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 Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/251,867 filed on 5/4/2023.
Claims 12-22 have been canceled.
Claims 1-11, 23-31 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL in response to the “Request for Continued Examination” and “Remarks” filed on 10/21/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 23-25, 28, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
These claims disclose a system that is capable of detecting an object or an obstacle, but neither the claims nor the Specification recite the specific method by which the object is detected. These claims should be amended to provide clarity as to how this step in the process in completed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 1-3, 7, 11, 23-26, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shitamoto (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0116880 A1) in view of Xiao (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0133291 A1), in further view of Kobayashi (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0333790 A1), in further view of Shams (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0389447 A1).
In regard to Claim 1, Shitamoto teaches a method for circumventing an object, comprising:
In response to detecting an object to be circumvented in a process of a device, moving in a direction away from the object to be circumvented, by the device and according to information of the object, to an alternate position (see Figure 4(c), Paragraph 86 lines 1-12, Paragraph 87 lines 1-2, Paragraph 90 teaching an autonomous mobile body 1 that retreats to a retreat position 71 away from an obstacle region 66 in response to detecting the obstacle region in the mobile body’s path 68); wherein an included angle between a connection line direction and an original direction of the device before movement does not exceed 90 degrees (see Figure 4(c) teaching that the angle between the mobile body’s original path 68 and the retreat path between points 71 and 100 is less than 90 degrees), and the connection line direction extends from a center point of the object to the alternate position (see Figure 4(c) teaching that the retreat path between points 71 and 100 extends from a point that is directly in front of the obstacle’s center point on the surface facing the mobile body).
Shitamoto fails to teach wherein the device is a walking robot.
However, Xiao teaches wherein the device is a walking robot (see Abstract lines 1-5 teaching a robot that can walk).
Shitamoto and Xiao are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mobile robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shitamoto’s invention to incorporate a walking capability as taught by Xiao. Doing so could improve a mobile robot navigation system by making it compatible with multiple types of locomotion.
Shitamoto further fails to teach wherein the alternate position is an observation position at which the device obtains observation information comprising whether an obstacle is present around the object; and
Determine, by the device, a navigation route according to the observation information obtained at the observation position, and performing, by the device, navigation according to the navigation route.
However, Kobayashi teaches wherein the alternate position is an observation position at which the device obtains observation information comprising whether an obstacle is present around the object at the alternate position (see Paragraph 36 teaching mobile body control system that estimates its own position, as well as the position of obstacles within the mobile body’s surroundings); and
Determine, by the device, a navigation route according to the observation information obtained at the observation position, and performing, by the device, navigation according to the navigation route (see Paragraph 36 teaching that the mobile body has a planning unit that plans a route on the basis of the sensed area of the obstacle).
Shitamoto and Kobayashi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of autonomous mobile bodies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shitamoto’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a mobile body could observe information pertaining to obstacles in the mobile body’s surrounding area and perform navigation on the basis of that information as taught by Kobayashi. Doing so could improve an autonomous mobile robot by enabling it to navigate around obstacles without input by a user.
Shitamoto further fails to teach wherein the obstacle is hidden.
However, Shams teaches wherein the obstacle is hidden (see Abstract, Paragraph 84 teaching a radar detection system that uses threshold time-of-flight values to determine if a detected obstacle is non-line-of-sight).
Here, the Examiner is interpreting an obstacle that is not within line-of-sight to be a hidden obstacle.
Shitamoto and Shams are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that can detect obstacles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shitamoto’s invention to incorporate a feature capable of detecting whether an obstacle is hidden from the detection system as taught by Shams. Doing so could improve an obstacle detection or navigation system by enabling it to plan or modify routes based on visible obstacles, as well as those that are obscured or hidden. This could decrease travel time or increase the probability that a corresponding vehicle could complete a planned route.
In regard to Claim 2, Shitamoto further teaches wherein in response to detecting that the object is an obstacle, the determining the navigation route according to the observation information specifically comprises: detecting whether the observation information contains another obstacle located in the original direction and located around the object, and determining the navigation route according to a result of the detecting (see Figure 4(d), Paragraph 86 lines 5-8, Paragraph 91 lines 1-8 teaching that when the mobile body determines obstacles 61 and 66 are blocking its path, it determines a route 97 around both obstacles).
The rest of Claim 2 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (that the robot is a walking device, that the information is obtained at an observation position, and that the obstacle is hidden). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 3, Shitamoto further teaches wherein in response to determining that the observation information contains the another obstacle, the determining the navigation route comprises: determining a route of avoiding the object and the another obstacle, and returning to the original direction as the navigation route (see Figure 4(d), Paragraph 86 lines 5-8, Paragraph 91 lines 1-8 teaching that when the mobile body determines obstacles 61 and 66 are blocking its path, it determines a route 97 around both obstacles that joins the original path 68 at point 67).
The rest of Claim 3 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (that the robot is a walking device). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 7, Shitamoto further teaches circumventing the obstacle according to an obstacle avoidance strategy; in a process of the circumventing, the device moves to a key position where an included angle between a walking direction of the self-walking device and the original walking direction exceeds a preset angle value (see Figure 4(c), Paragraph 91 lines 8-15 teaching that the angle between the originally planned route extending from the obstacle 66, and the path to the alternate point 71 extending from the obstacle 66 is between 90 and 180 degrees, and that the position 100 from which the mobile body relocates to the alternate position 71 is identified); and
Moving, according to a preset strategy, from the key position to the alternate position in a direction away from the obstacle (see Figure 4(c), Paragraph 86 lines 1-12, Paragraph 87 lines 1-2, Paragraph 90 teaching an autonomous mobile body 1 that retreats to a retreat position 71 away from an obstacle region 66 in response to detecting the obstacle region in the mobile body’s path 68);
Wherein the performing the navigation according to the navigation route specifically comprises moving from the alternate position back to the key position, and continuing to perform the navigation according to the navigation route (see Figure 4(c), Paragraph 86 lines 1-5, Paragraph 90, Paragraph 157 lines 12-14 teaching that when the interfering obstacle 66 has left, the autonomous mobile body 1 resumes its travel along the original path 68, on which the point 100 is located).
The rest of Claim 7 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (that the robot is self-walking, and moves to the alternate position, which is an observation position, in response to detecting an obstacle in its path). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 11, Shitamoto fails to teach wherein the walking process of the self-walking device specifically comprises: a walking process of the self-walking device in an along-the-wall mode.
However, Xiao teaches wherein the walking process of the self-walking device specifically comprises: a walking process of the self-walking device in an along-the-wall mode (see Abstract lines 1-5 teaching a robot that can walk along a wall surface).
Shitamoto and Xiao are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mobile robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shitamoto’s invention to incorporate the capability to walk along a wall as taught by Xiao. Doing so could improve a mobile robot navigation system by making it able to follow a path that is relatively parallel and close to a wall, without hitting the wall or straying from the path.
In regard to Claim 23, Shitamoto further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform a method (see Paragraph 63 lines 1-9 teaching that the system uses a read-only memory which stores programs that are executed by a microprocessor).
The rest of Claim 23 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 24, Shitamoto further teaches an electronic device, comprising:
One or more processors (see Paragraph 63 lines 1-9 teaching that the system uses a microprocessor); and
A storage apparatus, used for storing one or more programs, the one or more programs being executable by the one or more processors (see Paragraph 63 lines 1-9 teaching that the system uses a read-only memory which stores programs that are executed by the microprocessor).
The rest of Claim 24 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Claim 25 is substantially similar to Claim 2 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 2 above for analysis.
Claim 26 is substantially similar to Claim 3 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 3 above for analysis.
Claim 30 is substantially similar to Claim 7 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 7 above for analysis.
Claims 4, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shitamoto (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0116880 A1) in view of Xiao (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0133291 A1), in further view of Kobayashi (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0333790 A1), in further view of Shams (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0389447 A1), in further view of Martinson (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0246520 A1), in further view of Sim (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0288709 A1).
In regard to Claim 4, Shitamoto fails to teach wherein the performing the navigation according to the navigation route comprises:
In a process of avoiding the another obstacle, moving to another observation position in a direction away from the another obstacle, obtaining another observation information at the another observation position, and updating the navigation route according to the another observation information.
However, Martinson teaches wherein the performing the navigation according to the navigation route comprises:
In a process of avoiding the another obstacle, moving to another observation position in a direction away from the another obstacle, obtaining another observation information at the another observation position, and updating the navigation route according to the another observation information (see Figures 2, 7B, Paragraphs 56, 63, Paragraph 64 lines 7-17 teaching a robot that moves along a path to observation points, wherein the robot detects multiple obstacles, and moves to a plurality of observation points in order to update a path capable of avoiding each of the obstacles).
Shitamoto and Martinson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mobile robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shitamoto’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the system can detect multiple obstacles, and move to a plurality of observation points in order to obtain sensory information to avoid the obstacles as taught by Martinson. Doing so could improve a robot navigation system by enabling a path to be updated based on information obtained at points along a route with multiple obstacles.
Shitamoto further fails to teach wherein the moving is according to information of the another obstacle.
However, Sim teaches wherein the moving is according to information of the another obstacle (see Paragraph 123 teaching a mobile robot that senses a second obstacle D2 that exists in a traveling direction, wherein the robot cleaner moves to a recognizable distance and then determines whether to avoid the second obstacle).
Shitamoto and Sim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mobile robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shitamoto’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a mobile robot moves according to information pertaining to multiple obstacles as taught by Sim. Doing so could improve a robot navigation system by enabling a path to be generated or updated based on information pertaining to multiple obstacles, which could enable the robot to navigate more complicated or obstacle-heavy terrain.
Claim 27 is substantially similar to Claim 4 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 4 above for analysis.
Claims 5, 6, 28, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shitamoto (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0116880 A1) in view of Xiao (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0133291 A1), in further view of Kobayashi (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0333790 A1), in further view of Shams (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0389447 A1), in further view of Hou (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0184571 A1).
In regard to Claim 5, Shitamoto fails to teach wherein in response to detecting that the object is a wall comer, the determining the navigation route according to the observation information specifically comprises: detecting whether the observation information contains an obstacle located behind the wall comer, and determining the navigation route according to a result of the detecting.
However, Hou teaches wherein in response to detecting that the object is a wall comer, the determining the navigation route according to the observation information specifically comprises: detecting whether the observation information contains an obstacle located behind the wall comer, and determining the navigation route according to a result of the detecting (see Paragraph 141 lines 16-26 teaching a mobile cleaning robot that can identify whether a detected obstacle is close to the corner of a wall, and can control the cleaning robot to move according to a navigation route and ignore the obstacle, based on certain characteristics of the obstacle).
Shitamoto and Hou are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mobile robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shitamoto’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a robot can detect if there is an obstacle close to a wall corner, and navigate based on the detection as taught by Hou. Doing so could improve a robot navigation system by enabling the system to recognize that the robot’s path may be obstructed by an obstacle while turning a corner, and navigate appropriately to avoid both the corner and the obstacle.
The rest of Claim 5 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (that the information is obtained at an observation position, and that the obstacle is hidden). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 6, Shitamoto fails to teach wherein in response to determining that the observation information contains the obstacle located behind the wall comer, the determining the navigation route comprises: determining a route of moving around the wall comer and avoiding the obstacle as the navigation route.
However, Hou teaches wherein in response to determining that the observation information contains the obstacle located behind the wall comer, the determining the navigation route comprises: determining a route of moving around the wall comer and avoiding the obstacle as the navigation route (see Paragraph 141 lines 16-26 teaching a mobile cleaning robot that can identify whether a detected obstacle is close to the corner of a wall, and can control the cleaning robot to move according to a navigation route and ignore the obstacle).
Shitamoto and Hou are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mobile robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shitamoto’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a robot can detect if there is an obstacle close to a wall corner, and navigate based on the detection as taught by Hou. Doing so could improve a robot navigation system by enabling the system to recognize that the robot’s path may be obstructed by an obstacle while turning a corner, and navigate appropriately to avoid both the corner and the obstacle.
The rest of Claim 6 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (that the robot is a walking device). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Claim 28 is substantially similar to Claim 5 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 5 above for analysis.
Claim 29 is substantially similar to Claim 6 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 6 above for analysis.
Claims 8, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shitamoto (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0116880 A1) in view of Xiao (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0133291 A1), in further view of Kobayashi (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0333790 A1), in further view of Shams (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0389447 A1), in further view of Zhang (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0331148 A1).
In regard to Claim 8, Shitamoto teaches wherein the moving, according to the preset strategy, from the key position to the observation position in the direction away from the obstacle comprises:
Moving backwards (see Figure 4(c) teaching that robot moves backwards from a path position 100 to alternate position 71).
Shitamoto fails to teach firstly rotating to right by a preset angle, and then moving by a preset distance.
However, Zhang teaches firstly rotating to right by a preset angle, and then moving by a preset distance (see Figure 3H, Paragraph 146 lines 4-15 teaching a cleaning robot that, when encountering an obstacle, moves horizontally for a predetermined distance, and rotates in the counter-clockwise direction, such as at point D, where the robot rotates clockwise by 90 degrees and then moves a predetermined distance).
Shitamoto and Zhang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mobile robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shitamoto’s invention to incorporate a preset angle of rotation and movement distance when encountering an obstacle as taught by Zhang. Doing so could improve a robot navigation system by implementing a standard procedure when encountering an obstacle. This could require less sensory data to complete than a more detailed procedure wherein a rotation angle and offset distance are calculated.
Claim 31 is substantially similar to Claim 8 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 8 above for analysis.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shitamoto (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0116880 A1) in view of Xiao (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0133291 A1), in further view of Kobayashi (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0333790 A1), in further view of Shams (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0389447 A1), in further view of Gritsenko (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0069125 A1).
In regard to Claim 9, Shitamoto further teaches moving, along the original walking direction, to a key position beside the wall corner; wherein an included angle between a connection line direction extending from a corner vertex of the wall corner to the key position and the current walking direction is around 90 degrees (see Figure 4(c), Paragraph 86 lines 1-12, Paragraph 87 lines 1-2, Paragraph 90 teaching that the mobile body stops at a point 100, adjacent to a wall corner, and the angle between a connection line direction, extending from the position 100 to the vertex of the wall corner, and the current planned route 68 is around 90 degrees); and
Moving, in a direction away from the wall comer, from the key position to the observation position (see Figure 4(c), Paragraph 86 lines 1-12, Paragraph 87 lines 1-2, Paragraph 90 teaching that the mobile body stops at a point 100, adjacent to a wall corner, and moves to an alternate point 71).
Shitamoto fails to teach detecting that the object is a wall corner.
However, Gritsenko teaches detecting that the object is a wall corner (Figures 7A-F, Paragraph 75 lines 1-10 teaching a mobile robot that can detect and navigate around a 90 degree corner).
Shitamoto and Gritsenko are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mobile robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shitamoto’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the robot can detect and navigate around a wall corner as taught by Gritsenko. Doing so could improve a robot navigation system by enabling the robot to move adjacent to a wall, even when the wall forms a corner.
The rest of Claim 9 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (that the robot moves to the observation position based on detecting an obstacle). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shitamoto (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0116880 A1) in view of Xiao (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0133291 A1), in further view of Kobayashi (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0333790 A1), in further view of Shams (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0389447 A1), in further view of Nam (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0332868 A1).
In regard to Claim 10, Shitamoto fails to teach wherein a boundary distance between the another obstacle and the object is less than a first preset value; wherein the first preset value is greater than or equal to a length or width of a machine body.
However, Nam teaches wherein a boundary distance between the another obstacle and the object is less than a first preset value; wherein the first preset value is greater than or equal to a length or width of a machine body (see Paragraph 94 teaching a cleaning robot that determines a distance between sensed obstacles, and determines that the robot 100 is to travel and enter when the distance between the obstacles is a certain value or more).
Shitamoto and Nam are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mobile robots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shitamoto’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the mobile robot traverses between two obstacles when it determines that the width between the objects is larger than a width or length of the robot as taught by Nam. Doing so could improve a robot navigation system by identifying scenarios where the robot can traverse between obstacles, rather than having to traverse around them.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on October 21st, 2025, with regard to the 35 § U.S.C. 103 rejections for Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New reference Kobayashi has been added after an updated search, and teaches the newly-added limitation of Claim 1, wherein the present obstacle is hidden.
New 35 USC § 112(a) rejections have been introduced in light of the amendments.
Claims 2-11, 23-31 remain rejected for reasons similar to those put forth in the rejection of Claim 1, or for the same reasons detailed in the previous office action.
The Applicant’s amendments and arguments are insufficient to overcome these prior art rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure:
Artes (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0267552 A1) teaches a mobile robot path planning system (see Abstract, Figure 2B).
So (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0116475 A1) teaches a cleaning robot system that detects obstacles and adjust the traveling direction of the robot (see Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W ARELLANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/PAUL W ARELLANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3667B
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3667
January 9, 2026