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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on January 22, 2026. Claims 1-13 are pending.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
In respond to applicant's arguments based on the filed amendment with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of said previous office action have been fully considered; however, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupuis US2019/0391597 (“Dupuis”) in view of Orita US2006/0265103 (“Orita”).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 13. Dupuis discloses a robotic work tool system comprising a server, a user device and one or more robotic work tools, the server comprising a controller ([0088] The computing system may include clients and servers. A client and server are generally remote from each other and typically interact through a communication network. The relationship of client and server arises by virtue of computer programs running on the respective computers and having a client-server relationship to each other.), the controller being configured to:
define iceman extent of a work area; define features of the work area; receive a requirement from the user device ([0006] In general, a first aspect includes a method for coordinating movements of a workcell of robots configured to operate in a shared workspace, the method comprising: for each robot in the workcell of robots, identifying a set of tasks assigned to the robot; generating multiple candidate motion plans, each candidate motion plan representing a different sequence of motions for the robot to execute in performing the set of tasks; for each candidate motion plan: (i) generating a 3D model that represents a volume of space through which the robot would move in executing the sequence of motions represented by the candidate motion plan,);
define requirements based on the extent of the work area, the features of the work area and the user requirement (fig. 4, [0038] The motion swept volume engine 108 is configured to generate a 3D model that represents the volume of space through which the robot would move in executing the sequence of motions represented by a candidate motion plan. The motion swept volume engine can receive motion plans from the motion planning engine 104 and generate a 3D model corresponding to the motion plans and transitions.);
select one or more of the one or more robotic work tools as selected robotic work tools based on capabilities of the one or more robotic work tools by matching the requirements to the capabilities of the one or more robotic work tools (para. 28, 25, 61, [0061] The scheduling system identifies, for each robot in a workcell of robots, a set of tasks assigned to the robot (405). In some implementations, the scheduling system assigns the set of tasks to the robot. The scheduling system can assign a task to a robot based on a number of considerations.);
generate operating instructions for the selected robotic work tools (para. 61-64, [0063] The scheduling system generates, for each robot in the workcell of robots, a multiple candidate motion plans, each candidate motion plan representing a different sequence of motions for the robot to execute in performing the set of tasks (410). The scheduling system generates the multiple candidate motion plans for each particular robot without considering any additional robots other than the particular robot.); and
transmit the operating instructions to the selected robotic work tools (para. 61-64, [0080] The scheduling system provides the selected motion plans for execution by the workcell of robots (435). The scheduling system can send the robots their respective selected motion plans. Each robot can then execute the set of tasks according to its receive motion plan.).
Dupuis does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more robotic work tools exchange information to optimize the operation instructions.
Orita teaches another robots system and method that exchange information to optimize the operation instructions ([0069] The input/output device 100 is an interface by which the robot control apparatus 3 exchanges data with the robots R via the router 2 and the base station 1 and with the terminal 5 via the network 4. Through the input/output device 100, in this embodiment, the robot control apparatus 3 exchanges the following data: status information and an acknowledgment signal that are received from the robots R; a signal requesting entry or update of a task that is received from the terminal 5 (task request signal); a task executive instruction that is generated in a task executive instruction generator 340 (for details, see below); a plan implementation instruction, a plan halt instruction, etc. that are generated in an action optimization controller 400 (for details, see below); a circumvention control instruction, etc. that is generated in a circumvention controller 500 (for details, see below).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Dupuis by incorporating the applied teaching of Orita to improve system optimization by enabling a fleet of robots exchange data and one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim(s) 2. Dupuis discloses wherein more than one robotic work tool is selected as the selected robotic work tools (para. 17, 51).
Regarding claim(s) 3. Dupuis discloses wherein the controller is further configured to provide a path planning for the selected robotic work tools (para. 34, 64).
Regarding claim(s) 4. Dupuis discloses wherein the controller is further configured to receive data relating to the work area from the selected robotic work tools, and update the path panning according to the received data relating to the work area (para. 34, 45, 64).
Regarding claim(s) 5. Dupuis discloses wherein the controller is further configured to receive anonymous data based on data from an obscured source; process the anonymous data; and transmit anonymous instructions for the obscured source (para. 61-64, [0080] The scheduling system provides the selected motion plans for execution by the workcell of robots (435). The scheduling system can send the robots their respective selected motion plans. Each robot can then execute the set of tasks according to its receive motion plan.)..
Regarding claim(s) 6. Dupuis discloses wherein the controller is further configured to receive an indication of a property; retrieve a representation of the indicated property; generate a map of the indicated property based on the representation of the indicated property; and generate the operating instructions for the selected robotic work tools based on the map of the indicated property (para. 6, 39-45, In some implementations, the first motion plan can be deemed more efficient than the second motion plan if the robot is able to execute the first motion plan using less energy than it would expend executing the second motion plan. In addition, the first motion plan can be more efficient than the second motion plan if the robot is able to execute the first motion plan using less time and/or volume than it would use when executing the second motion plan. Criteria on which the scoring engine 112 can determine the scores are discussed below with regard to FIG. 4.).
Regarding claim(s) 7. Dupuis discloses wherein the controller is further configured to determine a sensitivity for debris of an area in said work area and to generate the operating instructions for the selected robotic work tools based on the sensitivity for debris of the area ([0031-0032] As another example, the clustering engine can cluster tasks according to the actions that the tasks require a robot to perform. If a first set of tasks requires the robot to drill a component while and a second set of tasks requires the robot to weld two components together, the clustering engine 102 can determine that the two sets of tasks require different tools. In response, the clustering engine 102 can recognize that the first and second sets of tasks require different tools and therefore, cannot be placed in the same cluster.).
Regarding claim(s) 8. Dupuis discloses wherein the requirement indicates a quality of work, and wherein the controller is further configured to generate the operating instructions by generating a queue of service requirements ([0071] In some implementations, a characteristic of the sequence of motions represented by the candidate motion plan can include an estimated energy consumption of a robot during execution of the motion plan. For example, the energy consumption of the robot during execution of the motion plan can be directly proportional to the amount of times that the candidate motion plan requires the robot to change direction. Accordingly, if executing a first candidate motion plan requires more energy consumption than executing a second candidate motion plan, the scheduling system can assign a lower score to the first candidate motion plan than to the second candidate motion plan.).
Regarding claim(s) 9. Dupuis discloses the controller is further configured to determine that a service is to be halted; determine at least one service requirement of at least one service to be continued; determine at least one resource of the selected robotic work tools; match the at least one service requirement to the at least one resource, and select the service to be continued based on the matching (para. 71-74, candidate motion plan requires the robot to change direction. Accordingly, if executing a first candidate motion plan requires more energy consumption than executing a second candidate motion plan, the scheduling system can assign a lower score to the first candidate motion plan than to the second candidate motion plan.).
Regarding claim(s) 10. Dupuis discloses wherein user device comprises a user interface and the server and wherein the server received the at least one user requirement from the user device internally via the user interface (para. 86, Other kinds of devices may be used to provide for interaction with a user as well; for example, feedback provided to the user may be any form of sensory feedback, e.g., visual feedback, auditory feedback, or tactile feedback; and input from the user may be received in any form, including acoustic, speech, or tactile input.).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupuis US2019/0391597 (“Dupuis”) in view of Orita US2006/0265103 (“Orita”) and further in view of Lee et al. US2021/0168996 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim(s) 11, 12. Dupuis in view of Orita does not explicitly teach wherein the selected robotic work tools is include a gardening or horticultural robotic work tool suitable for outdoor work in uneven, often dirt or debris-filled environments and wherein the selected robotic work tools include a robotic lawnmower.
Lee teaches another robotic mapping system and method specifically for a robotic work tools is include a gardening or horticultural robotic work tool suitable for outdoor work in uneven, often dirt or debris-filled environments and wherein the selected robotic work tools include a robotic lawnmower (para. 70-79, [0079] Similar to the first travel map, generating the second travel map may include a second image mapping operation of generating a second travel image of a 3D region using the re-photographed aerial image, and a second map displaying operation of dividing the second travel image into a mowing region where a lawn is present and an obstacle region distinguished from the mowing region, converting the second travel image into a second travel map of a 2D region and displaying the second travel map. )
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination system and method of Dupuis in view of Orita by incorporating the applied teaching of Lee to improve the accuracy of navigational mapping data for a robotic lawn mower. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements updating navigation mapping based on terrain information and as such and one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUC M DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5962. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramón Mercado, Ph.D. can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRUC M DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights