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 Claims
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 16/435,664 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1-3, 5, 7, 13-15, and 18-20.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is a system claim. The components of the system explicitly include a processor including a communication port, a memory device, and instructions and implicitly include a wayfinding device. The agent is not recited as part of the system. Rather, the claim recites “agents capable of autonomously navigating unattended within a service area, as guided along a predetermined path based on receiving wayfinding instructions including wayfinding guidance instructions, wherein the processor comprises a communication port to permit a communication during assignments with one or more communication devices on a wayfinding device carried by or attached to an agent selected for implementing an assignment, wherein the agent is a service animal configured to autonomously navigate unattended within the service area and to respond to the wayfinding guidance instructions, and the wayfinding device is selected from a group consisting of a wearable collar and a wearable harness” and “wherein the agent has a capability to respond to wayfinding guidance instructions received via the wayfinding device”. As currently recited in the claim, the agent and the functions of the agent are not part of the system. Rather, based on current claim construction, the agent is merely an intended use or application of the system, and particularly the wayfinding device, and are not an actual use or application of the system. Therefore, the Examiner interprets these claim recitations as non-limiting.
Claim 15 is a method claim. The claim recites the method steps of “receiving a request”, “mapping a route”, and “dispatching the selected agent”. The claim further recites “wherein the selected agent has a capability to respond to wayfinding guidance instructions received via the wayfinding device, and the selected agent is a service animal configured to autonomously navigate unattended within the service area and to respond to the wayfinding guidance instructions, and wears a wayfinding device that is selected from a group consisting of a wearable collar and a wearable harness”. However, this claim recitation is not a step in the method. Rather, the recitation is merely an intended, but not required, step. Therefore, the Examiner interprets these claim recitations as non-limiting.
Claim 20 is a method claim. The claim recites “wherein the selected agent has a capability to respond to wayfinding guidance instructions received via the wayfinding device, and the selected agent is a service animal configured to autonomously navigate unattended within the service area and to respond to the wayfinding guidance instructions, and wears a wayfinding device that is selected from a group consisting of a wearable collar and a wearable harness”. However, this claim recitation is not a step in the method. Rather, the recitation is merely an intended application, i.e., service animals, with intended, but not required, steps, i.e, navigate and wear a wayfinding device. Therefore, the Examiner interprets these claim recitations as non-limiting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 1-8 and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, see REMARKS, filed 30 April 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argument is not clear. Applicant states that “One of skill in the art would recognize that the steps in the independent claims, regarding methods and system to enable unattended wayfinding. Therefore, the claims do not involve an abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind”. See REMARKS at page 9. Applicant’s argument is not complete. The Examiner assumes that Applicant’s intended argument is that the claims do not recite a judicial exception, as suggested by the subsequent paragraph. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Judicial exceptions include mental processes, i.e., concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). With respect to mental processes, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Further, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
Claim 1 recites “mapping a routing . . .” and “selecting which agent . . .” A person knowing a starting location, destination, and route options, e.g., roads, walking paths, etc., may map a route from the starting location to the destination via the route options. This may be done mentally. Further, a person having a list, either mentally or on paper, of potential agents, may select one agent from the list. This also may be done mentally. The only suggestion that the mapping and selecting may not be performed mentally is that these functions are performed by a processor. However, merely performing the functions on a processor is not, according to precedent, sufficient to distinguish the functions form mental processes. Applicant’s reference to the USPTO memo titled “Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101” does not change this analysis. The portion of the memo referenced by Applicant is related to mathematical concepts, not mental processes. The Examiner has not identified any of the claim recitations as mathematical concepts. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims recite a judicial exception.
Applicant then argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer. See REMARKS at page 10. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality include mere automation of manual processes. See MPEP 2106.05(a)I.
The instant claims represent automation of manual processes using a computer, without improving the computer itself. All of the claimed functions may be performed without using a computer. Receiving a request for the service may be performed manually, such as by receiving verbally, or via paper, the service request. Mapping the route and selecting the agent may be performed manually, either mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. Dispatching the agent may be performed manually, such as verbally or via pen and paper, to notify the agent that of the assignment and provide guidance instructions for the assignment. The computer is being used as a tool to perform the claimed functions. Performing the claimed functions does not improve the computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., processor + memory device + instructions, that are ubiquitous to computers. Nothing in the claim represents an improvement in the computer hardware. The claimed computer functionality, i.e., storing instructions, executing instructions, communicating, receiving information, and sending information, are all recited at a high level of generality and the implemented instructions do not improve any of the computer functionality. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that the claim invokes computers merely as a tool and does not purport to improve computer capabilities.
Applicant also argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims reflect an improvement in another technology or technological field. See REMARKS at page 10. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a)II. The computer is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., processor + memory device + instructions, that are ubiquitous to computers. Nothing in the claim represents an improvement in the computer hardware. The claimed method may be performed without using a computer. Receiving a request for the service may be performed manually, such as by receiving verbally, or via paper, the service request. Mapping the route and selecting the agent may be performed manually, either mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. Dispatching the agent may be performed manually, such as verbally or via pen and paper, to notify the agent that of the assignment and provide guidance instructions for the assignment. The claim is mere instructions to perform the method on the generic computer. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that the claim does not reflect an improvement to another technology or technological field.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 1-8 and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102, see REMARKS, filed 30 April 2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections are withdrawn. However, new rejections of claims 1-8 and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are set forth below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejections of claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are withdrawn due because they depend from independent claim 1, the rejection of which under § 102 is withdrawn, as indicated above. However, new rejections under § 103 are set forth below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A (Prong 1)
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
With regards to independent claims 1 and 15, the claims recite the limitation of “mapping a routing between a current location of the agent selected to implement the service request as an assignment to the first location and a mapping between the first location and the destination at the second location” and “selecting which agent from a plurality of agents will implement the service request as the assignment”. With regards to independent claim 20, the claim recites the limitation of “determining a routing to be followed by an agent to be dispatched to implement the received service request, wherein the selected agent is a service animal configured to autonomously navigate unattended within the service area and to respond to the wayfinding guidance instructions, and wears a wayfinding device that is selected from a group consisting of a wearable collar and a wearable harness”. These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at data collected and determining a routing based on the data. 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). As such, a person looking at the obtained data could generate or determine routing therefrom, either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation (in claim 1) that the various steps are being executed by a processor does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Step 2A (Prong 2)
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of “a processor; and a memory device accessible to the processor, the memory device storing a set of machine-readable instructions to permit the processor to execute the machine-readable instructions for providing a service using agents capable of autonomously navigating unattended within a service area, as guided along a predetermined path based on receiving wayfinding instructions, wherein the processor comprises a communication port to permit a communication during assignments with one or more communication devices on a wayfinding device carried by or attached to an agent selected for implementing an assignment, wherein the agent is a service animal configured to autonomously navigate unattended within the service area and to respond to wayfinding guidance instructions, and the wayfinding device is selected from a group consisting of a wearable collar and a wearable harness, and wherein the machine-readable instructions executed by the processor comprises: receiving a request for the service at a first location for the service to start as originating at the first location and to end at a destination at a second location” and “dispatching the agent selected for the assignment from the current location of the agent to the first location, to meet up with a requester for service, the agent being guided to the first location using wayfinding guidance instructions received via a receiver on or attached to the wayfinding device, wherein the agent has a capability to respond to wayfinding guidance instructions received via the wayfinding device”. Claim 15 recites the additional limitations of “receiving a request for the service from a requesting unit at a first location for the service to start as originating at the first location and to end at a destination at a second location” and “dispatching the selected agent from the current location of the selected agent to the first location to meet up with the requesting unit making the request for service, the selected agent being guided to the first location using wayfinding guidance instructions received via a receiver on a wayfinding device mounted on or attached to the selected agent, wherein the selected agent has a capability to respond to wayfinding guidance instructions received via the wayfinding device, and the selected agent is a service animal configured to autonomously navigate unattended within the service area and to respond to the wayfinding guidance instructions, and wears a wayfinding device that is selected from a group consisting of a wearable collar and a wearable harness”. Claim 20 recites the additional limitations of “receiving a request for the service” and “dispatching the agent to implement the received service request, the dispatched agent P201805396US0134being guided along the determined routing using wayfinding guidance instructions received via a receiver on a wayfinding device mounted on or attached to the dispatched agent, wherein the dispatched agent has a capability to respond to wayfinding guidance instructions received via the wayfinding device, and wherein the wayfinding device carried by or attached to the dispatched agent further comprises a sensor that detects when the dispatched agent has encountered an impediment to the routing mapped out for the assignment, such that a new routing is determined for guiding the dispatched agent to complete implementing the received service request”. The receiving steps recited in claims 1, 15 and 20 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving a request for information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The dispatching steps in claims 1, 15 and 20 are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the mapping/determining steps) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The dispatching steps amount to the mere sending of a signal to an agent to be dispatched. The processor, memory device accessible to the processor, the memory device storing a set of machine-readable instructions, and the processor having a communication port to permit a communication during assignments with one or more communication devices on a wayfinding device merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The processor, memory device accessible to the processor, the memory device storing a set of machine-readable instructions, and the processor having a communication port to permit a communication during assignments with one or more communication devices on a wayfinding device are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the generating steps. Still further, claim 20 recites the additional limitation of the wayfinding device comprising a sensor that detects when the agent has encountered an impediment. The sensor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity such that it does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, or such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Finally, even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception renders the claim eligible under §101. Examples that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, 2) simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, 3) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and 4) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examples of generic computing functions that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the mapping or determining steps are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. Finally, sending a signal from one computing device to another computing device (e.g., from the processor to the wayfinding device) is merely transmitting data over a network. 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 performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Based on the above analysis, claims 1, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, in claim 2, the addition limitation of selecting which agent from a plurality of agents will implement the service request as the assignment are further steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using a similar analysis applied to claim 1 above.
As such, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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 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.
Claims 1-8 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sisbot et al. (US 2017/0285635) in view of Coney (US 2019/0254919 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Sisbot et al. teaches a system (see at least Abstract), comprising: a processor (see at least ¶ [0007]-[0008]); and a memory device accessible to the processor (see at least ¶ [0007]-[0008]), the memory device storing a set of machine-readable instructions to permit the processor to execute a method for providing a service using agents capable of autonomously navigating unattended within a service area, as guided along a predetermined path based on receiving wayfinding instructions (see at least ¶ [0032]-[0053] and [0083]-[0084]), wherein the processor comprises a communication port to permit a communication during assignments with one or more communication devices on a wayfinding device carried by or attached to an agent selected for implementing an assignment (see at least ¶ [0049] – the guidance engine communicates and provides navigational instructions to the robot units which implies that there is a navigation instruction receiving unit/wayfinding device on the robot units), and wherein the method executed by the processor comprises: receiving a request for the service at a first location for the service to start as originating at the first location and to end at a destination at a second location (see at least Fig. 3; 302-304; ¶[0054]-[0055]); mapping a routing between a current location of the agent selected to implement the service request as an assignment to the first location and a mapping between the first location and the destination at the second location (see at least Fig. 3; 306-314; ¶[0056]-[0061]); and dispatching the agent selected for the assignment from the agent's current location to the first location, to meet up with a requester for service, the agent being guided to the first location using wayfinding guidance instructions received via a receiver on or attached to the wayfinding device (see at least ¶[0061]), wherein the agent has a capability to respond to wayfinding guidance instructions received via the wayfinding device (see at least ¶[0056]-[0061]).
Sisbot fails to teach but Coney discloses a travel assistance system and teaches:
wherein the agent is a service animal configured to autonomously navigate unattended within the service area and to respond to the wayfinding guidance instructions, and the wayfinding device is selected from a group consisting of a wearable collar and a wearable harness (animal harness 1100 adapted for use in connection with a travel assistance system – see at least ¶ [0172]; harness 1100 may be an embodiment of a wearable personal navigation device – see at least ¶ [0172]; placed on an animal, such as a service dog – see at least ¶ [0172]; harness 1100 may include one or more indicators 1104 to indicate that the animal wearing harness 1100 should turn – see at least ¶ [0176]; indicators 1104 may be actuators that apply force to the animal to indicate a direction of travel to the animal – see at least ¶ [0177]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sisbot to provide a service animal as an agent and the wayfinding device as a collar or harness, as taught by Coney, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide navigation instructions to an agent utilized by impaired users (Coney at ¶ [0003], [0177])
With regards to claim 2, Sisbot et al. teaches wherein the method further comprises selecting which agent from a plurality of agents will implement the service request as the assignment (see at least ¶[0056]), wherein the receiving the request for the service is from a user at the first location for the service to start as originating at the first location and to end at a destination at a second location (see at least Fig. 3; 306-314; ¶[0056]-[0061]), and wherein the dispatching the agent selected for the assignment from the agent's current location to the first location, to meet up with the requester including the user making the request for service, the agent being guided to the first location using wayfinding guidance instructions received via the receiver on or attached to the wayfinding device (see at least ¶[0056]-[0061]).
With regards to claim 3, Sisbot et al. teaches wherein the wayfinding device carried by or attached to the agent further comprises a location sensor that detects a current location of the agent and the wayfinding device transmits the current location to be received at the communication port of the processor (see at least ¶[0057]-[0058]).
With regards to claim 4, Sisbot et al. teaches wherein the location sensor comprises a global position system (GPS) sensing device (geolocation may be determined via GPS – see at least ¶ [0050]; robot transmits its geolocation – see at least ¶[0057]).
With regards to claim 5, Sisbot et al. teaches wherein the method further comprises verifying that the agent has reached the first location or the second location based on comparing the current location of the agent as sensed by the location sensor with a location determined by a separate location sensor external to the wayfinding device (see at least ¶[0050]-[0058] and [0065]), wherein the location sensor comprises a global position system (GPS) sensing device (geolocation may be determined via GPS – see at least ¶ [0050]; robot transmits its geolocation – see at least ¶[0057]).
With regards to claim 6, Sisbot et al. teaches wherein the wayfinding device carried by or attached to the agent further comprises a sensor that detects when the agent has encountered an impediment to the routing mapped out for the assignment (see at least ¶[0032]-[0034]).
With regards to claim 7, Sisbot et al. teaches wherein the method further comprises: detecting when the agent has encountered the impediment to the routing mapped out for the assignment; mapping a new routing beginning at a location of the detected impediment, for completing the assignment using the new routing; and providing updated wayfinding instructions to the agent for the new routing (see at least ¶[0057]).
With regards to claim 8, Sisbot et al. teaches wherein the wayfinding device carried by or attached to the agent includes one or more cameras and a capability of itself executing image analyses to identify obstacles or to provide additional information to be used in calculating the new routing (see at least ¶[0032]-[0034]).
With regards to claim 12, Sisbot et al. teaches an app permitting a user at the first location to initiate a service request (see at least ¶[0032]).
With regards to claim 13, Sisbot et al. teaches verifying that the agent has reached the first location; and verifying that the user at the first location that initiated the service request has acknowledged arrival of the agent (see at least ¶[0065]-[0065]).
With regards to claim 14, Sisbot et al. teaches detecting that the agent has arrived at the destination second location so that the assignment is complete (see at least ¶[0065]); determining how the agent should proceed upon completion of the assignment (see at least ¶[0066]); and sending one or more wayfinding instructions to the agent based upon completing the assignment to define how the agent is to proceed upon the completion of the assignment (see at least ¶[0066]).
With regards to claims 15-20, please see the rejection above with respect to claims 1-3, 7, and 13-14 which are commensurate in scope to claims 15-20, with claims 1-3, 7, and 13-14 being drawn to a system and claims 15-20 being drawn to corresponding methods.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sisbot in view of Coney, as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Brathwaite et al. (US 2020/0043368).
With regards to claim 9, Sisbot et al. and Coney do not specifically teach wherein the sensor that detects when the agent has encountered an impediment comprises an accelerometer. However, such matter is taught by Brathwaite et al. (see at least ¶[0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to use the autonomous navigation device of Brathwaite et al. where it is taught that a sensor that detects when the agent has encountered an impediment comprises an accelerometer with the system of Sisbot et al. as both systems are directed to systems implementing autonomous navigation and providing a service to a user and both systems detect objects in the path of travel of the moving body and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established function of the sensor that detects when the agent has encountered an impediment comprising an accelerometer and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Sisbot et al.
With regards to claim 10, Sisbot et al. and Coney do not specifically teach wherein the wayfinding guidance instructions are provided to the agent by haptic vibrations in a pattern predetermined to provide direction instructions to the agent. However, such matter is taught by Brathwaite et al. (see at least ¶[0020]-[0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to use the autonomous navigation device of Brathwaite et al. where it is taught that wherein the wayfinding guidance instructions are provided to the agent by haptic vibrations in a pattern predetermined to provide direction instructions to the agent with the system of Sisbot et al. as both systems are directed to systems implementing autonomous navigation and providing a service to a user and both systems detect objects in the path of travel of the moving body and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established function of wherein the wayfinding guidance instructions are provided to the agent by haptic vibrations in a pattern predetermined to provide direction instructions to the agent and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Sisbot et al.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sisbot in view of Coney, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Golden (US 2015/0107531).
With regards to claim 11, Sisbot et al. and Coney do not explicitly teach wherein the wayfinding guidance instructions are provided to the agent using audible sounds emitted outside a human hearing range. However, such matter is suggested by Golden (see at least ¶[0009] and [0043]-[0045] – Golden teaches the use of a dog collar using audible signals to guide a dog along a specific, dynamic path and it is known that dogs can hear and respond to audible sounds that are outside of the human range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to incorporate the teachings of Golden wherein the wayfinding guidance instructions are provided to the agent using audible sounds emitted outside a human hearing range with the combined system of Sisbot et al. and Coney as both systems are directed to the remote control of an object to follow a specific path or to a specific destination and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established function of having the wayfinding guidance instructions are provided to the agent using audible sounds emitted outside a human hearing range and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Sisbot et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights