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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending in the instant application. Claims 1-13 and 22 have been withdrawn from consideration. No claims have been added. Claim 6 has been cancelled. Claims 14 and 17 have been amended. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made final.
Response to Remarks
The arguments and amendments as presented by Applicant have been considered by the examiner, but are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
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.
Claims 14, 15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson et al (US 2019/0033868) in view of Lee (US 2020/0023765).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art discloses a mobile robot for interworking of an order system and the mobile robot, the mobile robot comprising (see at least paragraphs [0068] and [0069] to Ferguson et al): a driving part configured to move the mobile robot (see at least paragraph [0045] to Ferguson et al); a loading part capable of loading a load (see at least paragraph [0046] to Ferguson et al); a communication part capable of performing communication with the order system and transmitting and receiving predetermined data (see at least paragraph [0052] to Ferguson et al); and a controller, wherein the communication part is configured to receive one piece of order information selected from pieces of order information input through the order system (see at least paragraph [0051] to Ferguson et al), the order information comprising destination information and load information, and wherein the controller is configured to, when the loading part is loaded with a load (see at least paragraph [0080] to Ferguson et al), specify a transport destination to which the load is to be transported based on the destination information included in the order information (see at least paragraphs [0080] and [0081] to Ferguson et al) and control the driving part to start traveling for transport to the specified transport destination (see at least paragraphs [0063] and [0064] to Ferguson et al).
Ferguson et al does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the loading part comprises a weight sensor capable of detecting the weight of the loads, wherein the load information comprises a weight information of a load, and when a plurality of loads are included in the load information, check whether all of the plurality of loads are loaded in the loading part by using a weight of the loads detected by the weight sensor, and control the driving part to automatically start traveling according to a result of the checking.
However, Lee discloses a loading module and delivery robot equipped with the same, wherein the loading part comprises a weight sensor capable of detecting the weight of the loads (see at least paragraph [0049] to Lee), wherein the load information comprises a weight information of a load, and when a plurality of loads are included in the load information, check whether all of the plurality of loads are loaded in the loading part by using a weight of the loads detected by the weight sensor (see at least paragraph [0050] to Lee, wherein the weight detection sensor 133 may be equipped in each receiving space in which articles are loaded, and may recognize whether the articles are loaded in or unloaded from the receiving space. The weight detection sensor 133 may detect that a specific article is loaded on the delivery robot 100 under the control of the control module 190. When loading is detected, the control module may determine that the article has been loaded) , and control the driving part to automatically start traveling according to a result of the checking (see at least paragraph [0087] to Lee, wherein when a specific article is loaded in a predetermined receiving space, the control module 190 may detect the weight of the loaded specific article via the weight detection sensor 133. The control module 190 may determine whether or not the article is loaded in each receiving space using the weight detection sensor 133 disposed for each receiving space. When the control module 190 determines that the article is loaded, the control module 190 may add, to a delivery list, article information, destination information on the loaded article, and information on the receiving space loaded with the article. The delivery list may further include information on the article sender and information on the article recipient).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the system and method for autonomously loading and unloading autonomous vehicles, as disclosed by Ferguson et al and the loading module and delivery robot equipped with the same, as taught by Lee, in order to provide for improved customer convenience by providing a robot which timely delivers a plurality of items to an appropriate location (see at least paragraph [0025] to Lee) could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art discloses the mobile robot of claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to control the communication part such that the mobile robot transmits completion information indicating that transport of the load is completed to the order system, after the load is received at the transport destination (see at least paragraph [0080] to Ferguson et al, wherein Upon completion of the delivery (or retrieval, if appropriate), the robot reports completion of the assignment and reports back to the fleet management module for re-assignment).
Regarding claim 17, the prior art discloses the mobile robot of claim 14, wherein the communication part is further configured to, when the plurality of loads are included in the load information, receive a partial transport signal, and the controller is configured to, when the partial transport signal is received, control the driving part to start traveling while the loading part is loaded with only some loads of the plurality of loads (see at least paragraphs [0078] and [0080] to Ferguson et al, wherein the fleet management module coordinates the activity and positioning of each robot in the fleet. In addition to communicating with the robot fleet, fleet owner/operator and/or user, the fleet management module also communicates with providers/vendors/businesses and customers to optimize behavior of the entire system).
Regarding claim 18, the prior art discloses the mobile robot of claim 17, wherein the controller is configured to, when transport of the some loads of the plurality of loads is completed according to the partial transport signal, control the driving part to wait for transport of remaining loads except for the some loads for which transport is completed (see at least paragraph [0137] to Ferguson et al, wherein the processor 125 can process the imaging information to detect specific items based on their appearance or shape. As an example, the compartment or sub-compartment 402 may be used to store objects of multiple customers or objects not associated with any particular customer, such as when the autonomous vehicle serves as a general marketplace of assorted items. In such configurations, the autonomous vehicle would need to distinguish and identify different items in the compartment or sub-compartment 402 and unload only particular items at a customer location).
Regarding claim 19, the prior art discloses the mobile robot of claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to output predetermined guide information when the mobile robot arrives at the transport destination (see at least paragraphs [0091] and [0092] to Ferguson et al, wherein the fleet 100 relies on maps generated by the user, operator, or fleet operator, specifically created to cover the intended environment where the robot is configured to operate).
Regarding claim 20, the prior art discloses the mobile robot of claim 19, wherein the controller is configured to selectively output guide information according to a type of the load included in the order information, or select and output guide information in a language corresponding to a nationality of an orderer (see at least paragraph [0080] to Ferguson et al, wherein The robot then travels to the customer 202 and the customer interacts with the robot to retrieve their goods or service (e.g., the goods ordered). An interaction can include requesting the robot to open its compartment 102, 104 through the customer's app or through a user interface on the robot itself (using, e.g., RFID reader and customer phone, a touchpad, a keypad, voice commands, vision-based recognition of the person, etc.)).
Regarding claim 21, the prior art discloses the mobile robot of claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to selectively control at least one of a moving speed, an acceleration, and a rotation speed of the mobile robot according to the load information included in the order information (see at least paragraph [0060] to Ferguson et al, wherein robot 101 is a vehicle configured for land travel, such as a small fully-autonomous (or semi-autonomous) automobile. The exemplary fully-autonomous (or semi-autonomous) automobile is narrow (i.e., 2-5 feet wide), low mass and low center of gravity for stability, having multiple secure compartments assignable to one or more customers, retailers and/or vendors, and designed for moderate working speed ranges (i.e., 1.0-45.0 mph) to accommodate inner-city and residential driving speeds. Additionally, in some embodiments, the land vehicle robot units in the fleet are configured with a maximum speed range from 1.0 mph to about 90.0 mph for high speed, intrastate or interstate driving. Each robot in the fleet is equipped with onboard sensors 170 (e.g., cameras (running at a high frame rate, akin to video), LiDAR, radar, ultrasonic sensors, microphones, etc.) and internal computer processing to constantly determine where it can safely navigate, what other objects are around each robot and what it may do).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
on __________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
________________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Certificate of Transmission by Facsimile
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Certificate of Transmission via USPTO Patent Electronic Filing System
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system to the USPTO
on _____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627