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 .
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 1-6 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.
In Claim 1 the limitations, “the distance and orientation of….”; “the ground clearance of…”, “….e) executing software in the processor…” each lacks antecedent basis, emphasis added.
Further, in claim 1, the phrase, “the distance and orientation of an autonomous or partially autonomous mobile robot relative to a parked target vehicle from a base center….” is not clear since it does not particularly indicate whether the distance is between the robot and a parked target vehicle or the distance is between the robot and the base center.
Furthermore, in claim 1, the phrase, “a pair of wheels on the front, back, or a side from which the robot will enter under the target vehicle…” is not clear because it is not explained how the robot will enter under the vehicle from a pair of wheels on the front, back, or a side. Where are the wheels located? Are they located on the robot, or on the target vehicle?
Furthermore, in claim 1, it is not clear what all is meant by or encompassed by the phrase, “….locate an entry point between the pair of wheels located on the previous step….”. How are the wheels located on the previous step?
Furthermore, in claim 1, the phrase, “from there underneath the vehicle” is not clear, it is suggested that the phrase, “there” be deleted.
The rest of the claims are rejected for depending on claim 1 of for having similar deficiencies as claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Globerman (US 20220307281 A1 )
Regarding claim 1, Globerman discloses a method for determining the distance and orientation of an autonomous or partially autonomous mobile robot relative to a parked target vehicle from a base center (abstract; sec 0092-0095), wherein the distance and orientation is used by the robot to navigate from the base center to a target location under the ground clearance of the target vehicle (0076-0078, 0092-0095, 0113), the method comprising:
a) activating a lidar sensor mounted on the robot (sec 0034, 0093, 0118);
b) receiving data from the lidar sensor at an onboard or remote processor (sec 0034, 0093);
c) executing software in the processor configured to carry out a method for locating a pair of wheels on the front, back, or a side from which the robot will enter under the target vehicle (0076-0078, 0092-0095, 0113, 0126-0129);
d) executing software in the processor to locate an entry point between the pair of wheels located on the previous step from which the robot will enter underneath the target vehicle (0076-0078, 0092-0095, 0113, 0126-0129); and
e) executing software in the processor that is configured to carry out a navigation process that directs the robot from the base center to the entry point and from there underneath the vehicle (0076-0078, 0092-0095, 0113, 0126-0129).
Regarding claim 2, Globerman discloses the method of claim 1 comprising a first step of navigating the robot to the base center, which faces a front, back, or a side surface of the target vehicle (0076-0078, 0092-0095, 0113, 0126-0129).
Regarding claim 3, Globerman discloses the method of claim 1 comprising a last step of executing software in the processor that is configured to carry out a navigation process that directs the robot from the entry point to the target location. (0076-0078, 0092-0095, 0113, 0126-0129).
Regarding claim 4, Globerman discloses the method of claim 2 comprising a last step of executing software in the processor that is configured to carry out a navigation process that directs the robot from the entry point to the target location (0076-0078, 0092-0095, 0113, 0126-0129).
Regarding claim 6, Globerman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the maximum height of the robot and any sensors or equipment mounted on it is lower than the ground clearance of the vehicle (0076-0078, 0092-0095, 0113, 0126-0129).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Globerman (US 20220307281 A1) in view of Agarwala (US 20230153390 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Globerman (US 20220307281 A1) further discloses receiving raw data from a LIDAR sensor mounted on the robot ((sec 0034, 0093). Globerman (US 20220307281 A1) fails to disclose the option of applying the BIRCH algorithm on the raw data to find clusters of data points and the calculation of various quantifiable parameters from the BIRCH algorithm data in order to conclude if the lidar data representing identifiable target objects such as pair of wheels. However, Agarwala US 20230153390 A1 which is in the field of object detection describes the possibility of receiving LIDAR sensor data and applying BIRCH algorithm for clustering the object data into one or more clusters and processing said clusters for identifying plurality of objects which lie within the predetermined threshold distance of each other (see Agarwala US 20230153390 A1: figs. 3A; sec 0013-0015, 0022, 0045- 0047). In furtherance, Agarwala US 20230153390 A1 discloses the option of calculating different parameters based on said clustering data. For example, the processor identifies and provides a list of data points which lie within the predetermined threshold distance of each other, thereby identifying the plurality of objects which are linked to each other (see for example Agarwala
US 20230153390 A1; figs. 3A; sec 0045- 0053). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to implement an object identification process (via LIDAR) via BIRCH algorithm in the Globerman (US 20220307281 A1) device as taught by Agarwala US 20230153390 A1 for purpose of calculating or computing various parameters and metric based on the data derived from the BIRCH algorithm (or other well-known algorithms which include in the steps of a "applying a RANSAC algorithm. " and "calculate the angle between the two regression lines...") as taught by Agarwala US 20230153390 for the advantage of improving identification of a group of wheels based on clustering identification to better operate a robot to service a target vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art, Oh Sejin (US 12299942 B2) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571 270 5376. 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights