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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the abstract has overcome the objection due to minor informality. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the section titled “II. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)” on page 13 of the reply filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see the section titled “III. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103” starting on page 13 of the reply filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fong, Stout, and Nakata, individually or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest all of the features recited in the amended claimed subject matter, such as “the renewed exploration commencing at a predetermined edge of an unmapped area detected in the first exploration run” in combination with the other recited claim elements. However, it is the Examiner’s opinion that the combination of Fong, Stout, and Nakata discloses the content of the amended claim in its entirety.
For example, Stout teaches ending the first exploration run when there are no accessible areas left that the autonomous mobile robot has not explored or when the deployment area recorded in the map is completely surrounded by obstacles (In paragraph [0038], Stout teaches that "Frontier" refers to a boundary between an explored and unexplored portion of a surface; in paragraphs [0048-0050], Stout teaches a process 300 which analyses the map or otherwise selects an un-followed edge or border (perimeter) to cover or navigate along, navigates along that perimeter, updates the map as it does so, and determines if continued perimeter covering is necessary, where if process 300 concludes that there are no perimeter frontiers in the map, it may return with condition "no perimeter frontiers", as at 157, and the mobile device may then cease its coverage control routine, as at 160);
the renewed exploration commencing at a predetermined edge of an unmapped area detected in the first exploration run (In paragraph [0068], Stout teaches that when region based coverage process 200 is invoked with start parameter set to "cover anywhere" at state 225, the mobile device analyzes the map to identify suitable frontiers at state 230, where potential frontiers are evaluated against constraints SC1 at state 235, a frontier is selected (e.g., the closest to the current location of the mobile device or the one that would be least expensive to reach given an expense calculating or approximating function such as power consumption or time to reach) and corresponding initial parameters are set (based, for example, on the properties of snake S, the current pose of the mobile device, and the status of the map) at 240; see also fig. 2 where “NO” at state 235 leads directly to where region covering process 200 has exited at state 245 with exit condition "no frontiers").
Stout is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to ensuring that all unexplored accessible areas or frontiers are explored and mapped and that new explorations are performed at relevant frontiers. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Stout with the method as disclosed by Fong where “Some embodiments may invoke routine 300 to help obtain more complete coverage through discovery of previously unexplored portions of the surface” as suggested by Stout in paragraph [0090], for example. Doing so may be advantageous in that a more complete map may be obtained, increasing accuracy of the map to the environment, and improving complete coverage behaviors of the mobile robot thereby, for example.
Therefore, the grounds of rejection are maintained. See the rejections below in more detail.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fong (US 2019/0212752 A1), in view of Stout (US 2014/0222279 A1) and Nakata (US 2018/0079085 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fong discloses a method comprising the following:
carrying out a first exploration run of a deployment area of an autonomous mobile robot (In paragraph [0086], Fong discloses that when constructing the persistent map, the robots identify landmarks in the environment and place the landmarks on the map, and when the robot navigates in the environment, the robot has feature detectors that can recognize the landmarks to help the robot determine its location);
saving a map of the deployment area of the autonomous mobile robot, wherein the map contains orientation data gathered by the autonomous mobile robot during the first exploration run that represents the structure of the environment in the deployment area and wherein the map contains metadata (In paragraph [0084], Fong discloses that the persistent map can show floor types of various regions [metadata], such as whether a region has hard floor or carpet; in paragraph [0090], Fong discloses that for example, the robot 102 can compare the version number [metadata] of the map 110 stored in the storage device 108 of the robot 102 with the version number of the map 120 stored in the storage device 118 of the remote computing system 116; in paragraphs [0094-0098], Fong discloses that as the robot 102 navigates around the environment, e.g., a home, to perform various tasks, e.g., cleaning tasks, the robot 102 uses the camera 114 and other sensors to detect conditions in the home and compares the sensed data with information on the map 110, where if the sensed data is not consistent with the map 110, the robot 102 can update the map 110, and at the end of the cleaning sessions, the robots 102a, 102b each communicates with the remote computing system 116 to provide updated map information, for example, the robots may have updated persistent maps that include data about new objects detected by the robots as they navigate around the home to perform cleaning tasks; in paragraph [0143], Fong discloses that the controller 706 (of mobile cleaning robot 102) uses signals from its sensor system to generate a map of the home 300 by tracking and updating positions and orientations of the mobile cleaning robot 102 over time);
after ending the first exploration run, carrying out a renewed exploration of at least one part of the deployment area, wherein the robot gathers information referring to the structure of its environment in the deployment area by a sensor during the renewed exploration (In paragraph [0090], Fong discloses that in some implementations, when the mobile robot 102 powers up to start a mission, such as a cleaning mission, the robot 102 contacts the remote computing system 116 to check whether there is a new version of the persistent map, for example, the robot 102 can compare the version number of the map 110 stored in the storage device 108 of the robot 102 with the version number of the map 120 stored in the storage device 118 of the remote computing system 116; in paragraph [0094], Fong discloses that as the robot 102 navigates around the environment, e.g., a home, to perform various tasks, e.g., cleaning tasks, the robot 102 uses the camera 114 and other sensors to detect conditions in the home and compares the sensed data with information on the map 110, where if the sensed data is not consistent with the map 110, the robot 102 can update the map 110; in paragraph [0143], Fong discloses that the controller 706 (of mobile cleaning robot 102) uses signals from its sensor system to generate a map of the home 300 by tracking and updating positions and orientations of the mobile cleaning robot 102 over time);
updating the map of the deployment area (In paragraph [0094], Fong discloses that as the robot 102 navigates around the environment, e.g., a home, to perform various tasks, e.g., cleaning tasks, the robot 102 uses the camera 114 and other sensors to detect conditions in the home and compares the sensed data with information on the map 110, where if the sensed data is not consistent with the map 110, the robot 102 can update the map 110), and
saving the updated map for future deployments of the robot (In paragraphs [0094-0099], Fong discloses that as the robot 102 navigates around the environment, e.g., a home, to perform various tasks, e.g., cleaning tasks, the robot 102 uses the camera 114 and other sensors to detect conditions in the home and compares the sensed data with information on the map 110, where if the sensed data is not consistent with the map 110, the robot 102 can update the map 110, and at the end of the cleaning sessions, the robots 102a, 102b each communicates with the remote computing system 116 to provide updated map information, for example, the robots may have updated persistent maps that include data about new objects detected by the robots as they navigate around the home to perform cleaning tasks, where the map merge module 124 resolves inconsistencies in the persistent map updates, if any, and generates a new official version of the persistent map 120 that includes new map data provided by the robots 102a, 102b),
wherein the updating of the map comprises the following:
determining changes in the deployment area based on the information referring to the structure of the environment gathered during the renewed exploration and on the orientation data already saved in the map, wherein determining changes in the deployment area includes a detected unmapped area within the deployment area (In paragraphs [0094-0099], Fong discloses that as the robot 102 navigates around the environment, e.g., a home, to perform various tasks, e.g., cleaning tasks, the robot 102 uses the camera 114 and other sensors to detect conditions in the home and compares the sensed data with information on the map 110, where if the sensed data is not consistent with the map 110, the robot 102 can update the map 110, and at the end of the cleaning sessions, the robots 102a, 102b each communicates with the remote computing system 116 to provide updated map information, for example, the robots may have updated persistent maps that include data about new objects detected by the robots as they navigate around the home to perform cleaning tasks, where the map merge module 124 resolves inconsistencies in the persistent map updates, if any, and generates a new official version of the persistent map 120 that includes new map data provided by the robots 102a, 102b; the Examiner understands the new objects detected by the robots to constitute at least “an unmapped area within the deployment area” under its broadest reasonable interpretation in that the newly updated map information about the objects was previously unmapped; in paragraph [0143], Fong discloses that the controller 706 (of mobile cleaning robot 102) uses signals from its sensor system to generate a map of the home 300 by tracking and updating positions and orientations of the mobile cleaning robot 102 over time), and
updating the orientation data and the metadata based on the determined changes, wherein updating the metadata includes storing information referring to the structure of the unmapped area gathered during the renewed exploration as part of the metadata, wherein the unmapped area is an area within the deployment area that was not explored by the robot during the first exploration run (In paragraph [0084], Fong discloses that the persistent map can show floor types of various regions [metadata], such as whether a region has hard floor or carpet; in paragraphs [0094-0099], Fong discloses that as the robot 102 navigates around the environment, e.g., a home, to perform various tasks, e.g., cleaning tasks, the robot 102 uses the camera 114 and other sensors to detect conditions in the home and compares the sensed data with information on the map 110, where if the sensed data is not consistent with the map 110, the robot 102 can update the map 110, and at the end of the cleaning sessions, the robots 102a, 102b each communicates with the remote computing system 116 to provide updated map information, for example, the robots may have updated persistent maps that include data about new objects detected by the robots as they navigate around the home to perform cleaning tasks, where the map merge module 124 resolves inconsistencies in the persistent map updates, if any, and generates a new official version of the persistent map 120 that includes new map data provided by the robots 102a, 102b; the Examiner understands the new objects detected by the robots to be at least “not explored by the robot during the first exploration run” under its broadest reasonable interpretation in that the newly updated map information about the objects was previously unmapped; in paragraph [0143], Fong discloses that the controller 706 (of mobile cleaning robot 102) uses signals from its sensor system to generate a map of the home 300 by tracking and updating positions and orientations of the mobile cleaning robot 102 over time; see also paragraph [0111] for example where Fong discloses that if the first robot detects a large variance in the reflectivity indicating a dark colored stain, the first robot can flag that, the next time the robot navigates to that area the robot checks that area to see whether there is still a variance, and if there is still variance, then it indicates that the variance is probably permanent, and the first robot adds that information to the persistent map indicating that it is an actual variance).
Fong does not explicitly disclose ending the first exploration run when there are no accessible areas left that the autonomous mobile robot has not explored or when the deployment area recorded in the map is completely surrounded by obstacles;
the renewed exploration commencing at a predetermined edge of an unmapped area detected in the first exploration run, and
classifying the determined changes as temporary changes or permanent changes.
However, Stout teaches ending the first exploration run when there are no accessible areas left that the autonomous mobile robot has not explored or when the deployment area recorded in the map is completely surrounded by obstacles (In paragraph [0038], Stout teaches that "Frontier" refers to a boundary between an explored and unexplored portion of a surface; in paragraphs [0048-0050], Stout teaches a process 300 which analyses the map or otherwise selects an un-followed edge or border (perimeter) to cover or navigate along, navigates along that perimeter, updates the map as it does so, and determines if continued perimeter covering is necessary, where if process 300 concludes that there are no perimeter frontiers in the map, it may return with condition "no perimeter frontiers", as at 157, and the mobile device may then cease its coverage control routine, as at 160); and
the renewed exploration commencing at a predetermined edge of an unmapped area detected in the first exploration run (In paragraph [0068], Stout teaches that when region based coverage process 200 is invoked with start parameter set to "cover anywhere" at state 225, the mobile device analyzes the map to identify suitable frontiers at state 230, where potential frontiers are evaluated against constraints SC1 at state 235, a frontier is selected (e.g., the closest to the current location of the mobile device or the one that would be least expensive to reach given an expense calculating or approximating function such as power consumption or time to reach) and corresponding initial parameters are set (based, for example, on the properties of snake S, the current pose of the mobile device, and the status of the map) at 240; see also fig. 2 where “NO” at state 235 leads directly to where region covering process 200 has exited at state 245 with exit condition "no frontiers").
Stout is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to ensuring that all unexplored accessible areas or frontiers are explored and mapped and that new explorations are performed at relevant frontiers. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Stout with the method as disclosed by Fong where “Some embodiments may invoke routine 300 to help obtain more complete coverage through discovery of previously unexplored portions of the surface” as suggested by Stout in paragraph [0090], for example. Doing so may be advantageous in that a more complete map may be obtained, increasing accuracy of the map to the environment, and improving complete coverage behaviors of the mobile robot thereby, for example.
The combination of Fong and Stout does not explicitly disclose classifying the determined changes as temporary changes or permanent changes.
However, Nakata teaches classifying the determined changes as temporary changes or permanent changes (In paragraph [0094], Nakata teaches where if a time difference between the timings for which the change over time related to the shape of the moving object movement and environmental change information is greater than the threshold value is greater than a threshold value, then the relevant moving object movement and environmental change information is not a temporary environmental change due to a disturbance, but instead may be considered to be a semi-permanent or permanent change of the environment due to the movement of a stationary object or the like, and the changed portion of the environment is handled as a new map).
Nakata is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to determining if an environmental change is temporary or permanent. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Nakata with the method as disclosed by the combination of Fong and Stout where doing so may advantageously increase the accuracy of the information in the map, for example.
Regarding claim 3, Fong further discloses receiving, by the autonomous mobile robot, a command that contains information that specifies the part of the deployment area that is to be newly explored, wherein the part to be newly explored may be the entire deployment area, a previously defined subarea or an area specified by the user (In paragraphs [0081-0082], Fong discloses that the robot starts its mission with a user-defined set of rooms, and, for example, there may be a “keep-out” zone on the map 110 so that the robot 102 needs to keep out of the area, where the map merge module 124 is configured to maintain the keep-out zone in the same place after updating the map 120).
Regarding claim 4, Fong further discloses wherein the determination of changes in the deployment area includes the compilation of a new map and the determination of changes by comparing the new map with the saved map (In paragraphs [0094-0099], Fong discloses that as the robot 102 navigates around the environment, e.g., a home, to perform various tasks, e.g., cleaning tasks, the robot 102 uses the camera 114 and other sensors to detect conditions in the home and compares the sensed data with information on the map 110, where if the sensed data is not consistent with the map 110, the robot 102 can update the map 110, and at the end of the cleaning sessions, the robots 102a, 102b each communicates with the remote computing system 116 to provide updated map information, for example, the robots may have updated persistent maps that include data about new objects detected by the robots as they navigate around the home to perform cleaning tasks, where the map merge module 124 resolves inconsistencies in the persistent map updates, if any, and generates a new official version of the persistent map 120 that includes new map data provided by the robots 102a, 102b),
wherein metadata from the saved map is at least partially carried over into the new map (In paragraph [0084], Fong discloses that the persistent map can show floor types of various regions [metadata], such as whether a region has hard floor or carpet; the Examiner understands that any portion of the map which is not updated is carried over into the new map);
wherein, after completion of the renewed exploration, the saved map is replaced by the new map (In paragraphs [0094-0099], Fong discloses that as the robot 102 navigates around the environment, e.g., a home, to perform various tasks, e.g., cleaning tasks, the robot 102 uses the camera 114 and other sensors to detect conditions in the home and compares the sensed data with information on the map 110, where if the sensed data is not consistent with the map 110, the robot 102 can update the map 110, and at the end of the cleaning sessions, the robots 102a, 102b each communicates with the remote computing system 116 to provide updated map information, for example, the robots may have updated persistent maps that include data about new objects detected by the robots as they navigate around the home to perform cleaning tasks, where the map merge module 124 resolves inconsistencies in the persistent map updates, if any, and generates a new official version of the persistent map 120 that includes new map data provided by the robots 102a, 102b).
Regarding claim 5, Fong further discloses wherein the updating of the orientation data and of the metadata includes:
compiling a temporary work copy of the saved map and entering identified changes into the work copy (In paragraphs [0094-0099], Fong discloses that as the robot 102 navigates around the environment, e.g., a home, to perform various tasks, e.g., cleaning tasks, the robot 102 uses the camera 114 and other sensors to detect conditions in the home and compares the sensed data with information on the map 110, where if the sensed data is not consistent with the map 110, the robot 102 can update the map 110, and at the end of the cleaning sessions, the robots 102a, 102b each communicates with the remote computing system 116 to provide updated map information, for example, the robots may have updated persistent maps that include data about new objects detected by the robots as they navigate around the home to perform cleaning tasks, where the map merge module 124 resolves inconsistencies in the persistent map updates, if any, and generates a new official version of the persistent map 120 that includes new map data provided by the robots 102a, 102b).
Regarding claim 6, Stout further teaches wherein the renewed exploration of at least one part of the deployment area includes:
navigating through the deployment area until the part to be explored has been completely covered by a coverage area of the sensor, and the map of the part to be explored encompasses an area enclosed at least by obstacles and by parts of the deployment area that are not to be explored (In paragraph [0038], Stout teaches that "Frontier" refers to a boundary between an explored and unexplored portion of a surface; in paragraphs [0048-0050], Stout teaches a process 300 which analyses the map or otherwise selects an un-followed edge or border (perimeter) to cover or navigate along, navigates along that perimeter, updates the map as it does so, and determines if continued perimeter covering is necessary, where if process 300 concludes that there are no perimeter frontiers in the map, it may return with condition "no perimeter frontiers", as at 157, and the mobile device may then cease its coverage control routine, as at 160).
Regarding claim 9, Fong further discloses wherein the updating of the metadata further includes one or more of the following:
adaptation of an area in which a service task is to be carried out by the robot (In paragraphs [0082-0083], Fong discloses that there may be a “keep-out” zone on the map 110 so that the robot 102 needs to keep out of the area, where the map merge module 124 is configured to maintain the keep-out zone in the same place after updating the map 120 using “anchor points,” such as corners of a room, that helps place the occupancy grid over it, where the map merge module 124 can choose the four corners of the keep-out zone as anchor points, and at the end of each mission the keep-out zone will be placed based on the anchor points, and additionally that the map merge module 124 honors the room labels provided by the user, where if the user 10 labeled a room as the “Living Room,” the map merge module 124 will try to find out which region in the new occupancy grid is the living room and associate it with the label “Living Room”);
adaptation of the size, shape and/or number of subareas in the deployment area (In paragraphs [0082-0083], Fong discloses that there may be a “keep-out” zone on the map 110 so that the robot 102 needs to keep out of the area, where the map merge module 124 is configured to maintain the keep-out zone in the same place after updating the map 120 using “anchor points,” such as corners of a room, that helps place the occupancy grid over it, where the map merge module 124 can choose the four corners of the keep-out zone as anchor points, and at the end of each mission the keep-out zone will be placed based on the anchor points, and additionally that the map merge module 124 honors the room labels provided by the user, where if the user 10 labeled a room as the “Living Room,” the map merge module 124 will try to find out which region in the new occupancy grid is the living room and associate it with the label “Living Room”; see also paragraph [0079] where Fong discloses that, for example, the robot 102 may detect a long table in the middle of a room, thinks that the long table is a wall, and determines that there are two rooms on two sides of the wall, where the user 10 may revise the map 110 to show that there is actually only one room, and the wall is actually a long table);
entering information regarding a floor covering on a newly identified surface based on adjacent surfaces (In paragraph [0084], Fong discloses that the persistent map can show floor types of various regions [metadata], such as whether a region has hard floor or carpet); or
moving danger zones linked to obstacles or exclusion areas (In paragraphs [0082-0083], Fong discloses that there may be a “keep-out” zone on the map 110 so that the robot 102 needs to keep out of the area, where the map merge module 124 is configured to maintain the keep-out zone in the same place after updating the map 120 using “anchor points,” such as corners of a room, that helps place the occupancy grid over it, where the map merge module 124 can choose the four corners of the keep-out zone as anchor points, and at the end of each mission the keep-out zone will be placed based on the anchor points).
Regarding claim 10, Fong further discloses wherein updating the orientation data includes:
localizing the robot in the saved map (In paragraph [0143], Fong discloses that the controller 706 (of mobile cleaning robot 102) uses signals from its sensor system to generate a map of the home 300 by tracking and updating positions and orientations of the mobile cleaning robot 102 over time, where the mapping sensors include, for example, simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) sensors); and
adapting the orientation data saved in the map based on the data gathered by the sensor regarding the structure in the environment of the deployment area (In paragraph [0143], Fong discloses that the controller 706 (of mobile cleaning robot 102) uses signals from its sensor system to generate a map of the home 300 by tracking and updating positions and orientations of the mobile cleaning robot 102 over time, where the mapping sensors include, for example, simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) sensors).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fong (US 2019/0212752 A1), Stout (US 2014/0222279 A1), and Nakata (US 2018/0079085 A1), in view of Furuta (US 2020/0245837 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Fong further discloses carrying out a service task by the robot, wherein the service task is, in particular, one of the following: a cleaning task (In paragraph [0090], Fong discloses that in some implementations, when the mobile robot 102 powers up to start a mission, such as a cleaning mission, the robot 102 contacts the remote computing system 116 to check whether there is a new version of the persistent map).
The combination of Fong, Stout, and Nakata does not explicitly disclose wherein the orientation data contained in the saved map remains unchanged.
However, Furuta teaches carrying out a service task by the robot, wherein the orientation data contained in the saved map remains unchanged (In paragraphs [0062-0063], Furuta teaches that in the autonomous cleaning mode, the surrounding information generator 45 generates surrounding information, and compares the surrounding information with surrounding information included in the map of the cleaning target space, and, if the surrounding information included in the map is different from the surrounding information generated by the surrounding information generator 45 during the cleaning mission in the autonomous cleaning mode, the autonomous vacuum cleaner 1 displays an enquiry about whether or not to update the map of the cleaning target space together with a message to the effect that the surrounding information, that is, the target object in the cleaning target space is different from the map, for the user after the end of cleaning; the Examiner understands that the saved map will remain unchanged until the user responds to the enquiry to update the map after the end of cleaning),
wherein the service task is, in particular, one of the following: a cleaning task (In paragraphs [0062-0063], Furuta teaches an autonomous cleaning mode).
Furuta is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to carrying out a service task by an autonomous robot with a saved map. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Furuta with the method as disclosed by the combination of Fong, Stout, and Nakata, where allowing a user to decide whether or not to update the map after the task has been completed may be advantageous in affording more agency to the user in controlling operation of the robot. For example, “a case where it is considered that the state of a target object has been changed due to new installation, movement, or removal of an installed object such as furniture, can be exemplified as the user's motivation to update the map” and “a case where it is considered that a non-fixed object such as an everyday item that was temporarily placed has just been detected as a target object and it is not necessary to change the map can be exemplified as a motivation to not update the map” as suggested by Furuta in paragraph [0063], where allowing the user to choose when to update the map allows the user to operate the robot according to their best contextual judgement.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fong (US 2019/0212752 A1), Stout (US 2014/0222279 A1), and Nakata (US 2018/0079085 A1), in view of Krishnaswamy (US 10,330,480 B1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Fong, Stout, and Nakata does not explicitly disclose wherein structures in areas in which changes to the deployment area have been detected are scanned with the sensor with a higher degree of accuracy than in other areas.
However, Krishnaswamy teaches wherein structures in areas in which changes to the deployment area have been detected are scanned with the sensor with a higher degree of accuracy than in other areas (From column 3 line 50 to column 4 line 31, Krishnaswamy teaches that as changes in the workspace are observed based a low resolution visual information, the on-demand cameras can be sent to corresponding locations to “take a closer look” at the changes (e.g., to gather higher resolution visual information) [structures in areas in which changes to the deployment area have been detected are scanned with the sensor with a higher degree of accuracy than in other areas]).
Krishnaswamy is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to employing detection of a higher degree of accuracy in an area in which changes have been detected. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Krishnaswamy with the method as disclosed by the combination of Fong, Stout, and Nakata, where doing so “may result in the on-demand cameras gathering high resolution visual information at the corresponding locations and from different locations than was previously maintained” where “this visual information can be used to update the global view of the map” as suggested by Krishnaswamy from column 3 line 50 to column 4 line 31. This may yield the advantage of increasing the accuracy of the information recorded in the map, where additional information can be utilized and where the information used to create the map is of higher quality, for example.
Regarding claim 8, Krishnaswamy further teaches wherein the degree of accuracy of the detection is increased by one or more of the following:
increasing the time spent in an area, increasing the scanning duration of the structures (From column 3 line 50 to column 4 line 31, Krishnaswamy teaches that as changes in the workspace are observed based a low resolution visual information, the on-demand cameras can be sent to corresponding locations to “take a closer look” at the changes (e.g., to gather higher resolution visual information) [structures in areas in which changes to the deployment area have been detected are scanned with the sensor with a higher degree of accuracy than in other areas]; the Examiner understands sending on-demand cameras to the areas in which changes have been detected to be at least an example of increasing the time spent in an area or increasing the scanning duration of the structures under its broadest reasonable interpretation, where the deployed sensors must spend more time in the area to capture sensor data of the environment to operate as disclosed).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fong (US 2019/0212752 A1), Stout (US 2014/0222279 A1), and Nakata (US 2018/0079085 A1), in view of Bailey (US 8,364,309 B1).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Fong, Stout, and Nakata does not explicitly disclose wherein classifying the determined changes as temporary changes or permanent changes includes classifying the determined changes as permanent changes based on instructions of the user.
However, Bailey teaches wherein classifying the determined changes as temporary changes or permanent changes includes classifying the determined changes as permanent changes based on instructions of the user (In column 12 lines 13-31, Bailey teaches that the user may update or correct the revised floor plan through the drawing unit 332 of the robot control utility, and in an embodiment, the robot 102 is configured not to delete any information on the floor plan, and instead, changes to the floor plan proposed or suggested by the robot 102 as a result of the discovery phase are added to the floor plan and must be confirmed by the user to be made permanent).
Bailey is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to classifying permanent changes to a map detected by a robot based on user indication. It would be obvious toa person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Bailey with the method as disclosed by the combination of Fong, Stout, and Nakata, where doing so allows the user to dictate which changes should be permanent, advantageously increase the contextual accuracy of the map and increasing the level of user control, for example.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Harrison Heflin whose telephone number is (571)272-5629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 1:00PM - 10:00PM EST.
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.
/HARRISON HEFLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights