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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-23 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/16/2025 have been fully considered as below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the drawing objection, see page 13 of Remarks, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f), see page 13 of Remarks, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections to claim 14 under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b), see page 14 of Remarks, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections to claim 14 under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) are not maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections to claims 1, 2, 14, 15, and 16 under 35 USC 112(b), see pages 16-17 of Remarks, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The rejections to claims 1, 2, 14, 14, and 16 under 35 USC 112(b) are not maintained. However, new rejection under this section is addressed below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections to claims 10 and 21 under 35 USC 112(b), see pages 16-17 of Remarks, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections to claims 10 and 21 under 35 USC 112(b) are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the IDS consideration, see pages 12-13 of Remarks, have been fully considered. The IDS has been updated.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“feature module” in claim 1. The Examiner interprets feature module is a function of the control module 112 – a circuit (see Fig. 2, par. [0051, 0092]);
“mapping module” in claims 1, 3. The Examiner interprets mapping module is a function of the control module 112 – a circuit (see Fig. 2, par. [0051, 0092]);
“navigation module” in claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7. The Examiner interprets navigation module is a function of the control module 112 – a circuit (see Fig. 2, par. [0052-0053, 0092]);
“masking module” in claim 1. The Examiner interprets navigation module is a function of the control module 112 – a circuit (see Figs. 2, 5, par. [0075, 0092]);
“sampling module” in claims 1, 13. The Examiner interprets navigation module is a function of the control module 112 – a circuit (see Figs. 2, 5, par. [0075, 0092]);
“encoder module” in claim 11. The Examiner interprets navigation module is a function of the control module 112 – a circuit (see Figs. 2, 5, par. [0075, 0092]);
“long short term memory (LSTM) module” in claims 11, 22. The Examiner interprets navigation module is a function of the control module 112 – a circuit (see Figs. 2, 5, par. [0075, 0092]);
“decoder module” in claim 11. The Examiner interprets navigation module is a function of the control module 112 – a circuit (see Figs. 2, 5, par. [0075, 0092]);
“means for detecting …” in claim 14. The Examiner interprets feature module is a function of the control module 112 – a circuit (see Fig. 2, par. [0051, 0092]);
“means for generating …” in claim 14. The Examiner interprets mapping module is a function of the control module 112 – a circuit (see Fig. 2, par. [0051, 0092]);
“means trained to find …” in claim 14. The Examiner interprets navigation module is a function of the control module 112 – a circuit (see Fig. 2, par. [0052-0053, 0092]);
“a means for applying …” in claim 14. The Examiner interprets navigation module is a function of the control module 112 – a circuit (see Figs. 2, 5, par. [0075, 0092]);
“means for sampling …” in claim 14. The Examiner interprets navigation module is a function of the control module 112 – a circuit (see Figs. 2, 5, par. [0075, 0092]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-13 and 16-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended to add a comma in front of the term wherein. For example, in claim 2, “The navigation robot of claim 1, wherein the navigation …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear whether the claim limitation “one or more propulsion devices” in line 12 refers to “one or more propulsion devices” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriated correction is required. The examiner assumes “the one or more propulsion devices” for further examination.
Regarding claim 10, the applicant provides claim limitation, “wherein the N different objects are visually different than each other one of the N different objects”, however, the phrase is awkwardly written and unclear. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the phrase “the N different objects are visually different from each other one of the N different objects” encompasses because the term “one of the N different objects” are redundant. It is unclear whether the claim limitation should be phrased “wherein the N different objects are visually different from each other”. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriated correction is required. The examiner assumes “wherein the N different objects are visually different from each other” for further examination.
Regarding claim 13, the applicant provides claim limitation, “wherein the sampling module is configured to sample the portion based on maximizing a reward”. It is unclear whether the term “the portion” is referring to “a portion of the real world space in the map not yet captured in any images from the camera”, “the portion of the real world space in the map not vet captured in any images from the camera from the masked heatmap”, or “the portion from the heatmap”. If the term is referring to “the portion from the heatmap”, the claim should be amended as “wherein the sampling module is configured to sample a portion from the heatmap based on maximizing a reward” because it would be different from the portion of the masked heatmap that represents the real-world space not yet captured by the camera. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriated correction is required. The examiner assumes “wherein the sampling module is configured to sample a portion of the heatmap based on maximizing a reward”.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear whether the claim limitation “one or more propulsion devices” in line 12 refers to “one or more propulsion devices” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriated correction is required. The examiner assumes “the one or more propulsion devices” for further examination.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear whether the claim limitation “one or more propulsion devices” in line 12 refers to “one or more propulsion devices” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriated correction is required. The examiner assumes “the one or more propulsion devices” for further examination.
Regarding claim 21, the applicant provides claim limitation, “the N different objects are visually different than each other one of the N different objects”, however, the phrase is awkwardly written and unclear. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the phrase “the N different objects are visually different from each other one of the N different objects” encompasses because the term “one of the N different objects” are redundant. It is unclear whether the claim limitation should be phrased “wherein the N different objects are visually different from each other”. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriated correction is required. The examiner assumes “the N different objects are visually different from each other” for further examination.
Regarding claim 23, the applicant provides claim limitation, “wherein the sampling includes sampling the portion from the second map based on maximizing a reward”. It is unclear what the term “the second map” is referring to. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the term “the portion” is referring to “a portion of the real world space in the map not yet captured in any images from the camera”, “the portion of the real world space in the map not vet captured in any images from the camera from the masked heatmap”, or “the portion from the heatmap”. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriated correction is required. The examiner assumes “wherein the sampling includes sampling a portion of the heatmap” for further examination.
Claim 2-13 and 16-23 are also rejected under this section for at least their dependence upon a rejected based claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Narayanan et al. (US 20230132280 A1) teaches navigational systems and methods include building a topological graph of an environment using nodes that represent locations in the space and associated directions, with frontiers associated with particular nodes and directions within the topological graph. An action is determined using a policy trained with an action reward function that weighs exploration to find new objects and moving objects to a goal. An agent navigates within the environment in accordance with the determined action. However, Narayanan fails to teach of render obvious the claim limitation of “a navigation module trained to find and navigate to N different objects in the real world space in a predetermined order by: when a location of a next one of the N different objects in the predetermined order is stored in the map, actuate one or more propulsion devices of the navigating robot and navigate toward the next one of the N different objects in the real world space; and when the location of the next one of the N different objects in the predetermined order is not stored in the map, actuating the one or more propulsion devices of the navigating robot and navigating to a portion of the real world space in the map not yet captured in any images from the camera”.
Northcutt (US 11348332 B2) teaches a method for controlling a robotic device to perform an action in the environment based on the generated probability distribution for locations of the observed objects. However, Northcutt fails to teach of render obvious the claim limitation of “a navigation module trained to find and navigate to N different objects in the real world space in a predetermined order by: when a location of a next one of the N different objects in the predetermined order is stored in the map, actuate one or more propulsion devices of the navigating robot and navigate toward the next one of the N different objects in the real world space; and when the location of the next one of the N different objects in the predetermined order is not stored in the map, actuating the one or more propulsion devices of the navigating robot and navigating to a portion of the real world space in the map not yet captured in any images from the camera”.
Nandiraju et al. (US 20240362924 A1) teaches a method and system for multi-object tracking and navigation to locate target objects associated with an environment. However, Nandiraju fails to teach of render obvious the claim limitation of “a masking module configured to apply a mask to a heatmap that is generated based on the map; and a sampling module configured to sample the portion of the real world space in the map not yet captured in any images from the camera from the masked heatmap”.
Mantelli et al. (NPL reference “Semantic Temporal Object Search System Based on Heat Maps”) teaches a method and system controlling a robotic device to search target objects in unknown environment based on a heat map that represents the probability of finding the target objects. When the target objects are not found in any promising regions, the robotic device inspects all non-visited rooms, similar to a brute force search. However, Mantelli fails to teach of render obvious the claim limitation of “a navigation module trained to find and navigate to N different objects in the real world space in a predetermined order by: when a location of a next one of the N different objects in the predetermined order is stored in the map, actuate one or more propulsion devices of the navigating robot and navigate toward the next one of the N different objects in the real world space; and when the location of the next one of the N different objects in the predetermined order is not stored in the map, actuating the one or more propulsion devices of the navigating robot and navigating to a portion of the real world space in the map not yet captured in any images from the camera”.
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.
/TRANG DANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656