DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 17/975,378 filed on August 12, 2025 in which claims 1, 3, and 14 were amended and claims 9 and 22 were cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 12, 2025 has been entered.
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 Claims
Claims 1-7, 10-20, and 23-26 are pending, of which claims 1-7, 10-11, 14-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) and claims 12, 13, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “wherein mobile robot ceases autonomous navigation and receives manual control commands” at lines 3-4 and 5-6, respectively, is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 14-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al., US Publication 2022/0066456 (hereinafter Ebrahimi).
Regarding claim 1, Ebrahimi discloses a method in a computing device, comprising “storing an initial map representing objects within a facility” (Ebrahimi ¶ 1261) where the robot has “an initial mapping of all the environment.” Additionally, Ebrahimi discloses “receiving a command to place a mobile robot deployed in the facility to the piloted mode, wherein mobile robot ceases autonomous navigation and receives manual control commands” (Ebrahimi ¶ 687) where “the user may manually control the robot.” Ebrahimi makes multiple additional references to the robot being in a piloted mode, such as ¶¶ 379, 459, 635, and 705. Further, Ebrahimi discloses “obtaining sensor data from a sensor of the mobile robot, the sensor data representing a portion of the facility within a field of view of the mobile robot” (Ebrahimi ¶ 244) by receiving sensor data representing the environment around the robot as part of the SLAM processing. Moreover, Ebrahimi discloses “determining that a map update criterion is satisfied, wherein obtaining the sensor data from the mobile robot placed in the piloted mode satisfies the map update criterion” (Ebrahimi ¶ 687) where the user’s manual control of the robot is updating the path of the robot on the map Likewise, Ebrahimi discloses “in response to the map update criterion being satisfied, generating a map update based on the received sensor data and representing updated objects within the facility” (Ebrahimi ¶ 687) by updating the map. Ebrahimi also discloses “applying the map update to the initial map to generate an updated map.” (Ebrahimi ¶ 350, last sentence). Finally, Ebrahimi discloses “storing the updated map.” (Ebrahimi ¶ 1349).
Regarding claim 14, it merely recites a system for performing the method of claim 1. The system comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the various functions. Ebrahimi comprises computer hardware (Ebrahimi ¶ 242) and software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Ebrahimi discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 14 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Ebrahimi discloses “wherein the map includes an image, each pixel having a first value to indicate occupied space, or a second value to indicate empty space” (Ebrahimi ¶¶ 336, 427) where each object is identified by a pixel (Ebrahimi ¶ 366) and each pixel has a marked value based on what is in it. (Ebrahimi ¶ 427). Therefore, the value for an object is different from a value indicating an empty space.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Ebrahimi discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 15 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Ebrahimi discloses “wherein obtaining the sensor data includes receiving the sensor data at a processor of the mobile robot.” (Ebrahimi ¶ 238). Further, Ebrahimi discloses “the method further comprising, the map update criterion is satisfied, generating the map update and transmitting the map update from the processor to a server” (Ebrahimi ¶ 1129, see also ¶ 1377) by performing subsequent runs to build a map of the environment.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Ebrahimi discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 14 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Ebrahimi discloses “transmitting the updated map to the mobile robot and a plurality of additional mobile robots deployed in the facility” (Ebrahimi ¶ 720) by sharing the map with other devices.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Ebrahimi discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 14 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Ebrahimi discloses “wherein determining whether the map update criterion is satisfied includes: determining a first location of a first occupied region in the sensor data; determining a second location of a second occupied region in a portion of the initial map corresponding to the sensor data” (Ebrahimi ¶ 401) by determining that multiple obstacles and their respective locations may be determined. Further, Ebrahimi discloses “determining whether a difference between the first location and the second location exceeds a threshold” (Ebrahimi ¶¶ 1124-1125) by determining the seed offsets and refining the seeds by comparing the offset values.
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Ebrahimi discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 14 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Ebrahimi discloses “receiving further sensor data representing the portion of the facility from a second mobile robot.” (Ebrahimi ¶ 256, see also ¶ 438). Additionally, Ebrahimi discloses “wherein determining whether the map update criterion is satisfied includes: determining that the sensor data and the further sensor data represent a matching subset of obstacles” (Ebrahimi ¶ 334) by identifying “the same pixels” in each image.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Ebrahimi discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 6 and 19 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Ebrahimi discloses “wherein determining whether the map update criterion is satisfied further includes: determining that the sensor data and the further sensor data were captured at times separated by a threshold time period” (Ebrahimi ¶ 617) by determining that the images are at consecutive time slots, which is a form of threshold separation.
Regarding claims 10 and 23, Ebrahimi discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 14 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Ebrahimi discloses “prior to applying the map update, presenting a notification including the map update; and in response to presenting the notification, receiving a command to apply the map update (Ebrahimi ¶ 1408) by requesting the user to correct the map update prior to approving it.
Regarding claims 11 and 24, Ebrahimi discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 14 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Ebrahimi discloses “marking the updated map as a current version, and marking the initial map as a previous version” (Ebrahimi ¶ 375) by storing maps in a data tree, where previous versions are stored at a lower level, and thus marked, from the current levels.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
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. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 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.
Claims 12, 13, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi in view of Frank et al., US Publication 2019/0340433 (hereinafter Frank).
Regarding claims 12 and 25, Ebrahimi discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 11 and 24 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Ebrahimi does not appear to explicitly disclose “rendering a time lapse interface including the initial map and the updated map in sequence.”
However, Frank discloses a mapping system including the step of “rendering a time lapse interface including the initial map and the updated map in sequence.” (Frank ¶143).
Ebrahimi and Frank are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of map generation.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ebrahimi and Frank before him or her to modify the maps of Ebrahimi to include the time lapse maps of Frank.
The motivation for doing so would have been that such comparisons are advantageous in alerting people to differences in the map and any potential issues those differences may cause. (Frank ¶ 82).
Regarding claims 13 and 26, Ebrahimi discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 12 and 25 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Ebrahimi and Frank discloses “receiving navigational events from the mobile robot and having respective timestamps.” (Ebrahimi ¶ 1485). Further, the combination of Ebrahimi and Frank discloses “rendering the navigational events in the time lapse interface overlaid on either the initial map or the updated map, according to the timestamps” (Frank ¶ 143) by aligning the maps so that static parts can be segmented out and distinguished from moving areas, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be “overlaid.”
Further, it is additionally obvious to modify the teachings of Ebrahimi and Frank so that the maps were “overlaid” because such a modification is obvious to try. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(E). At the time of invention, there was a recognized problem or need in the art, namely displaying a time lapse of changes to a map. Further, there were only two identified, predictable potential solutions: (1) the maps can be overlaid upon each other, or (2) the maps can be laid out next to each other. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success because both options merely require rendering data that the system already has.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 12, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7, 10-20, and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 1-2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-7, 10-20, and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed Augst 12, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7, 10-20, and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, respectively, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues Ebrahimi does not disclose the newly amended limitations because “Ebrahimi is silent regarding a ‘piloted mode,’ as recited by the amended claims” where “the claimed ‘piloted mode … ceases autonomous navigation and receives manual control commands.’” (Remarks 2-3). The examiner disagrees.
As discussed in the updated rejection above, Ebrahimi explicitly disclose that the user may manually control the robot. (Ebrahimi ¶¶ 379, 459, 635, 687, and 705). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues “Ebrahimi does not disclose that ‘obtaining the sensor data from the mobile robot placed in piloted mode satisfied the map criterion.’” (Remarks 3). The examiner disagrees.
As discussed in the updated rejection above, Ebrahimi explicitly disclose that the map is updated as a result of the user controlling the robot. (Ebrahimi ¶ 687). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662