Patent Application 18381777 - PICK-UP SYSTEM OF AUTONOMOUS CHARGING ROBOT FOR

Title: PICK-UP SYSTEM OF AUTONOMOUS CHARGING ROBOT FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE

Application Information

Invention Title: PICK-UP SYSTEM OF AUTONOMOUS CHARGING ROBOT FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE
Application Number: 18381777
Submission Date: 2025-05-14T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2023-10-19T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2023-10-19T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 701
National Sub-Class: 022000
Examiner Employee Number: 81359
Art Unit: 3668
Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 2

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

US 0073633🔗

Office Action Text

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 .

Status of the Claims
This is the first action on the merits in response to applicant’s filing on 10/19/2023. Claims 1-9 are currently pending and are addressed below.

Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No.KR10-2023-0073633, filed on 6/08/2023.

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: pick-up target, pick-up unit, correxction marker, analysis unit and control unit in claim 1.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.

The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims disclose analysis unit and control unit. However, the specification and drawings fail to provide any support for the claimed features.

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 1-9 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.
Claim limitation “analysis unit and control unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.

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) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., CN115593262A1 in view of Huisson, WO98/57782, hereinafter referred to as Zhang and Huisson, respectively.
As per Claim 1-6, Zhang discloses a system comprising:
a pick-up target configured to provide a pick-up feature point (see at least 0014);
a pick-up unit configured to pick up the pick-up target (see at least 0017, “robotic arm”;
a scanner configured to detect a target object including the pick-up target, and create a point cloud including the pick-up feature point (see at least 0020-0026 on page 5, “3D camera, point cloud” ;
an analysis unit configured to calculate pick-up information including posture information and movement information, which allow the pick-up unit to pick up the pick- up target, by comparing the pick-up feature point, which are extracted on the basis of the point cloud, and three-dimensional shape information on the pick-up target (see at least 0041, 0049-0051); and
a control unit configured to control a posture and movement of the pick-up unit on the basis of the pick-up information (see at least n0033 on pages 14-15).
Zhang fails to disclose a correction marker that is a three-dimensional structure installed around the pick-up target and configured to provide a plurality of correction feature points; use structured light, and the correction marker installed around the pick-up target; and wherein the correction marker is formed such that the correction feature points are disposed on an orientation plane that is a plane that meets an orientation line at a right angle, the orientation line being a straight line along which the pick-up unit is directed toward the pick-up target.
Zhang does disclose according to the stereo matching principle, the 3D (three-dimensional) spatial position of the corresponding point in the binocular image of the charging socket area is calculated, and at the same time, exemplarily, ICP (Iterative Closest Point, iterative nearest point) and other algorithms are used to match the binocular image of the charging socket area with the 3D prior model of the charging port to obtain a high-precision charging socket posture; finally, the industrial computer of the charging robot controls the mechanical arm of the charging robot to plug the
charging gun into the charging socket of the electric vehicle based on the charging socket posture (see at least n0033).
However, Huissoon teaches a correction marker that is a three-dimensional structure installed around the target and configured to provide a plurality of correction feature points (see at least Abstract, Pages 3-5 and Figure. 8b, “calibration of a structured light sensor”, “element 44”);
and the correction marker installed around the pick-up target; and wherein the correction marker is formed such that the correction feature points are disposed on an orientation plane that is a plane that meets an orientation line at a right angle, the orientation line being a straight line along which the pick-up unit is directed toward the pick-up target (see at least Page 9 and Figure. 8a-8B);
Thus, Zhang discloses a robotic charging system which pickups a charging device using feature points while Huissoon teaches using a calibration physical feature to aid the robotic end effector.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhang to include to provide a reference fixture and a method whereby this fixture may be used for the calibration of a structured light sensor as taught by Huissoon, with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides the robot a more precise guide for determining where to enable a robotic tool.

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(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Huissoon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsibulevsky, U.S. Patent No. 10,716,192 B1, hereinafter referred to as Tsibulevsky.
As per Claim 7, Zhang in view of Huissoon fails to disclose wherein the pick-up unit picks up the pick- up target by using an attractive force of an electromagnet or permanent magnet. Zhang does disclose the control component of the charging robot controls the charging gun clamping mechanism of the mechanical arm end of the charging robot to butt joint with the charging gun plug on the charging gun, realizing the butt joint of the charging gun clamping mechanism and the charging gun plug. Further, Tsibulevsky teaches wherein the pick-up unit picks up the pick- up target by using an attractive force of an electromagnet or permanent magnet (see at least Col. 3, lines 15-38, “suction cup (e.g. motorized to suction out air or not motorized) or electromagnet or gripper arm coupled to a platform in order to pick up a container or box or tote along a vertical, horizontal, or diagonal plane, a window cleaning robot, or others including any permutational combinations thereof”).
Thus, Zhang discloses a robotic charging system which pickups a charging device using an arm while Tsibulevsky teaches using electromagnet to pick up an object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhang to include to using an electromagnet to pick up an object as taught by Tsibulevsky, with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides the robot with a secure method when picking up an object.

As per Claim 8, Zhang discloses wherein the pick-up target has a polygonal shape having upper and lower proportions or left and right portions that are distinguishable (see at least Figure 4, element 104).

As per Claim 9, Zhang fails to disclose wherein the pick-up unit picks up the pick- up target by being fitted and docked with the pick-up target (see at least Figure 4).

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fadey S Jabr whose telephone number is (571)272-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00am to 4:oopm.
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, Fadey S Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.

FADEY S. JABR
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3668

/Fadey S. Jabr/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668