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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s priority filing: U.S. Provisional Application 63/354,773, filed 06/23/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/12/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 6/12/2026. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claims 1-16, 26-27, 76-77 and 101-103 are amended;
No new claims added.
Therefore, Claims 1-16, 26-27, 76-77 and 101-103 are pending examination, in which Claims 1, 26 and 76 are independent claims.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
Regarding the interpretation of Claims 1, 4-10, 14, 16, 26, 76-77, and 102-103 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the applicant’s arguments have been considered and found persuasive. The interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is withdrawn.
Amended Claims 1-16, 26-27, 76-77 and 101-103 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1-16, 26-27, 76-77 and 101-103 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:
[A.] “the Office Action has not alleged how or that the cited references teach or suggest "instructing, by ... a first system of a robot, the robot to navigate through an environment based at least in part on a topological map," "identifying ... a textual annotation comprising an identifier indicating one or more systems from a set of systems of the robot for invocation by the data processing hardware, wherein the identifier indicating the one or more systems is stored textually as part of the topological map," "determining ... that the identifier indicates a second system of the robot from the set of systems of the robot," and "invoking ... the second system to perform at least one operation in response to identifying the textual annotation comprising the identifier, determining that the identifier indicates the second system, and determining that a location of the robot corresponds to a portion of the environment associated by the topological map with invocation of the second system," (emphasis added) as recited in Claim 1 as amended.”;
[B.] “the Office Action has not alleged how or that the Jonak teaches or suggests identification, by data processing hardware of a first system, of a textual annotation comprising an identifier indicating a second system for invocation by the data processing hardware and stored textually as part of a topological map and invocation of the second system by the first system as recited in Claim 1 as amended.”;
[C.] “the Office Action does not allege how or that the behavior system of Jonak is instructed to perform an operation in response to a determination that the identifier (stored textually as part of a topological map) indicates the behavior system and a determination that a location of the robot corresponds to a portion of the environment associated with invocation of the second system, let alone "invoking ... the second system to perform at least one operation in response to ... determining that the identifier indicates the second system, and determining that a location of the robot corresponds to a portion of the environment associated by the topological map with invocation of the second system," as recited in Claim 1 as amended.”;
[D.] “the Office Action has not alleged how or that the Hein teaches or suggests invocation of a second system, by a first system, to perform an operation in response to identifying a textual annotation comprising an identifier stored textually as part of a topological map as recited in Claim 1 as amended.”.
Applicant's arguments A., B., C. and D. appear to be directed to the instantly amended subject matter. Accordingly, they have been addressed in the rejections below.
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 1-16, 26-27, 76-77 and 101-103 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.
Claims 1-5, 14-16 and 76-77 include the limitation element “first system”;
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-16, 26, 76-77, 101 and 103 include the limitation element “second system”;
Claims 9 and 27 include the limitation element “third system”;
Claims 1, 5, 11, 26-27 and 76 include the limitation phrase “set of systems”.
It is unclear what constitutes each system, and what determines if additional systems qualify to be in the “set of systems”.
Dependent Claims 8, 10 and 102 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as depending from independent Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-16, 26-27, 76-77 and 101-103 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jonak et al. (US 2020/0117214 A1, henceforth Jonak) and Hein et al. (US 2009/0030551 A1, henceforth Hein).
Regarding Claim 1, Jonak explicitly recites the limitations: a method, comprising: instructing, by data processing hardware of a first system of a robot {computing hardware 110 and data processing hardware 112 process data from sensor system 120, ¶28}, the robot to navigate through an environment {“the robot 100 may autonomously navigate the robotic environment 10 using the map 200”, ¶34} based at least in part on a topological map {waypoint map 200, Figs. 2A-2D and ¶51}, wherein the topological map {Figs. 2A-2D} indicates a first waypoint {210a, Fig. 2A}, a second waypoint {210b, Fig. 2A}, and a first edge between the first waypoint and the second waypoint {220a, Fig. 2A}; identifying, by the data processing hardware, a textual annotation comprising an identifier {Examiner’s note: topological maps are inherently limited to alphanumeric identifying data, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art; annotations (222, Figs. 2A-2D) associated with waypoint map 200 is described in ¶38: “examples of annotations 222 include a description or an indication that an edge 220 is located on stairs or crosses a doorway.”} indicating one or more systems from a set of systems of the robot {behavior system 102, sensor system 120 and traversal system, ¶28} for invocation by the data processing hardware {under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this relates to the computing hardware and data processing hardware in ¶28, activating behavior and/or traversal system when an annotation on the waypoint map (¶38) indicates stairs have been encountered, for example}, wherein the identifier indicating the one or more systems is stored textually as part of the topological map {if we combine the discussion in ¶28, 38, 59, we have a robotic control system (i.e., behavior system 102, Fig. 1) capable of both general ambulatory movement (like walking) plus specialized actions (like climbing stairs), in which annotations on a map aid the robot in identifying the required specialized action (i.e., “The robot traversal system 116 operates the behavior system 102 based on at least one map 200 provided to the robot traversal system 116.”, ¶28), and the robotic control system can include “specially designed ASICs” and “one or more computer programs…which may be special or general purpose” (¶59)};
determining, by the data processing hardware, that the identifier indicates a second system {computing hardware 110 and data processing hardware 112 are associated with traversal system 116 and behavior system 102, ¶28} of the robot from the set of systems of the robot {under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner interprets the “first system” and “second system” to each be any combination of computing hardware, software applications, software modules, specialized processors, lines of computing code, etc., as long as some distinction between the two “systems” exists, this includes the systems some hardware and/or some software, but not all; per ¶38, the annotations can distinguish between a doorway and stairs, which require different software/coding; one skilled in the art will appreciate that the different software/coding could be in the form of two separate software applications}; and invoking, by the data processing hardware, the second system to perform at least one operation in response to identifying the textual annotation comprising the identifier {¶28, the traversal system 116 operates behavior system 102, which enables the robot to perform different controlled motions, corresponding to those needed to carry out the control necessary the “stairs” and “doorway” annotations described in ¶38}, determining that the identifier indicates the second system {in the absence of sensor data (¶38), control of the robot to climb stairs or pass through a doorway (¶38) is necessarily carried out by the traversal system in ¶28}.
Jonak does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: determining that a location of the robot corresponds to a portion of the environment associated by the topological map with invocation of the second system.
However, Hein explicitly recites the limitations: determining that a location of the robot corresponds to a portion of the environment associated by the topological map {addressed with preceding reference} with invocation of the second system {robot includes an optical reader to read an optical tag at a waypoint or landmark to identify a task to carry out at that specific location, ¶17, 22-23, wherein the task is under the control of task manager 20 portion of data processor 14, which is a separate module from the navigational module 18, ¶22}.
Jonak and Hein are analogous art because they both deal with operating autonomous robots based on topological type maps with waypoints or nodes.
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 Jonak and Hein before them, to modify the teachings of Jonak to include the teachings of Hein reach a designated position and carry out a designated task associated with that position or node {Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Jonak explicitly recites the limitation: determining a navigation route based on the topological map {processed map 204 in Fig. 2C includes a navigational route comprised of waypoints (210) and edges (220)}; and determining, based at least in part on the navigation route, a path for the robot through the environment {¶34, robot 100 navigates autonomously using map 200, Fig. 2A}.
Jonak does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein determining that the location of the robot corresponds to the portion of the environment associated by the topological map with the invocation of the second system comprises determining that a location of the robot along the path corresponds to a portion of the navigation route associated with the invocation of the second system.
However, Hein explicitly recites the limitations: wherein determining that the location of the robot corresponds to the portion of the environment associated by the topological map with the invocation of the second system comprises determining that a location of the robot along the path corresponds to a portion of the navigation route associated with the invocation of the second system {robot includes an optical reader to read an optical tag at a waypoint or landmark to identify a task to carry out at that specific location, ¶17, 22-23, wherein the task is under the control of task manager 20 portion of data processor 14, which is a separate module from the navigational module 18, ¶22}.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, as discussed supra. Jonak does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein determining the navigation route comprises: accessing mission data that indicates an action to perform at the second waypoint; and generating, using the mission data and the topological map, the navigation route, wherein the navigation route indicates the invocation of the second system based on the action to perform at the second waypoint.
However, Hein explicitly recites the limitations: wherein determining the navigation route comprises: accessing mission data {“a mission associated with corresponding landmarks or way points.”, ¶25} that indicates an action to perform at the second waypoint {performing “tasks associated with corresponding landmarks or way points”, ¶25}; and generating, using the mission data and the topological map {data storage device of the robot stores a reference map, ¶25}, the navigation route {“data processor 14 or navigation module 18 establishes a list or sequence of way points for the robot to visit”, ¶37}, wherein the navigation route indicates the invocation of the second system based on the action to perform at the second waypoint {robot includes an optical reader to read an optical tag at a waypoint or landmark to identify a task to carry out at that specific location, ¶17, 22-23, wherein the task is under the control of task manager 20}.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Jonak explicitly recites the limitation: wherein determining that the identifier indicates the second system comprises: determining that the first edge is textually annotated with the identifier {“Some examples of annotations 222 include a description or an indication that an edge 220 is located on stairs or crosses a doorway. These annotations 222 may aid the robot 100 during maneuvering especially when visual information is missing or lacking (e.g., a void such as a doorway).”, ¶38}.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Jonak does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the first system comprises a navigation system of the robot, wherein the first system is separate and distinct from the set of systems, and wherein each system of the set of systems is associated with at least one of a particular type of environment or a particular type of object.
However, Hein explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the first system comprises a navigation system of the robot {navigation module 18, Fig. 1}, wherein the first system is separate and distinct from the set of systems {navigation module 18 is distinct from task manager 20 and distinct from discriminator 16, ¶22 & Fig. 1}, and wherein each system of the set of systems is associated with at least one of a particular type of environment or a particular type of object {¶22, navigation module 18, task manager 20 and discriminator each have distinct functions, and play different levels of functionality when the robot travels from waypoint to waypoint performing different tasks, ¶24-25}.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Jonak explicitly recites the limitation: wherein determining that the identifier indicates the second system comprises: determining that the portion of the environment corresponds to a portion of the topological map; and determining that the portion of the topological map is textually annotated with the identifier {¶38,“ annotations 222 associated with the edge 220 that provide further indication/description of the robotic environment 10…annotations 222 include a description or an indication that an edge 220 is located on stairs or crosses a doorway.”}.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Jonak explicitly recites the limitation: further comprising: determining that the portion of the environment corresponds to a portion of the topological map {Figs. 2A-2D}; determining that the portion of the topological map is textually annotated with the identifier {¶38,“ annotations 222 associated with the edge 220 that provide further indication/description of the robotic environment 10…annotations 222 include a description or an indication that an edge 220 is located on stairs or crosses a doorway.”}; determining that the portion of the topological map is associated with first data {real-time sensor data is added to map to generate a processed map, ¶39-41}; and providing the first data to the second system {¶41, sensor data is used by traversal system 116}.
Jonak does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: However, Hein explicitly recites the limitations:
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Jonak and Hein does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: further comprising: receiving, via a user interface, a request to perform the at least one operation; and textually annotating the topological map with the identifier based on the request.
However, Hein explicitly recites the limitations: receiving, via a user interface {¶68, user interface 38 includes a display}, a request to perform the at least one operation {¶68, user interface 36 may have supervisory control of the robot or the data processor 14}; and textually annotating the topological map with the identifier based on the request {¶39, navigation module 18 manages the creation and updating of the navigation map, and thus has the capability to add identifier information the map when, at each way point, a task is determined from reading the optical message at each waypoint/landmark}.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Jonak explicitly recites the limitation: wherein invoking the second system comprises: invoking the second system to control one or more third systems {¶28, “traversal system 116 operates the behavior system 102 based on at least one map 200”} of the robot to perform the at least one operation {¶7, causing robot to establish a preferred pose at a waypoint: “the waypoint includes a robot pose constraint configured to cause the robot to achieve an oriented pose at the waypoint.”; see also ¶38)}.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Jonak does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: further comprising: receiving, via a user interface, a request to perform the at least one operation and a region identifier indicating a region associated with performance of the at least one operation; determining that the region corresponds to the first edge and the first waypoint; and annotating an edge identifier of the first edge and a waypoint identifier of the first waypoint with the identifier, wherein the edge identifier and the waypoint identifier are stored textually as part of the topological map .
However, Hein explicitly recites the limitations: further comprising: receiving, via a user interface {¶68, user interface 38 includes a display}, a request to perform the at least one operation and a region identifier indicating a region {interpreted by the examiner as a waypoint} associated with performance of the at least one operation {¶39, user of the control system can modify a task or mission by changing, replacing, or reprogramming an optical tag associated with a waypoint}; determining that the region corresponds to the first edge and the first waypoint {¶39, mission includes landmarks or waypoints, which necessary include intervening sections between the landmarks and waypoints, corresponding to edges, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art}; and annotating an edge identifier of the first edge and a waypoint identifier of the first waypoint with the identifier {¶39, navigation module 18 manages the creation and updating of the navigation map, and thus has the capability to add identifier information the map when, at each way point, a task is determined from reading the optical message at each waypoint/landmark}, wherein the edge identifier and the waypoint identifier are stored textually as part of the topological map {the navigation map generation just mentioned, ¶39, is stored in the data storage device of ¶25, which includes storage of data from the environment around the robot, which includes all landmarks and waypoints encountered}.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Jonak explicitly recites the limitations: further comprising: registering the set of systems with the robot; and identifying the set of systems based on registering the set of systems with the robot {behavior system 102, with traversal system 116 and sensor system 120, ¶28 and Fig. 1, are effectively subsystems of the overall robotic controls system and thus are inherently registered systems}, wherein determining that the identifier indicates the second system is in response to identifying the set of systems {¶38, annotations indicate the presence of terrain features such as stairs and doorways, and lead to modification of the robot pose to deal with these features, which inherently involves the robot movement control systems, i.e., the behavior system and traversal system, ¶28}.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Jonak does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: further comprising: instructing display of a user interface via a user computing device , wherein instructing the robot to navigate through the environment is based on an input from the user computing device, and wherein the user interface indicates text data associated with the second system.
However, Hein explicitly recites the limitations: further comprising: instructing display of a user interface via a user computing device {¶68, user interface 38 includes a display}, wherein instructing the robot to navigate through the environment is based on an input from the user computing device {¶68, user interface 36 may have supervisory control of the robot or the data processor 14}, and wherein the user interface indicates text data associated with the second system {¶68, the user interface “facilitates monitoring of the status, environment or position of the robot by viewing one or more images collected by the sensor 26 or other sensor data. The user interface 38 may display, present or provide audio, visual or other messages to a user.”}.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Jonak does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: further comprising: receiving an input from a user computing device, wherein the input indicates a first location in the environment to invoke the second system and a second location in the environment to cease performance of the at least one operation, wherein the portion of the environment is defined by the first location and the second location.
However, Hein explicitly recites the limitations: further comprising: receiving an input from a user computing device {¶68, user interface 36 may have supervisory control of the robot or the data processor 14}, wherein the input indicates a first location in the environment to invoke the second system and a second location in the environment to cease performance of the at least one operation {per ¶25, each waypoint, in a sequence of waypoints, may have a different task assigned to it by the optical tag at each waypoint; it follows that a different tasked assigned to the next waypoint will change the operation of the robot to correspond to changing from one task to a different task, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art; in addition, the task manager has the ability interrupt, prioritize, pause and cease tasks or navigation of the robot, per ¶61}, wherein the portion of the environment is defined by the first location and the second location {¶25, different locations corresponding to different waypoints visited by robot: “list or sequence of way points for the robot to visit”, ¶37}.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Jonak does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein, in response to invoking the second system, the first system yields control of the robot to the second system.
However, Hein explicitly recites the limitations: wherein, in response to invoking the second system, the first system yields control of the robot to the second system {The examiner interprets this a significant change in the way the robot is operated: a change in robotic function occurs when the performance of a task is interrupted to generate an alarm, as described in ¶60-61}.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Jonak and Hein explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the first system {sensor system 120, ¶28} and the second system {traversal system 116 and behavior system 102, ¶28} cause the robot to navigate the environment in different manners {The examiner interprets this a significant change in the way the robot is operated: per ¶34, robot 100 can move about autonomously using map 200, without GPS information or navigation data from a beacon, corresponding to movement without real-time sensor data, versus a normal operating mode of using both a sensor system and a mapped based navigation system}.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Jonak explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the data processing hardware corresponds to at least one first processor {processor 510, memory 520 of computing device 500, ¶54}, wherein the first system comprises the at least one first processor and at least one first memory {computing hardware 110 and data processing hardware 112 process data from sensor system 120, ¶28}, and wherein the second system {computing hardware 110 and data processing hardware 112 are associated with traversal system 116 and behavior system 102, ¶28} comprises at least one second processor that is separate and distinct from the at least one first processor and at least one second memory that is separate and distinct from the at least one first memory {multiple processors and memory elements represents duplication-of-parts under MPEP § 2144.04.VI.B, and individual processors and memory elements represents making-separable under MPEP § 2144.04.V.C}.
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Jonak and Hein explicitly recites the limitations: a first system, comprising: at least one processor {computing hardware 110 and data processing hardware 112 process data from sensor system 120, ¶28}; and at least one computer-readable medium {memory, ¶8, 54} encoded with instructions {computer programs, ¶60} which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: instruct the mobile robot to navigate through an environment {“the robot 100 may autonomously navigate the robotic environment 10 using the map 200”, ¶34}based at least in part on a topological map {waypoint map 200, Figs. 2A-2D and ¶51}, wherein the topological map {Figs. 2A-2D} indicates a first waypoint {210a, Fig. 2A}, a second waypoint {210b, Fig. 2A}, and a first edge between the first waypoint and the second waypoint {220a, Fig. 2A}; identify a textual annotation comprising an identifier {Examiner’s note: topological maps are inherently limited to alphanumeric identifying data, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art; annotations (222, Figs. 2A-2D) associated with waypoint map 200 is described in ¶38: “examples of annotations 222 include a description or an indication that an edge 220 is located on stairs or crosses a doorway.”} indicating one or more systems from a set of systems of the mobile robot {behavior system 102, sensor system 120 and traversal system, ¶28} for invocation by the at least one processor {under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this relates to the computing hardware and data processing hardware in ¶28, activating behavior and/or traversal system when an annotation on the waypoint map (¶38) indicates stairs have been encountered, for example}, wherein the identifier indicating the one or more systems is stored textually as part of the topological map {if we combine the discussion in ¶28, 38, 59, we have a robotic control system (i.e., behavior system 102, Fig. 1) capable of both general ambulatory movement (like walking) plus specialized actions (like climbing stairs), in which annotations on a map aid the robot in identifying the required specialized action (i.e., “The robot traversal system 116 operates the behavior system 102 based on at least one map 200 provided to the robot traversal system 116.”, ¶28), and the robotic control system can include “specially designed ASICs” and “one or more computer programs…which may be special or general purpose” (¶59)}; determine that the identifier indicates a second system {computing hardware 110 and data processing hardware 112 are associated with traversal system 116 and behavior system 102, ¶28} of the robot from the set of systems of the robot {under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner interprets the “first system” and “second system” to each be any combination of computing hardware, software applications, software modules, specialized processors, lines of computing code, etc., as long as some distinction between the two “systems” exists, this includes the systems some hardware and/or some software, but not all; per ¶38, the annotations can distinguish between a doorway and stairs, which require different software/coding; one skilled in the art will appreciate that the different software/coding could be in the form of two separate software applications}; and invoke the second system to perform at least one operation in response to identifying the textual annotation comprising the identifier {¶28, the traversal system 116 operates behavior system 102, which enables the robot to perform different controlled motions, corresponding to those needed to carry out the control necessary the “stairs” and “doorway” annotations described in ¶38}, determining that the identifier indicates the second system {in the absence of sensor data (¶38), control of the robot to climb stairs or pass through a doorway (¶38) is necessarily carried out by the traversal system in ¶28}.
Jonak does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: determining that a location of the robot corresponds to a portion of the environment associated by the topological map with invocation of the second system.
However, Hein explicitly recites the limitations: determining that a location of the robot corresponds to a portion of the environment associated by the topological map {addressed with preceding reference} with invocation of the second system {robot includes an optical reader to read an optical tag at a waypoint or landmark to identify a task to carry out at that specific location, ¶17, 22-23, wherein the task is under the control of task manager 20 portion of data processor 14, which is a separate module from the navigational module 18, ¶22}.
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 26, as discussed supra. In addition, Jonak explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the identifier comprises a first identifier {annotations, ¶38}, and wherein the at least one computer-readable medium {memory, ¶8, 54} is further encoded with additional instructions {computer programs, ¶60} which, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to: determine a navigation route based on the topological map {“the robot 100 may autonomously navigate the robotic environment 10 using the map 200”, ¶34}; and identify a set of waypoints and a set of edges of the navigation route {waypoints 210 and edges 220, Figs. 2A-2D}, wherein the first edge of the set of edges and the first waypoint of the set of waypoints are textually annotated with the first identifier {annotations (222, Figs. 2A-2D) associated with waypoint map 200 is described in ¶38: “examples of annotations 222 include a description or an indication that an edge 220 is located on stairs or crosses a doorway.”}, wherein a second edge of the set of edges between the second waypoint and a third waypoint {edge 202b relative to 220a, Fig. 2A} is textually annotated with a second identifier {¶38, all edges in waypoint map 200 are annotated} that indicates a third system of the robot from the set of systems of the robot {two systems were addressed in Claim 26, a third system represents a duplication-of-parts under MPEP § 2144.04.VI.B}, and wherein the third waypoint is textually annotated with the second identifier {annotating edges is taught in ¶38, and one skilled in the art will appreciate that the waypoints in waypoint map 200 (Figs. 2A-2D) can similarly be annotated}.
Regarding Claim 76, Jonak explicitly recites the limitations: a mobile robot {100, Fig. 1}, comprising: a robot body {body of 100, Fig. 1}; one or more locomotion based structures coupled to the robot body {legs 103, 104, 106, 108 of 100, Fig. 1}; at least one processor of a first system of the mobile robot {computing hardware 110 and data processing hardware 112 process data from sensor system 120, ¶28}; and at least one computer-readable medium {memory, ¶8, 54} encoded with instructions {computer programs, ¶60} which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: instruct the mobile robot to navigate through an environment {“the robot 100 may autonomously navigate the robotic environment 10 using the map 200”, ¶34} based at least in part on a topological map {waypoint map 200, Figs. 2A-2D and ¶51}, wherein the topological map {Figs. 2A-2D} indicates a first waypoint {210a, Fig. 2A}, a second waypoint {210b, Fig. 2A}, and a first edge between the first waypoint and the second waypoint {220a, Fig. 2A}; identify a textual annotation comprising an identifier {Examiner’s note: topological maps are inherently limited to alphanumeric identifying data, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art; annotations (222, Figs. 2A-2D) associated with waypoint map 200 is described in ¶38: “examples of annotations 222 include a description or an indication that an edge 220 is located on stairs or crosses a doorway.”} indicating one or more systems from a set of systems of the mobile robot {behavior system 102, sensor system 120 and traversal system, ¶28} for invocation by the at least one processor {under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this relates to the computing hardware and data processing hardware in ¶28, activating behavior and/or traversal system when an annotation on the waypoint map (¶38) indicates stairs have been encountered, for example}, wherein the identifier indicating the one or more systems is stored textually as part of the topological map {if we combine the discussion in ¶28, 38, 59, we have a robotic control system (i.e., behavior system 102, Fig. 1) capable of both general ambulatory movement (like walking) plus specialized actions (like climbing stairs), in which annotations on a map aid the robot in identifying the required specialized action (i.e., “The robot traversal system 116 operates the behavior system 102 based on at least one map 200 provided to the robot traversal system 116.”, ¶28), and the robotic control system can include “specially designed ASICs” and “one or more computer programs…which may be special or general purpose” (¶59)}; determine that the identifier indicates a second system {computing hardware 110 and data processing hardware 112 are associated with traversal system 116 and behavior system 102, ¶28} of the robot from the set of systems of the robot {under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner interprets the “first system” and “second system” to each be any combination of computing hardware, software applications, software modules, specialized processors, lines of computing code, etc., as long as some distinction between the two “systems” exists, this includes the systems some hardware and/or some software, but not all; per ¶38, the annotations can distinguish between a doorway and stairs, which require different software/coding; one skilled in the art will appreciate that the different software/coding could be in the form of two separate software applications}; and invoke the second system to perform at least one operation in response to identifying the textual annotation comprising the identifier {¶28, the traversal system 116 operates behavior system 102, which enables the robot to perform different controlled motions, corresponding to those needed to carry out the control necessary the “stairs” and “doorway” annotations described in ¶38}, determining that the identifier indicates the second system {in the absence of sensor data (¶38), control of the robot to climb stairs or pass through a doorway (¶38) is necessarily carried out by the traversal system in ¶28}.
Jonak does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: determining that a location of the mobile robot corresponds to a portion of the environment associated by the topological map with invocation of the second system.
However, Hein explicitly recites the limitations: determining that a location of the mobile robot corresponds to a portion of the environment associated by the topological map {addressed with preceding reference} with invocation of the second system {robot includes an optical reader to read an optical tag at a waypoint or landmark to identify a task to carry out at that specific location, ¶17, 22-23, wherein the task is under the control of task manager 20 portion of data processor 14, which is a separate module from the navigational module 18, ¶22}.
Regarding Claim 77, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 76, as discussed supra. In addition, Jonak explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the second system comprises a system of an attachable payload of the mobile robot {under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner interprets this to be equivalent to supplemental computing power, which is simply a duplication of the primary computing device, i.e., computing device 500 in ¶54, and hence represents a duplication-of-parts under MPEP § 2144.04.VI.B}, and wherein the attachable payload is connected to the first system via one or more electrical connections {electrically connecting computing devices is well known in the art}.
Regarding Claim 101, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Jonak explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the identifier indicates the second system and one or more features of the environment {in the absence of sensor data (¶38), control of the robot to climb stairs or pass through a doorway (¶38) is necessarily carried out by the traversal system in ¶28}, and wherein invoking the second system comprises: invoking the second system to perform the at least one operation using the one or more features of the environment indicated by the identifier {¶28, the traversal system 116 operates behavior system 102, which enables the robot to perform different controlled motions, corresponding to those needed to carry out the control necessary the “stairs” and “doorway” annotations described in ¶38}.
Regarding Claim 102, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Jonak explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the identifier is added to the topological map based on recordation of a mission {recording waypoint on waypoint map, ¶7, and “in response to the at least one waypoint heuristic 212 triggering the waypoint placement, the robot 100 and/or remote system 140 records the waypoint 210 on the map 200.”, ¶36}, wherein instructing the robot to navigate through the environment comprises: instructing the robot to autonomously perform the mission based on the recordation of the mission and the topological map {“The robot traversal system 116 operates the behavior system 102 based on at least one map 200 provided to the robot traversal system 116”, ¶28}.
Regarding Claim 103, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Jonak explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the second system comprises one or more of: a door opening system; a data capture system; a data transmission system; a navigation system; a sensor pointing system; a light system; an audio system; a button pushing system; or an operation blocking system {the behavior system 102 of robot 100, described in ¶28, enables the robot to carry out the annotated actions described in ¶38}.
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 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