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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/30/2022, 10/05/2021, 01/25/2021 and 03/13/2020 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 04/27/2022 and 02/27/2022 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
No copy has been provided for KR-20070045641, cite no. 12 in IDS submitted on 04/27/2022.
No copy has been provided for AU-2015322263, cite no. 155 in IDS submitted on 02/27/2020.
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.
Claim 16-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1 and 20 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 16 fall within one of the statutory categories? Claims 1 and 16 are a method, and as such fall within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
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
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method of claim 20 and the system of claim 1 contain a mental process and method of organizing human activity, therefore, an abstract idea.
Limitation of “evaluating at least three different basic movements by of at least one definable criterion” is a mental process as a human can look a robot and evaluate it does or does not satisfy a criterion. Criterion can be anything e.g. robot is moving at desired speed, effectively avoiding obstacles, keeping enough distance from walls etc.
And “executing one of the three basic movements based on the evaluation thereof, wherein a first of the three basic movements is a purely translational movement of the robot, wherein a second of the three basic movements contains a rotation of the robot toward the contour, and
wherein a third of the three basic movements contains a rotation of the robot away from the contour”, is method of organizing human activity. As the claim merely recites executing one of the three basis movements, human with his/her hand gesture execute one of three basic movements. A driving instructor can perform hand gestures to teach (student(s)) movements of a vehicle through a track. Similarly ground crew marshalling an airplane with hand gestures executes basic movements for taxiing aircraft.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element 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.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element 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;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1 and 20 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
While the claim does recite “A method for controlling an autonomous mobile robot in a contour- following mode, wherein the robot substantially follows a contour at a contour- following distance”, this is generally linking to a technological environment i.e. a robot See MPEP 2106.05(h).
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 16 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Limitations identified as generally linking step 2A qualify as generally linking gin step 2B as well.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 16 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 16 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to claim 17, a selected movement leads robot further closer the contour is merely defining a movement. An instructor moving hand in left direction indicates it would lead a vehicle to left direction. As movement is not recited to be executed/followed by the robot, this is still an abstract idea and not a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 18, the claim merely recites considering a previously executed movement in the evaluation. This is a mental process and is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 19, the claim is directed towards method of organizing human activity as third basic movement should not be selected after execution of second basic movement. Therefore, is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 20, the claim further defines what consideration criteria is. This is a mental process, and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 21, the claim merely defines obstacles to be of different type and considering type of obstacle in evaluation. Therefore, is a mental process and an abstract idea and not a practical application.
With respect to claim 22, detecting obstacles by a sensor unit is mere data gathering, hence an insignificant extra solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g). And well understood routine and conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, obstacles of second type being virtual is generally linking to a technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 23, the claim further limits second and third basis movements to rotations in place. It is directed towards methods of organizing human activity and not a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 24, limitation of “the robot changes the direction of travel” is a practical application. Therefore, the claim is statutory.
With respect to claim 25, the claim is statutory as it depends on statutory claim 24.
With respect to claim 26, the claim merely recites several parameters are determined with an aid of optimization process. This is a mental process and is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 27, limitation of “the robot executes desired definable movement patterns” is a practical application, the claim is statutory.
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, 8-10, 12-20 and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20160370803 disclosed in IDS submitted on 11/30/2022).
