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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 02/24/2026. Claims 1-23 were previously pending, of which claims 1-2, 12-13, and 23 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled or newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-23 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 1-3, filed 02/24/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art of record does not appear to disclose the rescue command containing a charge transfer value, and wherein the charging interface is controlled to transfer energy until a charge level of the battery of the first mobile robot drops by an amount specified by the charge transfer value, as amended in claim 1. However, due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art. Further search found that Niwa discloses the limitations that previously relied on Paul and the newly amended limitation, as mapped in the final office action below.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12-15, 17-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyo (JP 2010-003240 A), hereinafter Kyo, in view of Niwa et al. (US 2019/0126768 A1), hereinafter Niwa.
With respect to claims 1, 12, and 23, Kyo discloses a method, comprising:
controlling a locomotive assembly of a first mobile robot to travel towards a rescue location corresponding to a second mobile robot having an incapacitated state; (see at least [0027] “Relative to the rescued robot the rescuing robot moves to a position near the rescued robot, searches for it, and if it determines that it is the relevant robot, it faces the rescued robot.”)
capturing, using a sensor of the first mobile robot, sensor data representing the rescue location; (see at least [0028] “The rescuing robot uses the stereo measurement function to measure the distance to the mark and determine its relative position with the rescued robot.” [0002] “They are equipped with distance sensors and move autonomously along a set route while estimating their own position.”)
at the first mobile robot, detecting the second mobile robot from the sensor data; (see at least [0036] “the rescue robot that has received the rescue instruction obtains robot information of the robot to be rescued from the server and searches for the robot to be rescued”)
controlling the locomotive assembly to position the first mobile robot in a predetermined pose relative to the second mobile robot; (see at least [0027] “Relative to the rescued robot the rescuing robot moves to a position near the rescued robot, searches for it, and if it determines that it is the relevant robot, it faces the rescued robot.”)
Kyo discloses the limitations of a first robot receiving a location of a second robot that needs rescuing and finding its most current location and positioning itself with respect to the second robot, but does not explicitly disclose charging the second robot when arriving in the predetermined position.
However, Niwa teaches controlling a charging interface of the first mobile robot to transfer energy from a battery of the first mobile robot to a battery of the second mobile robot; (see at least [0037] “Bidirectional power conversion device 150… supplies the power to inlet 155.” [0040] “Accordingly, power storage device 110 of rescue EV 102 is discharged, and power storage device 110 of depleted EV 101 is charged.”)
the charging interface is controllable to transfer energy from the battery of the first mobile robot to the battery of the second mobile robot and to transfer energy from the battery of the second mobile robot to the battery of the first mobile robot; (see at least [0030] “Each vehicle 100 is also configured to supply the electric power of the equipped power storage device to a power storage device of another vehicle 100.”)
wherein a rescue command is received at the first mobile robot from a central server, the rescue command containing a charge transfer value, and wherein the charging interface is controlled to transfer energy until a charge level of the battery of the first mobile robot drops by an amount specified by the charge transfer value. (see at least [0056] “This rescue request includes the location information of depleted EV 101, information of a requested power amount indicating an amount of power to be supplied to depleted EV 101, and the like.” [0074] “Then, server 200 transmits a rescue request (power supply request) to selected rescue EV 102… Accordingly, rescue EV 102 that has received the rescue request from server 200 moves to the location of depleted EV 101, and power supply from rescue EV 102 to depleted EV 101 is performed.” Note: It is understood that the power supply performed includes the rescue EV supplying the required amount of power to be supplied to the depleted EV, thereby reducing the battery level by that amount.)
As both pertain to the support of depleted vehicles to provide power, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the robots of Kyo to include the charging interface and control disclosed in Niwa, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the vehicle/robot closest to the depleted one to donate to a vehicle/robot of the same type when one needs to receive energy, see Niwa [0011, 0030].
With respect to claims 2 and 13, Kyo discloses wherein the rescue command contains the rescue location.(see at least [0026] “The rescuing robot obtains the following information about the rescuing robot from the server… Position of the rescued robot (last position information transmitted by the rescued robot)”)
With respect to claims 3 and 14, Kyo discloses determining that the second mobile robot is in the incapacitated state. (see at least [0036] “a means for searching for the robot to be rescued from the self-position estimation failure result of the autonomous mobile robot, the surrounding position information and the appearance information, and determining that the robot is a robot to be rescued;”)
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Kyo discloses sending a message to the central server including a detected location of the second mobile robot. (see at least [0015] “The support robot 1… is composed of…a communication unit 11 that communicates with the management server 4” [0036] “notifies the rescued robot of the position of the searched robot to be rescued, thereby recovering the self-position estimation of the rescued robot.” Note: It is understood that the communication unit is only disclosed to communicate with the management server and would, therefore, need to communicate the new data to the rescued robot through the server.)
With respect to claims 6 and 17, Kyo discloses determining that the second mobile robot is in the incapacitated state includes:
receiving a wireless transmission from the second mobile robot indicating that the second mobile robot is in the incapacitated state. (see at least [0025] “The robot determines that it cannot estimate its own position in the following cases and transmits information that "self-position estimation is not possible" to the management server 4.”)
With respect to claims 7 and 18, Kyo discloses controlling the locomotive assembly to position the mobile robot in the predetermined pose includes:
detecting a marker affixed to the second mobile robot; (see at least [0027] “The relative direction is determined based on the content of the mark affixed to the rescued robot.”)
retrieving alignment data defining the predetermined pose relative to the marker; (see at least [0027] “The direction is determined by looking at the angle of the mark when viewed from the front of the rescue robot.”)
and controlling the locomotive assembly according to the alignment data. (see at least [0027] “Relative to the rescued robot the rescuing robot moves to a position near the rescued robot, searches for it, and if it determines that it is the relevant robot, it faces the rescued robot.”)
With respect to claims 8 and 19, Kyo discloses wherein detecting the second mobile robot includes at least one of (i) identifying a set of reflective markers in the sensor data that match a predetermined pattern, or (ii) executing an image classifier to generate a location of the second mobile robot from the sensor data. (see at least [0026] “The system uses template matching to sequentially narrow down the general appearance information of robots to match the appearance information of the relevant rescued robot, and determines that the searched robot is the rescued robot.”)
With respect to claims 10 and 21, Kyo discloses determining, based on a current pose of the first mobile robot and the sensor data, a corrected pose of the second mobile robot; (see at least [0036] “the rescue robot that has received the rescue instruction obtains robot information of the robot to be rescued from the server and searches for the rescued robot, measures its relative position with respect to the searched rescued robot” [0027] “Relative to the rescued robot the rescuing robot moves to a position near the rescued robot, … it faces the rescued robot. The relative direction is determined based on the content of the mark affixed to the rescued robot. The direction is determined by looking at the angle of the mark when viewed from the front of the rescue robot.”)
and transmitting the corrected pose to at least one of the central server and the second mobile robot. (see at least [0036] “notifies the rescued robot of the position of the searched robot to be rescued, thereby recovering the self-position estimation of the rescued robot.”)
With respect to claim 22, Kyo discloses wherein the rescue command includes a last known pose of the incapacitated robot; (see at least [0026] “The rescuing robot obtains the following information about the rescuing robot from the server… Position of the rescued robot (last position information transmitted by the rescued robot)”)
and wherein the method further comprises: prior to transmitting the corrected pose, determining that a difference between the corrected pose and the last known pose exceeds a relocalization threshold. (see at least [0025] “The value indicating the estimation error (such as the variance value) exceeds a preset threshold, and the error is large.” [0026] “calculates the position and direction of the rescued robot, and performs recovery processing for the rescued robot.”)
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyo and Niwa as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Pasch et al. (US 2022/0308577), hereinafter Pasch.
With respect to claims 5 and 16, Kyo and Niwa teach the limitations of claim 3, but do not explicitly teach the failure to generate wireless transmissions as a sign of an incapacitated state.
However, Pasch teaches wherein determining that the second mobile robot is in the incapacitated state includes: determining that the second mobile robot is not generating wireless transmissions. (see at least [0027] “Thus, a failure of even a small aspect of the safety system (e.g., aspects of the perception system, a faulty sensor, a failure of a communication system, etc.) may prevent the vehicle from verifying safe driving” [0057] “The countermeasure execution system may also simply apply an immediate fix as a countermeasure. For example, a multipurpose mobile robot or drone may be dispatched to execute a fixing routine on the malfunctioning sensor (e.g., cleaning a dirty sensor, recharging a drained battery of the sensor, etc.).”)
As both pertain to robots providing maintenance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kyo to include the above limitations disclosed in Pasch, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to provide maintenance for the complex electrical system of a robot which had a failure in the communication system, see Pasch [0027].
Claims 9, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyo and Niwa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaneko et al. (US 2009/0149995), hereinafter Kaneko.
With respect to claims 9 and 20, Kyo and Niwa teach the limitations of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach the alignment of a charging interfaces of the two robots.
However, Kaneko teaches wherein controlling the locomotive assembly to position the first mobile robot in the predetermined pose relative to the second mobile robot includes placing the charging interface of the first mobile robot within a charging distance of a charging interface of the second mobile robot. (see at least [0023] “FIG. 3 illustrates the charging control in detail. Firstly, it is determined whether the mobile robot 1 has reached the charging position based on a signal from the robot position sensor (S1). If it is determined that the robot has reached the charging position, the process of connecting the wiring member 5 to the mobile robot 1 is performed (S2). In this process, the actuator 6 b of the connector mating/unmating device 6 is activated to move the connector holder 6 a forward, to thereby connect the power-feeding connector 5 b held by the connector holder 6 a to the power-receiving connector 1 c.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kyo to include the above limitations disclosed in Kaneko, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method of connecting to the rescued robot once aligned with the rescuing robot, see Kaneko [0023].
With respect to claim 11, Kyo discloses wherein the rescue command includes a last known pose of the second mobile robot; (see at least [0026] “The rescuing robot obtains the following information about the rescuing robot from the server… Position of the rescued robot (last position information transmitted by the rescued robot)”)
and wherein the method further comprises: prior to transmitting the corrected pose, determining that a difference between the corrected pose and the last known pose exceeds a relocalization threshold. (see at least [0025] “The value indicating the estimation error (such as the variance value) exceeds a preset threshold, and the error is large.” [0026] “calculates the position and direction of the rescued robot, and performs recovery processing for the rescued robot.”)
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights