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 Claims
Claims 1 and 7-11 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are currently pending and addressed below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 as amended introduces the limitations of “wherein the updated route is defined by defining a nearby position located within a predetermined distance from the position of the obstacle based on a position information of the obstacle and is set where an other mobile body does not pass, and setting, as the nearby position, a position that does not interfere with the movement of the other mobile body as the updated position”. These limitations are not supported by the specification of the instant application, and in fact the specification of the instant application teaches away from this limitation.
Paragraph 0056 of the specification of the instant application teaches that the work setting unit 62 “defines a nearby position located within a predetermined distance from the position of the obstacle based on the position information of the obstacle”, which is consistent with claim 1. However, paragraph 0056 of the instant application continues on to teach that the work setting unit 62 “set[s] the nearby position to be impassable” and “sets, as the updated route, a route that starts from the current position of the mobile body 10 (the position at which the obstacle is detected and the mobile body 10 is stopped) and reaches the updated position different from the target position of the original route R without passing through the nearby position”, which contradicts the limitation in claim 1 of “setting, as the nearby position, a position that does not interfere with the movement of the other mobile body as the updated position”. In other words, while claim 1 recites that the updated position is set as the nearby position, the specification teaches that the updated position and the nearby position are two completely different positions, wherein the mobile body is configured to reached the updated position without passing through the nearby position. Since the aforementioned claim limitations were added by amendment, it is considered new matter and claim 1 is thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) at least due to their dependence on rejected claim 1. Claims 10 and 11 as amended recite substantially the same limitations as claim 1 as set forth above, and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 and 3-11 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 regards as the invention.
As set forth above in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the amendments to the claims introduce new subject matter which is not supported by the specification of the instant application. As a result, the intended meaning of the claims is unclear when read in light of the specification. In particular, while claim 1 recites “setting, as the nearby position, a position that does not interfere with the movement of the other mobile body as the updated position”, the specification in contrast indicates that the nearby position is set to be “impassable” (see at least paragraph 0056 of the specification of the instant application). Claim 1 requires that the mobile body is caused “to move along the updated route”, wherein the updated route is recited to be “leading to an updated position”, and it is unclear how the mobile would be caused to move to the updated position when the updated position is a nearby position that is impassable. Claim 1 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) at least due to their dependence on rejected claim 1. Claims 10 and 11 as amended recite substantially the same limitations as claim 1 as set forth above, and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 as set forth above. Further, claim 10 recites “acquire obstacle information through an other mobile body” in lines 3-4, and “the mobile body” in line 7, without ever previously reciting “a mobile body”. In other words, claim 10 recites an “other” mobile body, with implies that there is at least two mobile bodies (e.g., a host mobile body and an other mobile body), but no host mobile body is previously recited in the claims. It is therefore unclear whether there are multiple mobile bodies recited in the claims. If the Applicant intends for the claims to be interpreted such that there are multiple mobile bodies, the examiner recommends amending the claims to provide clear antecedent basis for a mobile body that is distinct from the “other mobile body” (e.g., by amending the preamble to instead recite “An information processing device for a mobile body”).
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claims will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner in view of the specification, which includes that the updated position is set such that it does not interfere with the movement of other mobile bodies (“In addition, for example, the work setting unit 62 may set, as the updated position, a waypoint A that does not overlap with a route connecting respective waypoints A facing respective placement areas AR1 (a route used for conveyance), such as a waypoint A that is a charging point or a waiting point… By temporarily placing the target object PA at the waypoint A that does not overlap with the route used for conveyance in this manner, it is possible to continue a subsequent work without causing the target object PA to interfere with the movement of other mobile bodies 10.” – see at least paragraph 0061 of the specification of the instant application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 4, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LaFary et al. (US 2019/0286145), hereinafter referred to as LaFary.
Regarding claim 1, LaFary teaches:
An information processing method comprising: acquiring obstacle information from a mobile body moving along a route to a target position, the obstacle information indicating that an obstacle is present on the route ("Thus, the robot 10 plans a global path going from one point to another in the map 40 that threads through or around all known obstacles, such as walls, fixed equipment, etc. As the robot 10 moves along the planned path however, it carries out ongoing obstacle detection, to detect static and moving obstacles present in the working environment, and it dynamically updates its path as needed, to avoid encroaching on detected obstacle locations." – see at least LaFary: paragraph 0028);
and setting an updated route leading to an updated position as a route for the mobile body upon receipt of the obstacle information, the updated position being a position different from the target position ("When “avoiding” detected obstacles, the robot 10 may apply minimum clearance requirements, meaning that it avoids map coordinates associated with detected obstacle locations, plus some additional allowance for clearance. Further in this regard, there may be a defined “free space” around the robot, or at least defined within the sensory view of the robot 10. The free space represents the area within which the robot 10 dynamically re-plans its path, as needed, in view of detected obstacle locations." – see at least LaFary: paragraph 0029);
and causing the mobile body to move along the updated route (“According to disclosed methods and apparatus, a mobile robot moves autonomously along a planned path defined in a coordinate map of a working environment, and dynamically updates the planned path on an ongoing basis, to avoid detected obstacles and projections of detected obstacles.” – see at least LaFary: paragraph 0003),
wherein the updated route is defined by defining a nearby position located within a predetermined distance from the position of the obstacle based on a position information of the obstacle and is set where an other mobile body does not pass, and setting, as the nearby position, a position that does not interfere with the movement of the other mobile body as the updated position (“In a further example of fleet-manger coordination, the fleet manager provides better motion by prioritizing the individual robots in the fleet. When a robot is a higher priority than another, the path of the higher priority robot is sent to the robot with lower priority. This path information makes the robot with lower priority avoid the robot with higher priority, while the robot with higher priority does not try to avoid the lower priority robot”; and “With this trajectory, the robot 10 can more safely plan a path from its current location to some defined goal without crossing the trajectories of the tracked obstacle, thereby providing safety for people or other vehicles.” – see at least LaFary: paragraphs 0087 and 0091) (The examiner notes that this claim limitation is being interpreted as best understood by the examiner as set forth above in the section for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)).
Regarding claim 4, LaFary teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. LaFary further teaches:
wherein, in the setting an updated route, the updated position is set based on at least one of a size of the obstacle and a distance to a candidate position that is a candidate for the updated position ("The control system 14 may also account for the detected (apparent) size of the obstacle in its path projections, meaning that the direction, length, and width of the path projection derive from its estimates of movement direction, movement speed, and object size, for the object being tracked. Alternatively, the control system 14 may use a default width for projections, or at least impose a minimum width for projections." – see at least LaFary: paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 10, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 1 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 11, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 1 as has been set forth above.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaFary in view of Yamaguchi (US 2022/0397904), hereinafter referred to as Yamaguchi. Yamaguchi is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of task planning for mobile bodies.
Regarding claim 3, LaFary teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. LaFary does not explicitly disclose, but Yamaguchi teaches:
wherein, in the setting an updated route, a position on a side in a second direction opposite to a first direction with respect to a current position of the mobile body is set as the updated position, the first direction heading from the current position to the obstacle ("In such a case, in step S211, the control unit (data processing unit) of the information processing apparatus determines an emergency response travel route 280 as illustrated in FIG. 19(b), for example. The emergency response travel route 280 as illustrated in FIG. 19(b) is a route for making a U-turn to avoid the obstacle 30. With such a route, the position of the automatic traveling robot 100 is changed, and after the change, processing of generating a travel route candidate is executed at a new position." – see at least Yamaguchi: paragraphs 0320-0322) (The examiner notes that as illustrated in Fig. 19(b) of Yamaguchi as shown below, the emergency response travel route (i.e., the updated travel route) of Yamaguchi includes a U-turn procedure which causes the robot to travel to a position in the opposite direction to the initial travel direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LaFary with these above aforementioned teachings from Yamaguchi such that, in the setting an updated route, a position on a side in a second direction opposite to a first direction with respect to a current position of the mobile body is set as the updated position, the first direction heading from the current position to the obstacle. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Yamaguchi’s use of a U-turn maneuver to avoid an obstacle with LaFary’s method for dynamic obstacle avoidance in order to handle scenarios in which no forward path is traversable due to a detected obstacle (“The case where there is no valid travel route candidate in the “travel route candidate analysis list” is, for example, a state illustrated in State a in FIG. 19(a). Any of the travel route candidates 20 illustrated in FIG. 19(a) results in collision with the obstacle 30, and it is not possible to select a travelable route from the travel route candidates 20. That is, all the travel route candidates registered in the “travel route candidate analysis list” are rejected travel routes.” – see at least Yamaguchi: paragraphs 0318-0319). Doing so would provide the benefit of maneuvering the robot to a new position facing the opposite direction, where it may generate a new travel route (“With such a route, the position of the automatic traveling robot 100 is changed, and after the change, processing of generating a travel route candidate is executed at a new position.” – see at least Yamaguchi: paragraph 0322).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaFary in view of Yamaguchi, further in view of Nozawa (JP 2021/073730), hereinafter referred to as Nozawa, as cited in the Applicant’s IDS filed 01 March 2024 (Cite. No 3 under “Foreign Patent Documents”). Nozawa is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of task planning for mobile bodies. The examiner notes that an English translation of Nozawa has been provided by the Applicant along with the corresponding IDS, and the grounds of rejection set forth below are made with reference to this provided English translation of Nozawa.
Regarding claim 5, LaFary in view of Yamaguchi teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. LaFary does not explicitly disclose, but Yamaguchi teaches:
wherein the mobile body is conveying a target object ("On the other hand, FIG. 7(2) illustrates an example of setting a flexible virtual bumper 111b in the state where the load carrying vehicle is carrying a load. In this case, the information processing apparatus built in the load carrying vehicle sets the flexible virtual bumper 111b having a size and a shape one size larger than an outer periphery of a configuration including not only the load carrying vehicle but also the carried load." – see at least Yamaguchi: paragraphs 0146-0147) (The examiner notes that the vehicle carrying a load as taught by Yamaguchi corresponds to the claimed mobile body conveying a target object),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LaFary with these above aforementioned teachings from Yamaguchi such that the mobile body is conveying a target object. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Yamaguchi’s use of load carrying vehicles with LaFary’s method for dynamic obstacle avoidance in order to use the mobile bodies to carry loads, such as in a warehouse environment (“For example, development and use of a robot that travels in an unmanned manner carrying a load in a warehouse or an office, an autonomous driving vehicle that travels on a road, and the like have been advanced.” – see at least Yamaguchi: paragraph 0002). Doing so would provide the benefit of adapting the obstacle avoidance system based on the load being carried (“The information processing apparatus built in the load carrying vehicle detects whether the load carrying vehicle is carrying a load or not, and sets a flexible virtual bumper that differs in size and shape depending on each of the states.” – see at least Yamaguchi: paragraph 0143).
LaFary in view of Yamaguchi does not explicitly disclose, but Nozawa teaches:
and in the setting an updated route, a command to drop the target object being conveyed at a current position of the mobile body is set ("That is, the robot control unit 58 only stops movement when an obstacle is detected in the monitoring area S. In the work control process of the modified example of FIG. 5, when the management control unit 88 receives the operation stop signal from the robot control unit 58 in step S140 and determines that the mobile robot 50 has stopped operating (here, movement has stopped)." – see at least Nozawa: paragraph 0046),
while the updated route is set such that a placement position of another target object different from the target object being conveyed is set as the updated position ("It is determined whether there is another work that can be done (step S320). In step S320, the management control unit 88 first acquires the current position of the mobile robot 50, and determines which of the acquired current position and the left and right monitoring sensors 55a and 55b has not detected an obstacle. Based on the information on whether there is a device and the device position information 89a, a device in the mounting line 11 that is located in an area where the mobile robot 50 can move without being obstructed by obstacles is specified... If it is determined in step 320 that there is another work that can be performed, the management control unit 88 determines that other work as the next work to be performed (step S330), and sends a work command for that work to the mobile robot 50. (Step S340). If there are a plurality of other executable tasks, the management control unit 88 may determine the task having the earliest operation order among them as the "next task" in step S330." – see at least Nozawa: paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LaFary in view of Yamaguchi with these above aforementioned teachings from Nozawa such that in the setting an updated route, a command to drop the target object being conveyed at a current position of the mobile body is set, while the updated route is set such that a placement position of another target object different from the target object being conveyed is set as the updated position. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Nozawa’s task management control method with LaFary in view of Yamaguchi’s method of controlling a load-carrying robot in order to set a new task for the load-carrying robot in the case where an obstacle obstructs a current task from being performed (“On the other hand, if the mobile robot 50 stops operating due to an obstacle, the management control unit 88 may perform another task that can be performed before the operator removes the obstacle, even if the task order is not correct” – see at least Nozawa: paragraph 0046). Doing so would provide the benefit of increasing productivity by continuing to perform tasks even while an obstacle obstructs a current task (“Therefore, in the mounting system 10 of this modification, it is possible to further suppress a decrease in the operating rate of the mounting line 11 even when the obstacle is not removed immediately” – see at least Nozawa: paragraph 0046).
The examiner notes that while Nozawa does not explicitly recite “a command to drop the target object”, it is considered an obvious design choice based on the teachings of Nozawa to modify LaFary in view of Yamaguchi such that the target object being conveyed is dropped when the mobile robot is set to execute a different task. This is because continuing to convey the target object while performing a different task (e.g., conveying a different object) would interfere with the ability of the mobile robot to perform the different task. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that in the event that a mobile robot cannot complete a task associated with conveying a target object (e.g., due to being temporarily obstructed by obstacles as taught by Nozawa), it would be advantageous for the mobile robot to drop the target object being conveyed before proceeding to perform a different task (e.g., conveying a different object). In evaluating obviousness and the level of ordinary skill in the art, the examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of applying knowledge from different areas to solve a problem (“"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” – see at least MPEP 2141.03).
Regarding claim 7, LaFary in view of Yamaguchi and Nozawa teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. LaFary does not explicitly disclose, but Nozawa teaches:
further comprising acquiring information indicating that the obstacle has disappeared from the route ("For example, after confirming the warning in step S300 and removing the obstacle, the worker operates at least one of the display operation units 26, 56, 76, or the display 86 to input that the obstacle has been removed. The management control unit 88 acquires an obstacle removal signal indicating that." – see at least Nozawa: paragraph 0046),
and setting a reconveying route upon acquisition of the information indicating that the obstacle has disappeared, the reconveying route being a route from a position at which a target object is dropped to the target position, wherein the mobile body is conveying the target object ("if it is determined in step S360 that the obstacle has been removed, the management control unit 88 executes the processes from step S100 onwards. That is, the management control unit 88 determines the task with the earliest task order among the incomplete tasks stored in the task information 89d as the task to be performed next, and causes the mobile robot 50 to execute the incomplete task in accordance with the work order." – see at least Nozawa: paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LaFary with these above aforementioned teachings from Nozawa to include acquiring information indicating that the obstacle has disappeared from the route, and setting a reconveying route upon acquisition of the information indicating that the obstacle has disappeared, the reconveying route being a route from a position at which a target object is dropped to the target position, wherein the mobile body is conveying the target object. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Nozawa’s task management control method with LaFary’s method of dynamically navigating working robots in order to resume a task which was previously obstructed by an obstacle (“On the other hand, if the mobile robot 50 stops operating due to an obstacle, the management control unit 88 may perform another task that can be performed before the operator removes the obstacle, even if the task order is not correct” – see at least Nozawa: paragraph 0046). Doing so would provide the benefit of increasing productivity by continuing to perform tasks even while an obstacle obstructs completion of a first task (“Therefore, in the mounting system 10 of this modification, it is possible to further suppress a decrease in the operating rate of the mounting line 11 even when the obstacle is not removed immediately” – see at least Nozawa: paragraph 0046), and then resuming the first task when the obstacle is removed ("if it is determined in step S360 that the obstacle has been removed, the management control unit 88 executes the processes from step S100 onwards. That is, the management control unit 88 determines the task with the earliest task order among the incomplete tasks stored in the task information 89d as the task to be performed next, and causes the mobile robot 50 to execute the incomplete task in accordance with the work order." – see at least Nozawa: paragraph 0046).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaFary in view of Bidram et al. (US 2022/0244735), hereinafter referred to as Bidram. Bidram is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of task planning for a load-carrying robot.