For claim 1, Wang teaches: A method for controlling an autonomous mobile robot which can operate in a first ([0031], disclosing control unit 240 controls the movement component 250 according to a predetermined distance range, such that the electronic apparatus 200 moves along a first border B1 of the indoor environment) and at least one second contour-following mode ([0034] and figure 5A, disclosing robot moves along border B1 i.e. in first contour mode and when a collision (with B2) in first contour mode is expected, robot changes direction to move along B2 i.e. second following mode), wherein, in each of the contour-following modes, the robot maintains a substantially constant distance away from a contour while the robot moves along the contour ([0031], disclosing control unit 240 is expected to control the electronic apparatus 200 to move along the first border B1 based on a predetermined distance i.e. substantially constant distance);
the method comprises:
starting the first contour-following mode, wherein the robot follows the contour in a first direction of travel ([0034-0036] and figure 5A, disclosing robot travelling along border B1 towards border B1 i.e. first direction of travel);
detecting a dead-end situation, in which continued following of the contour is not possible without collision in the first contour-following mode (abstract, disclosing sensing that a distance between the electronic apparatus and an obstacle falls in a predetermined distance range, a direction changing process is executed);
starting a second contour-following mode, wherein the robot follows the contour in a second direction of travel ([0035], disclosing when detecting that the electronic apparatus 200 is too close to the obstacle and causes the distance between the electronic apparatus 200 and the obstacle to be less than the predetermined distance range, the control unit 240 controls the electronic apparatus 200 to execute a distance adjustment first, e.g. moving the electronic apparatus 200 backward. [0042] and Fig 7, disclosing electronic apparatus moves back and forth i.e. move in opposite direction to evade structural dead end); and
specifying a criterion, upon the fulfillment of which the second contour-following mode is terminated, and ongoing evaluation of the criterion while the robot is in the second contour-following mode ([0043], disclosing when the first sensors 210 and the second sensor 220 detect that the electronic apparatus 200 leaves the structural dead end of the indoor environment, the chip unit 242 notifies the control unit 240 for the control unit 240 to again control the electronic apparatus 200 to execute the movement process. Figure 7, disclosing electronic apparatus gets into structural dead end, it moves backward i.e. second contour following mode, and when it leaves the structural dead end, it resume first contour following mode i.e. moving along border B1 and B2. B1 and B1 is one contour as they are walls of an indoor environment. Abstract, disclosing electronic apparatus navigates in indoor environment).
For claim 2, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the contour-following modes comprise at least two parameters, wherein the at least two parameters comprise the direction of travel (abstract, disclosing When sensing that a distance between the electronic apparatus and an obstacle falls in a predetermined distance range, a direction changing process is executed. In the direction changing process, the electronic apparatus rotates by a rotation angle, and an intermediate position coordinate is recorded every second time period), the contour- following distance (abstract, disclosing distance detection is continuously performed by first sensors), and
optionally one of the following parameters: the side of the robot facing the contour, a safety distance, the robot shape being considered for detecting a pending collision, the rules according to which the movement takes place along the contour, and wherein two different corrective-following modes differ by at least one parameter (limitation is optional).
For claim 3, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the detecting of the dead-end situation comprises:
detecting that a movement of the robot along the contour as well as a rotation of the robot are not possible without collision, wherein, during detection, location-based information stored in a map of the robot is considered ([0038-0039], disclosing distance trust weight and angle trust weight. Distance and angle trust weight represent error tolerance for distances and rotation angles. figure 7 and [0043], disclosing electronic apparatus getting stuck in a dead end and distance and angle trust weights are at upper and lower limit. And electronic apparatus moves back and forth to evade from the situation. Furthermore, determining the position coordinate corresponding to the direction changing process. And the distances between the intermediate position coordinates X1, X2, and X3 recorded by the electronic apparatus 200 and the second border B2 (the obstacle) are d1, d2, and d3 respectively. In addition, according to the detection result of the second sensor 220, the rotation angles corresponding to the intermediate position coordinates X1, X2, and X3 are θ1, θ2, and θ3 respectively. [0041], disclosing position coordinates P recorded by the storage unit 230 are sufficient for mapping application software to further depict the indoor environment where the electronic apparatus is located).
For claim 4, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein a third contour-following mode is started in the event that another dead- end situation is detected in the second contour-following mode, and wherein a criterion, upon fulfillment of which the third contour-following mode is terminated, is specified and the criterion is continually evaluated while the robot is in the third contour-following mode (abstract, disclosing positioning navigation method is adapted to the electronic apparatus for positioning an indoor environment. [0034], disclosing obstacle is a second border B2 of the indoor environment, for example, but not limited thereto. And first sensors 210, when detecting that the distance between the second border B2 and the electronic apparatus 200 falls in the predetermined distance range, the control unit 240 controls the electronic apparatus 200 to execute the direction changing process. B1 and B2 are walls of indoor environment. Therefore, the electronic apparatus will continue to follow wall B2 until an obstacle or another wall of indoor environment is encountered. And control unit will continuously evaluate distance between electronic apparatus and an obstacle ahead of it in order to avoid it and thereby terminate second contour following mode and initiate a third contour following mode. It will continue to evaluate distance from an obstacle ahead of it and terminate the third contour following mode when an obstacle is encountered).
For claim 6, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 1,
wherein the first contour-following mode is continued when the second contour- following mode is terminated due to fulfillment of the specified criterion ([0043], disclosing When the first sensors 210 and the second sensor 220 detect that the electronic apparatus 200 leaves the structural dead end of the indoor environment, the chip unit 242 notifies the control unit 240 for the control unit 240 to again control the electronic apparatus 200 to execute the movement process).
For claim 8, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the criterion, upon the fulfillment of which the second contour- following mode is terminated, contains the option of executing a particular movement ([0042], disclosing when detecting that the electronic apparatus 200 enters a structural dead end of the indoor environment, the chip unit 242 of the control unit 240 controls the electronic apparatus 200 to execute an evasion process, in the evasion process, the chip unit 242 of the control unit 240 controls the electronic apparatus 200 to move or rotate until the electronic apparatus 200 leaves the structural dead end. The chip unit 242 of the control unit 240 controls the electronic apparatus 200 to move or rotate until the electronic apparatus 200 leaves the structural dead end. Figure 7, disclosing a dead-end situation for device 200, it may rotate or move in order to leave structural dead end. Therefore, contour following mode for following wall B1 is terminated and device has option of moving or rotating).
NOTE: Although examiner provided citation from Wang to teach the claimed limitation, the claimed limitation is optional because of “the option of executing a particular movement”. Claim 9 is optional as well because it depends on optional claim 8.
For claim 9, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 8, wherein the particular movement comprises at least one of the following:
a rotation about a particular angle, and a translational movement, over a particular distance ([0035], disclosing when detecting that the electronic apparatus 200 is too close to the obstacle and causes the distance between the electronic apparatus 200 and the obstacle to be less than the predetermined distance range, the control unit 240 controls the electronic apparatus 200 to execute a distance adjustment first, e.g. moving the electronic apparatus 200 backward. In this embodiment, when executing the direction changing process, the electronic apparatus 200 rotates by 90 degrees with help of the second sensor).
For claim 10, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation of the criterion comprises:
automatic planning of a collision-free robot movement according to definable rules (Abstract, disclosing sensing that a distance between the electronic apparatus and an obstacle falls in a predetermined distance range, a direction changing process is executed. [0035], disclosing when detecting that the electronic apparatus 200 is too close to the obstacle and causes the distance between the electronic apparatus 200 and the obstacle to be less than the predetermined distance range, the control unit 240 controls the electronic apparatus 200 to execute a distance adjustment first, e.g. moving the electronic apparatus 200 backward. Therefore, rule for motion advancement is that distance to obstacle should be greater that a threshold).
executing a planned robot movement ([0031], disclosing electronic apparatus moves along a first border);
checking whether the planned robot movement can be executed without collision ([0035], disclosing when detecting that the electronic apparatus 200 is too close to the obstacle and causes the distance between the electronic apparatus 200 and the obstacle to be less than the predetermined distance range, the control unit 240 controls the electronic apparatus 200 to execute a distance adjustment first, e.g. moving the electronic apparatus 200 backward).
For claim 12, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 10, wherein the automatic planning of a robot movement according to definable rules comprises:
planning a rotation and a subsequent translational movement such that a point of an obstacle is a particular distance, away from the robot after implementation of the movement ([0034-0035], disclosing robot electronic apparatus executes a direction changing process when border B2 i.e. obstacle falls in the predetermined distance range. Direction is changed by rotating 90 degrees. And it continues to travel along border B2 i.e. subsequent motion. And it maintains predetermined distance from the border B2).
For claim 13, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 12, wherein the rotation takes place about an angle which is greater than a definable minimum angle ([0035], disclosing rotating 90 degrees. Definable minimum angle is an angle that does not lead to successful directional change).
For claim 14, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the specifying of the criterion, upon the fulfillment of which the second contour-following mode is terminated ([0042-0043], disclosing evasion of structural dead end by moving electronic apparatus back and forth and once it leaves structural dead end it resumes movement process i.e. following contour B1 and B2), or the evaluating of the specifying of the criterion takes place while considering location-based information stored in a map of the robot (limitation is optional).
For claim 15, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the criterion, upon the fulfillment of which the second contour- following mode is terminated, is updated during implementation of the second contour-following mode ([0006], disclosing distance detection is continuously performed by the first sensors, orientation detection is continuously performed by the second sensor, and a position coordinate corresponding to the electronic apparatus is recorded every first time period. [0043], disclosing when the first sensors 210 and the second sensor 220 detect that the electronic apparatus 200 leaves the structural dead end of the indoor environment, the chip unit 242 notifies the control unit 240 for the control unit 240 to again control the electronic apparatus 200 to execute the movement process).
For claim 16, Wang teaches: A method for controlling an autonomous mobile robot in a contour- following mode, wherein the robot substantially follows a contour at a contour- following distance ([0031], disclosing control unit 240 controls the movement component 250 according to a predetermined distance range, such that the electronic apparatus 200 moves along a first border B1 of the indoor environment. [0031], disclosing control unit 240 is expected to control the electronic apparatus 200 to move along the first border B1 based on a predetermined distance i.e. substantially constant distance)
the method comprises the following in the contour-following mode:
evaluating at least three different basic movements by at least one definable criterion ([0036] and figure 5B (reproduced below) disclosing three different movements. Electronic apparatus first moves along border B1 towards point A i.e. first movement, then rotates towards B1 i.e. second movement and then at point B it rotates away from B1), and
executing one of the three basic movements based on the evaluation thereof (Abstract, disclosing sensing that a distance between the electronic apparatus and an obstacle falls in a predetermined distance range, a direction changing process is executed. And [0031], disclosing control unit 240 is expected to control the electronic apparatus 200 to move along the first border B1 based on a predetermined distance),
wherein a first of the three basic movements is a purely translational movement of the robot ([0036] and figure 5B, disclosing electronic apparatus moves in straight line towards point A i.e. purely translational),
wherein a second of the three basic movements contains a rotation of the robot toward the contour ([0036] and figure 5B, disclosing electronic apparatus rotates towards B1), and
wherein a third of the three basic movements contains a rotation of the robot away from the contour ([0036] and figure 5B, disclosing electronic apparatus, at point B rotates away from B1).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 17, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 16, wherein, during each evaluation of at least two of the basic movements, the particular movement is selected which leads the robot closer to the contour or less far away from the contour ([0031], disclosing control unit 240 is expected to control the electronic apparatus 200 to move along the first border B1 based on a predetermined distance. Rotation changes heading of the apparatus and translation movement moves it closer or farther away from contour based on the heading. Therefore, both rotation and translational motion lead the apparatus to move closer or further from contour).
For claim 18, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 16, wherein a previously executed basic movement is considered during the evaluation of a basic movement (Abstract, disclosing in the movement process, distance detection is continuously performed by first sensors, orientation detection is continuously performed by a second sensor, and a position coordinate is recorded every first time period. When sensing that a distance between the electronic apparatus and an obstacle falls in a predetermined distance range, a direction changing process is executed. In the direction changing process, the electronic apparatus rotates by a rotation angle, and an intermediate position coordinate is recorded every second time period. After the direction changing process, a position coordinate corresponding to the direction changing process is determined).
For claim 19, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 18, wherein there is consideration during the evaluation that the third basic movement should not be selected and vice versa, after execution of the second basic movement (Abstract, disclosing the electronic apparatus rotates by a rotation angle, and an intermediate position coordinate is recorded every second time period. After the direction changing process, a position coordinate corresponding to the direction changing process is determined, and the movement process is re-executed. [0037], disclosing direction changing process is not only for the situations described above and may also be applied for various angles between the first border B1 and the second border B2. If executed rotation angle causes electronic apparatus to remain within predetermined distance, no further change will be necessary i.e. rotate away for correction etc. and vice versa).
For claim 20, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 16, wherein the evaluation of the basic movements considers at least one of the following criteria:
the basic movement is possible without collision with an obstacle ([0033], disclosing electronic apparatus 200 changes direction when detecting an obstacle that would hinder the movement);
the distance of the robot away from obstacles during and/or after the movement (abstract, disclosing movement process, distance detection is continuously performed by first sensors); and
the collision-free feasibility of a further, for example translational, movement after execution of the respective basic movement ([0033], disclosing electronic apparatus 200 changes direction when detecting an obstacle that would hinder the movement).
For claim 23, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 16, wherein the second and the third basic movements contain rotations in place ([0036] and figure 5B, disclosing electronic apparatus rotates towards and away from contour).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
24. The method according to claim 16, which further comprises:
detecting that none of the three basic movements can be executed according to a definable criterion,
wherein provided a detection that none of the three basic movements can be executed, the robot changes the direction of travel and/or the side of the robot facing a contour and/or the evaluation criteria ([0035], disclosing when detecting that the electronic apparatus 200 is too close to the obstacle and causes the distance between the electronic apparatus 200 and the obstacle to be less than the predetermined distance range, the control unit 240 controls the electronic apparatus 200 to execute a distance adjustment first, e.g. moving the electronic apparatus 200 backward. Therefore, it determines that it cannot move forward or rotate towards/away the contour. Hence changes direction of travel to backwards)
For claim 25, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 24, wherein the robot has a preferred direction of travel and, upon a change in the direction of travel into the direction of travel opposite the preferred direction of travel, an evaluation criterion is specified, upon the fulfillment of which there is a switch back into the preferred direction of travel ([0035], disclosing when detecting that the distance between the second border B2 and the electronic apparatus 200 falls in the predetermined distance range (4.5 cm to 5.5 cm disclosed in the above embodiment, for example), the control unit 240 controls the electronic apparatus 200 to execute the direction changing process. when detecting that the electronic apparatus 200 is too close to the obstacle and causes the distance between the electronic apparatus 200 and the obstacle to be less than the predetermined distance range, the control unit 240 controls the electronic apparatus 200 to execute a distance adjustment first, e.g. moving the electronic apparatus 200 backward. It will resume forward motion when obstacle is not too close anymore).
For claim 26, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 16, which further comprises:
wherein the at least three basic movements are defined by several parameters, and the parameters are determined with the aid of an optimization process (Abstract, disclosing When sensing that a distance between the electronic apparatus and an obstacle falls in a predetermined distance range, a direction changing process is executed. In the direction changing process, the electronic apparatus rotates by a rotation angle, and an intermediate position coordinate is recorded every second time period. [0036], disclosing electronic apparatus rotates as per angle between first border and second border. [0043], disclosing rotating and moving back and forth so as to help the electronic apparatus 200 leave the structural dead end).
For claim 27, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 26, wherein the parameters are determined at least partially automatically by an automated learning process such that the robot executes desired definable movement patterns in certain definable situations (Abstract, disclosing When sensing that a distance between the electronic apparatus and an obstacle falls in a predetermined distance range, a direction changing process is executed. In the direction changing process, the electronic apparatus rotates by a rotation angle, and an intermediate position coordinate is recorded every second time period. [0036], disclosing electronic apparatus rotates as per angle between first border and second border. It necessarily has to learn how to identify dead end situation as in figure 7 and how to execute precise rotation and movement as disclosed in [0036]).
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 Wang in view of Vicenti (US 20160271795).
For claim 5, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 4,
Wang teaches of a contour following robot (figure 7 and [0043], disclosing rotate and move the electronic apparatus 200 back and forth, so as to help the electronic apparatus 200 leave the structural dead end). But does not explicitly teach:
wherein the third contour-following mode differs from the second contour- following mode by the following parameter: the side of the robot facing the contour.
Vicenti teaches a contour following robot that changes mode when an obstacle is detected ([0003], disclosing a method of navigating an autonomous robot within an area at least partially enclosed by walls. [0004], disclosing a wall following mode). And one contour-following mode differs from the another contour- following mode by the following parameter: the side of the robot facing the contour (figure 4B and [0093], disclosing robot follows path 410b. [0066], disclosing coverage pattern can be one in which the robot is navigated to cover the area in sequential passes in which each subsequent pass follows an edge of a region cleaned on a previous pass (e.g., as a spiral or a cornrow pattern), rather than a pseudo-random bounce pattern. Figure 4B (reproduced below). One side of robot wall in first following mode and at the end of pass i.e. near end of wall it turns 180 degrees and other side of robot faces the wall in next pass i.e. second following mode. Process is repeated once robot reaches end of wall i.e. an obstacle. Therefore, side facing the contour in second following mode is different in third following mode).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Wang to wherein the third contour-following mode differs from the second contour- following mode by the following parameter: the side of the robot facing the contour as taught by Vicenti as a known robotic navigation technique to cover coverage area.
PNG
media_image2.png
566
711
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Shetty (US 20130245827).
For claim 7, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 1,
Wang does not teach: wherein the contour is formed by a virtual obstacle that is not real but that is contained in a map of the robot ([0015], disclosing user can use the touchscreen to draw geometric shapes that function as virtual regions that can assist the robot in training. A user can set a virtual region as a lawn area, which can give the controller a general location for the boundary of the lawn areas. The user can further set virtual regions for the traversal regions and for obstacles).
Shetty teaches: contour is formed by a virtual obstacle that is not real but that is contained in a map of the robot ([[0024-0025], disclosing a user can designate a virtual boundary for monitoring device).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Wang to contour is formed by a virtual obstacle that is not real but that is contained in a map of the robot as taught by Shetty to enable user to define a target work region.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Campbell (US 20180343401).
For claim 11, Wang teaches: The method according to claim 10,
Wang teaches of building map of environment ([0023], disclosing map layer and data layer, map layer 120 is usually a map of the environment of the use). However, does not explicitly teach: wherein the planning of the collision-free robot movement considers location- based information related to obstacles, said information being stored in a map of the robot.
Campbell teaches: wherein the planning of the collision-free robot movement considers location- based information related to obstacles, said information being stored in a map of the robot (0130], disclosing vehicle checks 1230 whether a collision is imminent based on the trajectory and the estimated object locations. And checking for an imminent collision uses the current trajectory of the aerial vehicle 110 and an object map stored in the object map store. Abstract, disclosing autonomous flight planning).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Wang to wherein the planning of the collision-free robot movement considers location- based information related to obstacles, said information being stored in a map of the robot as taught by Campbell as an additional means for navigation and collision prevention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kim (US 20180217611).
For claim 21, modified Wang teaches: The method according to claim 20,
wherein the obstacles may be different types ([0035], disclosing detecting and evading an obstacle. [0043] and figure 7, disclosing a structural dead end i.e. another type of obstacle)
Wang does not explicitly teach: a type of an obstacle is considered in the evaluation.
Kim teaches: a type of an obstacle is considered in the evaluation ([0193], disclosing the main processor 111I may calculate a moving path for avoiding the obstacle O according to the direction and the size of and the distance from the obstacle O, and generate a movement control signal that will be provided to the driver 160 so that the cleaning robot 100 moves. Size is type of obstacle)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Wang to a type of an obstacle is considered in the evaluation as taught by Kim to effectively navigate around obstacles.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kim and Shetty (US 20130245827).
For claim 22, modified Wang teaches: The method according to claim 21, wherein obstacles of a first type include obstacles detected by a sensor unit of the robot ([0025], disclosing sensors to estimate distance between electronic apparatus and obstacle),
Wang teaches of a map ([0023], disclosing map layer 120 is usually a map of the environment of the user), but does not explicitly teach: and obstacles of a second type are not real but virtual obstacles contained in a map of the robot.
Shetty teaches: obstacles of a second type are not real but virtual obstacles contained in a map of the robot ([0010-0012], disclosing monitoring robot monitors a target in virtual boundary. [0022], disclosing user can designate a virtual boundary)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to further modify art of Wang to obstacles of a second type are not real but virtual obstacles contained in a map of the robot as taught by Shetty to enable user to define a target work region.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARSLAN AZHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 - 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Burke can be reached on 469-295-9067. 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.
/ARSLAN AZHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/JEFF A BURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664