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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9 and 10, filed 09/04/2025, with respect to the objections and rejection under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. The objections and rejection of 06/05/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-15, filed 09/04/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mitani et al., as discussed in detail below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220043443, previously cited) in view of Mitani et al. (JP 2001287183).
Claim 1.
Lee teaches:
one or more processors
(Lee – [0031]) “In the ‘Follow the operator’ mode, the sensor system 130 captures images with operator therein, the controller 120 drives the processor 110 to identify the operator in the images and records the operators movements. The controller 120 and the processor 10 processes the image to determine appropriate movement of the vehicle to follow.”
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
(Lee – Abstract) “wherein the automated guiding vehicle perform the modes about following the operator by capturing images of a geographic area”
set one of a plurality of control modes
(Lee – Abstract) “wherein the automated guiding vehicle perform the modes about following the operator by capturing images of a geographic area”
control traveling of the mobile body based on the set control mode and a result of detection of a specific person based on the sensor information
(Lee – Abstract) “wherein the automated guiding vehicle perform the modes about following the operator by capturing images of a geographic area”
wherein in a case where a first mode among the plurality of control modes is set, the instructions cause the mobile body 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
(Lee – [0031]) “In the ‘Follow the operator’ mode, the sensor system 130 captures images with operator therein, the controller 120 drives the processor 110 to identify the operator in the images and records the operators movements. The controller 120 and the processor 10 processes the image to determine appropriate movement of the vehicle to follow.”
Lee does not explicitly teach a mode in which the mobile body moves to a designated point; however, Mitani et al. teaches:
a memory storing instructions which, when the instructions are executed by the one or more processors
(Mitani – [0047]) “the remote monitoring operation unit 7 can be used to instruct the robot 2 to move to a designated destination position.”
in a case where a second mode among the plurality of control modes is set, the instructions cause the mobile body control device to control the traveling of the mobile body in such a way that the mobile body moves to a point designated by the specific person, the designated point being a position at which the mobile body stops to perform authentication of the specific person, and transition to the first mode after completion of the authentication
(Mitani – [0047]) “the remote monitoring operation unit 7 can be used to instruct the robot 2 to move to a designated destination position.”
(Mitani – [0109]) “the locking unit is released when the position detection means confirms that the robot has reached the designated destination location and the registration recognition unit confirms the registrant.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the robot navigation system of Lee such that one of its control modes involves waiting for authentication as in the system of Mitani et al. One would have done this in order to allow the robots to securely transport items for a user (Mitani – [0001])
Claim 10.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 11.
Mitani et al. teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions for causing a mobile body control device to:
(Mitani – [0047]) “the remote monitoring operation unit 7 can be used to instruct the robot 2 to move to a designated destination position.”
The rest is rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee and Mitani et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oshima et al. (WO 2012073301, previously cited). [Examiner’s Note: The line numbers of the translation of Oshima et al. are inaccurate; therefore, each citation is referred to by the supposed line number at the start of the paragraph in which it is contained, rather than by the specific line numbers of the cited text.]
Claim 2.
The combination of Lee and Mitani et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Neither Lee nor Mitani et al. explicitly teaches a charging station; however, Oshima et al. teaches:
wherein in a case where it is detected that a remaining amount of power for the traveling of the body is equal to or less than a threshold, the instructions further cause the mobile body control device to set a third mode among the plurality of control modes and controls the traveling of the mobile body in such a way that the mobile body moves to a station which is a place where the mobile body is chargeable
(Oshima – 515) “after completing its role, the mobile robot 412 moves to a standby position such as the charging spot or the side of an aisle as described above, and then returns to a predetermined state (standby state).”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the robot navigation system of Lee to use charging spots as stations, as in the guidance robot system of Oshima et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to ensure that the AGVs of Lee have sufficient power at any given time to assist a user.
Claim 3.
The combination of Lee, Mitani et al., and Oshima et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. Lee further teaches:
wherein in a case where a fourth mode among the plurality of control modes is set, the instructions further cause the mobile body control device to control the traveling of the mobile body in such a way that the mobile body moves between stations
(Lee – [0022]) “The AGV 100 includes a processor 110, a controller 120 connected to the processor 110, and a sensor system 130 connected to the processor 110 configured to control the AGV 100 to travel between stations in the geographic area.”
Lee does not explicitly teach that the stations are charging stations; however, Oshima et al. further teaches:
stations which are places where the mobile body is chargeable before starting or after ending the first mode
(Oshima – 515) “after completing its role, the mobile robot 412 moves to a standby position such as the charging spot or the side of an aisle as described above, and then returns to a predetermined state (standby state).”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 2.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee, Mitani et al., and Oshima et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Yahata (US 20230288934, previously cited).
Claim 4.
The combination of Lee, Mitani et al., and Oshima et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above. Yahata further teaches:
wherein the instructions cause the mobile body control device to make a traveling speed of the mobile body in the fourth mode lower than a traveling speed of the mobile body in another control mode among the plurality of control modes
(Yahata – [0194]) “to enable the robot 110 to escort the user while maintaining a fixed distance to the user, it is necessary to allow the robot 110 to move faster while on a walk compared to while at home.”
[Examiner’s Note: If the robot moves faster in an escorting mode; then it necessarily moves slower than the escorting mode while in the non-escorting fourth mode.]
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the robot navigation system of Lee with the variable traveling speeds of Yahata. One would have been motivated to do this to allow the robot to maintain a fixed distance from a user performing actions with various levels of exertion (Yahata – [0194]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee, Mitani et al., and Oshima et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kyzlink et al. (US 10997045, previously cited).
Claim 5.
The combination of Lee, Mitani et al., and Oshima et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above. Lee further teaches:
perform authentication of the specific person to start or resume use of the mobile body by the specific person
(Lee – [0023]) “The operator’s identity may be a tag mounted on the operators so that the sensor system 130 is capable of detecting the operator”
wherein the instructions further cause the mobile body control device to perform control in such a way as to accept authentication of a person during the traveling of the mobile body in the fourth mode
(Lee – [0023]) “The operation mode of the AGV 100 may also be changed according to the vocal commend of the operator, the AGV 100 is interrupted and switched to another operation mode by specific vocal commend from the operator”
None of the aforementioned references explicitly teaches restricting authentication when the mobile body is in use; however, Kyzlink et al. teaches:
the instructions cause the mobile body control device to perform control in such a way as not to accept authentication of a person during the traveling of the mobile body in the second mode or the third mode
(Kyzlink – Col. 7, lines 29-31) “users may ‘book’ the use of robotic handlers to avoid collisions resulting from simultaneous, possibly conflicting requests from different users.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the identity verification of Lee with the booked usage of Kyzlink et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to prevent an AGV in use from receiving conflicting commands (Kyzlink – Col. 7, lines 29-31).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee, Mitani et al., and Oshima et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Sankai (WO 2017030188, previously cited).
Claim 6.
The combination of Lee, Mitani et al., and Oshima et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above. None of the aforementioned references teach approaching a user; however, Sankai teaches:
wherein in a case where a person approaching the mobile body is recognized within a predetermined distance or it is determined that a predicted movement trajectory of a person approaching the mobile body intersects with a movement trajectory of the mobile body during the traveling of the mobile body in the fourth mode, the instructions further cause the mobile body control device to stop the mobile body in such a way that a front surface of the mobile body faces the approaching person
(Sankai – Lines 642-645) “the user and the autonomous mobile robot 2 each pass through the inspection gate without any problems, then exit the security inspection area (SP35), and the autonomous mobile robot 2 approaches the user carrying the corresponding beacon terminal and waits in a state where it can follow them.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the robot navigation system of Lee such that it approaches a user in a similar fashion to the robot of Sankai. Both Lee and Sankai are directed toward robots which follow an operator; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this combination could be made with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to reduce the amount of searching that a potential operator needs to make in order to make use of one of the robots.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee, Mitani et al., and Oshima et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Cha et al. (US 20220067634, previously cited).
Claim 7.
The combination of Lee, Mitani et al., and Oshima et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above. None of the aforementioned references explicitly teaches cancelling a reservation; however, Cha et al. teaches:
receive, from an external device, reservation setting including information regarding a point designated by the specific person and information regarding cancellation of the reservation setting
(Cha – [0204]) “in a case that a delivery time change request, a delivery stop request or a delivery cancel request is requested from the electronic device of the target user after the robot (R) has started for delivery, the controller 160 may cancel the task allocated to the robot (R) and may control the robot (R) to return to a specific place.”
wherein in a case where the information regarding the cancellation of the reservation setting is received during the traveling toward the designated point in the second mode, the instructions cause the mobile body control device to shift the control mode to the fourth mode
(Cha – [0204]) “in a case that a delivery time change request, a delivery stop request or a delivery cancel request is requested from the electronic device of the target user after the robot (R) has started for delivery, the controller 160 may cancel the task allocated to the robot (R) and may control the robot (R) to return to a specific place.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the robot navigation system of Lee with the cancellation request of Cha et al. Both Lee and Cha et al. are directed toward autonomous navigation of robots; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that they could be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to prevent the robot from using additional charge to move to a location at which it is not needed.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee, Mitani et al., and Oshima et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Østergaard et al. (US 20220288778, previously cited).
Claim 8.
The combination of Lee, Mitani et al., and Oshima et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above. Lee further teaches:
wherein in a case where the mobile body travels in the fourth mode
(Lee – [0022]) “The AGV 100 includes a processor 110, a controller 120 connected to the processor 110, and a sensor system 130 connected to the processor 110 configured to control the AGV 100 to travel between stations in the geographic area.”
None of the aforementioned references explicitly teaches a travelable region; however, Østergaard et al. teaches:
the instructions further cause the mobile body control device to perform control in such a way that the mobile body travels in a region of a predetermined distance from an end of a travelable region for the mobile body
(Østergaard – [0029]) “The designated room may be delineated on a map used by the mobile robot device where the mobile robot device is not permitted to travel. … when the person enters the designated room, the mobile robot device may stop following the person… The mobile robot device may wait for the person to emerge from the designated room, or may move to a predetermined location to wait for the person or to guide other persons.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the robot navigation system of Lee with the restricted areas of Østergaard et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to ensure that a wandering robot keeps away from an area in which it might be trapped or damaged or otherwise inaccessible for an operator.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee, Mitani et al., and Oshima et al. as applied to claims 2 and 3 above, and further in view of Chan et al. (US 20170242347, previously cited).
Claim 9.
The combination of Lee, Mitani et al., and Oshima et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. Mitani et al. further teaches:
the mobile body includes a housing configured to store a load
(Mitani – [0007]) “a robot 2 comprising… a storage unit 1 having an openable and closable storage door 12”
None of the aforementioned references explicitly teaches going to a lost and found; however, Chan et al. teaches:
in a case where the specific person is not detected from the sensor information for a predetermined time in a state in which a load of the specific person is stored in the housing, the instructions cause the mobile body control device to shift the control mode to the third mode and moves to a predetermined place related to a lost article
(Chan – [0062]) “the suspension criteria may include the robotic vehicle entering a wait mode if separated from the individual human shopper for a specified time period or by a specified distance. … the robotic vehicle can wait at or near a location where told or where it lost contact with individual human shopper.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the storage robot of Mitani et al. with the loitering behavior of Chan et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to ensure that a person is not separated from their stored belongings.
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 SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights