DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 17/795,378 filed on June 18, 2026 in which claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 13-20, and 23-26 were amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114.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 June 18, 2026 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, 10-19, and 23-26 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(b) and 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-19, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, these claims include the limitation “determining whether a consensus threshold reached using respective sensor data from the plurality of mobile robots is satisfied, wherein the consensus threshold is bypassed responsive to obtaining the sensor data from the mobile robot placed in the piloted mode,” or similar. (Emphasis added).
In other words, this limitation states that if the mobile robot is placed in piloted mode and obtains sensor data while in piloted mode, the limitation “determining whether a consensus threshold reached using respective sensor data from the plurality of mobile robots is satisfied” is not performed.
However, each of these claims explicitly requires both that mobile robot is placed in pilot mode (claim 1, ll. 5-6; claim 14, ll. 9-10) and that sensor data is obtained while in pilot mode. (Claim 1, ll. 9-10; claim 14, ll. 13-15).
Thus, the limitation “determining whether a consensus threshold reached using respective sensor data from the plurality of mobile robots is satisfied” is never performed according to the claims. Nevertheless, the presence of these limitations indicates that Applicant intended for them to have some meaning, in contrast to the plain reading of the text.
Therefore, these examiner cannot determine the metes and bounds of this limitation because the limitation is clearly intended to further narrow the invention but does not, rendering these limitations indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-7, 10-13, 15-19, and 23-26, these claims depend from claim 1 or 14 above and, therefore, inherit the rejection of that claim.
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 1-7, 10, 11, 14-20, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al., US Publication 2022/0066456 (hereinafter Ebrahimi), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated August 28, 2024 in view of Black et al., US Publication 2020/0096349 (hereinafter Black).
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 “wherein the computing device is communicatively coupled to a plurality of mobile robots deployed in the facility” (Ebrahimi ¶ 705) where a fleet of robots are connected to the computing device. Further, Ebrahimi discloses “receiving a command to place a mobile robot of the plurality of mobile robots deployed in the facility to the piloted mode, wherein the mobile robot ceases autonomous navigation and receives manual control commands when placed in the piloted mode” (Ebrahimi ¶ 687) where “the user may manually control the robot.” When the user is manually controlling the robot, the robot ceases autonomous navigation for at least a temporary period. Ebrahimi makes multiple additional references to the robot being in a piloted mode, such as ¶¶ 379, 459, 635, and 705. Moreover, 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. Likewise, Ebrahimi discloses “determining that map update criteria are satisfied, … responsive to obtaining the sensor data from the mobile robot placed in the piloted mode” (Ebrahimi ¶ 687) where the user’s manual control of the robot is updating the path of the robot on the map Ebrahimi also at least teaches and/or suggests “wherein determining that the map update criteria are satisfied comprises: … determining whether a consensus threshold reached using respective sensor data from the plurality of mobile robots is satisfied, wherein the consensus threshold is bypassed responsive to obtaining the sensor data from the mobile robot placed in the piloted mode” (Ebrahimi ¶ 244) because Ebrahimi does not determine whether a consensus threshold is reached using the respective sensor data from a plurality of mobile robots is satisfied when the robot is in the piloted mode. In addition, Ebrahimi discloses “in response to the map update criteria 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. Finally, Ebrahimi 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).
Ebrahimi does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein determining that the map update criteria are satisfied comprises: comparing a first region occupied by an object to a second region in the initial map occupied by the object to determine whether a spatial difference between the first and second regions exceeds a threshold distance, the first region indicated by the sensor data.”
However, Black discloses a method of updating a map based on data from robots (Black ¶ 23) “wherein determining that the map update criteria are satisfied comprises: comparing a first region occupied by an object to a second region in the initial map occupied by the object to determine whether a spatial difference between the first and second regions exceeds a threshold distance, the first region indicated by the sensor data” (Black ¶ 10) by determining that the location is not within a threshold distance as part of the process for determining that the map should be updated. Additionally, Black discloses “determining whether a consensus threshold reached using respective sensor data from the plurality of mobile robots is satisfied, wherein the consensus threshold is bypassed responsive to obtaining the sensor data from the mobile robot ...” (Black ¶ 49) by determining that the updated location is the median point of a cluster of locations taken from the sensors of the robots.
Ebrahimi and Black are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of techniques for updating maps.
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 Black before him or her to modify the map updating techniques of Ebrahimi to include the spatial thresholds of Black.
The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the reliability of the data. (Black ¶ 11).
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. The combination of Ebrahimi and Black 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, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 14 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black 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, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 15 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black discloses “wherein the computing device is located at the mobile robot” (Ebrahimi ¶ 6) by indicating that the processor may be on the robot, meaning that at least a portion of the computing device is located at the mobile robot. Further, Ebrahimi discloses “the method further comprising, the map update criteria are satisfied, generating the map update and transmitting the map update to a server” (Ebrahimi ¶ 1129, see also ¶ 1377) by performing subsequent runs to build a map of the environment.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 14 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black discloses “transmitting the updated map to the plurality of mobile robots deployed in the facility” (Ebrahimi ¶ 720) by sharing the map with other devices.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 14 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black 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, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black 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, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 14 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black discloses “receiving further sensor data representing the portion of the facility from a second mobile robot.” (Ebrahimi ¶ 256, see also ¶ 438). Additionally, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black discloses “wherein determining whether the map update criteria are 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, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 6 and 19 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black discloses “wherein determining whether the map update criteria 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, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 14 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black 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, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 14 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black 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.
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, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 11 and 24 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black 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, Black, 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, Black, and Frank before him or her to modify the maps of Ebrahimi and Black 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, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 12 and 25 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Ebrahimi, Black, and Frank discloses “receiving navigational events from the mobile robot, wherein the navigational events comprise respective timestamps.” (Ebrahimi ¶ 1485). Further, the combination of Ebrahimi. Black, 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, Black, 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. Moreover, 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 June 18, 2026, with respect to the objections to claims 1 and 14 (Remarks 10) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 1 and 14 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 18, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7, 10-19, and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, respectively, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Ebrahimi does not disclose, teach, or suggest, “bypassing the consensus threshold when sensor data from a mobile robot in piloted mode is obtained.” (Remarks 11). The examiner disagrees.
As discussed in the rejection to claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) above, this limitation is never required to be present and, therefore, the combination of Ebrahimi and Black at least teaches and/or suggests this limitation in its totality. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are indefinite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Wheeler et al., US Publication 2018/0188045, System and method for determining when to update a semantic object map.
Wang et al., US Publication 2025/0020483, System and method for determining when to update a semantic object map.
Gupta et al., US Patent 11,776,206, System and method for determining when to update a semantic object map.
Sharma et al., US Patent 12,055,947, System and method for determining when to update a semantic object map.
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
Prosecution Insights