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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/16/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s argument with respect to claims 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot based on new found of rejection discussed below.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended.
Claims 2-9, and 11-12 are as previously presented.
Response to Arguments
applicant argues regarding claims 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Noh (US 20240310858) is used as one example for newly cited limitations below.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 20180009108) in view of Jung et al. (US 20200341480) and Noh et al. (US 20240310858).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a method performed by a user device to control a movement of a mobile robot between user regions (movement control method – see Fig 4, paragraphs 0002, 0008, 00760), the method comprising:
setting user boundaries based on a location of the user device to define a plurality of region (using map that been stored in the user terminal based on location of the user terminal 20 according to selected destination and the map selected by user to define all regions in the map displayed on the user terminal - see include, but are not limited to Fig. 6-8, paragraphs 0042, 44-46), wherein a plurality of regions comprising a first region (e.g., Region inside 94, Fig.11) within a first user boundary formed to surround the location of the user device (interpreted as region 94 that is formed to surround the user terminal at the selected destination location) and a second region (any regions outside region 94) between the first user boundary (boundary of region 94) and a second user boundary (boundary outside of region 94) formed to surround the first user boundary (see include, but are not limited to Fig 11, paragraphs 0053, 0056-0057);
transmitting data about the set user boundaries to the mobile robot (transmits a data to the mobile robot (see Fig 5, paragraph 0053);
transmitting a movement control request to the mobile robot in response to an input of a user service request (transmitting movement command to the mobile robot in respond to user request – see Fig 8, paragraph 0051-0052),
wherein the movement control request is a request to perform a movement control to move the mobile robot to a target region (the movement command request to perform a movement control to the mobile robot to the destination region – see Fig 5, 10, paragraphs 0053, 0056)
and the target region is one of the plurality of regions (the destinations region can include multiple regions – see paragraph 0026, 0042, 0044-0046, 0074);
identifying a region where the mobile robot is located by performing positioning on the mobile robot (the mobile robot uses the information detected by the sensor group so as to calculate its own location on the map. The user terminal acquires the information indicating the location of the mobile robot via the communication connection with the mobile robot – see Fig 6, paragraph 0047);
and allowing the movement control of the mobile robot to be stopped by transmitting a confirmation signal to the mobile robot when the identified region where the mobile robot is located is the same as the target region (allowing the movement command of the mobile robot to be stopped by identifying the location of the mobile robot is located is the same as destination region – see Fig 12, paragraphs 0058-0059).
wherein the first user boundary is a distance that allows a user to comfortably access the mobile robot, the first region is a region accessible by the mobile robot to provide a service to the user device (the user boundary is in the destination region where the user input call command -see include but are not limited to Fig. 8 paragraphs 0052-0054).
However, Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the second user boundary is a distance that prevents the mobile robot from interfering with the user, and the second region is a region to which the mobile robot is moved after providing the service so as to be physically separated from the user device.
Jung disclose distance that prevents the mobile robot from interfering with the user ( determining whether a person exists within a preset first distance; reducing a movement speed, when a person exists within the first distance; determining whether a person exists within a second distance set to be shorter than the first distance; stopping a movement, when a person exists within the second distance, therefor do not interfering with the user – see include but are not limited to Fig. 8, paragraphs 0017, 0382).
Yamamoto, and Jung are analogue art because they are from the same filed of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention- namely, controlling movement of robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto with the teaching of determining a value of at least one positioning variable based on the previously identified region where the mobile robot is located as taught by Kwak in order to yield predicable result of improve user convenience [0391].
Noh discloses the second region is a region to which the mobile robot is moved after providing the service so as to be physically separated from the user device (the delivery robot exit the target space after serving is completed – see include but are not limited to Fig. 7, paragraphs 0006-0008, 0036-0038, 0065-0067).
Yamamoto, Noh and Jung are analogue art because they are from the same filed of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention- namely, controlling movement of robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto with the teaching of the second region is a region to which the mobile robot is moved after providing the service so as to be physically separated from the user device as taught by Noh in order to yield predicable result of improve performance of delivery robot [0003].
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto in view of Jung discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Yamamoto teaches, further comprising, prior to the transmitting of the movement control request to the mobile robot in response to the input of the user service request: previously identifying a region where the mobile robot is located by performing positioning on the mobile robot (Identify a region where the mobile robot is located by performing location detection on the mobile robot using the sensor group – see Yamamoto Fig 6, paragraph 0047),
wherein the region where the mobile robot is located is one of the plurality of regions (The region where the mobile robot is located is one of the multiple regions – see Yamamoto Fig 6 - 7, paragraph 0047, 0076),
wherein the target region is different from the previously identified region where the mobile robot is located (the destination region is not limited to the identified region where the mobile robot is located – see Yamamoto paragraph 0076).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto in view of Jung discloses the method of claim 2, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Yamamoto teaches, further comprising, after the identifying of the region in advance where the mobile robot is located by performing the positioning: transmitting data about the identified region in advance where the mobile robot is located to the mobile robot (Transmitting locational information in advance where the robot is located to the mobile robot using group of sensors – see Yamamoto Fig 1, 6, paragraph 0047, 0056).
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto discloses a method performed by a mobile robot to control a movement of a mobile robot between user regions (method to control the robot a movement of the mobile robot between user regions – see paragraph 0076, 0077), the method comprising:
receiving data about user boundaries to define a plurality of regions from a user device (using map that been stored in the user terminal based on location of the user terminal 20 according to selected destination and the map selected by user to define all regions in the map displayed on the user terminal - see include, but are not limited to Fig. 6-8, paragraphs 0042, 44-46),
wherein a plurality of regions comprising a first region (e.g., Region inside 94, Fig.11) within a first user boundary formed to surround the location of the user device (interpreted as region 94 that is formed to surround the user terminal at the selected destination location) and a second region (any regions outside region 94) between the first user boundary (boundary of region 94) and a second user boundary (boundary outside of region 94) formed to surround the first user boundary (see include, but are not limited to Fig 11, paragraphs 0053, 0056-0057);
identifying the location of the user device (Identifying a location of the user – see paragraph 0027);
receiving data about a region where the mobile robot is located from the user device (receiving data about a region where the mobile robot is located from the user – see paragraphs 0028-0029);
performing a movement control on the mobile robot, based on the data about the user boundaries, the identified location of the user device, and the data about the region where the mobile robot is located, in response to receiving a movement control request from the user device (performing a movement control on the mobile robot, based on the information about the destination region, the identified location of the user device, and the information about the region where the robot is located, in respond to receiving a movement control request form the user – see Fig. 4-5, 8, paragraphs 0050-0053);
and stopping the movement control on the mobile robot in response to receiving a confirmation signal from the user device (stopping the movement control of the mobile robot when receiving a confirmation signal from the user indicate the mobile robot reach the destination region)– see Fig 12, paragraphs 0058-0059).
wherein the first user boundary is a distance that allows a user to comfortably access the mobile robot (the user boundary is in the destination region where the user input call command -see include but are not limited to Fig. 8 paragraphs 0052-0054).
However, Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the second user boundary is a distance that prevents the mobile robot from interfering with the user, and the second region is a region to which the mobile robot is moved after providing the service so as to be physically separated from the user device.
Jung disclose distance that prevents the mobile robot from interfering with the user ( determining whether a person exists within a preset first distance; reducing a movement speed, when a person exists within the first distance; determining whether a person exists within a second distance set to be shorter than the first distance; stopping a movement, when a person exists within the second distance, therefor do not interfering with the user – see include but are not limited to Fig. 8, paragraphs 0017, 0382).
Yamamoto, and Jung are analogue art because they are from the same filed of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention- namely, controlling movement of robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto with the teaching of determining a value of at least one positioning variable based on the previously identified region where the mobile robot is located as taught by Kwak in order to yield predicable result of improve user convenience [0391].
Noh discloses the second region is a region to which the mobile robot is moved after providing the service so as to be physically separated from the user device (the delivery robot exit the target space after serving is completed – see include but are not limited to Fig. 7, paragraphs 0006-0008, 0036-0038, 0065-0067).
Yamamoto, Noh and Jung are analogue art because they are from the same filed of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention- namely, controlling movement of robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto with the teaching of the second region is a region to which the mobile robot is moved after providing the service so as to be physically separated from the user device as taught by Noh in order to yield predicable result of improve performance of delivery robot [0003].
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto in view of Jung discloses the method of claim 10, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Yamamoto teaches, wherein the movement control request is a request to perform the movement control to move the mobile robot to a target region, wherein the target region is one of the plurality of regions and a region different from the region where the mobile robot is located (perform movement control to move the mobile robot to a target region, where in the target region is one of the multiple region and a region different form the region where the mobile robot is located – see Yamamoto paragraphs 0050, 0076).
Regarding claim 12, Yamamoto in view of Jung discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Yamamoto teaches, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1 (the storage device used by the CPU for executing a program – see Yamamoto Fig. 1, paragraph 0035).
Claims 3-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 20180009108) in view of Jung et al. (US 20200341480) and in further view of Kwak et al (US 20220137619).
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto in view of Jung discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising, prior to the transmitting of the movement control request to the mobile robot in response to the input of the user service request: determining a previously identified region where the mobile robot is located (determining an identified region where the mobile robot is located - see Fig 7, paragraphs 0046-0047, 0049)
However, Yamamoto in view of Jung does not explicitly disclose determining a value of at least one positioning variable based on the previously identified region where the mobile robot is located.
Kwak discloses determining a value of at least one positioning variable based on the previously identified region where the mobile robot is located (determining a phase difference based on the location where the mobile robot is located – see Fig 10, paragraphs 0036-0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto in view of Jung with the teaching of determining a value of at least one positioning variable based on the previously identified region where the mobile robot is located as taught by Kwak in order to yield predicable result of easily locate and identify the location of the mobile robot.
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto in view of Jung and in further view of Kwak discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the identifying of the region where the mobile robot is located by performing the positioning on the mobile robot comprises applying the determined value of the at least one positioning variable and identifying the region where the mobile robot is located, by performing the positioning on the mobile robot (determined phase difference based on the location where the mobile robot is located – see for example, Kwak: Fig 10, paragraphs 0036-0037; Yamamoto: Fig. 6, paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto in view of Jung and in further view of Kwak discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the at least one positioning variable comprises at least one of a wireless signal bandwidth, an information transmission period, and transmission power (the mobile robot using an Ultra-Wideband to transmit and receive signal regarding the position of the mobile robot – see for example, Kwak: paragraphs 0033, 0037; Yamamoto: paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto in view of Jung and in further view of Kwak discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the determining of the value of the at least one positioning variable based on the previously identified region where the mobile robot is located comprises determining the wireless signal bandwidth to be relatively wide, determining the information transmission period to be relatively short, and determining the transmission power to be relatively low when the identified region in advance where the mobile robot is located is a region relatively close to the user device. (Determining the intensity of the wireless signal of the Ultra-wideband to be stronger based on the position and distance of the mobile robot – see for example, Kwak: Fig 5b, paragraphs 0026-0027; Yamamoto: paragraphs 0053, 0056).
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto in view of Jung and in further view of Kwak discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the determining of the value of the at least one positioning variable based on the previously identified region where the mobile robot is located comprises determining the wireless signal bandwidth to be relatively narrow, determining the information transmission period to be relatively long, and determining the transmission power to be relatively high when the identified region in advance where the mobile robot is located is a region relatively far from the user device (determining the intensity of the wireless signal of the Ultra-wideband to be weaker based on the position of the mobile robot – see for example, Kwak: Fig 5b, paragraphs 0408-0409; Yamamoto: paragraphs 0053, 0056).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto in view of Jung and in further view of Kwak discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising, after the determining of the value for at least one positioning variable based on the identified region in advance where the mobile robot is located: transmitting data about the determined value of at least one positioning variable to the mobile robot (transmitting data about the determined value of the phase difference to the mobile robot – see for example Kwak: paragraphs 0429, 0431; Yamamoto: Fig 6 paragraphs 0046-0047).
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 AI KIM TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Thursday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached on (571) 272-4190. 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.
/A.K.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665