teach receiving docking station information for heterogeneous docking stations.
However, Kamfors teaches receiving docking station information for heterogeneous docking stations ([0079]: Different kinds of interaction stations that have unique radar signatures received by the robot, allowing it to identify the stations.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the robot that communicates with stations, each station having its own unique identifier, that emit signals of Ha with the multiple different kinds of stations, each having its own unique identifier of Kamfors. Doing so would have improved the range of utility of the robot by offering multiple stations for multiple tasks.
Regarding claim 12, the above combination of Ha and Kamfors teaches the method of claim 11, wherein, when heterogeneous docking stations are placed within the driving area, assigned unique docking signals are received from the heterogeneous docking stations in the docking search operation (APOSITA would have understood given the combination above that Ha is relied upon to teach the robot in communication with multiple stations having unique identifiers, while Kamfors is relied upon to teach that the stations are heterogenous.).
Regarding claim 13, the above combination of Ha and Kamfors teaches the method of claim 12.
Ha and Kamfors as combined above does not appear to expressly teach the docking station information includes information indicating types of multiple heterogeneous the docking stations.
However, Kamfors teaches the docking station information includes information indicating types of multiple heterogeneous the docking stations ([0079]: The robot can recognize what kind of interaction station is present based on the unique radar return. Thus, as combined below, Ha is relied upon to teach receiving unique identification signals from multiple stations while Kamfors is relied upon to teach that the stations can be different and that a signal unique to the station can identify what it is.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the robot communicating with different kinds of docking station, each station emitting its own unique identifier of the prior combination of Ha and Kamfors with the unique identifier information that indicates a type of station of Kamfors. Doing so would have improved the robot’s ability to distinguish between the stations present.
Regarding claim 17, the above combination of Ha and Kamfors teaches the method of claim 11.
This combination further teaches wherein, in the determining of the docking station, when all of the received docking signals match the docking station information, it is determined that a matched docking station is located ([0080]: “In this case, the control unit 110 is adapted to distinguish between the different outdoor robotic work tool interaction stations 200 by comparing the configuration of the radar detections with different predetermined unique configurations of radar reflective targets 211, 212, 213 that are associated with corresponding outdoor robotic work tool interaction stations 200, enabling the control unit 110 identify a certain outdoor robotic work tool interaction station 200 among at least two outdoor robotic work tool interaction stations 200.” When all unique configurations of radar targets on a station match the predetermined unique configurations of a station type, a station of that type is identified. APOSITA would have understood in the combination made above that the identifying information for heterogeneous charging stations would have comprised multiple identification signals that all need to match with predetermined unique signals to determine the station type.).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the provided machine translation of KR 20190003159 A to Ha, Sang Doo (“Ha”) in view of US 20230176584 A1 to Kamfors, Mattias (“Kamfors”), further in view of US 20150151646 A1 to Noiri, Junichi (“Noiri”).
Regarding claim 14, the above combination of Ha and Kamfors teaches the method of claim 13.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein, in the docking search operation, the docking signals are received while rotating 360 degrees at the first position.
However, Noiri teaches wherein, in the docking search operation, the docking signals are received while rotating 360 degrees at the first position ([0096]: “Here, if the control unit 11 determines that there is a need to return, the control unit 11 performs return processing by which the vacuum cleaner 1 is made to come to rest and then rotate 360 degrees in a resting state by the travelling control unit 21, while the vacuum cleaner 1 is rotating 360 degrees, the charging base searching unit 91 searches for the direction in which the charging base lies, and, if the direction in which the charging base is located is detected, the vacuum cleaner 1 moves in the direction in which the charging base lies.” APOSITA would have understood in the combination below that Noiri is relied upon to teach rotating 360 degrees to aid in location of the charging base, while Ha is relied upon to teach receiving the docking signals as modified with unique type identifiers taught by Kamfors.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the robot-docking station system where a robot travels to and docks with a charger when charging is required of the above combination of Ha and Kamfors with the robot-docking station system in which the robot rotates 360 degrees to locate a charger of Noiri. Doing so would have “shorten[ed] the time required for the self-propelled electronic device to return to a charging base” as taught in Noiri [0013].
Regarding claim 15, the above combination of Ha, Kamfors, and Noiri teaches the method of claim 14.
This combination further teaches the method further comprising:
when receiving all of the docking signals from at least two heterogeneous docking stations arranged within the driving area, determining whether there is a docking station with a set priority among the docking signals (Ha: “The control unit 20 determines the position information of the plurality of charging units 200 based on the communication result and determines the nearest charging unit at the current position among the plurality of charging units 200 based on the position information . . . .” Choosing a nearest charger reads broadly on setting a priority.); and
when there is a docking station with a set priority, performing docking to the docking
station with the set priority (Ha: “ . . . . And controls the movement of the main body 10 so as to charge the driving power by docking to the determined adjacent charging stand.”).
Regarding claim 16, the above combination of Ha, Kamfors, and Noiri teaches the method of claim 15.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein in the performing of the docking, when the docking station to dock at is a general station, the robot cleaner drives with a front of the robot cleaner facing a front of the general station to dock by forward driving.
However, Kamfors teaches wherein in the performing of the docking, when the docking station to dock at is a general station, the robot cleaner drives with a front of the robot cleaner facing a front of the general station to dock by forward driving (FIGS. 1B, 4A; [0053]: “The robotic lawn mower 100 is adapted for a forward travelling direction D . . . .” Understood the mower drives into the charger in the forward direction D.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the robot system that is capable of docking with a charging station and a dumping station of the above combination of Ha, Liggett, and Kamfors with the docking methodology of docking with a charger in the forwards direction of Kamfors. Doing so would have simplified control of the mower during docking for charging by allowing it to continue driving forward instead of stopping, turning around, and reversing into the charger.
The combination made above does not appear to expressly teach when the docking station to dock at is a multi-station or a dumping station, the robot cleaner rotates so that a rear of the robot cleaner faces a front of the docking station to dock by backward driving.
However, Liggett teaches when the docking station to dock at is a multi-station or a dumping station, the robot cleaner rotates so that a rear of the robot cleaner faces a front of the docking station to dock by backward driving ([6:17-24]: “In some instances, the optical indicium 308 can be used to indicate a docking station type such that the robotic cleaner 100 can engage in a docking action consistent with the docking station type corresponding to the docking station 300. For example, when the docking station 300 is configured to evacuate debris from a dust cup of the robotic cleaner 100, the robotic cleaner 100 can be configured to back into the docking station 300.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the robot receiving unique signals from a plurality of stations which are used to dock the robot of the above combination of Ha, Kamfors, and Noiri with the robot that docks backwards when a station is a dumping station as taught by Liggett. Doing so would have improved the robot’s versatility by providing it with another maneuver for docking to a station.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the provided machine translation of KR 20190003159 A to Ha, Sang Doo (“Ha”) in view of US 11426046 B2 to Liggett, Melinda et al. (“Liggett”), further in view of US 20230176584 A1 to Kamfors, Mattias (“Kamfors”).
Regarding claim 18, Ha teaches a robot cleaner system (FIGS. 1, 6) comprising:
a robot cleaner receiving the docking signal from the docking station and attempts to dock (“The control unit 20 determines the position information of the plurality of charging units 200 based on the communication result and determines the nearest charging unit at the current position among the plurality of charging units 200 based on the position information , And controls the movement of the main body 10 so as to charge the driving power by docking to the determined adjacent charging stand.”),
wherein the robot cleaner includes:
a body (FIG. 2: Main body 10.);
a driving part moving the body (FIG. 5: Driving unit 19.);
a battery supplying power to the driving part (FIG. 5: Power supply unit 11 taught to be a battery.); and
a sensor part receiving a docking signal from at least one docking station for charging the battery (FIG. 5: Communication unit 12. FIG. 8: Each robot receives a signal from each charging station with the stations identifier and position. This reads on the docking signal.),
wherein the robot cleaner, when docking is required, dock to the docking station (“After the docking of the vacuum cleaner 100 is completed, the charging terminal 200 of the charging base 200 and the charging terminal of the vacuum cleaner 100 are electrically connected to the power source unit 11 ) Is automatically charged. Homing, docking, and charging processes can be combined to form automatic charging or autonomous charging.” Ha’s system charges the robot when needed. The robot needing to dock for a charge taken as docking to the docking station when docking is required.).
Ha does not appear to expressly teach wherein the robot cleaner, when docking is required, determines the type of the docking station from the docking signal detected by the sensor part, determines a docking mode according to the type of the docking station, and dock to the docking station.
However, Liggett teaches wherein the robot cleaner, when docking is required, determines the type of the docking station from the docking signal detected by the sensor part, determines a docking mode according to the type of the docking station, and dock to the docking station ([6:17-24]: “In some instances, the optical indicium 308 can be used to indicate a docking station type such that the robotic cleaner 100 can engage in a docking action consistent with the docking station type corresponding to the docking station 300. For example, when the docking station 300 is configured to evacuate debris from a dust cup of the robotic cleaner 100, the robotic cleaner 100 can be configured to back into the docking station 300.” The robot engaging in a docking action means that the robot must have at least determined that docking is required.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the robot receiving unique signals from a plurality of stations which are used to dock the robot of Ha when such docking is necessary with the signal indicating the type of docking station of Liggett. Doing so would have improved the robot’s ability to dock to the station by providing it with information on how to dock.
The above combination of Ha and Liggett does not appear to expressly tech at least one docking station among multiple heterogeneous docking station groups placed within a driving area and have different docking signals assigned according to their types.
However, Kamfors teaches at least one docking station among multiple heterogeneous docking station groups placed within a driving area and have different docking signals assigned according to their types ([0079]-[0080]: There may be multiple different interaction stations along with the charging station, each having its own unique radar return signal allowing it to be distinguished from the rest. Ha is relied upon to teach multiple stations with unique identifiers located in the same area, Liggett is relied upon to teach that a unique identifier can contain a station type that triggers a particular mode, and Kamfors is relied upon to teach that there may be multiple heterogeneous docking stations, each having its own unique identification information that indicates what type of station it is.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the robot that communicates with stations, each station having its own unique identifier including a type, that emit signals of the above combination of Ha and Liggett with the multiple different kinds of stations, each having its own unique detectable identifying signal of Kamfors. Doing so would have improved the utility of the robot by offering it stations to get different tools or conduct different activities.
Regarding claim 19, the above combination of Ha, Liggett, and Kamfors teaches the robot cleaner system of claim 18.
This combination further teaches wherein each of the at least one docking station is assigned a unique docking signal representing its type, and information on the unique docking signal is shared with the robot cleaner (Ha: “Information received from the plurality of charging stations 200 to the communication unit 12 includes status information on the positions and current statuses of the plurality of charging stations 200 and identification information of the plurality of charging stations 200 Information.” The term “at least one of” only requires that one docking station be assigned a unique signal representing its type. Ha teaches that the robot knows the location and status of each charging station based on its identification information. Therefore, the robot knows that each charging station is of the type “charging station.” Further, Liggett teaches that a dumping station may be uniquely identified and docked to in [6:17-24]. Information about the dumping station type must have been shared with the robot in order for it to have carried out the reverse function.).
Regarding claim 20, the above combination of Ha, Liggett, and Kamfors teaches the robot cleaner system of claim 19.
This combination further teaches wherein the unique docking signal is assigned as a digital signal of a predetermined bit (Ha: “The plurality of charging units 200 can communicate with each other through a wireless communication method including Bluetooth or Wi-Fi communication.” Ha’s identification information for charging stations is inherently assigned a predetermined bit because the information is transmitted via a digital communication protocol. The identification information is predetermined, and will be sent as the same string of bits via the communication protocol.), and if all the digital signals of the predetermined bit match, the robot cleaner determines that the corresponding type of the docking station is placed (Ha Claim 7: “Wherein information on the plurality of charging stations is stored in advance . . . .” Storing the charging station information (locations and identification for each station) in advance broadly reads on the controller determining from the received signals what charging stations are available for it to connect to.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi, Su-Wuk et al. CN 109863003 B. Mobile Robot And Control Method Thereof. This reference teaches a robot that searches for a charging station in multiple rooms by proceeding to a room, stopping, rotating 360 degrees to search for the charger, and if none is found, it proceeds to the next room. Choi teaches that the robot can search for “different charging stations,” implying that there are a plurality of charging stations in the search area.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY RICHARD HINTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/HENRY R HINTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights