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 .
This office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 26 September 2025.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1, 9, 17 have been amended.
Claims 22-26 have been added.
The 112b rejection of Claim 12 has been withdrawal as neccessited by the amendment.
Claims 1, 3-26 are pending. Claims 1 and 9 are independent claims
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/26/25 has been entered.
Specification
The replacement abstract filed on 9/6/25 has been accepted and entered.
However, the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains a run-on sentence which is not grammatically correct. Run-on sentences are discouraged and disrupt the flow of thought and make it harder to understand the intended meaning. The Examiner recommends rewriting the abstract to correct the run-on sentences and presented in a grammatically correct fashion with the correct usage of punctation
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-21 remain and 22, 24,26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingvalson et al. (US 2022/0129000 A1,2020) in further view of Johnson et al (US20200246972, 2020)
As per independent claim 1, Ingvalson teaches a method of controlling a robot, the method comprising:
a) feeding a service schedule (Fig. 4, (354), Para. 105, schedule controller containing schedule) to a self-propelled robot (Fig. 1, (100), Para. 57, mower), the service schedule identifying a plurality of tasks for the robot to perform, each of the plurality of tasks comprising timing information (FIG 4, 9; Abstract, 0026, 0105-0106, 0131-136, having a set of tasks/schedule to be performed in order), the timing information relating to a period of time during which the task must be performed, an earliest point in time the task may be commenced, or a latest point in time that the task must be completed, wherein at least two tasks have different timing information, (FIG 8-10; 0105, 0128-0129, 0131-0134, 0137-0138: Discloses an operating schedule of an time period for the collection of tasks to be completed. Each task is assigned a time window/slot within the time period wherein more than one window of tasks are to be completed within the set time period. Each round may occur on different days of the week. In other words, the operating schedule may have 3 rounds of tasks which all 3 rounds would need to be performed within that the schedule’s time period. (e.g. FIG 10) Each round of tasks may occur during different set of days during the operation schedule. 0138 discloses the first round of tasks are assigned to the first two windows of availability which is Monday and Tues while the second round of tasks are assigned to the third and fourth windows of availability which would start on Wednesday. In addition, each task is associated with a time when to begin. I.e. CZ2 of round 1 is to begin at the time of the completion of task CZ1 of round 1)
b) the robot performing one or more of the plurality of tasks in accordance with an initial order of the plurality of task (Fig. 12, 15; 0151-0154, performing each task of each round of the schedule in order. Each round has a particular order of the task.),
c) during step b, the robot receiving information relating to altered timing information of at least plurality of tasks that is uncompleted (FIG 12; 0151-0152 shows which tasks are completed, incomplete, not yet started; Fig. 15; 0156-0160, upon completion of each task (i.e. the time when the task is finished) identify the next task. Figs. 13-18, Paras. 0153, 0156-165, 0174: determining the completion time for a current task (i.e. on-time, early, late));
0156-0157: a task may be delayed; thus, not completed (incomplete) within that scheduled time window of availability (not to be completed as scheduled) and will need to placed into a new window of availability. (e.g. FIG15A-B; 0156: shows Task 2-1 unable to be performed as its scheduled time and needs to be rescheduled) FIG 17, 0156, 0160, 0164-00165: determine that job was not completed and identify the timing of the task to determine a revise schedule)
d) reordering, based on the received information, the initial order to derive an updated order of at least a first plurality of those of the plurality of tasks which are uncompleted, wherein step d) comprising deriving the updated order in which more tasks of the plurality of tasks are performed within their respective timing information (0164-0165 describing the example/embodiment of FIG 17 which been previously cited. FIG 17 discloses an example of a “catch-up” process for revising an operating schedule. 0166 discloses revising subsequent time periods to use a revised sequence of operational tasks that may be different than the sequence of operational tasks in the original operating schedule. In particular, 0164-0165, which describes FIG. 17, indicate that the catch-up process revising an operating schedule of the tasks in each round to assign more operational tasks in a round than would have been completed in the existing operating schedule. 0165: wholly incomplete operational tasks are assigned to a subsequent round. In other words, more tasks are in a round than originally scheduled. Adding task to a particular round is a form of updating the order of tasks for that round; thus, reordering the initial order for that round. FIG 17 shows round 3 having an updated order of finishing the partially completed CZ2 operational task and the wholly incomplete CZ3 operational task from round, and the original scheduled tasks for CZ1 and CZ2 scheduled for round 3. Task CZ3 was cancelled. Thus, an updated order is derived from the initial order, form of reordering. In addition, FIG 17 and 0164-0165 discloses increasing the number of tasks to be performed in a round. Thus, the updated order is derived, from a reordering of the initial order, to complete more tasks within their respective timing information. Also Figs. 15-18, Paras. 156-161, prioritizing tasks based on timing requirements.) and
e) performing the first plurality of those of the plurality of tasks in the updated order (FIG 15, 17-18; 0156-160, 0164-0166, 0174, performing the next task in the updated order).
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose d) reordering... the initial order to derive an updated order of at least a first plurality of those of the plurality of tasks which are uncompleted, wherein at least a first task is arranged before a second task in the initial order, and wherein the first task is arranged after the second task in the updated order, wherein step d) comprises reordering the initial order to derive the updated order, wherein each of at least two tasks are positioned at different positions in the initial order and in the updated order. However, Johnson et al discloses a task order comprising multiple tasks. Johnson discloses when the first task is unable to be performed (uncompleted), the second task (or the third task) is performed. (0056) Tasks that weren’t not completed are reinserted back into the order list at a later time to create a new reorder list. An incomplete task can be insert as the next task after the selected second task is completed, as the last task on the task list, or anywhere in between (0058). Thus, Johnson discloses creating a new revised order of task. For example, the original order can comprise the performing of Task A, Task, B, and C, in that order. If task A cannot be performed, then the order of tasks is changed (based on 0058) to an order such as Task B, Task C, then A OR Task B, Task A then C. (0058: the first task can be inserted anywhere in the list (e.g., as the next task after the selected second task is completed) Thus, Johnson discloses the positions of at least two tasks are in different positions when going from the initial order to the revised order such that a first task is arranged before a second task in the initial order, and wherein the first task is arranged after the second task in the updated order
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Johnson et al since it would have provided the benefit of preventing inefficient delays robot task completion (0059)
As per dependent claim 3, Ingvalson teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Ingvalson further teaches
wherein step d) comprises providing in the order, a number of the tasks of the first plurality of tasks, which are provided along a route from a present position of the robot to a replenishment station, where the tasks of the number of the tasks may be performed while consuming no more than the current amount of the at least one consumable (Figs. 12-18; 0087, 0153, 0156-165, 0169, 0175: determine the number of tasks to be completed at a given time and the amount of charge required for each task);
wherein step e) comprises performing the number of the tasks in the order determined, then replenishing the at least one consumable at the replenishment station, and then performing a remainder of the first plurality of tasks in the order determined (Figs. 12-18; 0087, 0153, 0156-165, 0169, 0175: completing the number of tasks allowed per charge prior to recharging, then performing the remainder of the tasks).
As per dependent claim 4, Claim 4 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Ingvalson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ingvalson further teaches wherein, for at least one task, the timing information is a period of time within which the pertaining task must be performed (FIG 8-10; 0105, 0128-0129, 0131-0134, 0137-0138: each task having time information such that a task is assigned a round and wherein each round is scheduled for certain time window and each task in the round is schedule within that time window), and
wherein step c) comprises determining that a present task will be completed earlier than estimated (Figs. 12-18, Paras. 0153, 0156-165, 0174: determining the completion time for a current task (i.e. on-time, early, late)); and
Furthermore, Ingvalson discloses prioritizing/reorganizing tasks based on completion and additional timing requirements (Figs. 15-18; Paras. 0153, 0156-165, 0169: prioritizing/reorganizing tasks based on completion and additional timing requirements like shifting tasks between rounds). However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation incorporated, Johnson et al discloses wherein step d) comprises re-ordering the tasks to bring a task earlier in the order to a later position in the order (0058: Discloses if the first task is unable to be performed, then a later task (e.g. second or third task), after the first task, can be moved up to be performed. In addition, the first task can be reinserted at the end; thus, moving up a task that was later in the order into an earlier position)
As per dependent claim 5, Claim 5 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Ingvalson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ingvalson further teaches wherein, for at least one task, the timing information is a period of time within which the pertaining task must be performed (FIG 8-10; 0105, 0128-0129, 0131-0134, 0137-0138: each task having time information such that a task is assigned a round and wherein each round is scheduled for certain time window and each task in the round is schedule within that time window), and
wherein step c) comprises determining that a present task will be completed later than estimated (Figs. 12-18, Paras. 0153, 0156-165, 0174: determining the completion time for a current task (i.e. on-time, early, late)); and
wherein step d) comprises re-ordering the tasks to bring a task earlier in the order to a later position in the order (Figs. 15-18; Paras. 0153, 0156-165, 0169: prioritizing/reorganizing tasks based on completion and additional timing requirements; For example, moving a task from round 2 to round 3; e.g. FIG 16 + 17, 0162, 0165).
As per dependent claim 6, Ingvalson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ingvalson further teaches wherein step c) comprises the robot discontinuing a present task (Paras. 0062, 0156-0158, 0165-0166, 0173-0174, not performing a task or stopping a task due to sensor and/or timing information. For example, tasks are delayed or cancelled); and
wherein step d) comprises re-ordering the tasks…to add a remainder of the present task to a position later in the order (FIG 16. 0163: discloses adding the incomplete CZ2 task of round 2 to round 3 to finish the task). Furthermore, Ingvalson discloses prioritizing/reorganizing tasks based on completion and additional timing requirements (Figs. 15-18; Paras. 0153, 0156-165, 0169: prioritizing/reorganizing tasks based on completion and additional timing requirements like shifting tasks between rounds). However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation incorporated, Johnson et al discloses wherein step d) comprises re-ordering the tasks to bring a task earlier in the order to a later position in the order (0058: Discloses if the first task is unable to be performed, then a later task (e.g. second or third task), after the first task, can be moved up to be performed. In addition, the first task can be reinserted at the end; thus, moving up a task that was later in the order into an earlier position)
As per dependent claim 7, Ingvalson teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as described above. Ingvalson further teaches wherein step c) comprises one or more sensors of the robot sensing one or more parameters of surroundings of the robot and discontinuing a present task based on the one or more parameters sensed (Paras. 0062, 0158, 0173-174, not performing a task or stopping a task due to sensor information (e.g. environment, obstacle)).
As per dependent claim 8, Ingvalson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ingvalson further teaches wherein step c) comprises the robot receiving information from a remote source, the information identifying a task which is to be performed urgently, to be delayed or to not be performed (Figs. 13-18, Paras. 0081, 105, 0119, 0130, 0144, 156-165, 0174: getting the schedule information from the scheduler which can include user inputted task (i.e. urgent, wait, etc.). For example, 0157 discloses user input may result in delay, such as user input that does not allow the autonomous machine to operate for a time period (delayed/not be performed). 0169 states: a user may want to complete the task of mowing the front lawn before the next scheduled completion of that task (form of urgent)); and
wherein step d) comprises re-ordering the tasks by removing the identified task or bringing the identified task to a position earlier or later in the order (Figs. 15-18, Paras. 0153, 0156-165, 0169, 0174: prioritizing/reorganizing tasks based on completion and additional timing requirements. For example, task CZ3 is cancelled/removed from round 3).
As per independent claim 9, Ingvalson teaches a robot comprising a controller configured to control the robot to perform the following steps:
a) receive or access a service schedule (Fig. 4, (354), Para. 105, schedule controller containing schedule) identifying a plurality of tasks for the robot (Fig. 1, (100), Para. 57, mower) to perform, each of the plurality of tasks comprising timing information (Figs. 4, 9, Paras. 105, 131-136, having a set of tasks/schedule to be performed in order), the timing information relating to a period of time during which the task must be performed, an earliest point in time the task may be commenced, or a latest point in time that the task must be completed, wherein at least two tasks have different timing information, (FIG 8-10; 0105, 0128-0129, 0131-0134, 0137-0138: Discloses an operating schedule of a time period for the collection of tasks to be completed. Each task is assigned a time window/slot within the time period wherein more than one window of tasks are to be completed within the set time period. Each round may occur on different days of the week. In other words, the operating schedule may have 3 rounds of tasks which all 3 rounds would need to be performed within that the schedule’s time period. (e.g. FIG 10) Each round of tasks may occur during different set of days during the operation schedule. 0138 discloses the first round of tasks are assigned to the first two windows of availability which is Monday and Tues while the second round of tasks are assigned to the third and fourth windows of availability which would start on Wednesday. In addition, each task is associated with a time when to begin. I.e. CZ2 of round 1 is to begin at the time of the completion of task CZ1 of round 1)
b) perform one or more of the plurality of tasks in accordance with an initial order of the plurality of tasks (Fig. 12, Paras. 151-153, performing each task in order),
c) during step b, receive information relating to altered timing information of at least plurality of tasks that is uncompleted (FIG 12; 0151-0152 shows which tasks are completed, incomplete, not yet started; Fig. 15; 0156-0160, upon completion of each task (i.e. the time when the task is finished) identify the next task. Figs. 13-18, Paras. 0153, 0156-165, 0174: determining the completion time for a current task (i.e. on-time, early, late)); 0156-0157: a task may be delayed; thus, not completed (incomplete) within that scheduled time window of availability (not to be completed as scheduled) and will need to placed into a new window of availability. (e.g. FIG15A-B; 0156: shows Task 2-1 unable to be performed as its scheduled time and needs to be rescheduled) FIG 17, 0156, 0160, 0164-00165: determine that job was not completed and identify the timing of the task to determine a revise schedule)
d) reorder, based on the received information, the initial order to derive an updated order of at least a first plurality of those of the plurality of tasks which are uncompleted, wherein step d) also comprising deriving the updated order in which more tasks of the plurality of tasks are performed within their respective timing information (0164-0165 describing the example/embodiment of FIG 17 which been previously cited. FIG 17 discloses an example of a “catch-up” process for revising an operating schedule. 0166 discloses revising subsequent time periods to use a revised sequence of operational tasks that may be different than the sequence of operational tasks in the original operating schedule. In particular, 0164-0165, which describes FIG. 17, indicate that the catch-up process revising an operating schedule of the tasks in each round to assign more operational tasks in a round than would have been completed in the existing operating schedule. 0165: wholly incomplete operational tasks are assigned to a subsequent round. In other words, more tasks are in a round than originally scheduled. Adding task to a particular round is a form of updating the order of tasks for that round; thus, reordering the initial order for that round. FIG 17 shows round 3 having an updated order of finishing the partially completed CZ2 operational task and the wholly incomplete CZ3 operational task from round, and the original scheduled tasks for CZ1 and CZ2 scheduled for round 3. Task CZ3 was cancelled. Thus, an updated order is derived from the initial order, form of reordering. In addition, FIG 17 and 0164-0165 discloses increasing the number of tasks to be performed in a round. Thus, the updated order is derived, from a reordering of the initial order, to complete more tasks within their respective timing information. Also Figs. 15-18, Paras. 156-161, prioritizing tasks based on timing requirements.) and
e) perform the first plurality of those of the plurality of tasks in the updated order (FIG 15, 17-18; 0156-160,0164-0166, 0169, 0174, performing the next task in the updated order)
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose d) reordering... the initial order to derive an updated order of at least a first plurality of those of the plurality of tasks which are uncompleted, wherein at least a first task is arranged before a second task in the initial order, and wherein the first task is arranged after the second task in the updated order, wherein step d) comprises reordering the initial order to derive the updated order, wherein each of at least two tasks are positioned at different positions in the initial order and in the updated order. However, Johnson et al discloses a task order comprising multiple tasks. Johnson discloses when the first task is unable to be performed (uncompleted), the second task (or the third task) is performed. (0056) Tasks that weren’t not completed are reinserted back into the order list at a later time to create a new reorder list. An incomplete task can be insert as the next task after the selected second task is completed, as the last task on the task list, or anywhere in between (0058). Thus, Johnson discloses creating a new revised order of task. For example, the original order can comprise the performing of Task A, Task, B, and C, in that order. If task A cannot be performed, then the order of tasks is changed (based on 0058) to an order such as Task B, Task C, then A OR Task B, Task A then C. (0058: the first task can be inserted anywhere in the list (e.g., as the next task after the selected second task is completed) Thus, Johnson discloses the positions of at least two tasks are in different positions when going from the initial order to the revised order such that a first task is arranged before a second task in the initial order, and wherein the first task is arranged after the second task in the updated order
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Johnson et al since it would have provided the benefit of preventing inefficient delays robot task completion (0059)
As per dependent claim 10, Ingvalson teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Ingvalson further teaches wherein the robot comprises a container for one or more consumables, where the controller is configured to have: wherein step c) comprise determining a current amount of at least one of the consumables, where at least one parameter of the tasks relates to the at least one consumable (Figs. 13-18; 0087, 0153, 0156-165, 0169, 0175: determine the number of tasks to be completed at a given time and the amount of charge required for each task); and
wherein step d) comprise determining an order of the first plurality of tasks in which as many tasks as possible can be completed before the amount of the at least one consumable is depleted (Figs. 13-18; 0087, 0153, 0156-165, 0169, 0175: completing the number of tasks allowed per charge prior to recharging, then performing the remainder of the tasks).
As per dependent claim 11, Ingvalson teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 as described above. Ingvalson further teaches wherein the controller is configured to have: step d) comprise providing, in the order, a number of the tasks of the first plurality of tasks, which are provided along a route from a present position of the robot to a replenishment station, where each of the number of the tasks may be performed consuming no more than the current amount of the at least one consumable (Figs. 13-18; 0087, 0153, 0156-165, 0169, 0175: determine the number of tasks to be completed at a given time and the amount of charge required for each task);
step e) comprise performing the number of the tasks in the order determined, then replenishing the at least one consumable at the replenishment station, and then performing a remainder of the first plurality of tasks in the order determined (Figs. 13-18; 0087, 0153, 0156-165, 0169, 0175: completing the number of tasks allowed per charge prior to recharging, then performing the remainder of the tasks).
As per dependent claim 12, Ingvalson teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Ingvalson further teaches wherein, for at least one task, the timing information is a time slot within which the pertaining task must be performed (FIG 8-10; 0105, 0128-0129, 0131-0134, 0137-0138: each task having time information), and wherein the controller is configured to have:
step c) comprise determining that a present task will be completed earlier than estimated (Figs. 12-18, Paras. 0153, 0156-165, 0174: determining the completion time for a current task (i.e. on-time, early, late)); and
Furthermore, Ingvalson discloses prioritizing/reorganizing tasks based on completion and additional timing requirements (Figs. 15-18; Paras. 0153, 0156-165, 0169: prioritizing/reorganizing tasks based on completion and additional timing requirements like shifting tasks between rounds). However, based on the rejection of Claim 1, 9 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Johnson et al discloses wherein step d) comprises re-ordering the tasks to bring a task earlier in the order to a later position in the order (0058: Discloses if the first task is unable to be performed, then a later task (e.g. second or third task), after the first task, can be moved up to be performed. In addition, the first task can be reinserted at the end; thus, moving up a task that was later in the order into an earlier position)
As per dependent claim 13, Ingvalson teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Ingvalson further teaches wherein, for at least one task, the timing information is a time slot within which the pertaining task must be performed (FIG 8-10; 0105, 0128-0129, 0131-0134, 0137-0138: each task having time information), and wherein the controller is configured to have:
step c) comprise determining that a present task will be completed later than estimated (Figs. 13-18, Paras. 0153, 0156-165, 0174: determining the completion time for a current task (i.e. on-time, early, late)); and
step d) comprise re-ordering the tasks to bring a task earlier in the order to a later position in the order (Figs. 15-18, Paras. 0153, 0156-165, 0169, 0174: prioritizing/reorganizing tasks based on completion and additional timing requirements. For example, moving a task from round 2 to round 3; e.g. FIG 16 + 17, 0162, 0165).
As per dependent claim 14, Ingvalson teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Ingvalson further teaches wherein step c) comprises the robot discontinuing a present task (Paras. 0062, 0156-0158, 0165-0166, 0173-0174, not performing a task or stopping a task due to sensor and/or timing information. For example, tasks are delayed or cancelled); and
wherein step d) comprises re-ordering the tasks…to add a remainder of the present task to a position later in the order (FIG 16. 0163: discloses adding the incomplete CZ2 task of round 2 to round 3 to finish the task). Furthermore, Ingvalson discloses prioritizing/reorganizing tasks based on completion and additional timing requirements (Figs. 15-18; Paras. 0153, 0156-165, 0169: prioritizing/reorganizing tasks based on completion and additional timing requirements like shifting tasks between rounds). However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Johnson et al discloses wherein step d) comprises re-ordering the tasks to bring a task earlier in the order to a later position in the order (0058: Discloses if the first task is unable to be performed, then a later task (e.g. second or third task), after the first task, can be moved up to be performed. In addition, the first task can be reinserted at the end; thus, moving up a task that was later in the order into an earlier position)
As per dependent claim 15, Ingvalson teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Ingvalson further teaches wherein the controller is configured to have: step c) comprise one or more sensors of the robot sensing one or more parameters of surroundings of the robot (Paras. 0062, 0158, 0173-174: not performing a task or stopping a task due to sensor information (e.g. obstacle, environment). For example, tasks are delayed or cancelled); and
wherein step d) comprises re-ordering the tasks…to add a remainder of the present task to a position later in the order (FIG 16. 0163: discloses adding the incomplete CZ2 task of round 2 to round 3 to finish the task). Furthermore, Ingvalson discloses prioritizing/reorganizing tasks based on completion and additional timing requirements (Figs. 15-18; Paras. 0153, 0156-165, 0169: prioritizing/reorganizing tasks based on completion and additional timing requirements like shifting tasks between rounds). However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Johnson et al discloses wherein step d) comprises re-ordering the tasks to bring a task earlier in the order to a later position in the order (0058: Discloses if the first task is unable to be performed, then a later task (e.g. second or third task), after the first task, can be moved up to be performed. In addition, the first task can be reinserted at the end; thus, moving up a task that was later in the order into an earlier position)
As per dependent claim 16, Ingvalson teaches wherein if the initial order delays one or more tasks, the updated order is derived such that more of the one or more tasks are completed in accordance with its timing information. (Figs. 15-18, Paras. 0153, 0156-165, 0169, 0174: prioritizing/reorganizing tasks based on completion and additional timing requirements; 0166 discloses in response to the delay, revising subsequent time periods to use a revised sequence of operational tasks that may be different than the sequence of operational tasks in the original operating schedule. In particular, 0164-0165, which describes FIG. 17, indicate that the catch-up process revising an operating schedule of the tasks in each round to assign more operational tasks in a round than would have been completed in the existing operating schedule.) In see 0056, 0058 of Johnson discloses skipping a task in order complete other tasks before performing the skipped task.
As per dependent claim 17, Ingvalson teaches wherein the reordering, based on the received information, includes removal of at least one of the plurality of tasks that is uncompleted or the addition of a new task to the plurality of uncompleted tasks wherein the new task also comprises timing information. (0165: Only the CZ3 operational task originally scheduled to be completed in Round 3 is canceled such that the total number of operational tasks completed in Round 3 increases to only four operational tasks (partial CZ2, CZ3, CZ1, and at least remainder of CZ2).)
As per dependent claims 18-19, Ingvalson teaches the timing information relates at least in part to a period of time during which the task must be performed and wherein the timing information relates at least in part to an earliest point in time the task may be commenced. (FIG 8-10; 0105, 0128-0129, 0131-0134, 0137-0138: Discloses an operating schedule of an time period for the collection of tasks to be completed. Each task is assigned a time window/slot within the time period wherein more than one window of tasks are to be completed within the set time period. Thus, the window the task is assigned is form of a period of time during which the task must be performed. Each round may occur on different days of the week. In other words, the operating schedule may have 3 rounds of tasks which all 3 rounds would need to be performed within that the schedule’s time period. (e.g. FIG 10) Each round of tasks may occur during different set of days during the operation schedule based on the available windows of availability. 0138 discloses the first round of tasks are assigned to the first two windows of availability which is Monday and Tues while the second round of tasks are assigned to the third and fourth windows of availability which would start on Wednesday. In addition, each task is associated with a time when to begin. I.e. CZ2 of round 1 is to begin at the time of the completion of task CZ1 of round 1. Thus, the earliest CZ2 can start is when the task of CZ1 is finished.)
As per dependent claim 20, Ingvalson teaches wherein the timing information relates at least in part to a latest point in time that the task must be completed. (FIG 8-10; 0105, 0128-0129, 0131-0134, 0137-0138: (FIG 8-10; 0105, 0128-0129, 0131-0134, 0137-0138: discloses an operating schedule of time period having available times of operation that the machine has to complete all the scheduled tasks. Each task is assigned a time window/slot within the time period wherein more than one window of tasks are to be completed within the set time period (e.g. 0129). FIG 10 shows an example of time period of when it begins for tasks of that time period that can start and when it ends for tasks of that time period needs to be completed by, for example starting on Monday and ending on Sunday. (0128) FIG 9-10 and 0133 discloses that 3 rounds of tasks are to be scheduled in that period. Thus, one of skilled artisan would have realized that the latest point to have the completed the last task of the last round for this particular time period would by the end of Sunday. In other words, the 3 rounds of tasks especially the last task of the 3rd round, need to be completed by the end of Sunday or the tasks would need to added to new task order within a new time period. (e.g. 0163, 0166))
As per dependent claim 21, Claim 21 recites similar limitations as in the combination of Claims 18, 19, and 20, and is similarly rejected under rationale.
As per dependent claim 22, Ingvalson discloses wherein two or more tasks of the plurality of tasks have different parameters. (0133, 0167f: each task has its own set of parameters such as which containment zone is scheduled to be mowed and when to mow the containment zone. For example, CZ2 isn’t mowed until CZ1 is completed. Thus, each task has is form of a start time and zone assignment)
As per dependent claim 24, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Johnson et al discloses wherein at least one of the tasks is a task of transporting goods from one position to another (0031-0032: task includes picking an item off a shelf and transporting it to another location)
As per dependent claim 26, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Johnson et al discloses robot further comprising a cargo hold or surface for receiving a product or cargo to be transported. (FIG 2B; 0018, 0032: has surface for items or a tote to be placed on)
Claim(s) 23, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingvalson et al in further view of Johnson et al in further view of Vogel et al (US 20200319640, disclosed in IDS filed on 4/22/22)
As per dependent claim 23, the cited art fails to disclose wherein at least one of the tasks is a task of cleaning a surface. However, Vogel et al discloses least one of the tasks is a task of cleaning a surface (0041, 0052, 0057, 0066-0067)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Vogel et al since it would have provided the benefit of a more simple and intuitive planning of the deployment of an autonomous mobile robot possible. (0005)
As per dependent claim 25, based on the rejection of Claim 23 and rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Vogel et al discloses the robot further comprises cleaning means. (0041, 0052, 0057, 0066-0067)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 12, in regards to the objection to the Abstract/specification, Applicant states the Abstract is amended to be a summary of the claimed invention and not a repeat of the similar working of the independent claims, in the above amendment the abstract is amended so as to be a summary of the claimed invention and request withdrawal of the objection. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response, the objection to the specification/abstract remains for the following reason(s): The Examiner respectfully states that the replacement/current abstract contains a run-on sentence which are not grammatically correct. Run-on sentences are discouraged and disrupt the flow of thought and make it harder to understand the intended meaning. The Examiner recommends rewriting the abstract to correct the run-on sentences and presented in a grammatically correct fashion with the correct usage of punctation. Therefore, the objection to the Abstract remains.
On pages 15-18, in regards to the independent claims rejected under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the cited references, Ingvalson and Johnson, do not teach the features of Claim 1. In summary, Applicant argues the cited art does not teach the limitations: b) the robot performing one or more of the plurality of tasks in accordance with an initial order of the plurality of tasks, d) reordering,based on the received information, the initial order to derive an updated order of at least a first plurality of those of the plurality of tasks which are uncompleted, wherein at least a first task is arranged before a second task in the initial order, and wherein the first task is arranged after the second task in the updated order,and e) performing the first plurality of those of the plurality of tasks in the updated order."
In particular, Applicant argues that Johnson does not describe the reordering the initial order based on the received information, wherein the received information "relates to altered timing information,”, "to derive an updated order of at least a first plurality of those of the plurality of tasks which are uncompleted." In other words, Applicant argues that Johnson does not assign a timing requirement to each task. Therefore, Applicant argues that fails to describe a reordering of the tasks "wherein at least a first task is arranged before a second task in the initial order, and wherein the first task is arranged after the second task in the updated order" based on received information that relations to "altered timing information," as required by claim 1. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response, the Examiner respectfully states that the Johnson alone was not used to teach the argued limitations/subject matter of limitations b), d) and e), but the combination of Ingvalson and Johnson. The Examiner respectfully states that Ingvalson teaches the subject matter of “b) perform one or more of the plurality of tasks in accordance with an initial order of the plurality of tasks”, “c) during step b, receive information relating to altered timing information of at least plurality of tasks that is uncompleted”, “d) reorder, based on the received information, the initial order to derive an updated order of at least a first plurality of those of the plurality of tasks which are uncompleted, wherein step d) also comprising deriving the updated order in which more tasks of the plurality of tasks are performed within their respective timing information”, and “e) perform the first plurality of those of the plurality of tasks in the updated order”.
Thus, Applicant is arguing subject matter/limitations that Ingvalson was used to teach but arguing Johnson doesn’t. Furthermore, the Examiner states that Johnson was used because Ingvalson fails to teach disclose d) reordering... the initial order to derive an updated order of at least a first plurality of those of the plurality of tasks which are uncompleted, wherein at least a first task is arranged before a second task in the initial order, and wherein the first task is arranged after the second task in the updated order. Therefore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, based on the arguments provided by the Applicant in respect to claimed features in the claim limitation, the Examiner respectfully submits that the Applicant states that Johnson does not teach the limitation by merely summarizing Johnson and allegedly concludes that Johnson does not teach the limitation. Applicant does not disclose how the claim language of the claim limitation is different from the teachings of Johnson by describing the differences that involve any supporting evidence from the specification stating or describing the limitation, or how Johnson is specifically different from Applicant's invention. Thus, Applicant's arguments fail to disclose how the cited art is silent or doesn't teach on the limitation since the Applicant does not fully describe the differences that involve any supporting evidence from Applicant's specification stating or describing the limitations, or how the cited art is specifically different from the invention itself. Therefore, the Applicant did not explicitly state how Applicant's invention, other than stating Johnson, alone, doesn't teach the limitations, is different to prove that the cited art’s functionality does not equivalently teach the limitation.
Furthermore, the Examiner refers the Applicant to MPEP 904.01 (b) that states "All subject matter that is the equivalent of the subject matter as defined in the claim, even though specifically different from the definition in the claim, must be considered unless expressly excluded by the claimed subject matter." In other words, while the prior art cited may not explicitly use the same terminology as disclosed in the claim limitations, it doesn't mean the art doesn't teach it and can't be considered to reject Appellant's claimed invention. Thus, examiner submits that what is taught by the references is considered within the broadest reasonable interpretation to that which is claimed discussed below.
Therefore, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of language of the argued subject matter/limitations, Ingvalson teaches the following (argued) limitations/subject matter: b) the robot performing one or more of the plurality of tasks in accordance with an initial order of the plurality of task (Fig. 12, 15; 0151-0154 of Ingvalson discloses performing each task of each round of the schedule in order. Each round has a particular order of the task.). Furthermore, Ingvalson teaches c) during step b, the robot receiving information relating to altered timing information of at least plurality of tasks that is uncompleted (FIG 12; 0151-0152 shows which tasks are completed, incomplete, not yet started; Fig. 15; 0156-0160, upon completion of each task (i.e. the time when the task is finished) identify the next task. Figs. 13-18, Paras. 0153, 0156-165, 0174: determining the completion time for a current task (i.e. on-time, early, late)); 0156-0157: a task may be delayed; thus, not completed (incomplete) within that scheduled time window of availability (not to be completed as scheduled) and will need to placed into a new window of availability. (e.g. FIG15A-B; 0156: shows Task 2-1 unable to be performed as its scheduled time and needs to be rescheduled) FIG 17, 0156, 0160, 0164-00165: determine that job was not completed and identify the timing of the task to determine a revise schedule). Ingvalson teaches d) reordering, based on the received information, the initial order to derive an updated order of at least a first plurality of those of the plurality of tasks which are uncompleted, wherein step d) comprising deriving the updated order in which more tasks of the plurality of tasks are performed within their respective timing information (0164-0165 describing the example/embodiment of FIG 17 which been previously cited. FIG 17 discloses an example of a “catch-up” process for revising an operating schedule. 0166 discloses revising subsequent time periods to use a revised sequence of operational tasks that may be different than the sequence of operational tasks in the original operating schedule. In particular, 0164-0165, which describes FIG. 17, indicate that the catch-up process revising an operating schedule of the tasks in each round to assign more operational tasks in a round than would have been completed in the existing operating schedule. 0165: wholly incomplete operational tasks are assigned to a subsequent round. In other words, more tasks are in a round than originally scheduled. Adding task to a particular round is a form of updating the order of tasks for that round; thus, reordering the initial order for that round. FIG 17 shows round 3 having an updated order of finishing the partially completed CZ2 operational task and the wholly incomplete CZ3 operational task from round, and the original scheduled tasks for CZ1 and CZ2 scheduled for round 3. Task CZ3 was cancelled. Thus, an updated order is derived from the initial order, form of reordering. In addition, FIG 17 and 0164-0165 discloses increasing the number of tasks to be performed in a round. Thus, the updated order is derived, from a reordering of the initial order, to complete more tasks within their respective timing information. Also Figs. 15-18, Paras. 156-161, prioritizing tasks based on timing requirements.). Finally, Ingvalson teaches e) performing the first plurality of those of the plurality of tasks in the updated order (FIG 15, 17-18; 0156-160, 0164-0166, 0174, performing the next task in the updated order). Furthermore, the Examiner states that Ingvalson was used to teach reordering the tasks based on altered timing information (see FIG 17, 0156, 0160, 0164-00165: determine that job was not completed and identify the timing of the task to determine a revise schedule)
However, the cited art (Ingvalson) fails to specifically disclose d) reordering... the initial order to derive an updated order of at least a first plurality of those of the plurality of tasks which are uncompleted, wherein at least a first task is arranged before a second task in the initial order, and wherein the first task is arranged after the second task in the updated order, wherein step d) comprises reordering the initial order to derive the updated order, wherein each of at least two tasks are positioned at different positions in the initial order and in the updated order. However, Johnson et al discloses a task order comprising multiple tasks. Johnson discloses when the first task is unable to be performed (uncompleted), the second task (or the third task) is performed. (0056) Tasks that weren’t not completed are reinserted back into the order list at a later time to create a new reorder list. An incomplete task can be insert as the next task after the selected second task is completed, as the last task on the task list, or anywhere in between (0058). Thus, Johnson discloses creating a new revised order of task. For example, the original order can comprise the performing of Task A, Task, B, and C, in that order. If task A cannot be performed, then the order of tasks is changed (based on 0058) to an order such as Task B, Task C, then A OR Task B, Task A then C. (0058: the first task can be inserted anywhere in the list (e.g., as the next task after the selected second task is completed) Thus, Johnson discloses the positions of at least two tasks are in different positions when going from the initial order to the revised order such that a first task is arranged before a second task in the initial order, and wherein the first task is arranged after the second task in the updated order
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Johnson et al since it would have provided the benefit of preventing inefficient delays robot task completion (0059)
Thus, the cited art teaches the argued limitation(s)/subject matter.
In response to Applicant’s argument’s, on pages 17-18, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the teachings of Ingvalson in view of Johnson to arrive at the features of claim 1 as a whole and that the proposed modification of the system and method of Ingvalson to include the re-ordering based on congestion of Johnson appears to be improperly based on hindsight reasoning, the Examiner respectable states that Johnson is combinable with Ingvalson since Johnson disclose reordering tasks since certain tasks couldn’t be perform at a certain time and needed to be rescheduled at a later time wherein another task could be performed by replacing the unperformable task in the order. Thus, Johnson does disclose reordering based on “altered timing information”. As explained above, Ingvalson teaches reordering the tasks based on altered timing information (see FIG 17, 0156, 0160, 0164-00165: determine that job was not completed and identify the timing of the task to determine a revise schedule).Therefore, both Ingvalson and Johnson disclose reordering based on “altered timing information” and are combinable.
On page 19, in regards to Claim 8, Applicant argues that Ingvalson the user enters a new time period for allowed mowing, but no particular task (area to be mowed) is entered and requested prioritized, delayed or skipped. Thus, Ingvalson fails to disclose of suggest the additional features required by claim 8. However, the Examiner disagrees. In response, the Examiner states the language of limitation clearly indicates identifying a task to either be performed urgently, to be delayed OR to not be performed. Thus, the Examiner respectfully states Ingvalson teaches wherein step c) comprises the robot receiving information from a remote source, the information identifying a task which is to be performed urgently, to be delayed or to not be performed (Figs. 13-18, Paras. 0081, 105, 0119, 0130, 0144, 156-165, 0174: getting the schedule information from the scheduler which can include user inputted task (i.e. urgent, wait, etc.). For example, 0157 discloses user input may result in delay, such as user input that does not allow the autonomous machine to operate for a time period (delayed/not be performed). 0169 states: a user may want to complete the task of mowing the front lawn before the next scheduled completion of that task (form of urgent)). Thus, the cited art teaches this limitation of the claim.
Arguments in regards of the limitations of Claims 6, 12, and 14 brought forth by the Applicant and not addressed by Mori alone, are now in view of using the reference(s) Johnson.
Conclusion
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172