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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 1-9, 11-20, and 22 are currently pending.
2. Claims 10 and 21 are canceled.
3. Claims 1-4, 12-17, 20, and 22 are currently amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 6/5/2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
5. Claims 1-9, 11-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 2-9, 12-20, and 22, have been included based on their dependencies.
6. The limitation in Claim 1 with new matter recites: “retrieving, based on a respective obstacle type of the obstacle, an attribute definition specifying a movable component of the obstacle and a predetermined position of the movable component relative to the obstacle.” The Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation retrieving an attribute definition specifying a movable component of the obstacle and a predetermined position of the moveable component relative to the obstacle in the application filed. The amendment narrows the determination of whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute by retrieving an attribute definition.
The specification indicates that the attribute definitions specify processing operations to be performed on the sensor data corresponding to certain obstacles in order to determine whether those obstacles exhibit certain attributes. The specification does not indicate the attribute definition indicates a movable component of an obstacle. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that retrieving definitions for the “operator presence” or “beacon on” attributes is not equivalent to specifying a movable component of the obstacle. As such, there is no indication in the specification that the invention had possession of retrieving an attribute definition specifying a movable component of the obstacle and a predetermined position of the movable component relative to the obstacle.
7. Claim 11 has the same limitations as Claim 1 except for it is a separate independent claim but is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. Claims 1-9, 11-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afrouzi (US 20210089040 A1) in view of Vu (US 20210260770 A1).
11. Regarding Claim 1, Afrouzi teaches a method, comprising: capturing, using a sensor of a mobile robot, sensor data representing a physical environment of the mobile robot (Afrouzi: [0240]);
Detecting, from the sensor data, an obstacle of a plurality of obstacles in the physical environment, the plurality of obstacles having respective obstacle types (Afrouzi: [0245] and [0591]);
Responsive to detecting the obstacle, determining from the sensor data whether the obstacle exhibits a predetermined attribute (Afrouzi: [0551], [0590], and [0592] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the movement, location, and volume characteristics are equivalent to a predetermined attribute.);
Assigning an operational state to the obstacle, according to the determination (Afrouzi: [0366], [0591], and [0592] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, identifying a static or dynamic obstacle based on characteristics is equivalent to assigning an operational state to the obstacle (e.g., static, dynamic).);
Selecting a navigational constraint based on the assigned operational state (Afrouzi: [0593]);
And controlling a locomotive assembly of the mobile robot to navigate the physical environment based on the selected navigational constraint (Afrouzi: [0557] and [0594]).
Afrouzi fails to explicitly teach determining whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute includes: retrieving, based on a respective obstacle type of the obstacle, an attribute definition specifying a movable component of the obstacle and a predetermined position of the movable component relative to the obstacle, and determining whether the movable component of the obstacle is in the predetermined position relative to the obstacle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vu teaches determining whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute includes: retrieving, based on a respective obstacle type of the obstacle, an attribute definition specifying a movable component of the obstacle and a predetermined position of the movable component relative to the obstacle, and determining whether the movable component of the obstacle is in the predetermined position relative to the obstacle (Vu: [0078], [0082], and [0086]).
Afrouzi and Vu are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection and robot control/navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Afrouzi to incorporate the teachings of Vu to determine whether a movable component of the obstacle is in a predetermined position relative to the obstacle because it provides the benefit of avoiding a collision between a robot and movable object with moving components. Identifying movements of limbs of humans can be used to limit potential collisions based on properties of the human body as explicitly explained in [0086] of Vu.
12. Regarding Claim 2, Afrouzi and Vu remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Afrouzi teaches detecting a location of the obstacle, and the respective obstacle type of the obstacle selected from the respective obstacle types (Afrouzi: [0591] and [0593]).
13. Regarding Claim 3, Afrouzi and Vu remains as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Afrouzi teaches storing, in a memory of the mobile robot, an association between a definition of the predetermined attribute and the detected respective obstacle type of the obstacle (Afrouzi: [0363], [0590], and [0592] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, movement over time or speed of the object is equivalent to an association between a definition of the predetermined attribute (movement of object) and the detected object type (dynamic or static).).
14. Regarding Claim 4, Afrouzi and Vu remains as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Afrouzi teaches prior to determining whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute, retrieving the definition of the predetermined attribute according to the type of the obstacle (Afrouzi: [0590] and [0597]).
15. Regarding Claim 5, Afrouzi and Vu remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Afrouzi teaches assigning the operational state to the obstacle includes: assigning a first operational state when the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute (Afrouzi: [0588]);
And assigning a second operational state when the obstacle does not exhibit the predetermined attribute (Afrouzi: [0591] and [0592]).
16. Regarding Claim 6, Afrouzi and Vu remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Afrouzi teaches determining from the sensor data whether the obstacle exhibits a further predetermined attribute; wherein assigning the operational state to the obstacle is further according to the determination of whether the obstacle exhibits the further predetermined attribute (Afrouzi: [0588] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, movement and location of the object may be interpreted to be equivalent to the predetermined attribute and the further attribute.).
17. Regarding Claim 7, Afrouzi and Vu remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Afrouzi teaches the navigational constraint includes a maximum travel velocity for the mobile robot (Afrouzi: [0449]).
18. Regarding Claim 8, Afrouzi and Vu remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Afrouzi teaches the navigational constraint defines a distance from the obstacle to be maintained during navigation of the physical environment (Afrouzi: [0498] and [0531]).
19. Regarding Claim 9, Afrouzi and Vu remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Vu teaches determining whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute includes determining whether a human is physically associated with the obstacle (Vu: [0078] and [0086]).
20. Regarding Claim 11, Afrouzi and Vu remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Afrouzi teaches determining whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute includes determining whether a light emitter of the obstacle is activated (Afrouzi: [0541]).
21. Regarding Claim 12, Afrouzi teaches a computing device, comprising: a sensor; one or more processors coupled with the sensor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, causing the computing device to: capture, using the sensor, sensor data representing a physical environment of a mobile robot (Afrouzi: [0240] and [0908]);
Detect, from the sensor data, an obstacle of a plurality of obstacles in the physical environment, the plurality of obstacles having respective obstacle types (Afrouzi: [0245] and [0591]);
Responsive to detecting the obstacle, determine from the sensor data whether the obstacle exhibits a predetermined attribute (Afrouzi: [0551], [0590], and [0592] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the movement, location, and volume characteristics are equivalent to a predetermined attribute.);
Assign an operational state to the obstacle, according to the determination (Afrouzi: [0366], [0591], and [0592] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, identifying a static or dynamic obstacle based on characteristics is equivalent to assigning an operational state to the obstacle (e.g., static, dynamic).);
Select a navigational constraint based on the assigned operational state (Afrouzi: [0593]);
And control a locomotive assembly of the mobile robot to navigate the physical environment based on the selected navigational constraint (Afrouzi: [0557] and [0594]).
Afrouzi fails to explicitly teach determining whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute further causes the computing device to: retrieve, based on a respective obstacle type of the obstacle, an attribute definition specifying a movable component of the obstacle and a predetermined position of the movable component relative to the obstacle, and determine whether the movable component of the obstacle is in the predetermined position relative to the obstacle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vu teaches determining whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute further causes the computing device to: retrieve, based on a respective obstacle type of the obstacle, an attribute definition specifying a movable component of the obstacle and a predetermined position of the movable component relative to the obstacle, and determine whether the movable component of the obstacle is in the predetermined position relative to the obstacle (Vu: [0078], [0082], and [0086]).
Afrouzi and Vu are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection and robot control/navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Afrouzi to incorporate the teachings of Vu to determine whether a movable component of the obstacle is in a predetermined position relative to the obstacle because it provides the benefit of avoiding a collision between a robot and movable object with moving components. Identifying movements of limbs of humans can be used to limit potential collisions based on properties of the human body as explicitly explained in [0086] of Vu.
22. Regarding Claim 13, Afrouzi and Vu remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Afrouzi teaches to detect a location of the obstacle, and the respective obstacle type of the obstacle selected from the respective of obstacle types (Afrouzi: [0591] and [0593]).
23. Regarding Claim 14, Afrouzi and Vu remains as applied above in Claim 13, and further, Afrouzi teaches to store an association between a definition of the predetermined attribute and the respective obstacle type of the obstacle (Afrouzi: [0363], [0590], and [0592] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, movement over time or speed of the object is equivalent to an association between a definition of the predetermined attribute (movement of object) and the detected object type (dynamic or static).).
24. Regarding Claim 15, Afrouzi and Vu remains as applied above in Claim 14, and further, Afrouzi teaches prior to determining whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute, retrieve the definition of the predetermined attribute according to the respective obstacle type of the obstacle (Afrouzi: [0590] and [0597]).
25. Regarding Claim 16, Afrouzi and Vu remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Afrouzi teaches to assign a first operational state when the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute (Afrouzi: [0588]);
And assign a second operational state when the obstacle does not exhibit the predetermined attribute (Afrouzi: [0591] and [0592]).
26. Regarding Claim 17, Afrouzi and Vu remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Afrouzi teaches to determine from the sensor data whether the obstacle exhibits a further predetermined attribute; and assign the operational state to the obstacle according to the determination of whether the obstacle exhibits the further predetermined attribute (Afrouzi: [0588] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, movement and location of the object may be interpreted to be equivalent to the predetermined attribute and the further attribute.).
27. Regarding Claim 18, Afrouzi and Vu remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Afrouzi teaches the navigational constraint includes a maximum travel velocity for the mobile robot (Afrouzi: [0449]).
28. Regarding Claim 19, Afrouzi and Vu remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Afrouzi teaches the navigational constraint defines a distance from the obstacle to be maintained during navigation of the physical environment (Afrouzi: [0498] and [0531]).
29. Regarding Claim 20, Afrouzi and Vu remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Vu teaches to determine whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute further cause the computing device to determine whether a human is physically associated with the obstacle (Vu: [0078] and [0086]).
30. Regarding Claim 22, Afrouzi and Vu remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Afrouzi teaches to determine whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute further cause the computing device to determine whether a light emitter of the obstacle is activated (Afrouzi: [0541]).
Response to Arguments
31. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-9, 11-20, and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Vu (US 20210260770 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of retrieving an attribute definition specifying a movable component of the obstacle and a predetermined position of the movable component to determine whether the movable component of the obstacle is in the predetermined position in at least paragraphs [0078], [0082], and [0086]. Vu teaches to detect any portion of a person crossing a threshold zone and identifying moving arms/limbs to limit potential collisions.
32. Afrouzi (US 20210089040 A1) in view of Vu (US 20210260770 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
33. Claims 1-9, 11-20, and 22 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
34. 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.
35. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
