DETAILED ACTION
This is the final Office action and is responsive to the papers filed 11/12/2025. The amendments filed on 11/12/2025 have been entered and considered by the examiner. Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are currently pending and examined below. Claims 1-2 and 11-13 have been amended.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 and 5-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1-3 and 5-13 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-13, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 and 5-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shalev-Shwartz et al. (US 20210110484 A1).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afrouzi (US 20240201381 A1) in view of Shalev-Shwartz et al. (US 20210110484 A1; hereinafter Shalev-Shwartz).
Regarding claim 1, Afrouzi discloses:
An autonomous mobile robot (robotic device 100; Figs. 1A-1C), comprising:
a drive (processor/controller; [0020]) that receives control signals and that moves the robot in accordance with the control signals (a processor and/or controller that processes and/or controls motors, methods, and operations; [0020]);
a navigation sensor that captures navigation features (cameras, LIDAR, LADAR, stereo imaging, signal detectors and receivers, gyroscope, optical encoder, optical flow sensor, depth sensors and other devices may be used to capture information that the processor of the robotic device may use to localize itself within an internal map of the working environment; [0024]);
further sensors (sensors for detecting obstacles, types of flooring, cliffs, system status, temperature, and the like or sensors for measuring movement; [0020]);
one or more processors (a processor and/or controller that processes and/or controls motors, methods, and operations; [0020]); and
one or more storage media including program instructions executable by the one or more processor such that the one or more processors perform operations (computer-readable medium for storing computer-readable code; [0019]-[0020]) comprising:
receiving navigation information from the navigation sensor (collect observations to determine optimal route for navigating through a working environment; [0024]);
planning a movement for the robot based on the received navigation information (determine optimal route for navigating through a working environment; [0024]);
receiving movement information representing the planned movement plan (determine optimal route for navigating through a working environment; [0024]);
generating the control signals based on the movement information (command a robotic device to navigate; [0025]);
monitoring the robot's movements independent of the navigation information (become stuck, unable to navigate away from the issue; [0026]);
detecting hazardous situations (when a robotic device encounters an operational hazard in the work environment, data pertaining to the operational hazard may be compiled by one or more processors of a robotic device and stored in a memory of the robotic device to be utilized for future use; [0025]);
wherein the planning of the movement for the robot by the one or more processors is based on both the navigation information from the navigation sensor and pre-processed sensor information (a robotic device navigates based an aggregate map containing data representative of successfully completing operations, presence or absence of operational hazards, debris, obstacles, work surface types, and the like; [0031]);
wherein the one or more processors further include a control processor (control system; [0021]) that receives the movement information and generates the control signals based on the movement information ([0021] the control system may respond by commanding the robotic device to move in a specific direction).
Afrouzi does not specifically disclose:
wherein the one or more processors include a safety processor that verifies the movement information received by the one or more processors to determine, while considering further sensor information received from the further sensors, whether the planned movement will cause a hazardous situation of the detected hazardous situations,
wherein, if the movement information leads to a safe movement, the safety processor transfers the movement information to the control processor, and in the event of an unsafe movement, the safety processor changes or rejects the movement information before it is transferred to the control processor.
However, Shalev-Shwartz discloses:
wherein the one or more processors include a safety processor ([0010] at least one processing device) that verifies the movement information received by the one or more processors to determine, while considering further sensor information received from the further sensors ([0010] “based on analysis of the at least one image, one or more characteristics of a navigational state of the identified target vehicle”), whether the planned movement will cause a hazardous situation of the detected hazardous situations ([0010] “test the planned navigational action against at least one accident liability rule for determining potential accident liability”),
wherein, if the movement information leads to a safe movement, the safety processor transfers the movement information to the control processor ([0010] “if the test of the planned navigational action against the at least one accident liability rule indicates that no accident liability would result for the host vehicle if the planned navigational action is taken, then cause the host vehicle to implement the planned navigational action”), and in the event of an unsafe movement, the safety processor changes or rejects the movement information before it is transferred to the control processor ([0010] “if the test of the planned navigational action against the at least one accident liability rule indicates that potential accident liability exists for the host vehicle if the planned navigational action is taken, then cause the host vehicle not to implement the planned navigational action”).
Afrouzi and Shalev-Shwartz are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mobile robot. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Afrouzi’s mobile robot to further incorporate Shalev-Shwartz’s mobile robot for the advantage of determining potential accident liability which results in rejecting planned navigational actions and viable safety solution scalable to millions of cars (Shalev-Shwartz’s [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Afrouzi discloses:
wherein the one or more processors includes a navigation processor (navigation system; [0021]), wherein the navigation processor and the control processor (control system; [0021]) are functionally independent from one another;
wherein the navigation processor performs operations comprising:
receiving the navigation information from the navigation sensor (collect observations to determine optimal route for navigating through a working environment; [0024]); and
planning the movement for the robot based on the received navigation information (determine optimal route for navigating through a working environment; [0024]);
wherein the control processor further performs operations comprising:
receiving the further sensor information from the further sensors (become stuck, unable to navigate away from the issue; [0026]);
pre-processing the further sensor information (maps indicating obstructions at a given height may be encoded in vector graphic formats, bitmap formats, or other formats; [0034]); and
supplying the pre-processed sensor information in a pre-defined format to the navigation processor (use the floor plan map to autonomously navigate the environment during operation, e.g., accessing the floor plan to determine that a candidate route is blocked by an obstacle denoted in the floor plan, to select a route with a route-finding algorithm from a current point to a target point, or the like.; [0035]);
wherein the pre-defined format for the pre-processed sensor information is independent of implementation of the further sensors (maps created in different formats is different from sensor information indicated features of work environment; [0033]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 3, Afrouzi discloses:
wherein the one or more processors has a clock generator, with the clock generators being synchronized (a processor and/or controller that processes and/or controls one or more clock or synchronizing devices; [0020]),
wherein the pre-defined format for the pre-processed sensor information comprises a timestamp assigned to the pre-processed sensor information, and wherein the movement information comprises a timestamp, which is assigned to the planned movement (the comprehensive map may contain data suggestive of trends in the work environment. In embodiments, for example, trends regarding operational hazards such as the type of hazard encountered, location of hazard encountered, how often a hazard or hazards are encountered, the date and or time a hazard was encountered and the like data may be utilized for creating a coverage plan; [0031]).
Regarding claim 5, Afrouzi discloses:
the one or more storage media includes a first storage device or storage area and a second storage device or storage areas (the instructions may be distributed on different storage devices associated with different computing devices, for instance, with each computing device having a different subset of the instructions; [0041]);
wherein the first processor executes navigation software stored on the first storage device or storage area which uses a map of an environment of the robot (memory for floor plan map; [0035], [0041]);
wherein the second processor executes control software stored on the second storage device or storage area (Robots or robotic devices may also include a control module for storage of operation modes, command responses to the observed environment or user input, and the like.; [0020], [0045]).
Regarding claim 6, Afrouzi discloses:
wherein the navigation software, when executed on the first processor, causes the first processor to create a map of the environment of the robot based on the information received from the navigation sensor (the control system may receive image data of the observed environment, process the data, and use it to create a map of the environment; [0021]) and determine a position and orientation of the robot on the map (once an aggregate map is generated, a robotic device may be controlled or directed to navigate or operate in locations in a work area based on the values of the portions or cells in the aggregate map; [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, Afrouzi discloses:
wherein the robot further comprises a communication interface that enables communication with external devices, particularly for providing map information and status information of the robot (utilizing a user interface of a communication device paired with the robotic device, such as a mobile device, laptop, tablet, smartphone, or the like, preferences may be set for the robotic device; [0038]).
Regarding claim 8, Afrouzi discloses:
wherein the operations further comprise implementing the planning of the movement for the robot depending on commands which have been received via the communication interface (utilizing a user interface of a communication device paired with the robotic device, such as a mobile device, laptop, tablet, smartphone, or the like, preferences may be set for the robotic device, utilizing an application of a communication device path learning may be initiated and completed, path planning may be set, operational functions may be selected, scheduling information may be selected, and the like; [0038]).
Regarding claim 9, Afrouzi discloses:
wherein the further sensors comprise:
a safety sensor, which captures information regarding a direct environment of the robot (detecting operational hazards in the work environment; [0021]-[0022]), a movement sensor, which captures information regarding a current movement of the robot (sensors for measuring movement; [0020]), a status sensor, which captures information regarding a status of the robot (the robotic device may become stuck and inoperable; [0022]), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 10, Afrouzi discloses:
wherein the movement sensor is an odometry sensor (odometer sensors; [0020]), and
wherein the pre-processed sensor data contains information which depends on the sensor signals supplied by the odometry sensor (odometer sensors; [0020]).
Regarding claim 11, Afrouzi does not specifically disclose:
wherein if the safety processor judges that the planned movement will cause the hazardous situation, the safety processor rejects or modifies the planned movement.
However, Shalev-Shwartz discloses:
wherein if the safety processor judges that the planned movement will cause the hazardous situation, the safety processor rejects or modifies the planned movement ([0010] “if the test of the planned navigational action against the at least one accident liability rule indicates that potential accident liability exists for the host vehicle if the planned navigational action is taken, then cause the host vehicle not to implement the planned navigational action”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Afrouzi’s mobile robot to further incorporate Shalev-Shwartz’s mobile robot for the advantage of determining potential accident liability which results in rejecting planned navigational actions and viable safety solution scalable to millions of cars (Shalev-Shwartz’s [0004]).
Regarding claim 12, Afrouzi discloses:
A method for an autonomous mobile robot (robotic device 100; Figs. 1A-1C), which comprises:
planning, using one or more processors, a movement for the robot based on navigation information (collect observations to determine optimal route for navigating through a working environment; [0024]) which is supplied to the one or more processors by a navigation sensor, which captures navigation features (cameras, LIDAR, LADAR, stereo imaging, signal detectors and receivers, gyroscope, optical encoder, optical flow sensor, depth sensors and other devices may be used to capture information that the processor of the robotic device may use to localize itself within an internal map of the working environment; [0024]);
generating, using the one or more processors, control signals for a drive of the robot based on the planned movement information (command a robotic device to navigate; [0025]);
monitoring, using the one or more processors, the robot's movements independent of the navigation information (become stuck, unable to navigate away from the issue; [0026]);
detecting hazardous situations (when a robotic device encounters an operational hazard in the work environment, data pertaining to the operational hazard may be compiled by one or more processors of a robotic device and stored in a memory of the robotic device to be utilized for future use; [0025]); and
receiving further sensor information from further sensors (sensors for detecting obstacles, types of flooring, cliffs, system status, temperature, and the like or sensors for measuring movement; [0020]), pre-processing the further sensor information (maps indicating obstructions at a given height may be encoded in vector graphic formats, bitmap formats, or other formats; [0034]), and providing pre-processed sensor information in a pre-defined format to the one or more processors (use the floor plan map to autonomously navigate the environment during operation, e.g., accessing the floor plan to determine that a candidate route is blocked by an obstacle denoted in the floor plan, to select a route with a route-finding algorithm from a current point to a target point, or the like.; [0035]);
wherein the planning of the movement for the robot is based on both the information from the navigation sensor and the pre-processed sensor information (a robotic device navigates based an aggregate map containing data representative of successfully completing operations, presence or absence of operational hazards, debris, obstacles, work surface types, and the like; [0031]);
wherein the one or more processors further include a control processor (control system; [0021]) that receives the movement information and generates the control signals based on the movement information ([0021] the control system may respond by commanding the robotic device to move in a specific direction).
Afrouzi does not specifically disclose:
wherein the one or more processors includes a safety processor that verifies the movement information received by the one or more processors to determine, while considering the further sensor information, whether the planned movement will cause a hazardous situation of the detected hazardous situations;
wherein, if the movement information leads to a safe movement, the safety processor transfers the movement information to the control processor, and in the event of an unsafe movement, the safety processor changes or rejects the movement information before it is transferred to the control processor.
However, Shalev-Shwartz discloses:
wherein the one or more processors includes a safety processor ([0010] at least one processing device) that verifies the movement information received by the one or more processors to determine, while considering the further sensor information ([0010] “based on analysis of the at least one image, one or more characteristics of a navigational state of the identified target vehicle”), whether the planned movement will cause a hazardous situation of the detected hazardous situations ([0010] “test the planned navigational action against at least one accident liability rule for determining potential accident liability”);
wherein, if the movement information leads to a safe movement, the safety processor transfers the movement information to the control processor ([0010] “if the test of the planned navigational action against the at least one accident liability rule indicates that no accident liability would result for the host vehicle if the planned navigational action is taken, then cause the host vehicle to implement the planned navigational action”), and in the event of an unsafe movement, the safety processor changes or rejects the movement information before it is transferred to the control processor ([0010] “if the test of the planned navigational action against the at least one accident liability rule indicates that potential accident liability exists for the host vehicle if the planned navigational action is taken, then cause the host vehicle not to implement the planned navigational action”).
Afrouzi and Shalev-Shwartz are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mobile robot. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Afrouzi’s mobile robot to further incorporate Shalev-Shwartz’s mobile robot for the advantage of determining potential accident liability which results in rejecting planned navigational actions and viable safety solution scalable to millions of cars (Shalev-Shwartz’s [0004]).
Regarding claim 13, Afrouzi does not specifically disclose:
wherein if the safety processor judges that the planned movement will cause the hazardous situation, the safety processor rejects or modifies the planned movement.
However, Shalev-Shwartz discloses:
wherein if the safety processor judges that the planned movement will cause the hazardous situation, the safety processor rejects or modifies the planned movement ([0010] “if the test of the planned navigational action against the at least one accident liability rule indicates that potential accident liability exists for the host vehicle if the planned navigational action is taken, then cause the host vehicle not to implement the planned navigational action”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Afrouzi’s mobile robot to further incorporate Shalev-Shwartz’s mobile robot for the advantage of determining potential accident liability which results in rejecting planned navigational actions and viable safety solution scalable to millions of cars (Shalev-Shwartz’s [0004]).
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 PAYSUN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-1528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571)272-7298. 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.
/PAYSUN WU/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665