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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/04/2026, was filed after the mailing of a First Office Action on the Merits but before the close of prosecution. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Examiner notes that the instant application is a 371 national stage of PCT/GB2021/050469 which also claims foreign priority to the foreign document GB2002781.9. Examiner has checked and verified that the subject matter of the instant application is supported by the earlier filed foreign priority document, and as such, the earlier filed date of 02/24/2021 is granted.
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 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination filed on 03/04/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-19, and 23-24 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Deyle, and in view of both Kamhi et al., US 20170157766 A1, herein referred to as Kamhi, and Drew et al., US 20200019156 A1, herein referred to as Drew.
Regarding claim 1, Deyle discloses a robot having one or more sensors (Paragraphs 0076 and 0112; robot can have multiple RFID readers for determining inventory, robot can also have multiple cameras), generating a representation of an environment of the robot (Paragraphs 0112-0113; robot can use images to create a semantic map, robot can also identify RFID tags of objects in the environment and map them onto the semantic map), operating the one or more sensors to sense a set of parameters representative of the environment of the robot (Paragraphs 0112-0113; semantic map can include locations of obstacles, locations of obstacles can be considered a set of parameters representative of the environment), generating a list of objects in the environment and associated identifiers for each known object in the list, including a last known location for at least one known object on the list (Paragraphs 0076, 0112, 0308; semantic map can include locations of items, obstacles, or objects which can be considered a list of objects, locations of obstacles/objects at a given point in time can be considered a last known location of an object, RFID tag reading by robot can be used to determine an inventory which is a list of tagged objects, current items in map may be considered known as they have associated locations, identifiers, etc.), transmitting the generated list to an electronic user device (Paragraph 0354; semantic map may be viewable by a user with a computer 2915), receiving control data from the electronic user device, the control data comprising an identifier for at least one object in the generated list that a user of the electronic user device wishes to locate within the environment (Paragraphs 0209, 0304, 0336, 0354, and 0356; operator may use a GUI to send movement commands to the robot for performing tasks, tasks could include scanning inventory as part of an inventory check, inventory check can include searching for stock of specific items, operator or user can use the robot to search for an object), in response to receipt of the control data, operating the robot and the one or more sensors to search the environment to determine a location of the at least one object in the environment (Paragraph 0336; robot may determine locations of items during the inventory check), transmitting the determined location of the at least one object in the environment to the electronic user device (Paragraphs 0112, 0354; semantic map may be viewed on a computer which is operable by a user), and updating the list of objects to replace the last known location of the at least one object with the determined location (Paragraph 0112; semantic map may be updated which includes objects and obstacles within the environment, if an object is replaced or removed while an update occurs, then the last known location of said object is replaced with a new location), but fails to disclose identifying an unknown object in the generated list of objects, the unknown object having no pre-existing associated identifiers, transmitting, in response to identifying that the unknown object has no pre-existing associated identifiers, a request to an electronic user device to identify the unknown object, wherein the request does not include any pre-existing associated identifiers, receiving identification data from the electronic user device indicating an identifier for the unknown object, and updating the generated list of objects to associate the identifier with the unknown object, including a last known location for the unknown object on the list such that the objects in the generated list are known objects each associated with an identifier.
However, Kamhi, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches identifying an unknown object in the generated list of objects (Paragraph 0019; robot may determine that an identified object is unknown (not familiar with)), transmitting, in response to identifying that the unknown object has no pre-existing associated identifiers, a request to an electronic user device to identify the unknown object, wherein the request does not include any pre-existing associated identifiers (Paragraphs 0018-0019; once robot determines that the object is unknown, it sends an inquiry to a user to help identify the object), receiving identification data from the electronic user device indicating an identifier for the unknown object (Paragraphs 0018-0019; a user may respond to the robot inquiry with a response that indicates a characteristic of the object which can be considered an identifier, the user response may be input through electronic communication such as a keyboard), and updating the generated list of objects to associate the identifier with the unknown object, including a last known location for the unknown object on the list such that the objects in the generated list are known objects each associated with an identifier (Paragraphs 0017-0019; after receiving a user response, the robot may use the characteristics (identifiers) to make the object known in the environment; characteristics of objects may include temporal and location data which can indicate a last known location; all known objects in environment have associated characteristics (identifiers)).
Additionally, Drew, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches identifying an unknown object in the generated list of objects, the unknown object having no pre-existing associated identifiers (Paragraph 0295; unknown objects may be identified in an environment; these unknown objects may not have an associated identifier or indication of what the object is as only an image of the unknown object is placed on the map instead of a known identifier (see thick carpet icon earlier in 0295)) and transmitting, in response to identifying that the unknown object has no pre-existing associated identifiers, a request to an electronic user device to identify the unknown object, wherein the request does not include any pre-existing associated identifiers (Paragraph 0295; unknown objects may be identified during robot movement throughout the map; unknown items/objects may be indicated in the map with just an image which is not a known identifier).
Therefore, from the teachings of Kamhi and Drew, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Deyle to include identifying an unknown object in the generated list of objects, the unknown object having no pre-existing associated identifiers, transmitting, in response to identifying that the unknown object has no pre-existing associated identifiers, a request to an electronic user device to identify the unknown object, wherein the request does not include any pre-existing associated identifiers, receiving identification data from the electronic user device indicating an identifier for the unknown object, and updating the generated list of objects to associate the identifier with the unknown object, including a last known location for the unknown object on the list such that the objects in the generated list are known objects each associated with an identifier, as taught/suggested by both Kamhi and Drew. The motivation to do so would be to ensure that all objects in the environment are identified and accounted for by querying a user for identifying an unknown item, including those that have no identifiers. Because the user is queried regarding the unknown item, the system may employ a cooperative effort in identification which may result in more accurate identifications than the robot alone. This combination of Kamhi and Drew for teaching the deficiencies of Deyle is obvious because the request of Kamhi can easily be utilized for any object in an environment, especially for one that is completely unknown (no identifiers).
Regarding claim 2, Deyle in view of both Kamhi and Drew renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Deyle further discloses maintaining the generated representation by one or more of: periodically updating the generated representation (Paragraphs 0336, 0339; robot can perform inventory checks and update the inventory log), and transmitting the updated generated representation to the electronic user device (Paragraphs 0112, 0343, 0354; an updated semantic map may be viewable by a user on computer 2915).
Regarding claim 4, Deyle in view of both Kamhi and Drew renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Deyle further discloses transmitting the generated list to the electronic user device after the list of objects is updated with the determined location of the at least one object (Paragraphs 0112, 0343, and 0354; operator has access to information obtained by robot which can include the semantic maps and images of inventory, an updated semantic map may be viewable by a user on computer, an update to the map can include all objects currently identified).
Regarding claim 5, Deyle in view of both Kamhi and Drew renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Deyle further discloses transmitting the set of parameters representative of the environment of the robot to the electronic user device (Paragraph 0354; semantic map and inventory may be available for an operator to see; semantic map and inventory may include parameters such as location of obstacles and inventory).
Regarding claim 6, Deyle in view of both Kamhi and Drew renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Deyle further discloses generating the list of objects comprises requesting a user of the electronic user device to input a home location for the at least one object on the list (Paragraphs 0342, 0354; the robot may flag (request) a human operator, who has access to a computer 2915, to relocate a misplaced item, relocation of a misplaced item would be inputting a new home location for the item), and receiving and storing the inputted home location data for the at least one object (Paragraphs 0336, 0339, 0340; robot can perform inventory checks and update the inventory log, when update is performed, the misplaced item will now be correctly logged (receiving and storing) at the appropriate location), but fails to disclose generating the list of objects comprises requesting a user of the electronic user device to input a home location for the unknown object, and receiving and storing the inputted home location data for the unknown object. However, the obviousness of determining unknown objects can be seen in the rationale in claim 1 and would be applicable here as well.
Regarding claim 8, Deyle in view of both Kamhi and Drew renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Deyle further discloses the operating the robot to move the at least one object to a given location (Paragraph 0212; robot can deliver objects to an individual).
Regarding claim 9, Deyle in view of both Kamhi and Drew renders obvious all the limitations of claim 8. Deyle further discloses the given location is a home location comprised in the received control data (Paragraph 0212; robot can deliver objects to an individual, this requires the location to be a part of the control commands, an individual’s location can be considered a home location).
Regarding claim 10, Deyle in view of both Kamhi and Drew renders obvious all the limitations of claim 8. Deyle further discloses the given location is a location of the user of the electronic user device (Paragraphs 0055 and 0212; robot can deliver objects to an individual, an individual can be any user of the central system which includes the user interface).
Regarding claims 11-12, and 14, the claim limitations are similar to those within claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, a portion of the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1. Additionally, Deyle discloses requesting a user of the electronic user device to input a home location for each of the first object and the second object (Paragraphs 0342, 0354; the robot may flag (request) a human operator, who has access to a computer 2915, to relocate a misplaced item, relocation of a misplaced item would be inputting a new home location for the item, multiple items could be misplaced which include a first and second object), receive and store the inputted home location data for each of the first object and the second object (Paragraphs 0336, 0339, 0340; robot can perform inventory checks and update the inventory log, inventory log can include at least a first object and a second object, when update is performed, the misplaced item will now be correctly logged (receiving and storing) at the appropriate location)), receiving control data from the electronic user device, the control data indicating a request to move the first object and the second object to their respective home locations (Paragraphs 0332, 0342, 0354; tasks may be assigned by a human operator, tasks could include relocating items (at least first and second objects) to their correct location, the correct location could be the home location), in response to receipt of the control data, operating the robot and the one or more sensors to locate the first object and the second object and to move each of the first object and the second object to their respective home locations in the environment (Paragraphs 0336, 0342; robot may determine locations of items during the inventory check, robot may relocate misplaced items (at least a first and second object) to their correct location (home location)), and transmit confirmation data to the electronic user device to confirm with the user that the first object and the second object have been moved to their respective home locations in the environment, the confirmation data including an updated representation of the environment that includes the first object and the second object being at their respective home locations (Paragraphs 0112, 0336, 0339, 0342-0343, 0354; robot can relocate misplaced item (at least a first and second object) to their correct (home) locations, robot can perform inventory checks and update the inventory log, if the robot relocates the misplaced items to their correct (home) location, the updated inventory log and semantic map will show that the objects are now at the correct (home) locations, this update can be considered a confirmation as the semantic map is a representation of objects in the environment, this updated semantic map may be viewable by a user on computer 2915 which can be considered a transmission of the confirmation data).
Regarding claim 15, Deyle in view of both Kamhi and Drew renders obvious all the limitations of claim 13. Deyle further discloses the home location of the first object is different than the home location of the second object (Paragraphs 0342, 0354; multiple objects can be misplaced with each having a different home location (item 1 belongs in one location and item 2 belongs in a different location)).
Regarding claim 16, Deyle in view of both Kamhi and Drew renders obvious all the limitations of claim 13. Deyle further discloses the home location of the first object is the same as the home location of the second object (Paragraphs 0342, 0354; multiple items of the same type may be placed in a certain location meaning they both have the same home location).
Regarding claim 17, Deyle in view of both Kamhi and Drew renders obvious all the limitations of claim 13. Deyle further discloses the generation of the representation of the environment further comprises determining a last known location for each of the first object and the second object (Paragraphs 0308; semantic map may store item locations, item locations at a given point in time are last known locations), and storing the last known location for each of the first object and the second object in the list (Paragraph 0308; item locations are stored in the semantic map).
Regarding claim 18, Deyle in view of both Kamhi and Drew renders obvious all the limitations of claim 17. Deyle further discloses in response to receipt of the control data, the locating of the first object and the second object is based off of the last known locations of each of the first object and the second object in the list (Paragraphs 0308, 0342, 0354; semantic map may store item locations, including those that may be misplaced, relocation of misplaced items is based off of the currently detected misplaced items which are the last known locations of the items).
Regarding claim 19, Deyle in view of both Kamhi and Drew renders obvious all the limitations of claim 17. Deyle further discloses the last known location for the first object is different than the home location of the first object, and wherein the last known location of the second object is different than the home location of the second object (Paragraphs 0308, 0342; semantic map may store item locations, including those that may be misplaced, currently detected misplaced items are the last known locations of the items, different types of misplaced items may have different home locations (item 1 belongs to home location 1 and item 2 belongs to home location 2)).
Regarding claim 22, Deyle in view of both Kamhi and Drew renders obvious all the limitations of claim 11. Deyle further discloses wherein multiple objects in the generated list may have a same identifier (Paragraphs 0342, 0354; multiple items of the same type may be placed in a certain location meaning they both have the same home location, items of the same type mean their associated identifiers may be the same).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 23, the examiner has completed a thorough search and has not found a piece of prior art, either alone or in combination with other prior art, that discloses, teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the claim limitations. The closest prior art combination, Deyle in view of both Kamhi and Drew, teaches identifying unknown objects and labeling the objects with an image of the object (see claim 1 rationale), but fails to teach the identifier for the unknown object comprises a custom label specific to the unknown object. This feature is novel in that it allows for unknown objects to be given a curate label that can help for quick identification in the map. Furthermore, the custom label may allow for user preferences for the label and can increase enjoyment of interacting with the system and the map.
Regarding claim 24, the examiner has completed a thorough search and has not found a piece of prior art, either alone or in combination with other prior art, that discloses, teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the claim limitations. The closest prior art combination, Deyle in view of both Kamhi and Drew, teaches objects on the map having the same identifiers (at least 0342, 0354; same type items may be grouped together in a given location, also see previous action for claim 21), but fails to teach the identifier of the unknown object is a group label such that the unknown object is classified into a particular group that includes other known objects on the list. Although the prior art combination teaches a grouping of same type items, the prior art combination doesn’t explicitly disclose a group labeling that includes known and unknown items. This is advantageous because it can allow for a user to group an unknown object with other known object they think may be similar. This can help with faster identification and more customizability of the objects within a map.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is arguing that the prior art fails to teach the claim limitations. Specifically, Applicant is arguing that the prior art combination of Deyle, Kamhi, and Drew fails to teach the request to an electronic user device to identify the unknown object in response to identifying that the unknown object has no pre-existing identifiers. Applicant is arguing that Kamhi’s request is for an unknown object that does have an identifier, and that Drew does not send out a request for identification. However, the request for identification of Kamhi can easily include unknown objects that have no pre-existing identifiers (similar to that of Drew) because unknown objects, including those with and without identifiers, would need to be identified by the user in order for proper operation of the robot as the robot is no necessarily capable of that identification. Specifically, if a map has a plurality of unknown objects, the request to identify all the unknown objects (identifiers present or not) would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because the robot needs to know what each and every object is while traversing. Furthermore, Applicant is arguing that the request for identification is not in response to the unknown object not having any pre-existing identifiers. However, as can be seen above, it would be obvious for the request for identification of all unknown items to occur in response to any unknown object being present (pre-existing identifiers or not).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER A BUKSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights