DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on 2/10/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 12/05/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that neither Ju nor Han teach or suggest determining to shift to a standby mode while the specific person is being detected (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 13-14), it is noted that it is the combination of Ju with Han that is relied upon to disclose said feature. Ju, in paragraph 185, discloses when a difference between a currently-measured distance between the mobile robot and the user and a previously-measured distance between the mobile robot and the user is equal to or greater than a preset reference distance, the processor may stop tracking the location of the user. In order to measure the current distance between the mobile robot and the user, the user must be detected by the mobile robot. Han, in paragraph 238, discloses when no guidance target is detected within a reference distance, the mobile robot switches to a standby mode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have modified, when the distance between the detected user and the mobile robot increases beyond a reference distance, the mobile robot of Ju to switch to the standby mode, as disclosed by Han. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the mobile body determines that it is safer or more appropriate to wait at a remote standby space due to a crowd or other situation (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 14), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., standing by due to a crowd) are not recited in rejected claim(s) 1 and 15-16. The independent claims merely require standing by when the movement of the specific person or the movement of the mobile body satisfies a predetermined waiting criterion. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that neither Ju nor Han teach or suggest shifting to the standby mode to restart traveling together with the specific person (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 14), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Han, in paragraphs 240-241, discloses when the guidance target disappears from the recognition range, the mobile robot stands by unless the guidance target is detected again within a preset waiting time which restarts the user tracking. See rejection below.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 15-16, lines 23-24, 16-18 and 25-27, respectively, the limitation “shift[ing] from one of the traveling modes to the standby mode to restart traveling together with the specific person” appears to be new matter because the disclosure appears to require shifting to a traveling mode to restart traveling together with the specific person. Paragraph 117 discloses the control modes include a plurality of traveling modes of traveling in the vicinity of the specific person when the person is walking, and a standby mode of standing by at a specific point until any one of the traveling modes is resumed. Figure 4A appears to further disclose authentication is required after entering the standby mode before starting or resuming the traveling modes.
Claims 2-14 and 17-20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 15-16, lines 23-24, 16-18 and 25-27, respectively, the limitation “shift[ing] from one of the traveling modes to the standby mode to restart traveling together with the specific person” renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear how shifting to the standby mode restarts traveling. Paragraphs 68 and 117 disclose the standby mode is a mode of standing by at a specific point until any one of the traveling modes is started or resumed, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the mobile robot shifts to the standby mode until traveling with the specific person is restarted.
Claims 2-14 and 17-20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 1-2, 9 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju et al. (US 2022/0063096), hereinafter Ju, in view of Han (US 2020/0164515).
Regarding claims 1 and 15-16, as best understood, Ju discloses a mobile body control device comprising: one or more processors (Ju; fig. 11: processor (1109)); and a memory storing instructions (Ju; fig. 11: memory (1104)) which, when the instructions are executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to acquire sensor information for recognizing an object around a mobile body, the sensor information including a captured image obtained by capturing a periphery of the mobile body (Ju; para. 27, ll. 5-6: capture an image of the surroundings of the mobile robot, and para 28 where the robot can recognize the image as being user “detect the user 11 from the image”); set one of a plurality of control modes (Ju; para. 137, ll. 2-3: each preset following travel mode, i.e., there are a plurality of preset following travel mode[s]”); and control traveling of the mobile body (Ju; para. 182, ll. 1-2: the processor may control overall operations of the mobile robot) based on the set control mode and a result of detection of a specific person (Ju; para. 34, ll. 3-4: detection of a specific user) based on the sensor information, wherein the plurality of control modes include a plurality of traveling modes of traveling together with the specific person when the person is walking (Ju; para. 25, l. 3: follow the user), and a standby mode of standing by at a specific point (Ju; fig. 9: standby state (S904)) until any one of the traveling modes is started or resumed (Ju; para. 25: when a preset user-following traveling start condition is satisfied, the mobile robot 10 may start a following movement to follow the user), wherein the instructions cause the mobile body control device to control the traveling of the mobile body in such a way that the mobile body travels together with the specific person when the person is walking (Ju; para. 25, l. 3: follow the user) in the plurality of traveling modes, and in a case where it is determined that movement of the specific person or movement of the mobile body satisfies a predetermined criterion for the mobile body to wait while being away from the specific person (Ju; fig. 9: no branch from S902), shift from one of the traveling modes to the standby mode (Ju; fig. 9: standby state (S904)).
Although Ju discloses standing by at a point where user tracking fails (Ju; para. 159) and does not disclose this location may be a charging station, it is unclear if Ju explicitly discloses the standby space does not include a charging station.
Han, in the same field of endeavor (mobile robots), discloses a standby space, which is different from a station in which a mobile body can be charged (Han; para. 244: home may be a place in which a charging stand is disposed or another preset place).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the standby locations of the mobile robot of Ju, to explicitly include locations without charging stations, as disclosed by Han, to yield the predictable result of reducing the travel distance of the mobile robot to reach a standby location.
Ju, as modified, discloses in a case where it is determined while the specific person is being detected that movement of the specific person or movement of the mobile body satisfies a predetermined criterion (Ju; para. 186: When a difference between a currently-measured distance between the mobile robot 10 and the user and a previously-measured distance between the mobile robot 10 and the user is equal to or greater than a preset reference distance, the processor 1109 may stop tracking the location of the user.), stopping tracking the specific person (Ju; para. 40: The mobile robot 10 may stop tracking of the location of the user according to a preset criterion.), traveling a predetermined distance in the prediction direction of the user (Ju; para. 42: The mobile robot 10 may determine a traveling path thereof, based on the predicted movement direction of the user. The traveling path determined by the mobile robot 10 may include, for example, at least one of a distance by which the mobile robot 10 is to travel after the moment when the traveling path is determined), and shifting from one of the traveling modes to the standby mode (Ju; para. 159: when it is determined in operation S902 that the user is not re-detected from the image, the mobile robot 10 may stop traveling and may switch to a standby state).
However, Ju, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose the predetermined criterion is for the mobile body to wait while being away from the specific person; and directly shifting from one of the traveling modes to the standby mode to restart traveling together with the specific person, searching for a position of the standby space from map data, calculating a traveling route to the position of the standby space to wait for the specific person, and moving to the standby space along the traveling route.
Han further discloses a predetermined criterion for a mobile body to wait while being away from a specific person; and directly shifting from a traveling mode to a standby mode to restart traveling together with the specific person (Han; paras. 239-240: the standby mode may be a mode in which the mobile robot waits for return of the guidance target for a preset waiting time, and may maintain a stationary state until the guidance target is redetected within the preset waiting time. That is, when the guidance target disappears from the recognition range, the mobile robot 1, which is moving, may temporarily stop moving and stand by), searching for a position of a standby space from map data (Han; para. 200: The global path 910 may be formed by a plurality of nodes 911, 912, 913, 914, 915 and 916 that are sequentially disposed.; para. 203: The plurality of nodes may include a destination node corresponding to a preset guidance destination), calculating a traveling route to the position of the standby space to wait for the specific person (Han; para. 204: the controller 740 may generate the global path 910 connected from the node 911 corresponding to the current position of the mobile robot 1 to the destination node 916 corresponding to the destination G based on the generated topological map), and moving to the standby space (Han; para. 243: when the guidance target is not detected within the preset waiting time (S849), the controller 740 may return to a preset home) along the traveling route (Han; para. 228: controller 740 may control the mobile robot 1 to move to the next target node based on the local path to the next target node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified, in response to the user having moved beyond a preset separation distance from the mobile robot, the traveling and/or rotation performed to redetect the user before switching to the standby state by the mobile robot of Ju, as modified, to instead move directly to a standby space to wait for the user to return, as disclosed by Han, to yield the predictable result of conserving battery power searching for a user that may not return.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Ju, as modified, discloses in a case where the control mode of the mobile body shifts to the standby mode, the instructions cause the mobile body control device to move from a first point where the shifting to the standby mode is made to the specific point (Han; para. 243: when the guidance target is not detected within the preset waiting time (S849), the controller 740 may return to a preset home) and stand by (Ju; fig. 9: switch to standby mode (S904)).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Ju, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Ju, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the instructions cause the mobile body control device to shift from the standby mode to a wandering mode of moving to a station in which the mobile body is chargeable when a predetermined first time elapses from start of standby at the specific point.
Han further discloses instructions cause a mobile body control device to shift from a standby mode to a wandering mode (Han; fig. 8: return home (S890)) of moving to a station in which the mobile body is chargeable (Han; para. 244, ll. 1-2: home may be a place in which a charging station is disposed) when a predetermined time elapses from start of standby (Han; fig. 8: within waiting time (S849)) at the specific point.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the mobile robot of Ju, as modified, to move to a charging station after a time delay, as disclosed by Han, to avoid consuming power until the mobile body loses mobility thereby maximizing the amount of time available for mobile tasks such as providing information in an omnidirectional manner to service many users (Han; para. 2, ll. 6-7).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Ju, as modified, discloses authentication of the specific person (Ju; para. 34, ll. 3-4: detection of a specific user) to start or resume use of the mobile body (Ju; para. 36, ll. 3-4: resume the user-following movement) by the specific person.
Ju, as modified, does not explicitly disclose when a predetermined second time elapses from the authentication of the specific person without performing authentication of the specific person, the instructions cause the mobile body control device to shift to a wandering mode of moving to a station in which the mobile body is chargeable.
Han further discloses when a predetermined second time elapses (Han; fig. 8: within waiting time (S849)) from authentication of a specific person without performing authentication of the specific person, instructions cause a mobile body control device to shift to a wandering mode (Han; fig. 8: return home (S890)) of moving to a station in which the mobile body is chargeable (Han; para. 244, ll. 1-2: home may be a place in which a charging stand is disposed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the mobile robot of Ju, as modified, to move to a charging station after a time delay after authenticating a user, as disclosed by Han, to avoid consuming power until the mobile body loses mobility thereby maximizing the amount of time available for mobile tasks such as providing information in an omnidirectional manner to service many users (Han; para. 2, ll. 6-7).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Ju, as modified, discloses the instructions cause the mobile body control device to present predetermined information (Ju; para. 160, ll. 5-7: output a voice notification indicating that tracking and following travel with respect to the user are stopped) to a person around the mobile body. Ju further discloses a case where the specific person is not detected from the sensor information for a predetermined third time during traveling of the mobile body (Ju; para. 160, ll. 1-3: user is not re-detected from the image while the mobile robot is rotating one round [i.e., the third time is the time to travel one revolution]).
Ju, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the instructions cause the mobile body control device to output utterance information for calling for the specific person to return to a position of the mobile body, and when a predetermined fourth time elapses from the output of the utterance information in a state in which the specific person is not detected from the sensor information, the instructions cause the mobile body control device to shift the control mode of the mobile body to a wandering mode of returning to a station in which the mobile body is chargeable.
Han further discloses instructions cause a mobile body control device to output utterance information (Han; para. 290, l. 5: voice guidance message) for calling for a specific person to return to a position of the mobile body (Han; para. 288, ll. 6-7: guidance message such as “Come a little closer”), and when a predetermined time elapses (Han; fig. 8: within waiting time (S849)) from the output of the utterance information in a state in which the specific person is not detected from sensor information, the instructions cause the mobile body control device to shift a control mode of the mobile body to a wandering mode (Han; fig. 8: return home (S890)) of returning to a station in which the mobile body is chargeable (Han; para. 244, ll. 1-2: home may be a place in which a charging stand is disposed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the mobile body control device, as disclosed by Ju, as modified, to move to a charging station when a user does not return within a period of time following a voice notification, as taught by Han, to avoid consuming power until the mobile body loses mobility thereby maximizing the amount of time available for mobile tasks such as providing information in an omnidirectional manner to service many users (Han; para. 2, ll. 6-7).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Ju, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Ju, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose in a case where the specific person is not detected from the sensor information for a predetermined fifth time for shifting to the standby mode after last detection, the instructions cause the mobile body control device to shift the control mode of the mobile body to the standby mode.
Han further discloses in a case where a specific person (Han; para. 178, 3-4: recognize a user (a guidance target)) is not detected (Han; para. 238, l. 1: no guidance target is detected) from sensor information for a predetermined time for shifting to a standby mode after last detection (Han; para. 239, ll. 2-3: waits for return of the guidance target for a preset waiting time), instructions cause a mobile body control device to shift a control mode of the mobile body to a standby mode (Han; para. 240, l. 3: temporarily stop moving and stand by).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the mobile body control device, as disclosed by Ju, as modified, to standby after a period of time without detecting a user, to provide the user time to return thereby increasing the comfort of the escorted person (Han; para. 12, ll. 2-4).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju in view of Han, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kearns et al. (US 2016/0188977), hereinafter Kearns.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Ju, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Ju, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the instructions cause the mobile body control device to stand by in such a way that a front surface of the mobile body faces the first point when the mobile body arrives at the specific point.
Kearns, in the same field of endeavor (mobile robots), discloses instructions cause a mobile body control device to stand by (Kearns; para. 142, ll. 5-6: stationary at location ready to capture an image) in such a way that a front surface (Kearns; fig. 1A: imaging sensor (450)) of the mobile body faces a first point when the mobile body arrives at a specific point (Kearns; para. 142, ll. 8-11: rotate, move, and stop ahead of the person to be nearly still when the person enters the field of view. Kearns states that the robot can rotate in such a way as to face the person controlling the robot, which would include being able to face the first point.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the mobile robot of Ju, as modified, to standby after turning to face a point previously occupied by the mobile body or specific person to await reacquisition, as disclosed by Kearns, in order to capture a crisp image of the person thereby increasing recognizability by the imaging system (Kearns; para. 141, ll. 33-35).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju in view of Han, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rus et al. (US 2020/0225053), hereinafter Rus.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Ju, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Ju, as modified, does not explicitly disclose in a case where the specific person approaches a set of persons having a predetermined density or more in such a way that a distance to the set of persons is a predetermined distance, the instructions cause the mobile body control device to determine that the movement of the specific person satisfies the predetermined criterion and shift to the standby mode.
Rus, in the same field of endeavor (autonomous vehicles), discloses in a case where a specific person approaches a set of persons (Rus; para. 27, ll. 7-8: encountering people in the way [i.e., the robot follows the user (Ju; para. 24, l. 3) as they approach the crowd]) having a predetermined density (Rus; para. 31, l. 6: occupancy density) or more in such a way that a distance to the set of persons is a predetermined distance (para. 58, l. 23: obstacle is too close), the instructions cause a mobile body control device to determine that the movement of the specific person satisfies a predetermined criterion and shift to a standby mode (para. 27, ll. 8-9: stop to avoid hitting them).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the mobile robot of Ju, as modified, to standby when approaching a set of persons, as disclosed by Rus, to avoid hitting them and possibly replan the route if there was no way through a crowd of people (Rus; para. 27, ll. 10-11) thereby avoiding potential delay or collision or harm to others (Rus; para. 6, l. 9).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Ju, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Ju, as modified, does not explicitly disclose in a case where the specific person approaches a crowd of a predetermined number or more of persons in such a way that a distance to the crowd is a predetermined distance, the instructions cause the mobile body control device to determine that the movement of the specific person satisfies the predetermined criterion and shift to the standby mode.
Rus further discloses in a case where the specific person approaches a crowd (Rus; para. 27, ll. 7-8: encountering people in the way [i.e., the robot follows the user (Ju; para. 24, l. 3) as they approach the crowd]) of a predetermined number (Rus; para. 31, l. 6: occupancy density) or more of persons in such a way that a distance to the crowd is a predetermined distance (para. 58, l. 23: obstacle is too close. Also note that paragraph 27 speaks in terms of a vector, a vector being a calculation of magnitude and direction wherein magnitude is another way of saying distance), instructions cause a mobile body control device to determine that the movement of the specific person satisfies a predetermined criterion and shift to a standby mode (para. 27, ll. 8-9: stop to avoid hitting them).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the mobile robot of Ju, as modified, to standby when approaching a crowd, as disclosed by Rus, to avoid hitting them and possibly replan the route if there was no way through a crowd of people (Rus; para. 27, ll. 10-11) thereby avoiding potential delay or collision (Rus; para. 6, l. 9).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju in view of Han, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oboril et al. (US 2022/0105634), hereinafter Oboril.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Ju, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Ju, as modified, does not explicitly disclose in a case where reliability of a predicted trajectory of the specific person is equal to or less than a threshold, the instructions cause the mobile body control device to determine that the movement of the specific person satisfies the predetermined criterion and shift to the standby mode.
Oboril, in the same field of endeavor (mobile robots), discloses in a case where reliability (Oboril; para. 38, ll. 14-15: the confidence level reflects how likely it is that the person’s actual behavior will follow the predicted behavior; reliability is defined as the probability that a product, system, or service will perform its intended function) of a predicted trajectory of a specific person (Oboril; para. 38, ll. 3-4: trajectory representing expected positions of the person at future times) is equal to or less than a threshold (Oboril; para. 57, l. 5: threshold risk level), instructions cause a mobile body control device to determine that the movement of the specific person satisfies a predetermined criterion and shift to a standby mode (Oboril; para. 57, l. 6: stop the robot’s movement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the mobile robot of Ju, to standby when the reliability of a person’s predicted trajectory is equal to less than a threshold, as disclosed by Oboril, in order to avoid situations or accidents that may occur when robots interact with humans due to the unpredictable nature of a human interaction, thereby improving safety (Oboril; para. 25, ll. 16-18, and para 27).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju in view of Han, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (US 2017/0368691).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Ju, as modified, discloses a voice input device configured to receive utterance information from a person around the mobile body (Ju; para. 25: a predetermined voice command is input from the user).
Ju, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose in a case where utterance information including an instruction to stand by is received from the specific person, the instructions cause the mobile body control device to determine that the movement of the mobile body satisfies the predetermined criterion and shift to the standby mode.
Li, in the same field of endeavor (mobile robots), discloses in a case where utterance information including an instruction to stand by (Li; para. 61, ll. 15: “yes, stop here”) is received from a specific person (The limitation implies that the system recognizes an individual from utterance information, however, no structure nor method for performing this function is recited. For the purposes of examination, “the specific person” will be considered a placeholder term for “a user”, which is repeated to avoid other referential problems.), instructions cause a mobile body control device to determine that the movement of a mobile body satisfies a predetermined criterion, and shift to a standby mode (Li; para. 61, ll. 3-4: stop at a specified location).
Voice commands are faster in general than a keyboard command, and Li at a paragraph 9 mentions that there is a risk when the user is too close to the robot. Being able to stop the robot before that situation arises is beneficial. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the mobile robot of Ju, as modified, to standby in response to voice commands, as disclosed by Li, so the user doesn’t need to approach too close (Li; para. 9, l. 2) thereby avoiding a potential physical threat to people nearby (Li; para. 5, ll. 14-15).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Ju, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Ju, as modified, does not appear to disclose in a case where the traveling mode of traveling toward a destination is set and the mobile body arrives at the destination, the instructions cause the mobile body control device to determine that the movement of the mobile body satisfies the predetermined criterion and shift to the standby mode.
Li further discloses in a case where a traveling mode of traveling toward a destination (Li; para. 62, l.1: anchor point) is set and a mobile body arrives at a destination, instructions cause a mobile body control device to determine that the movement of the mobile body satisfies a predetermined criterion and shift to the standby mode (Li; para. 62, l. 8: stay at the anchor point for a user specified time, i.e., a criterion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the mobile robot of Ju, to standby at a predetermined destination, as disclosed by Li, to avoid causing the robot to move unnecessarily (Li; para. 5, ll. 8-9) thereby preventing consuming unnecessary battery power (Li; para. 5, ll. 10-11).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju in view of Han and Li, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0046831), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Ju, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Ju, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose in a case where a traveling mode of traveling toward a destination is set, a mobile body arrives at the destination, and the destination is within a predetermined distance from a station in which the mobile body is chargeable, instructions cause a mobile body control device to shift to a wandering mode of moving to the station without shifting to a standby mode.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor (mobile robots), discloses in a case where the traveling mode of traveling toward the destination is set, the mobile body arrives at the destination (Kim; fig. 8: determining arrival at destination (S10)), and the destination is within a predetermined distance from a station in which the mobile body is chargeable (Kim; para. 142, ll. 3-4: distance to the charging station), the instructions cause the mobile body control device to shift to a wandering mode of moving to the station without shifting to the standby mode (Kim; fig. 8: moving to charging station (S20)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the mobile robot of Ju, as modified, to move to a charging station within a predetermined range of the destination, as disclosed by Kim, to avoid consuming power until the mobile body loses mobility thereby ensuring the charging amount is sufficient for the next user (Kim; para. 145, ll. 5-8).
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju in view of Han, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Brockers et al. (US 2020/0130864), hereinafter Brockers.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Ju, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Ju, as modified, does not explicitly disclose in a case where a remaining amount of power for traveling of the mobile body is equal to or less than a threshold, the instructions cause the mobile body control device to shift the control mode of the mobile body to an emergency mode of returning to a station in which the mobile body is chargeable, and in a case where the remaining amount of power of the mobile body is equal to or less than the threshold, and the station does not exist in a movable range based on the remaining amount of power, the instructions cause the mobile body control device to determine that the movement of the mobile body satisfies the predetermined criterion and shift to the standby mode.
Brockers, in the same field of endeavor (autonomous vehicles), discloses in a case where a remaining amount of power for traveling of a mobile body is equal to or less than a threshold (Brockers; para. 105, l. 11: battery is low), instructions cause a mobile body control device to shift a control mode of the mobile body to an emergency mode (Brockers; para. 105, l. 13 emergency response) of returning to a station (Brockers; para. 105, l. 14: return to home state) in which the mobile body is chargeable (Brockers; para. 122, ll. 1-2: take off landing-charging station), and in a case where the remaining amount of power of the mobile body is equal to or less than the threshold, and the station does not exist in a movable range based on the remaining amount of power (Brockers; para. 105, ll. 18-19: if the return to the prior take-off location cannot be completed due to critical battery), the instructions cause the mobile body control device to determine that the movement of the mobile body satisfies a predetermined criterion and shift to a standby mode (Brockers; para. 105, l. 17: emergency landing state; fig. 15: turn off motors (1514)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the mobile robot of Ju to standby if a charging station can’t be reached, as disclosed by Brockers, in order avoid premature energy depletion during travel (Brockers; para. 160, l. 8) thereby increasing safety and robustness (Brockers; para. 144, ll. 12-13).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Ju, as modified, discloses the instructions include instructions causing the mobile body control device to: shift the control mode of the mobile body to a reservation mode in which the mobile body moves to a point designated by a reservation (when the user requests guidance, the controller 740 may perform control such that the user is escorted to the destination selected by the user), wherein the instructions further cause the mobile body control device not to perform the authentication of any person at all while traveling in the reservation mode (Ju; para. 213: the controller 740 may recognize persons in the image captured by the body camera part 25 to identify the guidance target; fig. 8: the guidance target is authenticated at step S830 and the robot moves to the destination at step 870, the robot arrives at the destination in step S880 without authenticating another user).
Ju, as modified, does not explicitly disclose shifting the control mode of the mobile body to an emergency mode of returning to a station in which the mobile body is chargeable in a case where a remaining amount of power for traveling of the mobile body is equal to or less than a threshold wherein the instructions further cause the mobile body control device not to perform the authentication of a person while traveling in the emergency mode.
Brockers, in the same field of endeavor (autonomous vehicles), discloses shifting a control mode of a mobile body to an emergency mode (Brockers; para. 105, l. 13 emergency response) of returning to a station (Brockers; para. 105, l. 14: return to home state) in which the mobile body is chargeable (Brockers; para. 122, ll. 1-2: take off landing-charging station) in a case where a remaining amount of power for traveling of the mobile body is equal to or less than a threshold (Brockers; para. 105, l. 11: battery is low) wherein the instructions further cause the mobile body control device not to perform the authentication for any person at all while traveling in the emergency mode (Brockers; fig. 11: after entering the ReturnToHome state 1114 the vehicle returns to home and enters the landing state 1110 without performing any authentication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the mobile robot of Ju to, when the battery is low, return to a charging station without authenticating a user, as disclosed by Brockers, in order avoid premature energy depletion during travel (Brockers; para. 160, l. 8) thereby increasing safety and robustness (Brockers; para. 144, ll. 12-13).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju in view of Han, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roszhart (US 2022/0266105) and Li.
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Ju, as modified, discloses the plurality of traveling modes includes a leading mode in which the mobile body travels in front of the specific person based on behavior prediction for the specific person (Han; para. 49: the mobile robot 1 may lead the user along a set path in order to show the user the way [i.e., the user is predicted to follow the robot]).
Ju, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose leading without grasping a destination of the specific person.
Roszhart discloses leading without grasping a destination of the specific person (Roszhart; para. 57: in autonomous lead-me mode, vehicle 100 is configured in push assist mode with the operator walking behind the vehicle … smartphone 164 uses computer vision and machine learning to track the operator's position for navigation of vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the mobile robot of Ju, as modified, to travel in front of a person without knowing their destination, as disclosed by Roszhart, to yield the predictable result of providing services to a user without requiring input from them.
Ju, as modified, does not explicitly disclose in the leading mode, an acceleration and speed in the left-and-right direction orthogonal to a traveling direction are more limited than other modes in the plurality of control modes.
Li discloses an acceleration and speed in a left-and-right direction orthogonal to a traveling direction are limited (Li; para. 42: FIG. 4A illustrates a scenario where a mobile robot avoids following a user's series sharp turns according to one embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 4A, a mobile robot 401 is following the movement of a user 402. Initially, the mobile robot 401 is at location R0 and the user 402 is at location P0. While the user 402 moves from P0 to P1, the robot 401 follows the user 402 and moves from R0 to R1. Then, the user 402 makes two quick sharp turns at P1 and P2 for certain reasons. For example, the user 402 may make these sharp turns to quickly pick up something at P2 or avoid an obstacle or person in the front. Here, the mobile robot 401 determines that the user's first direction change (from direction P0[Wingdings font/0xE0]P1 to direction P1[Wingdings font/0xE0]P2) exceeds a first threshold Ø1 (e.g., 30°). As such, the mobile robot 401 does not change its own moving direction.).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to limit path deviations to make it easier for a user to follow the robot. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the leading mode of the mobile robot of Ju, as modified, to, while leading, limit sideways movements, as disclosed by Li, with the motivation of helping the mobile robot to move more smoothly and naturally, avoiding unnecessary or abrupt direction changes that could unbalance the robot or endanger people nearby (Li; para. 41).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju in view of Han, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakagami et al. (US 2004/0199292), hereinafter Sakagami.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Ju, as modified, discloses the plurality of traveling modes include a follow mode in which the mobile body follows the specific person without grasping a destination of the specific person (Ju; para. 24: a mobile robot 10 according to some embodiments may travel by following a user 11 who moves in a certain space).
Although Ju, as modified, discloses outputting a voice notification when tracking and following a user is stopped (Ju; para. 160), Ju, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose the instructions further cause the mobile body control device to output utterance information for requesting the specific person to stop when a distance between the mobile body and the specific person becomes a predetermined distance or more.
Sakagami, in the same field of endeavor (mobile robots), discloses outputting utterance information for requesting a specific person to stop (Sakagami; fig. 5A) when a distance between a mobile body and the specific person becomes a predetermined distance or more (Sakagami; para. 85: in the case where even if the movable robot A walk with the maximum stride by the legs portions R1, the following up interval to the person does not become 1.4 m. the means 57 for determining response action instructs to a voice outputting portion 62 so as to vocalize "please wait" by the speaker).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the following mode of the mobile robot of Ju, as modified, to request a user to stop moving when they move away from the robot, as disclosed by Sakagami, to yield the predictable result of traveling with the user.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju in view of Han, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roszhart and Kim (US 2020/0324767), hereinafter Kim 2.
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, Ju, as modified, discloses the plurality of traveling modes include a follow mode in which the mobile body follows behind the specific person without grasping a destination of the specific person (Ju; para. 24: a mobile robot 10 according to some embodiments may travel by following a user 11 who moves in a certain space) and a leading mode in which the mobile body travels based on behavior prediction for the specific person (Han; para. 49: the mobile robot 1 may lead the user along a set path in order to show the user the way [i.e., the user is predicted to follow the robot at a specific distance]) without grasping a destination of the specific person, and in the follow mode, generating a traveling trajectory of the mobile body based on the behavior prediction of the specific person (Ju; para. 43: The mobile robot 10 may determine a traveling path thereof, based on the predicted movement direction of the user).
Ju, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose leading without grasping a destination of the specific person, or in the follow mode, the instructions further cause the mobile body control device to set a target period or target distance of behavior prediction to be shorter than a value used in the leading mode.
Roszhart discloses leading without grasping a destination of a specific person (Roszhart; para. 57: in autonomous lead-me mode, vehicle 100 is configured in push assist mode with the operator walking behind the vehicle … smartphone 164 uses computer vision and machine learning to track the operator's position for navigation of vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the mobile robot of Ju, as modified, to travel in front of a person without knowing their destination, as disclosed by Roszhart, to yield the predictable result of providing services to a user without requiring input from them.
Ju, as modified, does not explicitly disclose in the follow mode, the instructions further cause the mobile body control device to set a target period or target distance of behavior prediction of the specific person to be shorter than a value used in the leading mode.
Kim 2, in the same field of endeavor (semiautonomous and autonomous vehicle controls), discloses in a follow mode, instructions cause a mobile body control device to set a target period or target distance of behavior prediction of a specific person (Kim 2; para. 30: the following vehicle FV may increase or decrease an inter-vehicle distance [i.e.; the predicted separation distance between the drivers’ vehicles] based on a driver input) to be shorter than a value used in a leading mode (Kim 2; fig. 9: a vehicle can be either the leading or following vehicle depending on its position in the platoon; para. 30: The leading vehicle LV or the following vehicle FV may increase or decrease an inter-vehicle distance based on a driver input [e.g., the driver decreases the following distance]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the following mode of the mobile robot of Ju, as modified, to allow a user to decrease the following distance, as disclosed by Kim 2, to yield the predictable result of following the user at their preferred distance.
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 JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached on (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights