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 6/23/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 1/16/2026. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claims 4-10, 14, 16, and 102-103 are amended;
No claims are cancelled or 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:
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection, the applicant has amended each independent claim to include the additional underlined limitations (or the equivalent): "determining, by the data processing hardware, that the textual annotation within the topological map comprises a label of a first software module of the robot from a plurality of software modules of the robot; and instructing, by the data processing hardware, the first software module to perform at least one operation in response to identifying the textual annotation within the topological map and determining that the textual annotation within the topological map comprises the label of the first software modules";
“The Office Action does not allege how or that the cited reference teaches or suggests a textual annotation within a topological map that comprises a label of a software module of a robot, let alone how or that the cited reference teaches or suggests "determining, by the data processing hardware, that the textual annotation within the topological map comprises a label of a first software module of the robot from a plurality of software modules of the robot," as set forth in Claim 1.”;
“the Office Action does not allege how or that the cited reference teaches or suggests instructing a software module to perform an operation in response to identifying a textual annotation within the topological map and determining that the textual annotation comprises a label of a software module, let alone how or that the cited reference teaches or suggests "instructing, by the data processing hardware, the first software module to perform at least one operation in response to identifying the textual annotation within the topological map and determining that the textual annotation within the topological map comprises the label of the first software module," as set forth in Claim 1.”.
Applicant's arguments A., B. and C. appear to be directed to the instantly amended subject matter. Accordingly, they have been addressed in the rejections below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means," but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations is/are for the terms:
• Software module in Claims 1, 4-10, 14, 16, 26, 76-77 and 102-103.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed
function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification in Para [0027] states:
“As an example, the route executor 220 may include a software module that is configured to cause the robot 100 to operate in an operational mode optimized for traversing stairs, and one or more edges 214 of a topological map 204 may be annotated to indicate that the path corresponding to such edge(s) 214 includes stairs. When the route executor 220, while executing a navigation route 202 based on such a topological map 204, encounters an edge 214 that includes such an annotation, the route executor 220 may automatically execute the "stairs" software module.”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under
35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1)
amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient
structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that
the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function
so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 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 1-7, 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 8,874,261 B2, henceforth Hein).
Regarding Claim 1, Jonak explicitly recites the limitations: a method, comprising: instructing, by data processing hardware of a robot {traversal system 116 for robot 110, Fig. 1}, the robot to navigate through an environment based at least in part on a topological map {Figs. 2A-2D}, 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 within the topological map {annotations 222, Fig. 2A; “The waypoint edge may include an annotation indicating a spatial feature of the environment. Recording the waypoint on the waypoint map include recording a basin zone around the waypoint, the basin zone designating an area adjacent to the waypoint where a robot is configured to use an iterative closest points (ICP) algorithm.”, ¶[0007]}; determining, by the data processing hardware {data processing hardware 112, Fig. 1}, that the textual annotation within the topological map {“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).”, ¶[0038]} comprises a label of a first software module of the robot from a plurality of software modules of the robot {if we combine the discussion in ¶[0028, 0038, 0059], 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.”, ¶[0028]), and the robotic control system can include “specially designed ASICs” and “one or more computer programs…which may be special or general purpose” (¶[0059])}; and instructing, by the data processing hardware, the first software module to perform at least one operation [in response to identifying the textual annotation within the topological map] {“Once either the computing hardware 110 or the remote system 140 generates the map 200, the map 200 is communicated to the traversal system 116 to execute the behavior system 102 of the robot 100. Here, the behavior system 102 controls the robot 100 to traverse within the robotic environment 10 according to the map 200. The map 200 may be generated by the same robot 100 that traverses the robotic environment 10 or a different robot.”, ¶[0033]} and determining that the textual annotation within the topological map comprises the label of the first software module {“the edge 220 includes annotations 222 associated with the edge 220 that provide further indication/description of the robotic environment 10.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).”, ¶[0038]}.
Jonak does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: instructing, by the data processing hardware, the first software module to perform at least one operation in response to identifying the textual annotation within the topological map.
However, Hein explicitly recites the limitations: instructing, by the data processing hardware, the first software module to perform at least one operation in response to identifying the textual annotation within the topological map {“A data storage device stores a reference map of the navigation landmarks based on the collected range data. A data processor establishes a list or sequence of way points for the robot to visit. Each way point is defined with reference to one or more landmarks. A reader reads an optical message at or near one or more way points. A task manager manages a task based on the read optical message.”, Abstract; robot includes an optical reader to read a “tag” at the waypoint: “A reader 24 may comprise an optical reader 24, a radio frequency reader 24, or another reader 24 for reading optical tags, radio frequency tags, or both. A radio frequency tag includes radio frequency identifiers or RFID's. The reader 24 may read an optical message or a radio frequency identifier (RFID) at or near one or more way points, for example. As used herein, an optical message or optical tag means a bar code, a uniform product code, or an image, pattern or message on a display (e.g., a liquid crystal or plasma display). “, Col. 2, Lns. 21-29; see also, performing a task at the waypoint: “Typically, the robot may visit or stop at a way point to execute a task (e.g., collect data, monitor the environment or otherwise). A way point position may be defined with reference to one or more navigation landmarks.”. Col. 2, Lns. 30-34}.
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 on a topological map and carry out a designated task associated with that position or node {Abstract and Col. 2, Lns. 21-34}.
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 {“The waypoint heuristic 212 may identify features within the robotic environment 10 that function as reliable vision sensor features offering repeatability for the robot 100 to maneuver about the robotic environment 10.”, ¶[0036] and Fig. 1}; and determining, based at least in part on the navigation route, a path for the robot through the environment {“Once the robot 100 is within the goal zone, the robot 100 has successfully navigated to the waypoint 210. Upon successful navigation to the waypoint 210 (i.e., entry of the goal zone) the robot 100 may proceed to move toward a subsequent waypoint 210 along a path of the robot 100.”, ¶[0043]}.
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.
However, Hein explicitly recites 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 {“A data storage device stores a reference map of the navigation landmarks based on the collected range data. A data processor establishes a list or sequence of way points for the robot to visit. Each way point is defined with reference to one or more landmarks. A reader reads an optical message at or near one or more way points. A task manager manages a task based on the read optical message.”, Abstract}.
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 textual annotation within the topological map comprises the label of the first software module comprises: determining that the first edge is associated with the label of the first software module {“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).”, ¶[0038]}.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 4, as discussed supra. In addition, Jonak explicitly recites the limitation: wherein determining that the first edge is associated with the label of the first software module comprises: determining that the first edge is annotated with the label of the first software module {“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).”, ¶[0038]}.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 4, as discussed supra. In addition, Jonak explicitly recites the limitation: wherein determining that the first edge is associated with the label of the first software module comprises: determining that the first edge corresponds to a portion of the topological map; and determining that the portion of the topological map is associated with the label of the first software module {“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).”, ¶[0038]}.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Jonak and Hein discloses all the limitations of Claim 4, as discussed supra. Jonak does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: further comprising: determining that the first edge is associated with first data; and providing the first data to the first software module.
However, Hein explicitly recites the limitations: further comprising: determining that the first edge is associated with first data {“The waypoint edge may include an annotation indicating a spatial feature of the environment.”, ¶[0007]}; and providing the first data to the first software module {“A reader reads an optical message at or near one or more way points. A task manager manages a task based on the read optical message.”, Abstract}.
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 {traversal system 116 for robot 110, Fig. 1; “computing device 500 includes a processor 510, memory 520, a storage device 530, a high-speed interface/controller 540 connecting to the memory 520 and high-speed expansion ports 550, and a low speed interface/controller 560 connecting to a low speed bus 570 and a storage device 530”, ¶[0054]}, and wherein the first software module corresponds to at least one second processor that is distinct from the at least one first processor {“In other implementations, multiple processors and/or multiple buses may be used, as appropriate, along with multiple memories and types of memory.”, ¶[0054], which one skilled in the art will appreciate that one processor can used to control leg (103/104/106/108, Fig. 1) motion and a second processor can used for behavior system 112, Fig. 1}.
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Jonak and Hein explicitly recites the limitations: a system, comprising: at least one processor {data processing hardware 112, Fig. 1}; and at least one computer-readable medium encoded with instructions {“The robot also includes memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware. The memory hardware stores instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations.”, ¶[0008]} which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: instruct a robot to navigate through an environment based at least in part on a topological map {Figs. 2A-2D}, 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 a textual annotation within the topological map {annotations 222, Fig. 2A; “The waypoint edge may include an annotation indicating a spatial feature of the environment. Recording the waypoint on the waypoint map include recording a basin zone around the waypoint, the basin zone designating an area adjacent to the waypoint where a robot is configured to use an iterative closest points (ICP) algorithm.”, ¶[0007]}; determine that the textual annotation within the topological map {“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).”, ¶[0038]} comprises a label of a first software module of the robot from a plurality of software modules of the robot {if we combine the discussion in ¶[0028, 0038, 0059], 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.”, ¶[0028]), and the robotic control system can include “specially designed ASICs” and “one or more computer programs…which may be special or general purpose” (¶[0059])}; and instruct the first software module to perform at least one operation [in response to identifying the textual annotation within the topological map] {“Once either the computing hardware 110 or the remote system 140 generates the map 200, the map 200 is communicated to the traversal system 116 to execute the behavior system 102 of the robot 100. Here, the behavior system 102 controls the robot 100 to traverse within the robotic environment 10 according to the map 200. The map 200 may be generated by the same robot 100 that traverses the robotic environment 10 or a different robot.”, ¶[0033]} and determine that the textual annotation within the topological map comprises the label of the first software module {“the edge 220 includes annotations 222 associated with the edge 220 that provide further indication/description of the robotic environment 10.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).”, ¶[0038]}.
Jonak does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: instruct the first software module to perform at least one operation in response to identifying the textual annotation within the topological map.
However, Hein explicitly recites the limitations: instruct the first software module to perform at least one operation in response to identifying the textual annotation within the topological map {“A data storage device stores a reference map of the navigation landmarks based on the collected range data. A data processor establishes a list or sequence of way points for the robot to visit. Each way point is defined with reference to one or more landmarks. A reader reads an optical message at or near one or more way points. A task manager manages a task based on the read optical message.”, Abstract; robot includes an optical reader to read a “tag” at the waypoint: “A reader 24 may comprise an optical reader 24, a radio frequency reader 24, or another reader 24 for reading optical tags, radio frequency tags, or both. A radio frequency tag includes radio frequency identifiers or RFID's. The reader 24 may read an optical message or a radio frequency identifier (RFID) at or near one or more way points, for example. As used herein, an optical message or optical tag means a bar code, a uniform product code, or an image, pattern or message on a display (e.g., a liquid crystal or plasma display). “, Col. 2, Lns. 21-29; see also, performing a task at the waypoint: “Typically, the robot may visit or stop at a way point to execute a task (e.g., collect data, monitor the environment or otherwise). A way point position may be defined with reference to one or more navigation landmarks.”. Col. 2, Lns. 30-34}.
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 at least one computer- readable medium is further encoded with additional instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor {traversal system 116 for robot 110, Fig. 1, and “computing device 500 includes a processor 510, memory 520, a storage device 530, a high-speed interface/controller 540 connecting to the memory 520 and high-speed expansion ports 550, and a low speed interface/controller 560 connecting to a low speed bus 570 and a storage device 530”, ¶[0054]}, further cause the at least one processor to: determine a navigation route based on the topological map {“The waypoint heuristic 212 may identify features within the robotic environment 10 that function as reliable vision sensor features offering repeatability for the robot 100 to maneuver about the robotic environment 10.”, ¶[0036] and Fig. 1}; and determine, based at least in part on the navigation route, a path for the robot through the environment {“Once the robot 100 is within the goal zone, the robot 100 has successfully navigated to the waypoint 210. Upon successful navigation to the waypoint 210 (i.e., entry of the goal zone) the robot 100 may proceed to move toward a subsequent waypoint 210 along a path of the robot 100.”, ¶[0043]}.
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 {data processing hardware 112, Fig. 1}; and at least one computer-readable medium encoded with instructions {“The robot also includes memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware. The memory hardware stores instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations.”, ¶[0008]} which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: instruct a mobile robot to navigate through an environment based at least in part on a topological map {Figs. 2A-2D}, 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 a textual annotation within the topological map {annotations 222, Fig. 2A; “The waypoint edge may include an annotation indicating a spatial feature of the environment. Recording the waypoint on the waypoint map include recording a basin zone around the waypoint, the basin zone designating an area adjacent to the waypoint where a robot is configured to use an iterative closest points (ICP) algorithm.”, ¶[0007]}; determine that the textual annotation within the topological map {“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).”, ¶[0038]} comprises a label of a first software module of the robot from a plurality of software modules of the robot {if we combine the discussion in ¶[0028, 0038, 0059], 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.”, ¶[0028]), and the robotic control system can include “specially designed ASICs” and “one or more computer programs…which may be special or general purpose” (¶[0059])}; and instruct the first software module to perform at least one operation [in response to identifying the textual annotation within the topological map] {“Once either the computing hardware 110 or the remote system 140 generates the map 200, the map 200 is communicated to the traversal system 116 to execute the behavior system 102 of the robot 100. Here, the behavior system 102 controls the robot 100 to traverse within the robotic environment 10 according to the map 200. The map 200 may be generated by the same robot 100 that traverses the robotic environment 10 or a different robot.”, ¶[0033]} and determine that the textual annotation within the topological map comprises the label of the first software module {“the edge 220 includes annotations 222 associated with the edge 220 that provide further indication/description of the robotic environment 10.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).”, ¶[0038]}.
Jonak does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: instruct the first software module to perform at least one operation in response to identifying the textual annotation within the topological map.
However, Hein explicitly recites the limitations: instruct the first software module to perform at least one operation in response to identifying the textual annotation within the topological map {“A data storage device stores a reference map of the navigation landmarks based on the collected range data. A data processor establishes a list or sequence of way points for the robot to visit. Each way point is defined with reference to one or more landmarks. A reader reads an optical message at or near one or more way points. A task manager manages a task based on the read optical message.”, Abstract; robot includes an optical reader to read a “tag” at the waypoint: “A reader 24 may comprise an optical reader 24, a radio frequency reader 24, or another reader 24 for reading optical tags, radio frequency tags, or both. A radio frequency tag includes radio frequency identifiers or RFID's. The reader 24 may read an optical message or a radio frequency identifier (RFID) at or near one or more way points, for example. As used herein, an optical message or optical tag means a bar code, a uniform product code, or an image, pattern or message on a display (e.g., a liquid crystal or plasma display). “, Col. 2, Lns. 21-29; see also, performing a task at the waypoint: “Typically, the robot may visit or stop at a way point to execute a task (e.g., collect data, monitor the environment or otherwise). A way point position may be defined with reference to one or more navigation landmarks.”. Col. 2, Lns. 30-34}.
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 limitation: wherein the at least one computer-readable medium is further encoded with additional instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor {traversal system 116 for robot 110, Fig. 1, and “computing device 500 includes a processor 510, memory 520, a storage device 530, a high-speed interface/controller 540 connecting to the memory 520 and high-speed expansion ports 550, and a low speed interface/controller 560 connecting to a low speed bus 570 and a storage device 530”, ¶[0054]}, further cause the at least one processor to: determine a navigation route based on the topological map {“The waypoint heuristic 212 may identify features within the robotic environment 10 that function as reliable vision sensor features offering repeatability for the robot 100 to maneuver about the robotic environment 10.”, ¶[0036] and Fig. 1}; and determine, based at least in part on the navigation route, a path for the robot through the environment {“Once the robot 100 is within the goal zone, the robot 100 has successfully navigated to the waypoint 210. Upon successful navigation to the waypoint 210 (i.e., entry of the goal zone) the robot 100 may proceed to move toward a subsequent waypoint 210 along a path of the robot 100.”, ¶[0043]}.
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 robot comprises four legs {legs 103, 104, 106, 108 of 100, Fig. 1} and a manipulator {commonality of robot manipulators discussed in ¶[0003]}, and wherein performance of the at least one operation causes movement of at least a portion of the robot {robot traversal of environment such as waypoint map area in Fig. 2A: “Once either the computing hardware 110 or the remote system 140 generates the map 200, the map 200 is communicated to the traversal system 116 to execute the behavior system 102 of the robot 100. Here, the behavior system 102 controls the robot 100 to traverse within the robotic environment 10 according to the map 200. The map 200 may be generated by the same robot 100 that traverses the robotic environment 10 or a different robot.”, ¶[0033]}.
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 label of the first software module is added to the topological map based on recordation of a mission {“Recording the waypoint on the waypoint map include recording a basin zone around the waypoint, the basin zone designating an area adjacent to the waypoint”, ¶[0007]; “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.”, ¶[0036]}, 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”, ¶[0028]}.
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 first software module 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 ¶[0028], enables the robot to carry out the annotated actions described in ¶[0038]: “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). In some configurations, the annotations 222 include directional constraints (also may be referred to as pose constraints). A directional constraint of the annotation 222 may specify an alignment and/or an orientation (e.g., a pose) of the robot 100 at a particular environment feature. For example, the annotation 222 specifies a particular alignment or pose for the robot 100 before traveling along stairs or down a narrow corridor which may restrict the robot 100 from turning.”}.
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jonak, Hein and Sant et al. (US 10,852,724 B2, henceforth Sant).
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 instructing addition of the label of the first software module to the topological map based on the request.
However, Sant explicitly recites the limitations: further comprising: receiving, via a user interface {client device 110, Fig. 1}, a request to perform the at least one operation {“The flight controller can be in communication with the onboard computing device which includes a processor and an onboard data manager. The onboard data manager can receive at least one input, determine one or more instructions to be performed by the at least one movable object based on the at least one input, generate movement commands to implement the one or more instructions, and send movement commands to the flight controller to be executed.”, Abstract}; and instructing addition of the label of the first software module to the topological map based on the request {“This enables waypoints to be added, removed, or modified during a mission. New waypoints can be streamed to the movable object during execution of the mission, allowing a mission to be started and then updated as the mission is executed. Additionally, the path between waypoints can be optimized along one or more metrics, such as to reduce travel time or energy required.”, Col. 2, Ln. 66 to Col. 3, Ln. 3}.
The combination of Jonak and Hein along with Sant are analogous art because they deal with planning and controlling the movements of an autonomous vehicle.
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, Hein and Sant before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Jonak and Hein to include the teachings of Sant to remotely control {Fig. 1} and update the planned mission of an autonomous vehicle {Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Jonak, Hein and Sant discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. The combination of Jonak and Sant does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein instructing the addition of the label of the first software module to the topological map comprises: instructing association of the label of the first software module with the first edge.
However, Hein explicitly recites the limitations: wherein instructing the addition of the label of the first software module to the topological map comprises: instructing association of the label of the first software module with the first edge {“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).”, ¶[0038]}.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Jonak, Hein and Sant discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as discussed supra. In addition, Jonak explicitly recites the limitation: further comprising: annotating an identifier of the first edge with the label of the first software module {“The waypoint edge may include an annotation indicating a spatial feature of the environment.”, ¶[0007]; “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).”, ¶[0038]}.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Jonak, Hein and Sant discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as discussed supra. In addition, Jonak explicitly recites the limitation: further comprising: instructing association of first data with the first edge {“The waypoint edge may include an annotation indicating a spatial feature of the environment.”, ¶[0007]; “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).”, ¶[0038]}.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Jonak, Hein and Sant discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as discussed supra. In addition, Jonak explicitly recites the limitation: further comprising: instructing generation of the first waypoint based on the request, wherein the first waypoint corresponds to the first location {waypoint generation: “The at least one waypoint heuristic is configured to trigger a waypoint placement on a waypoint map. In response to the at least one waypoint heuristic triggering the waypoint placement, the operations include recording a waypoint on the waypoint map where the waypoint is associated with at least one waypoint edge and includes sensor data obtained by the robot. The at least one waypoint edge includes a pose transform expressing how to move between two waypoints, Abstract}.
The combination of Jonak and Hein does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation:
wherein the request comprises a first request to initiate performance of the at least one operation at a first location.
However, Sant explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the request comprises a first request to initiate performance of the at least one operation at a first location {“The flight controller can be in communication with the onboard computing device which includes a processor and an onboard data manager. The onboard data manager can receive at least one input, determine one or more instructions to be performed by the at least one movable object based on the at least one input, generate movement commands to implement the one or more instructions, and send movement commands to the flight controller to be executed.”, Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Jonak, Hein and Sant discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as discussed supra. The combination of Jonak and Hein does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the request comprises a first request to initiate performance of the at least one operation at a first location, the method further comprising: receiving a second request to cease performance of the at least one operation at a second location.
However, Sant explicitly recites the limitations: wherein instructing the addition of the label of the first software module to the topological map comprises: instructing association of the label of the first software module with the first edge {“a mission can be paused 550 by sending a pause command 550 from the client device to the onboard data manager. The pause command can be passed to the mission follower which can stop sending movement commands to the flight controller. At a later point in time, a resume command 552 can be sent from the client device to the onboard data manager and passed to the mission follower which can then resume sending movement commands 554 to the flight controller.”, Col. 13, Lns. 26-34}.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Jonak, Hein and Sant discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as discussed supra. In addition, Jonak explicitly recites the limitation: further comprising: instructing association of the label of the first software module with a portion of the topological map; and instructing association of the portion of the topological map with the first edge {“The waypoint edge may include an annotation indicating a spatial feature of the environment.”, ¶[0007]; “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).”, ¶[0038]}.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Jonak, Hein and Sant discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. The combination of Jonak and Hein does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the request indicates the portion of the topological map.
However, Sant explicitly recites the limitations: further comprising: wherein the request indicates the portion of the topological map {each waypoint is a region of a topological map, adding new waypoints, corresponds to adding new areas of interest to the map: “This enables waypoints to be added, removed, or modified during a mission. New waypoints can be streamed to the movable object during execution of the mission, allowing a mission to be started and then updated as the mission is executed. Additionally, the path between waypoints can be optimized along one or more metrics, such as to reduce travel time or energy required.”, Col. 2, Ln. 66 to Col. 3, Ln. 3}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230400860 A1 – A robot based system for autonomously accomplishing a mission involving carrying out multiple tasks at different location.
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