Regarding claim 6, LaFary teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. LaFary does not explicitly disclose, but Bidram further teaches:
wherein the mobile body is conveying a target object ("The current invention discloses novel methodologies to facilitate transporting articles, multiple articles at a time, using a mobile robot." – see at least Bidram: paragraph 0006),
and in the setting an updated route, the updated route is set such that a position different from the target position is set as the updated position ("If the processing unit determines that there is insufficient space, the method 60 instead loops back to selection step 654 wherein the processing unit determines a new unloading position." – see at least Bidram: paragraph 0058),
while a command to drop the target object being conveyed at the updated position is set ("The robot can now repeat the task of moving and arranging articles 1022 from new pick-up area 1016B to new drop-off area 1012B, placing them next to the previously-placed articles 1020." – see at least Bidram: paragraph 0068).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LaFary with these above aforementioned teachings from Bidram such that the mobile body is conveying a target object, and in the setting an updated route, the updated route is set such that a position different from the target position is set as the updated position, while a command to drop the target object being conveyed at the updated position is set. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Bidram’s method of transporting objects with LaFary’s method of dynamically navigating working robots in order to define a new drop-off location for an object being carried (“The region which was previously empty between the beacons 1002, 1003 and beacons 1004, 1005 in FIG. 10A is now defined as new drop-off area 1012B by border line 1013B.” – see at least Bidram: paragraph 0068). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing the load-carrying robot to drop off a target object at an updated drop-off area when an initial drop-off area is obstructed by an obstacle (“After the reference beacon 1405 has been placed at new location 1406, the robot 1401 can continue with its article transportation task using the reference beacon 1405 at 1406 to recalibrate the IMU while placing articles 1424 in new drop-off area 1416, until the position 1406 also begins to be obstructed, in which case the robot 1401 then moves it to second additional position 1407, continuing to work, moving the beacon to 1408 when position 1407 is occluded, and so on.” – see at least Bidram: paragraph 0079).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaFary in view of Okada et al. (US 2023/0244235), hereinafter referred to as Okada. Okada is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of route planning for mobile bodies.
Regarding claim 8, LaFary teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. LaFary does not explicitly disclose, but Okada teaches:
further comprising: setting a detection route for an other mobile body for which a route to a second target position different from the first target position has been set, the detection route being a route passing through a detection position at which the obstacle can be detected and reaching the second target position ("In step S105, the planning unit 112 checks if there are any interferences between the planned movement route and the excluded obstacles. Specifically, the planning unit 112 determines whether the planned movement route passes through any occupied regions occupied by the excluded obstacles. Then, if it is determined that the movement route will pass through the region occupied by an obstacle, the obstacle is extracted and added to the excluded object information." – see at least Okada: paragraph 0073) (The examiner notes that while the mobile robot of Okada is traversing the planned movement route which passes through a region occupied by an obstacle, it is further configured to detect whether the obstacle is still present ("Since the mobile robot moves while detecting the obstacles, even if an obstacle that was treated as not present is actually present, the mobile robot can execute an avoidance operation." – see at least Okada: paragraph 0069). Therefore, the planned movement route of Okada corresponds to the claimed detection route).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LaFary with these above aforementioned teachings from Okada to include setting a detection route for a mobile body for which a route to a second target position different from the first target position has been set, the detection route being a route passing through a detection position at which the obstacle can be detected and reaching the second target position. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Okada’s method of planning a route through a potential obstacle with LaFary’s dynamic obstacle avoidance system in order to update the degree of certainty of whether the potential obstacle is present based on sensed information as the mobile body travels near the potential obstacle (“The above-described route planning system may also include an update unit configured to update the degree of certainty indicated in the environmental map, based on detection information obtained from a detection sensor for detecting the obstacles.” – see at least Okada: paragraph 0008). Doing so would provide the benefit of keeping a well-updated map in an environment that is dynamically changing (“If the environmental map is appropriately updated, the route planning system can be stably used as a map used for route planning of the mobile robot while corresponding to the environment that dynamically changes.” – see at least Okada: paragraph 0009).
Regarding claim 9, LaFary in view of Okada teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. LaFary does not explicitly disclose, but Okada teaches:
wherein, in the setting a detection route, when the route to the second target position passes through a via-point located within a predetermined distance from a position at which the obstacle is detected, the detection route is set for the other mobile body for which the route to the second target position passing through the via-point has been set ("The planning unit 112 refers the environmental map 141 obtained by the obtaining unit 111, and plans the movement route from the starting point to the destination point using a known algorithm, after excluding the table T1 and the chairs C1 to C4, which have degrees of certainty of 3 or less. A known algorithm is, for example, an algorithm for selecting the movement route which has the minimum accumulated cost, the accumulated cost being accumulation of the costs respectively set for the total movement distance, the rotation angle, and the distance between the obstacle and the route, of the mobile robot 200." – see at least Okada: paragraph 0064) (The examiner notes that the system of Okada plans a route such that a cost of the route is minimized, wherein the cost includes a total movement distance of the route, and wherein a route that passes through an obstacle is considered if the degree of certainty that the obstacle is present is below a predetermined threshold ("A route planning program according to a third aspect of the present invention causes a computer to execute an obtaining step for obtaining an environmental map indicating, for any obstacle, a location and a degree of certainty that the obstacle is present at that location, a planning step for planning a movement route along which a mobile robot moves, excluding any obstacles in the environmental map that have a degree of certainty that does not satisfy a predetermined standard, and an outputting step for outputting route information that is information on the planned movement route, to the mobile robot. If the obstacle in the environmental map which was assumed to be not present is actually not present at that location, it shortens the distance, and eventually the time, in which the mobile robot moves." – see at least Okada: paragraph 0013). In other words, if a cost-minimizing route to a destination passes through a point which would normally be obstructed by an obstacle (i.e., a via-point location within a predetermined distance from the obstacle), the route planning program of Okada will set this route as the movement route in the case that the degree of certainty that the obstacle is present is below the predetermined threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LaFary with these above aforementioned teachings from Okada such that, in the setting a detection route, when the route to the second target position passes through a via-point located within a predetermined distance from a position at which the obstacle is detected, the detection route is set for a mobile body for which the route to the second target position passing through the via-point has been set. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Okada’s method of planning a route through a potential obstacle with LaFary’s dynamic obstacle avoidance system in order to update the degree of certainty of whether the potential obstacle is present based on sensed information as the mobile body travels near the potential obstacle (“The above-described route planning system may also include an update unit configured to update the degree of certainty indicated in the environmental map, based on detection information obtained from a detection sensor for detecting the obstacles.” – see at least Okada: paragraph 0008). Doing so would provide the benefit of keeping a well-updated map in an environment that is dynamically changing (“If the environmental map is appropriately updated, the route planning system can be stably used as a map used for route planning of the mobile robot while corresponding to the environment that dynamically changes.” – see at least Okada: paragraph 0009).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 26 June 2025 with respect to claims 1 and 3-11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection based on the reference by LaFary which was previously cited by the Examiner on the PTO-892 form filed 26 March 2025.
In particular, LaFary has been used to address the amended limitations regarding setting an updated position for a mobile body such that the mobile body does not interfere with the movement of an other mobile body, as set forth in further detail above in the section for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103. The examiner notes that while LaFary is considered to more closely teach the amended independent claims than the previously applied reference by Yamaguchi, Yamaguchi is still considered to teach relevant aspects of the claimed invention, and is therefore relied upon for rejecting certain limitations of the dependent claims as set forth in further detail above in the section for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Additionally, the amendments to the claims have introduced issues regarding new matter and indefinite claim language, as set forth in further detail above in the sections for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b). In particular, while the Applicant asserts that paragraphs 0052, 0056, 0060-0063, and 0064 of the specification of the instant application describe the new limitations, these portions of the specification actually contradict the claim language. Namely, while the amended claims recite that the nearby position is set as the updated position, the specification teaches that the updated position is set such that it may be reached along an updated route which does not pass through the nearby position, wherein the nearby position is an impassable position. Since it is unclear how the claims are intended to be interpreted in view of the specification, the claims have been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
As per the pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant has provided sufficient evidence that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than an abstract idea which could be reasonably performed in the human mind, and that the claims as a whole provide an improvement to the technological field of navigating a plurality of mobile bodies in an environment with obstacles. Therefore, the pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK ANTHONY MULDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667