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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
Two information disclosure statements (IDS) have been filed on 23 December 2025 and 23 June 2026 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because (31) in Figure 8 appears to be a typographical error and should be (130). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: “first image processing module”, “second image processing module”, “positioning device”, “at least two infrared receiving devices”, “primary control unit”, “device controller” in claim set 1-20.
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. For “positioning device”, and “at least two infrared receiving devices”, see [0061]-[0065] of Applicant’s published specification (e.g. infrared emitter+infrared receiver/detector, and infrared receiver/detector). For “primary control unit”, and “device controller”, see [0066] of Applicant’s published specification (e.g. circuit(s)/chip(s)) . For “first image processing module”, and “second image processing module” see prosecution history of the continuing application(s) (e.g. processors).
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a module/device. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A line laser module comprising: a module body; a first image capturing assembly, provided on the module body and comprising a first camera, at least one laser emitter, a first image processing module, and a first filter, wherein the at least one laser emitter is provided adjacent to the first camera and configured to emit a line laser with a linear projection toward outside of the module body, the first camera is configured to capture a first environment image containing the line laser, the first image processing module is configured to acquire obstacle distance information based on the first environment image, the line laser is infrared line light, and the first camera is an infrared camera; and a second image capturing assembly, comprising a second camera, a second image processing module, and a second filter, wherein the second camera is configured to capture a second environment image, the second image processing module is configured to acquire obstacle type information based on the second environment image, and the second camera is an RGB camera, wherein: the at least one laser emitter comprises two laser emitters, the first camera and the second camera are provided side by side horizontally between the two laser emitters, and the module body comprises a first end, a second end, and a connection part connecting the first end and the second end, the two laser emitters are respectively provided at the first end and the second end, and the first camera and the second camera are provided at the connection part
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, acquiring information in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, captured, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A line laser module comprising: a module body; a first image capturing assembly, provided on the module body and comprising a first camera, at least one laser emitter, a first image processing module, and a first filter, wherein the at least one laser emitter is provided adjacent to the first camera and configured to emit a line laser with a linear projection toward outside of the module body, the first camera is configured to capture a first environment image containing the line laser, the first image processing module is configured to acquire obstacle distance information based on the first environment image, the line laser is infrared line light, and the first camera is an infrared camera; and a second image capturing assembly, comprising a second camera, a second image processing module, and a second filter, wherein the second camera is configured to capture a second environment image, the second image processing module is configured to acquire obstacle type information based on the second environment image, and the second camera is an RGB camera, wherein: the at least one laser emitter comprises two laser emitters, the first camera and the second camera are provided side by side horizontally between the two laser emitters, and the module body comprises a first end, a second end, and a connection part connecting the first end and the second end, the two laser emitters are respectively provided at the first end and the second end, and the first camera and the second camera are provided at the connection part
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the emitting a laser and capturing image(s) steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering and/or amounts to mere post solution action, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claim 1 further recites the “A line laser module comprising: a module body; a first image capturing assembly, provided on the module body and comprising a first camera, at least one laser emitter, a first image processing module, and a first filter, wherein the at least one laser emitter is provided adjacent to ... and configured to ..., the first camera is configured to ..., the first image processing module is configured to ... an infrared camera; and a second image capturing assembly, comprising a second camera, a second image processing module, and a second filter, wherein the second camera is configured to ..., the second image processing module is configured to ... an RGB camera, wherein: the at least one laser emitter comprises two laser emitters, the first camera and the second camera are provided ..., and the module body comprises a first end, a second end, and a connection part connecting ..., the two laser emitters are respectively provided ..., and the first camera and the second camera are provided ...” which merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of emitting a laser and capturing image(s) are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. 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 mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner and because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performances are well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-13 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 11-14, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN212932957U – translation attached) in view of Jeong (US20190293765A1) in further view of Shan (CN111093019A – translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses a line laser module (see at least [0004], [0015], [0026] and [0029]), comprising: a module body (see at least [0015], [0026] and [0029]); a first image capturing assembly, provided on the module body and comprising a first camera, at least one laser emitter, a first image processing module, and a first filter (see at least Figure 1, [0007], [0012]-[0015] and [0037]), wherein the at least one laser emitter is provided adjacent to the first camera (see at least Figure 1, [0007], [0012]-[0015] and [0037]) and configured to emit a line laser with a linear projection toward outside of the module body (see at least [0006] and [0007]), the first camera is configured to capture a first environment image containing the line laser (see at least [0007], [0008], [0039] and [0040]), the first image processing module is configured to acquire obstacle distance information based on the first environment image (see at least [0008], [0012]-[0014], [0027] and [0029]), the line laser is infrared line light (see at least [0035]), and the first camera is an infrared camera (see at least [0007], [0008] and [0035]); and a second image capturing assembly, comprising a second camera, a second image processing module (see at least Figure 1, [0007], [0010], [0011] and [0015]), wherein the second camera is configured to capture a second environment image (see at least [0007]), the second image processing module is configured to acquire obstacle type information based on the second environment image (see at least [0008], [0010], [0011] and [0026]), and the second camera is an RGB camera (see at least [0007]-[0010] and [0015]), wherein: the at least one laser emitter comprises two laser emitters (see at least [0006] and [0023]).
Jiang does not explicitly disclose the second image capturing assembly further comprising a second filter, the first camera and the second camera are provided side by side horizontally between the two laser emitters, and the module body comprises a first end, a second end, and a connection part connecting the first end and the second end, the two laser emitters are respectively provided at the first end and the second end, and the first camera and the second camera are provided at the connection part.
Jeong teaches the second image capturing assembly further comprising a second filter (see at least [0006], [0064], [0068], [0136], [0137], [0158], [0159], [0162] and [0256]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang to incorporate the teachings of Jeong which teaches the second image capturing assembly further comprising a second filter since they are directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Jeong would increase accuracy and thereby increase safety and reliability of the overall system by using the appropriate filter depending on the system’s need from the particular camera (see at least Jeong [0071], [0076], [0166], [0186], [0222] and [0224]).
Shan teaches the first camera and the second camera are provided side by side horizontally between the two laser emitters (see at least Figure 3a, [0012], [0043], [0046], [0047] and [0052]), and the module body comprises a first end, a second end, and a connection part connecting the first end and the second end (see at least Figures 3a-3e, [0047] and [0067]), the two laser emitters are respectively provided at the first end and the second end (see at least Figures 3a-3e, [0047] and [0067]), and the first camera and the second camera are provided at the connection part (see at least Figure 3a, [0012], [0043], [0046], [0047] and [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang as modified by Jeong to incorporate the teachings of Shan which teaches the first camera and the second camera are provided side by side horizontally between the two laser emitters, and the module body comprises a first end, a second end, and a connection part connecting the first end and the second end, the two laser emitters are respectively provided at the first end and the second end, and the first camera and the second camera are provided at the connection part since they are directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Shan would increase utility, flexibility and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 2, Jiang fails to disclose wherein the first image processing module acquires the obstacle distance information based on triangulation. However, Jeong teaches wherein the first image processing module acquires the obstacle distance information based on triangulation (see at least [0157]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang to incorporate the teachings of Jeong which teaches wherein the first image processing module acquires the obstacle distance information based on triangulation since they are directed to line laser modules and incorporating the teachings of Jeong would increase accuracy and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 3, Jiang discloses wherein the first filter is provided on a side of the first camera away from the module body (see at least [0035], [0037] and [0038]).
Jiang does not explicitly disclose the second filter is provided on a side of the second camera away from the module body. However, Jeong teaches the second filter is provided on a side of the second camera away from the module body (see at least [0006], [0136], [0137], [0166], [0255], [0256] and [0277]-[0279]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang to incorporate the teachings of Jeong which teaches the second filter is provided on a side of the second camera away from the module body since they are directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Jeong would increase accuracy and thereby increase safety and reliability of the overall system by using the appropriate filter depending on the system’s need from the particular camera (see at least Jeong [0071], [0076], [0166], [0186], [0222] and [0224]).
Regarding claim 6, Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan discloses the line laser module further comprising a primary control unit which is configured to send operation instructions to the first image capturing assembly and the second image capturing assembly (see at least Jiang [0008], [0015] and [0025]-[0027]), wherein both the first image capturing assembly and the second image capturing assembly are connected with the primary control unit (see at least Jiang Figure 1, [0008], [0015] and [0025]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 7, Jiang as modified by Jeong discloses wherein each of the at least one laser emitter comprises: a line laser generator, configured to generate the line laser (see at least Jiang Figure 1, [0008] and [0031]).
Jiang as modified by Jeong fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the at least one laser emitter further comprises: a laser driving circuit connected with the primary control unit, wherein the laser driving circuit controls the laser emitter based on the operation instructions sent by the primary control unit.
Shan teaches wherein each of the at least one laser emitter further comprises: a laser driving circuit connected with the primary control unit, wherein the laser driving circuit controls the laser emitter based on the operation instructions sent by the primary control unit (see at least Figure 3f and [0074]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang as modified by Jeong to incorporate the teachings of Shan which teaches wherein each of the at least one laser emitter further comprises: a laser driving circuit connected with the primary control unit, wherein the laser driving circuit controls the laser emitter based on the operation instructions sent by the primary control unit since they are directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Shan would increase utility, flexibility and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 11, Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan discloses wherein the first environment image and the second environment image are at least partially overlapped (see at least Jiang Figure 1, [0007], [0008], [0039] and [0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan discloses wherein the first filter is configured to allow only infrared light to enter the first camera (see at least Jiang [0035], [0037] and [0038]).
Regarding claim 13, Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein the second filter is configured to allow only visible light to enter the second camera. However, Jeong teaches wherein the second filter is configured to allow only visible light to enter the second camera (see at least [0006], [0064], [0068], [0136], [0137], [0158], [0159], [0162] and [0256]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang to incorporate the teachings of Jeong which teaches wherein the second filter is configured to allow only visible light to enter the second camera since they are directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Jeong would increase accuracy and thereby increase safety and reliability of the overall system by using the appropriate filter depending on the system’s need from the particular camera (see at least Jeong [0071], [0076], [0166], [0186], [0222] and [0224]).
Regarding claim 14, Jiang discloses an autonomous mobile device, comprising: a device body; the line laser module according to claim 1, provided on the device body (see at least [0004], [0015], [0026] and [0029]; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Jiang does not a device controller, configured to control movement of the autonomous mobile device based on the obstacle distance information and the obstacle type information. However, Jeong teaches a device controller, configured to control movement of the autonomous mobile device based on the obstacle distance information and the obstacle type information (see at least [0064], [0068], [0069], [0071], [0144]-[146], [0159], [0162], [0167]-[0169] and [0222]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang to incorporate the teachings of Jeong which teaches a device controller, configured to control movement of the autonomous mobile device based on the obstacle distance information and the obstacle type information since they are all directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Jeong would increase accuracy and thereby increase safety and reliability of the overall system (see at least Jeong [0071], [0076], [0166], [0186], [0222] and [0224]).
Regarding claims 16, 17 and 20, claims 16, 17 and 20 are commensurate in scope with claims 2, 3 and 6, respectively. See rejection of claims 2, 3 and 6 above.
Claims 4, 5, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Jeong, in further view of Shan, and in yet further view of Xin (CN211508646U – translation attached).
Regarding claim 4, Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan discloses the line laser module (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan fails to disclose further comprising: a positioning device for docking, provided on the module body and configured to communicate with a charging station. However, Xin teaches further comprising: a positioning device for docking, provided on the module body and configured to communicate with a charging station (see at least [0033], [0037], [0038], [0041], [0046], [0054] and [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan to incorporate the teachings of Xin which teaches a positioning device for docking, provided on the module body and configured to communicate with a charging station since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 5, Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan fails to disclose wherein the positioning device for docking comprises an infrared emitter and at least two infrared receiving devices, wherein the infrared emitter is configured to send a first infrared signal to the charging station, and the at least two infrared receiving devices are configured to receive a second infrared signal from the charging station. However, Xin teaches wherein the positioning device for docking comprises an infrared emitter and at least two infrared receiving devices, wherein the infrared emitter is configured to send a first infrared signal to the charging station, and the at least two infrared receiving devices are configured to receive a second infrared signal from the charging station (see at least [0033], [0037], [0038], [0041], [0046], [0054] and [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan to incorporate the teachings of Xin which teaches wherein the positioning device for docking comprises an infrared emitter and at least two infrared receiving devices, wherein the infrared emitter is configured to send a first infrared signal to the charging station, and the at least two infrared receiving devices are configured to receive a second infrared signal from the charging station since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, claims 18 and 19 are commensurate in scope with claims 4 and 5, respectively. See rejection of claims 4 and 5 above.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Jeong, in further view of Shan, and in yet further view of Wu (US20220369890A1).
Regarding claim 8, Jiang as modified by Jeong fails to disclose wherein the laser driving circuit comprises: a first amplification circuit, configured to receive a control signal sent by the primary control unit, amplify the control signal and send the amplified control signal to the laser emitter. However, Shan teaches wherein the laser driving circuit comprises: a first amplification circuit, configured to receive a control signal sent by the primary control unit, amplify the control signal and send the amplified control signal to the laser emitter (see at least [0074], [0056] and [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang as modified by Jeong to incorporate the teachings of Shan which teaches wherein the laser driving circuit comprises: a first amplification circuit, configured to receive a control signal sent by the primary control unit, amplify the control signal and send the amplified control signal to the laser emitter since they are directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Shan would increase utility and reliability of the overall system.
Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the laser driving circuit comprises: the first amplification circuit, configured to send the amplified control signal to the laser emitter, so as to control the laser emitter to turn on or turn off; and a second amplification circuit, configured to receive an adjustment signal sent by the primary control unit, amplify the adjustment signal and send the amplified adjustment signal to the laser emitter, so as to control emission power of the laser emitter. However, Wu teaches wherein the laser driving circuit comprises: the first amplification circuit, configured to send the amplified control signal to the laser emitter, so as to control the laser emitter to turn on or turn off; and a second amplification circuit, configured to receive an adjustment signal sent by the primary control unit, amplify the adjustment signal and send the amplified adjustment signal to the laser emitter, so as to control emission power of the laser emitter (see at least [0057]-[0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan to incorporate the teachings of Wu which teaches wherein the laser driving circuit comprises: the first amplification circuit, configured to send the amplified control signal to the laser emitter, so as to control the laser emitter to turn on or turn off; and a second amplification circuit, configured to receive an adjustment signal sent by the primary control unit, amplify the adjustment signal and send the amplified adjustment signal to the laser emitter, so as to control emission power of the laser emitter since they are all directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Wu would increase utility and accuracy and thereby reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 15, Jiang fails to explicitly disclose the autonomous mobile device further comprising: a buffer component, provided on sides of the first image capturing assembly and the second image capturing assembly away from the device body, and having an opening opposite to the first image capturing assembly and the second image capturing assembly respectively; and wherein the buffer component is provided with a supplement lamp located at periphery of the opening.
Jeong teaches a supplement lamp as a component of the line laser module (see at least Figure 18, [0070], [0128]-[0130] and [0165]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang to incorporate the teachings of Jeong which teaches a supplement lamp as a component of the line laser module since they are directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Jeong would increase accuracy and thereby increase safety and reliability of the overall system (see at least Jeong [0071], [0076], [0166], [0186], [0222] and [0224]).
Wu teaches the autonomous mobile device further comprising: a buffer component, provided on sides of the first image capturing assembly and the second image capturing assembly away from the device body, and having an opening opposite to the first image capturing assembly and the second image capturing assembly respectively; and wherein the buffer component is provided with components located at periphery of the opening (see at least [0083] and [0114]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan to incorporate the teachings of Wu which teaches the autonomous mobile device further comprising: a buffer component, provided on sides of the first image capturing assembly and the second image capturing assembly away from the device body, and having an opening opposite to the first image capturing assembly and the second image capturing assembly respectively; and wherein the buffer component is provided with components located at periphery of the opening since they are directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Wu would increase protection of the overall system.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Jeong, in further view of Shan, and in yet further view of Lai (CN211012988U– translation attached).
Regarding claim 9, Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan does not explicitly disclose wherein a first optical axis of the first camera is inclined downward with respect to a horizontal direction, and a second optical axis of the second camera is inclined upward with respect to the horizontal direction. However, Lai teaches wherein a first optical axis of the first camera is inclined downward with respect to a horizontal direction, and a second optical axis of the second camera is inclined upward with respect to the horizontal direction (see at least [0006], [0007], [0012] and [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan to incorporate the teachings of Lai which teaches wherein a first optical axis of the first camera is inclined downward with respect to a horizontal direction, and a second optical axis of the second camera is inclined upward with respect to the horizontal direction since they are directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Lai would increase accuracy and thereby increase safety and reliability of the overall system (see at least Lai [0006], [0012] and [0030]).
Regarding claim 10, Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan does not explicitly disclose wherein a first angle between the first optical axis of the first camera and the horizontal direction is 7 degrees, and a second angle between the second optical axis of the second camera and the horizontal direction is 5 degrees. However, Lai teaches wherein a first angle between the first optical axis of the first camera and the horizontal direction is certain degrees, and a second angle between the second optical axis of the second camera and the horizontal direction is certain degrees (see at least [0006], [0007], [0012] and [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Jiang as modified by Jeong and Shan to incorporate the teachings of Lai which teaches wherein a first angle between the first optical axis of the first camera and the horizontal direction is certain degrees, and a second angle between the second optical axis of the second camera and the horizontal direction is certain degrees since they are directed to line laser modules and incorporation of the teachings of Lai would increase accuracy and thereby increase safety and reliability of the overall system (see at least Lai [0006], [0012] and [0030]). Jiang as modified by Jeong, Shan and Lai discloses the claimed invention except for the first angle being 7 degrees and the second angle being 5 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first angle be 7 degrees and the second angle be 5 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11966233 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application cover the same subject matter claimed in the reference application/patent with only slight but obvious/implicit differences in wording, when the claims of the reference application/patent are read in light of the reference application/patent specification, and with the limitations of the claims in the present application corresponding to and/or obvious from the limitations in the reference application/patent.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-17 and 20-22 of copending Application No. 18/615,586 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application cover the same subject matter claimed in the reference application with only slight but obvious/implicit differences in wording, when the claims of the reference application are read in light of the reference application specification, and with the limitations of the claims in the present application corresponding to and/or obvious from the limitations in the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights