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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 6, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 6-14 remain
pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that, citing paragraphs [0001], [0066] of Mitsuhiro, Mitsuhiro does not disclose the features of the amended independent claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained in the office action, the features of the amended independent claims are rejected under 35 USC 103 over Mitsuhiro in view of Afrouzi, citing page 5, lines 1-3, 8-12, 36-38 of the English Translation, page 4, lines 48-53 page 6, line 52 – page 7, line 2, page 2, lines 36-51, page 6, line 52 – page 7, line 2 of Mitsuhiro, and the abstract and paragraph [0004] of Afrouzi.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhiro et al. (JP 2019106123 A), which was cited by Applicant, in view of Afrouzi et al. (US 20190035100 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mitsuhiro discloses:
An information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor and a memory storing a program which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the information processing apparatus to {page 5, lines 8-12 of the English Translation discloses an information processing device}:
acquire region information including at least one of a shape feature or a pattern feature relating to a predetermined region {page 5, lines 1-3 disclose acquiring region information: the initial map 260 is an environmental map obtained by Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM). When the initial map 260 is generated by the initial map generation unit 281 based on travel results and stored in the storage device 299. Page 4, lines 48-53 disclose shape feature relating to a predetermined region: the shape of the floor surface};
to calculate a degree of similarity between a first region and a second region based on first region information relating to the first region and second region information relating to the second region {page 6, line 52 – page 7, line 2 disclose a second region that is similar to a first region: a plurality of floors having the same form or similar shapes. Page 2, lines 36-51 disclose generating maps for floors identical or similar in form, which implies region similarity degree calculation in order to copy a map from the first region to the second region since only between similar enough regions copying map is possible};
acquire second map information relating to the second region based on first map information relating to the first region in a case in which the degree of similarity that has been calculated is at or above a first predetermined threshold {page 6, line 52 – page 7, line 2; page 2, lines 36-51: a copying unit that duplicates at least one of the cleaning maps. Being above a predetermined threshold is implied since only between similar enough regions copying map is possible};
acquire movement history information for a movable apparatus in the first region when the first map information relating to the first region is created {page 4, lines 48-51: A processing unit that generates an initial map as shown in FIG. 5 using the traveling record which is a set of self position information… stores the initial map… is a set of self position information at a plurality of locations, and indicates an area where the autonomous traveling cleaner 110 can travel in the cleaning area}; and
control the movement of a movable apparatus in the second region based on the degree of similarity that was calculated {page 5, lines 36-38: the cleaning start point S (see FIG. 9) of the autonomous traveling cleaner 110, the cleaning end point G, the cleaning route},
wherein in a case in which the degree of similarity is at or above the predetermined first threshold, the first map information is used to serve as the second map information { page 6, line 52 – page 7, line 2; page 2, lines 36-51}.
Mitsuhiro does not disclose: in a case in which the degree of similarity is lower than the predetermined first threshold and is at or above a predetermined second threshold that is lower than the predetermined first threshold, the movement of the movable apparatus is controlled and the second map information is created based on an output from a sensor that has been provided on the movable apparatus.
Afrouzi teaches creating map based on sensor output in the abstract: based on the overlapping area… and inferring, with one or more processors , features of a working environment of the robot based on the spatially aligned sensor readings; and paragraph [0004]: sensor data may be used to create an environmental map. Examiner notes that the first and second thresholds are implied from calculating a degree of similarity by Mitsuhiro.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the map creation based on sensor data feature of Afrouzi with the described invention of Mitsuhiro in order to allow alternative mapping method when the similarity between the regions are comparatively low.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 9, 10.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 1, Afrouzi teaches: wherein in a manual mode, the movement of the movable apparatus is controlled in the second region based on commands from a user {[0035]: command responses to user input}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the manual mode feature of Afrouzi with the described invention of Mitsuhiro in order to allow user interruption when full automatic operation is not possible.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1, Mitsuhiro discloses: wherein the first region information includes CAD data feature point group data that was acquired using LiDAR, or image data that was acquired using a camera {page 4, lines 16-20 teaches image acquired using a camera}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 1, Afrouzi teaches: wherein the degree of region similarity is calculated based on a degree to which a layout that is included in the first region and the second region will affect the movement control of the movable apparatus {[0032]: Objects may include, but are not limited to, articles, items, walls, boundary setting objects or lines, furniture, obstacles, etc. that are included in the floor plan (layout)... Overlapping depths from separate fields of view may be combined to construct a floor plan of the environment}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the layout feature of Afrouzi with the described invention of Mitsuhiro in order to utilize layouts of the floors in determining the similarity.
Regarding claim 12, which depends from claim 1, Mitsuhiro discloses: wherein one of a movement velocity, a movement range of a movable apparatus, or a posture of the sensor is controlled {page 4, lines 25-31: traveling amount, the turning angle, the speed, the acceleration, the angular velocity and the like of the autonomous traveling cleaner}.
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 1, Mitsuhiro discloses: wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to display a planned travel route on which the movable apparatus will be movement controlled in the second region {page 6, lines 35-39: The generated floor map is displayed on the display device}.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhiro in view of Afrouzi and in further view of Furuta et al. (US 20200245837 A1).
Regarding claim 14, which depends from claim 1, modified Mitsuhiro does not teach: wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to display a warning according to the degree of region similarity.
Furuta teaches displaying a warning according to the degree of region similarity in paragraph [0063]: If the surrounding information included in the map is different from the surrounding information generated by the surrounding information generator 45 during the cleaning mission in the autonomous cleaning mode in this manner, the autonomous vacuum cleaner 1 displays an enquiry about whether or not to update the map of the cleaning target space together with a message to the effect that the surrounding information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the warning display feature of Furuta with the described invention of modified Mitsuhiro in order to prevent erroneous operation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANMIN PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661