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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-060614, filed on 3/31/2022.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 12/16/2025. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claims 1 and 10 are amended;
No additional claims are cancelled or no new claims are added.
Therefore, Claims 1-2 and 5-10 are pending examination, in which Claims 1 and 10 are independent claims.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
The objection to Claim 12 for a minor informality is withdrawn.
Further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1-2 and 5-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as detailed below.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the applicant has amended each independent claim to include the additional underlined limitations: "a candidate of the predicted path with the line-of-sight direction as a direction in which the user will move in the future before detecting the change in the moving direction of the user, and apply the acquired candidate as the predicted path when detecting that the moving direction of the user is changed to the acquired line-of-sight direction wherein the door has one or more hinges on two or more sides";
“Kim appears to disclose an autonomous smart cart tracking a user by being located behind the user while moving, as shown in Figure 1. Please note that, in Figure 2 of Kim, the smart cart is positioned in front of the user, but it is not moving. As depicted in FIG. 1, Kim appears to disclose tracking the user from behind. Therefore, Kim is incapable of acquiring the line-of-sight direction of the user by detecting the positions of the pupil and the iris in an eye of the set user which cannot be observed from behind. A path is predicted based on the acquired the line-of-sight as set forth in claim 1 as amended.”;
“Higashi fails to teach or suggest acquiring a line-of-sight of the user and a trunk orientation of the user separately, and generating a predicted path at the timing when the trunk orientation approaches the line-of-sight, as set forth in claim 1 as amended. As set forth in claim 1, a candidate of the predicted path is pre-generated and applied as the predicted path when a change in the moving direction is detected, thereby enabling smooth movement control.”.
Applicant's arguments A., B. and C. appear to be directed to the instantly amended subject matter. Accordingly, they have been addressed in the rejections 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, 5-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kuno (US 11,199,851 B2) and Hong et al. (US 11,731,274 B2), henceforth Hong).
Regarding Claim 1, Kuno explicitly discloses the limitations: a mobile object {10, Fig. 1A} comprising: a first sensor configured to detect a target object in surroundings {torso detection sensor 13, leg position detection sensor 14, peripheral recognition sensor 15, Figs. 1A and 2}; a storage device that stores instructions {ROM 31 and RAM 32, Fig. 1A}; and at least one processor {CPU 30, Fig. 1A} that executes the instructions to: recognize and set a user {user position information memory 32a, Fig. 1A}; acquire a predicted path indicating a future path of the user, based on a movement of the user that has been set and an output from the first sensor {sensors 13-15 detect changes in the user’s pose/posture/movements to enable the mobile body 10 to lead a person without interfering with the person’s movements: “The movement control device controls a target position in a left-right direction of the moving body against the user based on the information of the torso detected by the user detection device”, Col. 2, Lns. 8-12}, and configured to generate a path of the mobile object to lead the user on a forward side of a moving direction of the user, based on the predicted path {“During movement control wherein a moving body tracks a user while in front of the user…the distance between the moving body and the user can be maintained appropriately, and movement control in front of the user and that is not an impediment to the user can be accomplished”, Abstract, and 100 in Figs. 1A&2}; cause the mobile object to travel in accordance with the path that has been generated {as represented in Figs. 1A, 6A and 7A-7G, moving body 10 is an autonomous robot designed to lead the person and respond to changes in person’s motion; “The moving body 10 functions as a device capable of moving to an appropriate position against the user 20 in front of the user 20 and following the user 20.”, Col. 4, Lns. 14-16}; and upon detection of a change in the moving direction of the user, based on the output from the first sensor, modify the generated path to cause the mobile object to move to the forward side of the moving direction of the user in accordance with the moving direction that has been changed {Fig. 4 relative to Fig. 1, represents the mobile body 10 changing its direction to respond the change in body orientation of the person it is guiding (as determined by sensors 13-15 together with control portion 12, Fig. 2), to maintain an adequate separation (distance L) from the person even as the person takes a non-straight path}, wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the storage device to: acquire a line-of-sight direction and a trunk orientation of the user based on the output from the {first sensor torso detection sensor 13, leg position detection sensor 14, peripheral recognition sensor 15, Figs. 1A&2}, acquire, when the trunk orientation changes in the line-of-sight direction in a case where the acquired line-of-sight direction is different from a current moving direction {Figs. 4 and 7A-7G, with respect to Fig. 1, demonstrates the iterative process of detecting changes in the guided person’s posture/pose/movements, using multiple sensors (13-15, Fig. 2), and updating the projected path the mobile body 10 needs to take – be it strictly in the x-direction, y-direction or a combination of x- and y- directional changes - to maintain an adequate separation (distance L) from the person}.
Kuno does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: a candidate of the predicted path with the line-of-sight direction as a direction in which the user will move in the future before detecting the change in the moving direction of the user, and apply the acquired candidate as the predicted path when detecting that the moving direction of the user is changed to the acquired line-of-sight direction.
However, Hong explicitly recites the limitation: a candidate of the predicted path with the line-of-sight direction as a direction in which the user will move in the future before detecting the change in the moving direction of the user, and apply the acquired candidate as the predicted path when detecting that the moving direction of the user is changed to the acquired line-of-sight direction {with regard to Figs. 4-7, the follow-me robot must take into account that the predicted trajectory and optimal trajectory will no-longer coincide with the planned path when obstacle 300 causes the line-of-sight to dynamic object/person 140 to be temporarily lost (i.e., updated sensor information is unavailable via Vehicle Perception system 181, Fig. 1), leading to Dynamic Object Following Controller 196 (Figs. 1-2) to make adjustments to the predicted and optimal trajectory once the actual location and movement parameters of dynamic object/person 140 is updated; one skilled in the art will appreciate that the process represented in Fig. 7 is completely reversible for the case of a guiding robot}.
Kuno and Hong are analogous art because they both involve user guiding or following type robots.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kuno and Hong before them, to modify the teachings of Kuno to include the teachings of Hong to allow a robot to continue to follow or guide a user when the sensors are temporarily blocked from registering movement of the user {Fig. 5}.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kuno and Hong discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Kuno explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the storage device to: upon detection of at least a predetermined change in the moving direction of the user within a predetermined time, modify the generated path {“the distance between the moving body and the user can be maintained appropriately”, Abstract, and “The user detection device detects the walking of the user in a case that the differential value of position deviation of the torso and the leg of the user exceeds a predetermined second threshold value for a predetermined period. Therefore, there is an effect that it can be exactly detected the walking state of the user and movement of the moving body in the walking state of the user can be smoothly conducted. Here, the "predetermined second threshold value" does not necessarily become the same value of the "predetermined first threshold value" and may become a different value.”, Col. 3, Lns. 29-39}.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kuno and Hong discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Kuno explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the path to be modified, upon detection of the change in the moving direction of the user based on the output from the first sensor, is modified to shorten a distance to the user, as compared with the distance before the detection of the change in the moving direction of the user {“the distance between the moving body and the user can be maintained appropriately”, Abstract, corresponding to maintaining the distance L in Figs. 4 and 7A-7G, which means if the distance is temporarily greater than distance L – such as when the user 20 quicky slows down – the control system in Figs. 2-3 reacts to close the gap back to distance L.}.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kuno and Hong discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Kuno explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the storage device to: cause the mobile object to travel in accordance with the path that has been generated, tracks the user in accordance with the output from the first sensor, and maintains a distance to the user at a predetermined distance {“the distance between the moving body and the user can be maintained appropriately”, Abstract, as represented in by distance L in Figs. 4 and 7A-7G}.
Regarding Claim 10, Kuno explicitly discloses the limitations: control method {Abstract and Figs. 2-3} for a mobile object {10, Fig. 1A} including a first sensor configured to detect a target object in surroundings {torso detection sensor 13, leg position detection sensor 14, peripheral recognition sensor 15, Figs. 1A&2}, the control method comprising: a setting step of recognizing and setting a user {user position information memory 32a, Fig. 1A}; a path generation step of acquiring a predicted path indicating a future path of the user that has been set in the setting step, based on a movement of the user and an output from the first sensor {sensors 13-15 detect changes in the user’s pose/posture/movements to enable the mobile body 10 to lead a person without interfering with the person’s movements: “The movement control device controls a target position in a left-right direction of the moving body against the user based on the information of the torso detected by the user detection device”, Col. 2, Lns. 8-12}, and generating a path of the mobile object to lead the user on a forward side of a moving direction of the user, based on the predicted path {“During movement control wherein a moving body tracks a user while in front of the user…the distance between the moving body and the user can be maintained appropriately, and movement control in front of the user and that is not an impediment to the user can be accomplished”, Abstract, and 100 in Figs. 1A&2}; and a travel control step of causing the mobile object to travel in accordance with the path that has been generated {as represented in Figs. 1A, 6A and 7A-7G, moving body 10 is an autonomous robot designed to lead the person and respond to changes in person’s motion; “The moving body 10 functions as a device capable of moving to an appropriate position against the user 20 in front of the user 20 and following the user 20.”, Col. 4, Lns. 14-16}, wherein upon detection of a change in the moving direction of the user, based on the output from the first sensor , the path generation step modifies the generated path to cause the mobile object to move to the forward side of the moving direction of the user in accordance with the moving direction that has been changed {Fig. 4 relative to Fig. 1, represents the mobile body 10 changing its direction to respond the change in body orientation of the person it is guiding (as determined by sensors 13-15 together with control portion 12, Fig. 2), to maintain an adequate separation (distance L) from the person even as the person takes a non-straight path}, wherein the path generation step further comprises: acquiring a line-of-sight direction and a trunk orientation of the user based on the output from the first sensor {torso detection sensor 13, leg position detection sensor 14, peripheral recognition sensor 15, Figs. 1A&2}, acquiring, when the trunk orientation changes in the line-of-sight direction in a case where the acquired line-of-sight direction is different from a current moving direction {Figs. 4 and 7A-7G, with respect to Fig. 1, demonstrates the iterative process of detecting changes in the guided person’s posture/pose/movements, using multiple sensors (13-15, Fig. 2), and updating the projected path the mobile body 10 needs to take – be it strictly in the x-direction, y-direction or a combination of x- and y- directional changes - to maintain an adequate separation (distance L) from the person}.
Kuno does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: a candidate of the predicted path with the line-of-sight direction as a direction in which the user will move in the future before detecting the change in the moving direction of the user, and apply the acquired candidate as the predicted path when detecting that the moving direction of the user is changed to the acquired line-of-sight direction.
However, Hong explicitly recites the limitation: a candidate of the predicted path with the line-of-sight direction as a direction in which the user will move in the future before detecting the change in the moving direction of the user, and apply the acquired candidate as the predicted path when detecting that the moving direction of the user is changed to the acquired line-of-sight direction {with regard to Figs. 4-7, the follow-me robot must take into account that the predicted trajectory and optimal trajectory will no-longer coincide with the planned path when obstacle 300 causes the line-of-sight to dynamic object/person 140 to be temporarily lost (i.e., updated sensor information is unavailable via Vehicle Perception system 181, Fig. 1), leading to Dynamic Object Following Controller 196 (Figs. 1-2) to make adjustments to the predicted and optimal trajectory once the actual location and movement parameters of dynamic object/person 140 is updated; one skilled in the art will appreciate that the process represented in Fig. 7 is completely reversible for the case of a guiding robot}.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kuno, Hong and Suzuki et al. (JP 6137924 B2, henceforth Suzuki).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kuno and Hong discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Kuno and Hong does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the mobile object further comprises a second sensor configured to conduct vein authentication of the user, wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the storage device to: recognize and set the user by use of an output from the second sensor, and in a case where track of the user is lost, temporarily stop the mobile object, and in a case where the user that has been set is re-authenticated by the second sensor, resume driving.
However, Suzuki explicitly recites limitations: a second sensor configured to conduct vein authentication of the user {“113 fingerprint sensor…117 imaging unit…132 distance sensor”, Pg. 18, Lns. 8-11, wherein the biometric sensor can a vein sensor rather than a fingerprint sensor: “The fingerprint sensor 113 is an authentication device for permitting use only by users registered in advance. A user who wants to use the round-trip support robot 100 obtains a use permission by placing a fingertip that has been registered in advance on the fingerprint sensor 113 and executing an authentication process. The use permission is not limited to fingerprint authentication as in the present embodiment, and various modes can be adopted. If biometric information is used, iris authentication, vein authentication, or the like can be employed.”, Pg. 2, Ln. 31 - Pg. 3, Ln. 2}, wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the storage device {“200 CPU, 206 storage mechanism”, Pg. 18, Ln. 11} to: recognize and set the user by use of an output from the second sensor {“the drive control unit 222 recognizes the specific user to follow using, for example, the imaging unit 117. For example, information such as body shape and clothes color is acquired in a composite manner and used as information at the time of tracking”, Pg. 15, Lns. 33-34}, and in a case where track of the user is lost, temporarily stop the mobile object {support robot 100, Pg. 2, Ln. 19, and “The drive control unit 222 stops driving the moving mechanism 207 when the specific user cannot be followed in the follow-up mode due to losing sight of the specific user.”, Pg. 11, Lns. 4-5}, and in a case where the user that has been set is re-authenticated by the second sensor, resume driving {Pg. 2, Lns. 31-34 describes initial authentication of the user via a fingerprint sensor, Pg. 15, Lns. 33-34 establishes imaging data of the user has been obtained to allow the user to be tracked, Pg. 6, Lns. 29-32 describes a situation involving temporarily losing sight of the user, and “FIG. 2A shows the movement in the follow-up mode in which the round-trip support robot 100 recognizes the doctor 810 and follows autonomously”, Pg. 5, Lns. 21-22, all of which combines to enable the robot to begin moving again after robotic sighting of the authenticated user has been reestablished; it will be appreciated by one skilled in the art that any of the aforementioned robotic sensors, Pg. 18, Lns. 8-11, can be used to reestablish direct communication and verification with the user after sight is lost, including the aforementioned vein sensor}.
The combination of Kuno and Hong along with Suzuki are analogous art they deal with robots for assisting the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Kuno, Hong and Suzuki before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Kuno, Hong to include the teachings of Suzuki to reestablish contact with a user after the line-of-sight is temporarily lost and continue following the user.
Claim 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kuno, Hong, Suzuki and Nakajima et al. (JP 3979141 B2, henceforth Nakajima).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kuno, Hong and Suzuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 7, as discussed supra. The combination of Kuno, Hong and Suzuki does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the storage device to make an utterance to prompt re-authentication of the user, in a case where a first time length elapses since the track of the user is lost.
However, Nakajima explicitly recites limitation: wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the storage device {autonomous moving robot, Abstract} to make an utterance to prompt re-authentication of the user, in a case where a first time length elapses since the track of the user is lost {“If it is determined that an interruption has occurred and the condition has not been resolved even after a certain period of time has passed, the output means notifies the person who interrupted to move or the guided person to follow the person avoiding the interruption”, ¶[0006], and “Alternatively, the guided person 2 is notified by an output means such as a voice or a buzzer so as to avoid the interrupted person 22 and follow.”, ¶[0066]}.
The combination of Kuno, Hong and Suzuki along with Nakajima are analogous art because they deal with autonomous mobile robot for guiding or following a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of ref Kuno, Hong, Suzuki and Nakajima before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Kuno, Hong and Suzuki to include the teachings of Nakajima to notify the person being guided that the robot has temporarily lost the line-of-sight to the user.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Kuno, Hong, Suzuki and Nakajima discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. The combination of Kuno, Hong and Suzuki does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the storage device causes the mobile object to move to a predetermined standby position, in a case where a second time length longer than the first time length elapses since the track of the user is lost.
However, Nakajima explicitly recites limitation: wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the storage device causes the mobile object to move to a predetermined standby position, in a case where a second time length longer than the first time length elapses {vehicle is programmed to take time-sensitive action after the loss of the user’s line-of-sight: “The stop operation is executed so as to stop after slow driving according to a preset speed profile. Thereby, the unexpected accident by sudden stop can be prevented.”, Pg. 6, Lns. 10-12} since the track of the user is lost {“The drive control unit 222 stops driving the moving mechanism 207 when the specific user cannot be followed in the follow-up mode due to losing sight of the specific user.”, Pg. 11, Lns. 4-5}.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JPH08166822A – Robotic tracker with multiple sensors.
US 7,529,622 B2 – Obstacle avoidance technique suitable for guide robot.
US 2020/0000193 A1 – Path planning technique for a follow-me type robot.
KR 2021/0061268 A – Path planning for a follow-me type robot in a complex environment with multiple moving objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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 at (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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights