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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 09/04/2026.
In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding objections to the claims, the objection is hereby withdrawn.
In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and/or second paragraph, set forth in the previous Office Action, the rejection(s) is/are hereby withdrawn.
The applicant's amendment and arguments to the claims rejection are fully considered, however, they still failed to overcome the applied references, as is explained in greater detail below in the body of the rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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, 6, 8, 14 – 16, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230155422 (Nishikawa) in view of information well known in the art evidenced by one or more of (US 20230259145 (Ferrandini) and/or US 20170236387 (Flaherty)).
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 16, Nishikawa teaches “An information processing apparatus (in a first mapping of the preamble, this corresponds to the combination of measurement device 20 shown in FIG 3 and information processing device 30 shown in FIG 5, or an integrated device 10 shown in FIG 1 (paragraph 0035: an embodiment in which the measurement device is used as an integrated device with the information processing device 10). In a second mapping of the preamble, this corresponds only to the information processing device 30 shown in FIG 5) comprising:
a processing circuit (combination of units 11 – 13 in Fig. 1 or units 11 – 13 and 31 in FIG 5 in the second mapping; or together with units 21 and 22 in FIG 3 in the first mapping) configured to:
acquire first data that includes…”
[first positions] “…corresponding to first signals transmitted from an antenna…” “…first positions where the first signals are received…” “and the first positions being arranged along a direction away from the antenna…” “…and a first received power of each of the first signals (paragraph 0042: The measurement device 20 may be a sensor device attached to a moving body, such as a vehicle or an automatic guided vehicle (AGV). “the first signals are received” by the measurement device 20. Paragraph 0043: The measurement device 20 includes a power information acquisition unit 21, a position information acquisition unit 22. Paragraph 0044: The power information acquisition unit 21 receives a radio wave (“the first signals are received”) transmitted from a transmission source (“first signals transmitted from an antenna”), and measures received power of the received radio wave (“a first received power”). Paragraph 0046: The measurement device 20 moves as indicated by an arrow in FIG. 4, and measures the received power in the area illustrated in FIG. 4. Paragraph 0047: the position information acquisition unit 22 acquires position information of the measurement device 20. The measurement device 20 may be installed on a moving body, and may measure a received radio wave while the moving body is moving.
FIG 8 and paragraph 0062: First, the distribution generation unit 31 [within the information processing device 30 in FIG 5] receives a measurement value of received power measured by the measurement device 20 and position information indicating the measurement position of the received power from the measurement device 20 (S21) (“acquire first data that includes:” “first positions where the first signals are received”, “and a first received power of each of the first signals”). For example, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the measurement device 20 measures the received power while moving within the area as indicated by the trajectory R1. Paragraph 0064: the measurement device 20 receives a radio wave for about one second, and stores an average value thereof as the received power, and further stores the measurement position as the position information. The measurement device 20 repeats the measurement of the received power and the storage of the position information every second (in other words, there is a plurality of signals received, and the data is collected for “each of first signals”), and circulates around a predetermined path in a region in which the received power distribution is generated. The measurement device 20 transmits the measured received power and the position information to the information processing device 30.),
acquire second data that includes…”
[second positions] “…corresponding to second signals different from the first signals transmitted from the antenna…” “…second positions where the second signals are received…” “…and the second positions being arranged along a direction away from the antenna…” “…and a second received power of each of the second signals (FIG 11 and paragraph 0068: First, the detection unit 11 detects occurrence of an obstacle by using the received power that is received from the communication unit 32 periodically or at an arbitrary timing (S31). For example, the detection unit 11 receives the received power (“a second received power of each of the second signals”) illustrated in FIG. 12. FIG. 12 illustrates actual measurement values of received power in the same area (which means that “second positions where the second signals are received” is also at least implicitly acquired) as the received power distribution illustrated in FIG. 10. In other words, at some later time, similar measurements are performed during which “second signals different from the first signals transmitted from the antenna” and the position and the strength of the received signal are acquired.); and
estimate a propagation environment of a signal in a space facing the antenna with the second positions interposed therebetween by comparing the first data with the second data (“the first data” acquired during the first pass is shown in FIG 9 – 10. Paragraph 0063: FIG. 9 illustrates the received power distribution in the A1 area of FIG. 7. Paragraph 0065: the measurement device 20 moves along a leftmost column of FIG. 9, measures the received power every second. Paragraph 0066: the distribution generation unit 31 generates the received power distribution by using the received power and position information which have been received (S22) representing “the first data”. Paragraph 0067: Next, a flow of updating processing of the received power distribution in the updating unit 13 is described with reference to FIG. 11. Paragraph 0068: FIG. 12 illustrates actual measurement values of received power in the same area as the received power distribution illustrated in FIG. 10. Specifically, the detection unit 11 newly receives the received power in the leftmost column of FIG. 12, representing “the second data”. Paragraph 0069: The detection unit 11 may determine that an obstacle has occurred (“estimate a propagation environment of a signal in a space facing the antenna”) when the difference between the value of the received power distribution (“the first data”) and the actual measurement value (“the second data”) is larger than a threshold value. For example, when the threshold value is 5 dBm, the detection unit 11 determines that the received power at a position of the leftmost column of FIG. 12 and the second to fourth rows from the top in FIG. 12 has a low value due to the influence of a newly occurring obstacle. Further, the detection unit 11 estimates the position of the obstacle by using the position of the transmission source, the measurement position of the received power, and the attenuation rate or amplification rate of the received power. Paragraph 0070: the estimation unit 12 generates a range of influence due to the obstacle and a degree of influence of the obstacle (S32). Specifically, the estimation unit 12 simulates the received power around the newly occurring obstacle by using the position of the transmission source, the transmitted power of the radio wave to be transmitted by the transmission source, and the position of the obstacle estimated by the detection unit 11 (“estimate a propagation environment of a signal in a space facing the antenna”). The difference distribution in FIG. 15 illustrates how much the received power decreases due to the influence of an obstacle.),
wherein: the processing circuit is configured to estimate that the propagation environment changes in a case where there is a difference between a first tendency of the first received power which varies by the first distances in the first data (paragraph 0063: FIG. 9 illustrates the received power distribution in the A1 area of FIG. 7. Each box in the first column represents different distances from the transmitting antenna. Although FIG 9 does not show that the received power “varies by the first distances”, what is shown in FIG 9 is a particular simplified case which is used to illustrate how it would change (see FIG 12) when the obstacle occurs. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that in more general case there may be a change in the received power measurements depending on the position and the distance. Alternatively, with respect to the “first tendency”, it may be said that the tendency is for “the first received power” to stay flat), and a second tendency of the second received power which varies by the second distances in the second data (paragraph 0068: FIG. 12 illustrates actual measurement values of received power in the same area as the received power distribution illustrated in FIG. 10 [or FIG 9]. Specifically, the detection unit 11 newly receives the received power in the leftmost column of FIG. 12. As may be seen, “the second received power” does indeed “varies by the second distances”, where each box in the first column represents different distances from the transmitting antenna so that the “second tendency” for “the second received power” is, first, going up, and then, second, going down. Depending on the box, the received power changes from 90 to 97 to 99 and so forth so that for different distances from the transmitting antenna there is different received power. The detection unit 11 may determine that an obstacle has occurred when the difference between the value of the received power distribution [as shown in FIG 9 and/or 10 in corresponding boxes] and the actual measurement value is larger than a threshold value. For example, when the threshold value is 5 dBm, the detection unit 11 determines that the received power at a position of the leftmost column of FIG. 12 and the second to fourth rows from the top in FIG. 12 has a low value due to the influence of a newly occurring obstacle. This corresponds to claimed “estimate that the propagation environment changes in a case where there is a difference between a first tendency of the first received power (which stays flat in the particular case of FIG 9 and/or 10)” “and a second tendency of the second received power (which first goes up and then goes down, as shown in FIG 12)”. In other words, a comparison is performed between the corresponding boxes of FIG 12 and FIG 9/10 and a determination is made that an obstacle exists when the difference is larger than a threshold value)…”
Nishikawa teaches acquiring information on position of the measurement device 20 for the first and second signals based on using GPS (see paragraph 0047). Nishikawa does not disclose that it is “first distances” which are being acquired, “the first distances being distances between” the first position of the measurement device when receiving the signals, “and the antenna”. Nishikawa also does not disclose that it is “second distances” which are being acquired, “the second distances being distances between” the second position of the measurement device when receiving the signals, “and the antenna”.
On the other side, calculating the distance between devices based on their positions determined using GPS is well known in the art, as may be evidenced by Ferrandini, paragraph 0040 (computing the distance between the mobile device and the beacon based on the position of the mobile device relative to beacon 102 by comparing the position coordinates of beacon 102 by its own position coordinates from an onboard GPS sensor), or Flaherty, at least claim 5 (generating a GPS position information for the keyless entry device, and determining the distance based on the GPS position information for the keyless entry device and GPS position information for the vehicle.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize determination of the distance between the antenna and the measurement device 20 of Nishikawa based on the position of the measurement device and use this distance in addition to or instead of the absolute position while collecting the data on the strengths of the received signals when the measurement device 20 is in motion simply as design choice with predictable results, the results being distribution of the received signal strength based not only on the position of the measurement device 20, but also based on the distance between the device and the transmitting antenna.
Further, while teaching “a mobile object” (a measurement device 20 shown in FIG 3), Nishikawa does not explicitly teach “the mobile object is controlled to move along a route that passes through the space, in a case where a part of the first tendency indicates an increase in the first received power in accordance with an increase in the first distances and the second tendency indicates a decrease in the second received power in accordance with an increase in the second distances, and
the space is in the direction away from the antenna, and the second positions are between the space and the antenna.”
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that this sequence of events simply follows from Nishikawa’s teaching for a particular case when, during the first set of measurements, there was an obstacle detected in the path of the measurement device 20 installed in a moving body. Subsequently, the obstacle was removed from the path and a second set of measurements was performed.
Indeed, the first requirement that “a part of the first tendency indicates an increase in the first received power in accordance with an increase in the first distances” is disclosed by Nishikawa in paragraph 0055: when the received power indicated by the received power distribution (which corresponds to the claimed “the first received power” from reception of “the first signals”) is smaller than the received power received from the communication unit 32 (which corresponds to the claimed “the second received power” from reception of “the second signals”), it indicates that the measurement device 20 has received the radio wave directly from the transmission source and has received the radio wave reflected by the obstacle. In other words, when the obstacle is close to the position of the measurement device 20, “the second received power” increases because of reception of the reflected from the obstacle wave that adds constructively with the reception of the direct wave from the transmission source.
Next, the second requirement that “the second tendency indicates a decrease in the second received power in accordance with an increase in the second distances” simply represent a property of radio wave propagation between a transmitter and a receiver in an unobstructed environment. The farther the measurement device 20 moves away from the transmission source, the lower is the received power.
Now consider graphical example of reception of the first signals and the second signals made by the Examiner simply to illustrate this case:
PNG
media_image1.png
601
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As may be seen, initially, there is an obstacle in the path of the measurement device and the first received power increases when the measurement device moves in the vicinity of the obstacle. When the obstacle is removed from the path of the measurement device, the second received power simply decreases exponentially as a function of the distance between the transmission source.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that if, during the first set of measurements, the measurement device could not move beyond the location of the obstacle along its path, and had to move around the obstacle to continue moving, and during the second set of measurements the path was no longer obstructed along its entire length, the measurement device could move easily along the path so there would be no need to go around the obstacle, thus arriving at the claimed limitation that “the mobile object is controlled to move along a route that passes through the space… and the space is in the direction away from the antenna, and the second positions are between the space and the antenna.”
Therefore, the claimed limitation is an obvious particular case of an obstacle being removed from the path of the measurement device between the first and second sets of measurements.
Similarly, with respect to the requirement that “a mobile object is controlled to move along a route that avoids a space facing the antenna, in a case where a part of the first tendency indicates an increase in the first received power in accordance with an increase in the first distances and a part of the second tendency indicates an increase in the second received power in accordance with an increase in the second distances,” it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that this sequence of events simply follows from Nishikawa’s teaching for a particular case when, during both the first set and second set of measurements, there was an obstacle detected in the path of the measurement device 20 installed in a moving body.
Indeed, the first requirement that “a part of the first tendency indicates an increase in the first received power in accordance with an increase in the first distances” is disclosed by Nishikawa in paragraph 0055: when the received power indicated by the received power distribution (which corresponds to the claimed “the first received power” from reception of “the first signals”) is smaller than the received power received from the communication unit 32 (which corresponds to the claimed “the second received power” from reception of “the second signals”), it indicates that the measurement device 20 has received the radio wave directly from the transmission source and has received the radio wave reflected by the obstacle. In other words, when the obstacle is close to the position of the measurement device 20, “the second received power” increases because of reception of the reflected from the obstacle wave that adds constructively with the reception of the direct wave from the transmission source.
Exactly same happens with the second requirement that “a part of the second tendency indicates an increase in the second received power in accordance with an increase in the second distances”, which simply repeats the first requirement.
Now consider graphical example of reception of the first signals and the second signals made by the Examiner simply to illustrate this case:
PNG
media_image2.png
848
1240
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As may be seen, in both cases, there is an obstacle in the path of the measurement device and the first and second received powers increase when the measurement device moves in the vicinity of the obstacle.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that if the measurement device needs to move farther along its path beyond the location of the obstacle, it cannot continue moving along the same path, but has to move around the obstacle, thus arriving at the claimed limitation that “a mobile object is controlled to move along a route that avoids a space facing the antenna.”
Therefore, the claimed limitation is an obvious particular case of an obstacle being present in the path of the measurement device during both the first and second sets of measurements.
Regarding claim 6, Nishikawa teaches “further comprising a storage configured to store the first data (paragraph 0039: The received power distribution in the predetermined area (representing “the first data”) may be stored in the storage device 15 which is a device different from the information processing device 10, or may be stored in a storage device included in the information processing device 10. Paragraph 0053: the distribution generation unit 31 may store the generated received power distribution (representing “the first data”) in the storage device 15 or the storage device included in the information processing device 10.), wherein the processing circuit is configured to estimate the propagation environment by comparing the first data stored in the storage with the second data in a case where the second data is acquired (paragraph 0039: The updating unit 13 updates the received power distribution in the predetermined area stored in a storage device 15 (representing “the first data”), which is generated based on the measurement value before detecting the presence of the obstacle, by using the change in received power (which represents “the second data in a case where the second data is acquired”). Paragraph 0069: The detection unit 11 may determine that an obstacle has occurred (“estimate the propagation environment”) when the difference between the value of the received power distribution (“the first data”) and the actual measurement value (“the second data”) is larger than a threshold value (“comparing the first data … with the second data in a case where the second data is acquired”). For example, when the threshold value is 5 dBm, the detection unit 11 determines that the received power at a position of the leftmost column of FIG. 12 and the second to fourth rows from the top in FIG. 12 has a low value due to the influence of a newly occurring obstacle.).”
Regarding claim 8, Nishikawa teaches “wherein: the first received power is a power of a first signal received at the first position at a first time (shown, for example, as the leftmost cell in the second from the top row in FIG 9 – 10 representing “the first position at a first time” with corresponding signal strength of -90 dBm representing “the first received power is a power of a first signal received”),
the second received power is a power of a second signal received at the second position at a second time different from the first time (shown, for example, as the leftmost cell in the second from the top row in FIG 12 representing “the second position at a second time different from the first time” with corresponding signal strength of -97 dBm representing “the second received power is a power of a second signal received”), and
the first position and the second position are the same position (paragraph 0065: the measurement device 20 moves along a leftmost column of FIG. 9, measures the received power every second, and then moves along a third column from the left, and measures the received power. Paragraph 0068: FIG. 12 illustrates actual measurement values of received power in the same area as the received power distribution illustrated in FIG. 10. Specifically, the detection unit 11 newly receives the received power in the leftmost column of FIG. 12. Therefore, the same cells in FIG 9 – 10 and in FIG 12 represent the same position of the measurement device 20 (“the first position and the second position are the same position”) at different points in time).”
Regarding claim 14, Nishikawa teaches “A system comprising: the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (when using the second mapping of the preamble of claim 1, this corresponds to information processing device 30 shown in FIG 5); and a mobile object connected to the information processing apparatus to be able to communicate (when using the second mapping of the preamble of claim 1, this corresponds to a measurement device 20 shown in FIG 3).”
Regarding claim 19, Nishikawa teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the second signals are transmitted after the first signals are transmitted (initially first signals are transmitted and a first set of measurements is performed; at some later time second signals are transmitted and a second set of measurements is performed. Please see rejection of claim 1 above for complete explanation).”
Regarding claim 22, Nishikawa in view of information well known in the art as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches or fairly suggests “An information processing apparatus comprising:
a processing circuit configured to: acquire first data that includes:
first distances corresponding to first signals transmitted from an antenna, the first distances being distances between first positions where the first signals are received and the antenna, and the first positions being arranged along a direction away from the antenna; and a first received power of each of the first signals;
acquire second data that includes:
second distances corresponding to second signals different from the first signals transmitted from the antenna, the second distances being distances between second positions where the second signals are received and the antenna, and the second positions being arranged along a direction away from the antenna; and a second received power of each of the second signals; and
estimate a propagation environment of a signal in a space facing the antenna with the second positions interposed therebetween by comparing the first data with the second data,
wherein: the processing circuit is configured to estimate that the propagation environment changes in a case where there is a difference between a first tendency of the first received power which varies by the first distances in the first data, and a second tendency of the second received power which varies by the second distances in the second data (the limitations above are rejected because of the same reasons as explained in the rejection of similar limitations of claim 1 above, the explanation being incorporated herein by reference)…”
Further, while teaching “a mobile object” (a measurement device 20 shown in FIG 3), Nishikawa does not explicitly teach “the mobile object is controlled to move along a route that pass through the space, in a case where the first tendency indicates a decrease in the first received power in accordance with an increase in the first distances and the second tendency indicates a decrease in the second received power in accordance with an increase in the second distances, and
the space is in the direction away from the antenna, and the second positions are between the space and the antenna.”
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that this sequence of events simply follows from Nishikawa’s teaching for a particular case when, during both the first set and second set of measurements, there was no obstacle detected in the path of the measurement device 20 installed in a moving body.
Indeed, the first requirement that “the first tendency indicates a decrease in the first received power in accordance with an increase in the first distances” simply represent a property of radio wave propagation between a transmitter and a receiver in an unobstructed environment. The farther the measurement device 20 moves away from the transmission source, the lower is the received power.
Exactly same happens with the second requirement that “the second tendency indicates a decrease in the second received power in accordance with an increase in the second distances”, which simply repeats the first requirement.
Now consider graphical example of reception of the first signals and the second signals made by the Examiner simply to illustrate this case:
PNG
media_image3.png
761
1149
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As may be seen, in both cases, there is no obstacle in the path of the measurement device and the first and second received powers decrease when the measurement device moves away from the antenna.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that if, during the first and second sets of measurements, there was no obstacle detected in the path of the measuring device, the measurement device could move easily along the path so there would be no need to go around the obstacle, thus arriving at the claimed limitation that “the mobile object is controlled to move along a route that pass through the space… and the space is in the direction away from the antenna, and the second positions are between the space and the antenna.”
Therefore, the claimed limitation is an obvious particular case when no obstacle present in the path of the measurement device during both the first and second sets of measurements.
Similarly, with respect to the requirement that “a mobile object is controlled to move along a route that avoids a space facing the antenna, in a case where the first tendency indicates a decrease in the first received power in accordance with an increase in the first distances and a part of the second tendency indicates an increase in the second received power in accordance with an increase in the second distances,” it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that this sequence of events simply follows from Nishikawa’s teaching for a particular case when, during the first set of measurements, there was no obstacle detected in the path of the measurement device 20 installed in a moving body. Subsequently, an obstacle was placed in the path and a second set of measurements was attempted to be performed.
Indeed, the first requirement that “the first tendency indicates a decrease in the first received power in accordance with an increase in the first distances” simply represent a property of radio wave propagation between a transmitter and a receiver in an unobstructed environment. The farther the measurement device 20 moves away from the transmission source, the lower is the received power.
Next, the second requirement that “a part of the second tendency indicates an increase in the second received power in accordance with an increase in the second distances” is disclosed or fairly suggested by Nishikawa in paragraph 0055: when the received power indicated by the received power distribution (which corresponds to the claimed “the first received power” from reception of “the first signals”) is smaller than the received power received from the communication unit 32 (which corresponds to the claimed “the second received power” from reception of “the second signals”), it indicates that the measurement device 20 has received the radio wave directly from the transmission source and has received the radio wave reflected by the obstacle. In other words, when the obstacle is close to the position of the measurement device 20, “the second received power” increases because of reception of the reflected from the obstacle wave that adds constructively with the reception of the direct wave from the transmission source.
Now consider graphical example of reception of the first signals and the second signals made by the Examiner simply to illustrate this case:
PNG
media_image4.png
591
827
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As may be seen, initially, there is no obstacle in the path of the measurement device and the first received power simply decreases exponentially as a function of the distance between the transmission source. When an obstacle appears in the path of the measurement device, the second received power increases when the measurement device moves in the vicinity of the obstacle.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that if the measurement device needs to move farther along its path beyond the location of the obstacle, it cannot continue moving along the same path, but has to move around the obstacle, thus arriving at the claimed limitation that “a mobile object is controlled to move along a route that avoids a space facing the antenna.”
Therefore, the claimed limitation is an obvious particular case of an obstacle appearing in the path of the measurement device between the first and second sets of measurements.
Claims 2, 3, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230155422 (Nishikawa) in view of information well known in the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20250096914 (Maruyama).
Regarding claim 2, Nishikawa does not teach “wherein the processing circuit is configured to output a control signal for controlling the mobile object based on the estimated propagation environment.”
Nishikawa, however, teaches in paragraph 0070 that presence of an obstacle attenuates the signal right behind the obstacle, thus effectively creating a shielding.
On the other side, Maruyama in paragraph 0069 teaches usage of a robot or a work equipment (receiver) that is self-propelled and conducts work when receiving a control signal, and a transmitter that transmits a control signal for operating the receiver, in a factory or a work site. FIG 10 and paragraph 0084 teach that degradation of communication due to the effect of shielding by an obstacle can be overcome by changing a travel route of the mobile receiver. Changing the travel route of the receiver is a method of inhibiting degradation due to shielding by going around of a shielding object located between the transmitter and the receiver. In other words, Maruyama teaches “controlling a mobile object based on the estimated propagation environment.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Maruyama changing a travel route of the mobile receiver, in the system of Nishikawa, when used in the environment of controlling a robot or a work equipment. Doing so would have allowed to inhibit communication degradation due to shielding by going around of a shielding object located between the transmitter and the receiver (see Maruyama, paragraph 0084).
Regarding claim 3, Nishikawa in combination with Maruyama teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the processing circuit is configured to:
acquire the first positions and the second positions, the first distances being acquired based on the first positions, and the second distances being acquired based on the second positions (as was explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, in the system of Nishikawa modified with the information well known in the art, the first and second distances would be determined based on the respective first and second positions of the measurement device 20);
create a first map obtained by mapping the first position and the first received power (the claim does not specify what type of map is created. Therefore, the term “map” is subject to broadest reasonable interpretation. Turning to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/map, one of the definitions of this term is “a diagram or other visual representation that shows the relative position of the parts of something”, another definition addresses to the 5a definition of the term “function”, which is “a mathematical correspondence that assigns exactly one element of one set to each element of the same or another set”. With this in mind, Nishikawa teaches “a first map” in FIG 9 and 10 and paragraph 0065, where each cell represents a certain position of the measurement device along its route and includes corresponding received power during the first scan of the area before appearance of an obstacle. Thus there is a visual representation that shows the relative position of collected measurements. Also this is a mathematical correspondence that assigns exactly one element of one set [e.g. relative position of each cell] to each element of the same or another set [e.g. collected measurement]. Both of these are definitions for a “map”);
update the first map to a second map based on the second positions, the second received power (shown in FIG 16, where each cell represents a certain position of the measurement device along its route and includes corresponding received power during the second scan of the area after an obstacle have appeared), and the estimated propagation environment (paragraph 0070: the estimation unit 12 generates a range of influence due to the obstacle and a degree of influence of the obstacle (S32). The estimation unit 12 simulates the received power around the newly occurring obstacle by using the position of the transmission source being held in advance, the transmitted power of the radio wave to be transmitted by the transmission source, and the position of the obstacle estimated by the detection unit 11 (corresponding to “the estimated propagation environment”). The estimation unit 12 simulates a received power distribution before an obstacle occurs and a received power distribution after an obstacle newly occurs, for example, by executing ray tracing. Paragraph 0071: Next, the updating unit 13 reflects the range of influence of the obstacle and the degree of influence of the obstacle, which are estimated by the estimation unit 12, in the received power distribution (S33). FIG. 16 illustrates the updated received power distribution acquired by taking the sum of the received power distribution of FIG. 10 and the difference distribution of FIG. 14 (also corresponding to “the estimated propagation environment”). Paragraph 0072: the information processing device 30 generates a received power distribution reflecting the influence of the obstacle on the received power distribution. As a result, the information processing device 30 can update the received power distribution by using not only the received power of a part of the area used for detecting the occurrence of the obstacle, but also the received power in the range affected by the occurrence of the obstacle. This corresponds to the requirement that the second map is “based on the second position, the second received power and the estimated propagation environment”); and control the mobile object based on the second map (as was explained in the rejection of claim 2 above, Maruyama in FIG 10 and paragraph 0084 teach that degradation of communication due to the effect of shielding by an obstacle can be overcome by changing a travel route of the mobile receiver. Changing the travel route of the receiver is a method of inhibiting degradation due to shielding by going around of a shielding object located between the transmitter and the receiver. And since “the second map” in Nishikawa reflects presence of an obstacle as explained above, combining with the teaching of Maruyama of changing a travel route of the mobile receiver by going around of a shielding object would have resulted in controlling “the mobile object based on the second map” which indicates presence of the obstacle and its influence on the received signal strength).”
Regarding claim 5, Nishikawa does not teach “control the mobile object to move along a route that avoids the space in a case where the propagation environment is estimated not to be changed, and
control the mobile object to move along a route that passes through the space in a case where the propagation environment is estimated to be changed.”
Nishikawa, however, teaches in paragraph 0070 that presence of an obstacle attenuates the signal right behind the obstacle, thus effectively creating a shielding.
On the other side, Maruyama in paragraph 0069 teaches usage of a robot or a work equipment (receiver) that is self-propelled and conducts work when receiving a control signal, and a transmitter that transmits a control signal for operating the receiver, in a factory or a work site. FIG 10 and paragraph 0084 teach that degradation of communication due to the effect of shielding by an obstacle can be overcome by changing a travel route of the mobile receiver. Changing the travel route of the receiver is a method of inhibiting degradation due to shielding by going around of a shielding object located between the transmitter and the receiver.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Maruyama changing a travel route of the mobile receiver, in the system of Nishikawa, when used in the environment of controlling a robot or a work equipment. Doing so would have allowed to inhibit communication degradation due to shielding by going around of a shielding object located between the transmitter and the receiver (see Maruyama, paragraph 0084).
Going back to the limitations of the claim, and in view of Nishikawa, changes in the propagation environment may result from the obstacles appearing at the places where they were not present before, or subsequent removal of the obstacles from the places where they had previously appeared. With respect to the latter condition, consider the situation when the first signals were received in the environment with an obstacle present between the transmitting antenna and the measurement device. Subsequently, the obstacle was removed and the second signals were received in the environment with no obstacle between the transmitting antenna and the measurement device, thus representing changed propagation environment.
On the other side, and based on teaching of Maruyama in FIG 10 and paragraph 0084, when there is no obstacle, the moving device may move into the area since there would be no degradation of the received signal.
Combining these teachings, when the obstacle was removed from “the space”, this resulted in the propagation environment changing since no shielding object is located in the space. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to allow the mobile object to move into the area or “along a route that passes through the space”, since the signal is no longer shielded by the obstacle. Conversely, if the obstacle was not removed from “the space”, this would not result in the propagation environment changing since the shielding object would still be located in the space. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to “control the mobile object to move along a route that avoids the space”, since the signal would still be shielded by the obstacle.
Regarding claim 10, Nishikawa teaches “wherein: the mobile object is configured to detect an object disposed in a space in which the mobile object moves, and the processing circuit is configured to estimate the propagation environment based on the detected object (in other words, the claim requires the mobile object, and not some other entity, to determine presence of an obstacle. This embodiment is disclosed in FIG 1 and paragraph 0035: The detection unit 11 detects presence of an obstacle by using a measurement value of received power measured by a measurement device that receives a wireless radio wave. The detection unit 11 may acquire a measurement value of received power from the measurement device. Alternatively, when the measurement device is used as an integrated device with the information processing device 10, the detection unit 11 may acquire the measurement value being output from the measurement device via an internal bus or the like of the information processing device 10. In other words, in this alternative embodiment it is “the mobile object” which performs all the detection and estimation of the propagation environment, as the claim requires.).”
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230155422 (Nishikawa) in view of information well known in the art and in view of US 20250096914 (Maruyama) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 20180052466 (Wu).
Regarding claim 10, Nishikawa does not teach “wherein the object is detected based on reflection of a laser emitted from the mobile object.”
Wu in FIG 2 and paragraph 0031 teaches a laser range sensing module 202 on a mobile robot can determine whether there is any obstacle in a scan range of the laser range sensing module 202 according to whether a reflected light is received. In other words, Wu teaches “wherein the object is detected based on reflection of a laser emitted from the mobile object.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to include disclosed by Wu laser range sensing module, in the mobile measurement device 20 of Nishikawa in addition to already existing functionality to detect any obstacles. Doing so would have provided an additional method of obstacle detection and increased reliability of any detection.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230155422 (Nishikawa) in view of information well known in the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of one or more of (US 20200395975 (Kimura) and/or US 20070184852 (Johnson)).
Regarding claim 21, Nishikawa does not teach “wherein each of the first received power and the second received power is a value obtained by averaging received powers of signals received at a plurality of frequencies.”
Nishikawa in paragraph 0044 teaches that the power information acquisition unit 21 receives a radio wave transmitted from a transmission source, and measures received power of the received radio wave (“the first received power” and “the second received power”). Also, Nishikawa in paragraph 0049 teaches that the communication unit 23 of the measurement device 20 may utilize Bluetooth standard.
On the other side, Kimura in paragraph 0035 teaches that in Bluetooth™ communication in which radio waves are transmitted using multiple channels, the measurement value Dx may be the average value of the received signal strength indicators measured for each channel (“a value obtained by averaging received powers of signals received at a plurality of frequencies”).
Additionally or alternatively, Johnson in paragraph 0043 teaches that in order to enhance accuracy and reliability of location calculations, multiple ranging signals are transmitted between transmitter and receiver at multiple different frequencies to reduce the effects of multipath interference that would otherwise adversely affect RSSI measurements. The method further calculates an average RSSI value of the RSSI values for each ranging signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize transmission of positioning signal at plurality of different frequencies and calculate an average of the measured signal strength, as suggested by Kimura and/or Johnson, in the system of Nishikawa. Doing so would have allowed to increase reliability of the measurement and reduce the effects of multipath interference.
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 GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
