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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 October 2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 21 October 2025 and 23 October 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and accordingly are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 11, and 21 have been amended. Claims 1, 4, 6-11, 14, and 16-21 remain pending in the present application. The examiner notes that claim 23, which was newly added in Applicant’s response dated 29 April 2025, appears to have been canceled, however the status of claims no longer reflects claim 23, or previously canceled claim 22. The examiner believes this to be a mere oversight, and recognizes that claims 22 and 23 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner notes that newly amended claim 1 has been amended to be commensurate in scope with previously presented, now canceled, claim 23. The examiner notes that Applicant has provided no arguments against the previous rejection of claim 23, and, as such, Applicant’s arguments regarding newly amended claim 1 are not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20200241536 A1), in view of Tjeerdsma (EP 2713232 A1), hereafter Tjeerdsma.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a method for localizing a robot, comprising:
Acquiring, by the robot, environment information of a current position (0064, tracking module may receive sensor data from the sensors 404-416 and calculate the pose of the robotic device and calculate the maps for the environment using the received sensor data);
Comparing, by the robot, the environment information of the current position with an environment map stored in the robot to determine a pose of the robot in the stored environment map (0064, tracking module may receive sensor data from the sensors 404-416 and calculate the pose of the robotic device and calculate the maps for the environment using the received sensor data, 0085, processor may determine the pose of the robotic device by comparing the captured sensor data to stored sensor data of a stored map);
When a comparison result does not meet a set comparison requirement, determining at least one second position around a current position based on environment information of the current position (0068, tracking module 420 may lose tracking of the robotic device, i.e., the tracking module 420 may not be able to use the sensor data received from the sensors 404-416 to calculate a pose and/or map for the robotic device, sensor data may provide sensor data that is unrecognizable to the tracking module 420, and the tracking module 420 may be unable to calculate a pose and/or map for the robotic device, 0098, in response to determining that tracking is lost for the robotic device, the processor may select a pose on the path plan based on the closest pose on the planned path to the last pose of the robotic device);
Moving the robot from the current position to the second position along a surface during a localizing process (0080, robotic device produces a relocated pose and travels along the path);
Acquiring environment information of an environment in which the robot moves during the movement (0079, sensor data captured along the path); and
Comparing the environment information during the movement with the environment map stored in the robot to identify a pose of the robot in the stored environment map, wherein the pose comprises a position and orientation of the robot (0074, sensor data determined to be sufficiently similar, and determines that the device is at a pose, 0034, pose includes position and orientation).
Liu fails to teach, however, wherein the method comprises:
Determining at least one passable boundary around a current position based on environment information of the current position; wherein the passable boundary is a boundary free from obstacle blocking, the passable boundary is a boundary between a local region and an unknown region, the local region and the unknown region are in an environment map stored in the robot, the local region is a region where the current position of the robot is belonged to, the unknown region is a region outside the local region;
Selecting a target boundary from the at least one passable boundary; and
Wherein the second position is on the target boundary.
Tjeerdsma, however, does teach wherein the method comprises:
Determining at least one passable boundary around a current position based on environment information of the current position (0039, topological map identifies secondary boundaries that are not obstructed,); wherein the passable boundary is a boundary free from obstacle blocking (0039, topological map identifies secondary boundaries that are not obstructed), the passable boundary is a boundary between a local region and an unknown region, the local region and the unknown region are in an environment map stored in the robot, the local region is a region where the current position of the robot is belonged to, the unknown region is a region outside the local region (Fig. 3G, secondary boundary 304d, 0039, secondary boundary portions that are not obstructed and are marked as unprocessed may warrant further explanation to unlock further floor area to be covered);
Selecting a target boundary from the at least one passable boundary (0039, selected second boundaries indicated to be traversable); and
Wherein the second position is on the target boundary (0039, robot moves towards an entry point E of the new current cell, located on the boundary).
Liu and Tjeerdsma are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor, autonomous robot controls. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified Liu to have included the target boundary of Tjeerdsma in order to provide a point of navigation that is unobstructed. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robot is able to navigate to a position where it is able to relocalize.
Claims 11 and 21 are similar in scope to claim 1, and are similarly rejected.
Claim 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Tjeerdsma, and further in view of Vicenti (US 20160271795 A1), hereafter Vicenti.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Liu and Tjeerdsma teaches the method according to claim 1, and Tjeerdsma further teaches wherein moving the robot from the current position to the target boundary comprises:
Planning a navigation path to the target boundary according to the environment information of the current position (Fig. 3C, 0024, navigation path S1 away from and back towards entry point E of the current cell); and
Moving to the target boundary along the navigation path to the target boundary (0025, robot retraces path covered by the forward stroke during the backwards stroke).
Liu and Tjeerdsma are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor, autonomous robot controls. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified Liu to have included the navigation to the boundary of Tjeerdsma in order to provide a path back to an unobstructed position. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robot is able to navigate to a position where it is able to relocalize.
The combination of Liu and Tjeerdsma fails to teach, however, wherein the comparing the environment information during movement with the environment map stored in the robot to identify the pose of the robot in the stored environment map comprises:
During the process of moving to the target boundary along the navigation path to the target boundary, comparing at least once the environment information during the movement with the environment map stored in the robot to identify the pose of the robot in the stored environment map.
Vicenti, however, does teach wherein the comparing the environment information during movement with the environment map stored in the robot to identify the pose of the robot in the stored environment map (0077, estimated poses compared to the poses stored in the database), comprises:
During the process of moving to the target boundary along the navigation path to the target boundary, comparing at least once the environment information during the movement with the environment map stored in the robot to identify the pose of the robot in the stored environment map (0077, odometry along re-localization path compared to the odometry data associated with the landmark in the landmark database).
Liu, Tjeerdsma, and Vicenti are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor, robot relocalization systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present invention to have included the navigation path of Vicenti in order to provide a means for actively comparing odometry data. The motivation to combine is to allow the robot to more effectively determine its position during relocalization.
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 6, 8-10, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Tjeerdsma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Biber (EP3167700A1), hereafter Biber.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Liu and Tjeerdsma teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the selecting the target boundary from the at least one passable boundary comprises:
Optimizing the at least one passable boundary to obtain at least one optimized passable boundary;
Planning a navigation path to the at least one optimized passable boundary according to a relative position relationship between the robot and the at least one optimized boundary and the environment information; and
Selecting the target boundary from the at least one optimized passable boundary according to the navigation path to the at least one optimized passable boundary.
Biber, however, does teach wherein the selecting the target boundary from the at least one passable boundary comprises:
Optimizing the at least one passable boundary to obtain at least one optimized passable boundary (0006, boundary is corrected by robot in order to define temporary working area);
Planning a navigation path to the at least one optimized passable boundary according to a relative position relationship between the robot and the at least one optimized boundary and the environment information (0029, autonomous device navigates automatically to the temporary working area based on the location of the soft boundary); and
Selecting the target boundary from the at least one optimized passable boundary according to the navigation path to the at least one optimized passable boundary (0029, autonomous working device navigates to a mapped section of the working area, in a close range of the initial soft boundary).
Liu, Tjeerdsma, and Biber are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor, autonomous robot navigation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing of the present invention to have included the boundary optimization of Biber in order to better determine the traversable area of the mobile robot. The motivation to combine is to ensure that as much workable area is traversed as possible.
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Liu and Tjeerdsma teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the method further comprises:
Selecting a position from the target boundary; or
Selecting a position from an environment region outside the target boundary.
Biber, however, does teach wherein the determining the second position according to the target boundary comprises:
Selecting a position from the target boundary as the second position (0030, autonomous working device mows up to the border section); or
Selecting a position from an environment region outside the target boundary as the second position (0030, autonomous working device detects a lack of natural limit, determines new limit within a range, and navigates into the newly available area).
Liu, Tjeerdsma, and Biber are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor, autonomous robot navigation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing of the present invention to have included the available position determination of Biber in order to further determine the traversable area of the mobile robot. The motivation to combine is to ensure that as much workable area is traversed as possible.
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 8 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Liu and Tjeerdsma teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein it further comprises:
During the movement of the robot to the second position, monitoring whether a new passable boundary appears around the current position; and
When the new passable boundary appears and satisfies a target boundary condition, using the new passable boundary as a new target boundary, and re-determining the second position according to the new target boundary.
Biber, however, does teach wherein further comprises:
During the movement of the robot to the target boundary, monitoring whether a new passable boundary appears around the current position (0029, autonomous working device searches for boundaries while navigating to the mapped section); and
When the new passable boundary appears and satisfies a target boundary condition, using the new passable boundary as a new target boundary (0029, autonomous device corrects the boundary of working area close to the new-found natural limit).
Liu, Tjeerdsma, and Biber are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor, autonomous robot navigation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing of the present invention to have included the further boundary determination of Biber in order to further determine the traversable area of the mobile robot. The motivation to combine is to ensure that as much workable area is traversed as possible.
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 9, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Liu and Tjeerdsma teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach where it further comprises:
During the movement of the robot to the target boundary, monitoring an existing state of the target boundary; and
When the target boundary disappears, selecting a new target boundary from a passable boundary around the current position.
Biber, however, does teach wherein the method further comprises:
During the movement of the robot to the target boundary, monitoring an existing state of the target boundary (0030, limit unit detects if the natural limit is still there); and
When the target boundary disappears, selecting a new target boundary from a passable boundary around the current position (0030, if the natural limit is not there, the boundary is adjusted to a nearby natural boundary, and the area between is traversed).
Liu, Tjeerdsma, and Biber are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor, autonomous robot navigation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing of the present invention to have included the further boundary determination of Biber in order to further determine the traversable area of the mobile robot. The motivation to combine is allow the robot to adapt to a variable work environment.
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 10, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Tjeerdsma and Biber, and further in view of Kong (US 20110137461 A1), hereafter Kong.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Liu and Tjeerdsma teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the selecting the target boundary from the at least one passable boundary comprises:
Optimizing the at least one passable boundary to obtain at least one optimized passable boundary; and
Selecting the target boundary from the at least one optimized passable boundary according to a size of each optimized passable boundary and a distance between each optimized passable boundary and the current position of the robot.
Biber, however, does teach wherein the selecting the target boundary from the at least one passable boundary comprises:
Optimizing the at least one passable boundary to obtain at least one optimized passable boundary (0006, boundary is corrected by robot in order to define temporary working area).
Liu, Tjeerdsma, and Biber are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor, autonomous robot navigation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing of the present invention to have included the boundary optimization of Biber in order to better determine the traversable area of the mobile robot. The motivation to combine is to ensure that as much workable area is traversed as possible.
The combination of Liu, Tjeerdsma, and Biber fails to teach, however, wherein the selecting the target boundary from the at least one passable boundary comprises:
Selecting the target boundary from the at least one optimized passable boundary according to a size of each optimized passable boundary and a distance between each optimized passable boundary and the current position of the robot.
Kong, however, further teaches wherein the selecting the target boundary from the at least one passable boundary comprises:
Selecting the target boundary from the at least one optimized passable boundary according to a size of each optimized passable boundary and the current position of the robot (0032, path generation unit defines a configuration space map in consideration of the size of the mobile robot, in which the mobile robot is assumed as a reduced point and the size of a boundary or an obstacle is increased in consideration of the size of the mobile robot to form a free area allowing the robot to move freely, reachable goal point selected, reachable point closest to the position of the mobile robot may be determined to be the final goal point).
Liu, Tjeerdsma, Biber, and Kong are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor, autonomous robot navigation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing of the present invention to have included the boundary size determination of Nakamura in order to further determine the traversable area of the mobile robot. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the mobile does not attempt to travel through a boundary it cannot fit through.
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/BLAKE A WOOD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3658