DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This Non-Final office action is in response to the application filled on 4/15/2022. Claims 1-18 are pending and examined below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a) ‐ (d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN 2020/010021850.5, filed on 1/09/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of date of this action, IDS filled has been annotated and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 2-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2 (and similarly claim 12), which recites “a current map” is not clear. It is not clear the map is referred by the current map or the map constructed by the robot is updated which is current map.
Dependent claim(s) 4-7 is/are also rejected because they do not resolve their parent (claim 2’s) deficiencies.
Regarding claim 3 (and similarly claim 13), which recites “limit frame spans at least two different map areas” line 7 is not clear. It is not clear what is referred by two different map areas. Is it referring two different areas on a map e.g., traversed area and untraversed area? Or something else?
Also recites “a current map” line 8 is not clear. It is not clear the map is referred by the current map or not.
Also recites “an overlap area” line 8 is not clear since overlap area is recited earlier. It is not clear both overlap areas are same or different.
Also recites “the current map doesn’t exist in the overlap area” line 13 is not clear. It is not clear whether the claim limitation is referring when the map constructed by the robot does not include the overlap area or something else. Claim 1 recites the overlap area is on the map which is also contradictory with this claim limitation.
Dependent claim(s) 11 is/are also rejected because they do not resolve their parent (claim 3’s) deficiencies.
Regarding claim 6, which recites “information currently collected by the robot” line 3 is not clear. It is not clear what is referred by “currently”. The map is constructed by collecting information. It is not clear whether the map is continuously updated or there is a set time frame for updating or something else.
Regarding claim 8, which recites “a planned path of the same type” line 8 is not clear. It is not clear a different planned path or the same planned path (line 6) is used for traversing in the opposite direction. It is also not clear what is referred by same type? Is it referring planned direction is same? or configuration is same? or something else?
Also recites “a corresponding area” in line 5 and line 7 is not clear. It is not clear both corresponding areas are same or different.
Also recites “a limit frame” in line 11 is not clear since a limit frame is also recited on line 9. It is not clear whether both limit frame is same or different.
Also recites “an overlap area” line 13 is not clear since an overlap area is also recited on line 12. It is not clear both overlap areas are same or different.
Dependent claim(s) 9, 10 and 12-18 is/are also rejected because they do not resolve their parent (claim 8’s) deficiencies.
Regarding claim 10, which recites “a map area” line 3 is not clear since a map area is also recited on claim 8. It is not clear whether both map areas are same or different.
Also recites “one limit frame which is closest to the…the limit frame” line 6 is not clear. It is not clear whether a smaller limit frame/area is selected inside the larger limit frame/area or a different limit frame is selected inside the map or something else.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0208593 (“Xu”), and further in view of US 2024/0085919 (“Cui”).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a method for determining a working start point in a movement limit frame of a robot (see at least [0071], where “As shown in FIG. 6, another embodiment of the present disclosure provides a service system, including a service robot route planning system 100 and a plurality of service robots 200”; see also [0074], where working area of a robot is defined), comprising:
setting a limit frame on a map constructed by the robot (see at least [0004], where “acquiring images of an area to be served, wherein the area to be served includes serviceable grids obtained by performing grid division on the area to be served; performing pedestrian recognition on the images to acquire pedestrian heat of each serviceable grid…obtaining a sub-area to be served composed of the grids to be served.”; see also fig 2, where service area for a particular robot is allocated within the area/map. Service area for a particular robot is interpreted as limit frame on a map. See also [0017], [0048] and [0054]); and
selecting, according to an overlap relation between a map area framed by the limit frame and the map constructed by the robot, an overlap area for developing a working start point of the robot, (see at least fig 2, where service area for a particular robot is overlapped with the entire map/area served by plural robots. Service area for a particular robot is working area for the particular robot. See also [0006], where “generating a service route for the service robot.”; Route for the service e is generated. So, it is obvious that a starting point for a route is also defined/generated.);
wherein the limit frame encloses an area for limiting a working range of the robot (see at least [0005], where “allocating a corresponding number of serviceable grids to each of a plurality of service robots to obtain a service area corresponding to each service robot; and determining an intersection of the sub-area to be served and the service area corresponding to each service robot”).
Xu does not disclose the following limitation:
determining a center point of the overlap area which is selected as the working start point.
However, Cui discloses a method for determining a center point of the overlap area which is selected as the working start point (see at least [0076], where “the method for obtaining at least one of the starting point and the working start point comprises: a coordinate point closest to the center of the working region is selected as the starting point.”; the working region is interpreted as overlap area. see also [0084] and fig 7A-B);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Xu to incorporate the teachings of Cui by including the above feature, determining a center point of the overlap area which is selected as the working start point, for improving the traversal ability and work efficiency of the robot.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Xu in view of Cui further discloses a method for controlling movement of a robot, comprising: controlling, after a working start point is determined through a method for determining the working start point the robot to move from a current position to the working start point (see at least Cui fig 5A-C and [0082]);
controlling the robot to traverse a corresponding area in one direction of the working start point according to a planned path, and controlling the robot to return to the working start point to continue to traverse a corresponding area in an opposite direction according to a planned path of the same type (see least Cui [0024], where “when the selected preset rule is driving the robot to traverse the current working region in a spiral outward manner, the method for obtaining at least one of the starting point ”; see also [0082] and fig 7A-C); and
controlling the robot to travel along boundaries of a limit frame (see citation above on claim 1),
The method for determining the working start point comprising:
setting a limit frame on a map constructed by the robot (see citation above on claim 1); and
selecting, according to an overlap relation between a map area framed by the limit frame and the map constructed by the robot, an overlap area for developing a working start point of the robot, and determining a center point of the overlap area which is selected as the working start point in the limit frame of the robot (see citation above on claim 1);
wherein the limit frame encloses an area for limiting a working range of the robot (see citation above on claim 1).
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0208593 (“Xu”), and in view of US 2024/0085919 (“Cui”), as applied to claim 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US 9,205,886 (“Hickman”).
Regarding claim 2 (and similarly claim 12), as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Xu in view of Cui further discloses a method for determining the working start point, wherein selecting, according to the overlap relation between the map area framed by the limit frame and the map constructed by the robot, the overlap area for developing the working start point of the robot, and determining the center point of the overlap area which is selected as the working start point in the limit frame of the robot (see citation above on claim 1) comprise:
selecting, in a case that the limit frame is completely set in any one of map areas in the map constructed by the robot and does not span different map areas, an area covered with the limit frame as the overlap area for developing the working start point of the robot, and determining the center point of the area covered with the limit frame as the working start point in the limit frame of the robot (see at least [0076] of Cui);
wherein the map constructed by the robot comprises: a current map constructed by the robot in an unrecognized environment, (see at least fig 2 of Xu, where non-serviceable areas are shown on a generated map of a shopping mall. Non-serviceable areas are interpreted as untraversed area. Non-serviceable area is not covered by any other map e.g., historical map, current map. The map is generated by the robot to identify the serviceable and non-serviceable areas. See also [0050]).
Xu in view of Cui does not disclose the following limitation:
the map constructed…comprises…a historical map matching a recognized environment.
However, Hickman discloses a method wherein the map constructed…comprises…a historical map matching a recognized environment (see at least fig 10).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Xu in view of Cui to incorporate the teachings of Hickman by including the above feature, the map constructed…comprises…a historical map matching a recognized environment, for avoiding complex simulation/recognition by using historical data which will increase the map generation efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on 571-270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664