DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-10 are pending and addressed below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/27/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Non-English documents have been considered in as much as the drawings and translated portions provided therein (See MPEP 609)
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Area setting unit, area set setting unit in claim 1,
Reception unit, correction unit in claim 2,
Display unit in claims 3-4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: abbreviations and acronyms are required to be spelled out at first use in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by NOH et al. (US 20160101524).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 10, NOH et al. teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer included in a setting device for a sensor configured to perform a two-dimensional scan with light and detect a target object entering a predetermined area, to execute:
(at least figs. 1-13 [0007]-[0055] discussed robot cleaner 100, controller 104, storage unit or memory 160, discussed imaging, light projector or projection unit 150, feature detection, boundary detection)
area setting of assigning an ID to each of a plurality of detection areas for detecting entry of the target object and setting a shape of the detection area;
and area set setting of setting a plurality of detection area sets including at least one of the plurality of detection areas, wherein
in the area set setting, when a shared ID is assigned to the plurality of detection areas included in at least two of the plurality of detection area sets, the plurality of detection area sets are set by using the plurality of detection areas to which the shared ID is assigned;
(at least figs. 1-13 [0007]-[0055] discussed robot cleaner 100, controller 104, storage unit or memory 160, discussed imaging, light projector or projection unit 150, feature detection, boundary detection; in particular figs. 11-13 [0051]-[0055] discussed regions with IDs, A1(1), C1, A1(2), C2, A1(2) and C2 are shared IDs)
Regarding claim 2, NOH et al. teaches:
a reception unit configured to receive correction of the shape of at least one of the plurality of detection areas; and
a correction unit configured to correct the shape of at least one of the plurality of detection areas, wherein when the reception unit receives correction of the shape of one of the plurality of detection areas to which the shared ID is assigned, the correction unit corrects all of the shapes of the plurality of detection areas to which the shared ID is assigned;
(at least figs. 1-13 [0007]-[0055] discussed robot cleaner 100, controller 104, storage unit or memory 160, discussed imaging, light projector or projection unit 150, feature detection, boundary detection; in particular figs. 11-13 [0051]-[0055] discussed regions with IDs, A1(1), C1, A1(2), C2; discussed detecting according to PL, PL1, PL2)
Regarding claim 5, NOH et al. teaches:
wherein the plurality of detection areas include protection areas,
the area setting unit assigns the shared ID to the protection areas in at least two of the plurality of detection area sets, and
the area set setting unit sets the at least two of the plurality of detection area sets by using the protection areas to which the shared ID is assigned;
(at least figs. 1-13 [0007]-[0055] discussed robot cleaner 100, controller 104, storage unit or memory 160, discussed imaging, light projector or projection unit 150, feature detection, boundary detection; in particular figs. 11-13 [0051]-[0055] discussed regions with IDs, A1(1), C1, A1(2), C2, discussed obstacle presence region)
Regarding claim 6, NOH et al. teaches:
wherein the plurality of detection areas include warning areas,
the area setting unit assigns the shared ID to the warning areas in at least two of the plurality of detection area sets, and
the area set setting unit sets the at least two of the plurality of detection area sets by using the warning areas to which the shared ID is assigned;
(at least figs. 1-13 [0007]-[0055] discussed robot cleaner 100, controller 104, storage unit or memory 160, discussed imaging, light projector or projection unit 150, feature detection, boundary detection; in particular figs. 11-13 [0051]-[0055] discussed regions with IDs, A1(1), C1, A1(2), C2, discussed obstacle presence region)
Regarding claim 7, NOH et al. teaches:
wherein the plurality of detection areas include a protection area and a warning area,
the area setting unit assigns the shared ID to the protection area of one of at least two of the plurality of detection area sets and the warning area of the other of the at least two of the plurality of detection area sets, and
the area set setting unit sets the at least two of the plurality of detection area sets by using the protection area and the warning area to which the shared ID is assigned;
(at least figs. 1-13 [0007]-[0055] discussed robot cleaner 100, controller 104, storage unit or memory 160, discussed imaging, light projector or projection unit 150, feature detection, boundary detection; in particular figs. 11-13 [0051]-[0055] discussed regions with IDs, A1(1), C1, A1(2), C2, discussed obstacle presence region)
Regarding claim 8, the cited portions and rationale in rejection to claims, 1, 9-10 read on this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOH et al. (US 20160101524) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KURIYAMA et al. (JP-2021186946-A a reference in IDS 5/27/2025 translation in provided and cited).
Regarding claim 3, NOH et al. teaches:
the plurality of detection areas to which the shared ID is assigned (at least figs. 1-13 [0007]-[0055] discussed robot cleaner 100, controller 104, storage unit or memory 160, discussed imaging, light projector or projection unit 150, feature detection, boundary detection; in particular figs. 11-13 [0051]-[0055] discussed regions with IDs, A1(1), C1, A1(2), C2, A1(2) and C2 are shared IDs) ;
NOH et al. does not explicitly teach:
a display unit configured to display a confirmation screen for, when the reception unit receives correction of the shape of one of the plurality of detection areas, confirming whether to correct all of the shapes of the plurality of detection areas;
However, KURIYAMA et al. teaches:
a display unit configured to display a confirmation screen for, when the reception unit receives correction of the shape of one of the plurality of detection areas, confirming whether to correct all of the shapes of the plurality of detection areas;
(at least [0026] [0038]-[0050]) so the operator can manually correct ([0038]-[0050])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of NOH et al. with a display unit configured to display a confirmation screen for, when the reception unit receives correction of the shape of one of the plurality of detection areas, confirming whether to correct all of the shapes of the plurality of detection areas as taught by KURIYAMA et al. so the operator can manually correct
Regarding claim 4, NOH et al. does not explicitly teach:
a display unit configured to display the plurality of detection areas, the ID assigned to each of the plurality of detection areas, and the plurality of detection area sets, wherein the display unit performs display in a state where the plurality of detection areas and the ID assigned to each of the plurality of detection areas are associated with each other;
However, KURIYAMA et al. teaches:
a display unit configured to display the plurality of detection areas, the ID assigned to each of the plurality of detection areas, and the plurality of detection area sets, wherein the display unit performs display in a state where the plurality of detection areas and the ID assigned to each of the plurality of detection areas are associated with each other;
(at least fig. 8-8B [0026] [0038]-[0050] [0060]-[0079]) so the operator can manually correct ([0038]-[0050] [0060]-[0079])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of NOH et al. with display unit configured to display the plurality of detection areas, the ID assigned to each of the plurality of detection areas, and the plurality of detection area sets, wherein the display unit performs display in a state where the plurality of detection areas and the ID assigned to each of the plurality of detection areas are associated with each other as taught by KURIYAMA et al. so the operator can manually correct
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pulikkaseril et al. (US 20230341526) discussed scanning with light to identify object in environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO LONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
BAO LONG T. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3656
/BAO LONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights