DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/392,550 filed on 12/21/2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 11/26/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 12-15, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vicenti (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0108499 A1) in view of Sundararajan (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0324813 A1).
In regard to Claim 1, Vicenti teaches a method, comprising:
Determining, by a controller, a first location of a mobile device within an environment (see Paragraph 3 lines 16-18 teaching a robot localization and mapping system wherein the robot calculates its location and orientation within an area);
Causing, by the controller, the mobile device to navigate to a second location within the environment that provides increased localization measurement accuracy over the first location, the second location being selected based on the hierarchical map (see Paragraphs 86, 87 teaching that the robot can perform a re-localization behavior, wherein if the robot’s pose confidence decreases below a predefined confidence limit, the robot maneuvers to a suspected location of a path segment, and upon arrival, the robot’s controller updates data indicative of the calculated robot pose relative to the data indicative of the physical layout of the area); and
Calibrating, by the controller and based on a localization measurement for the mobile device acquired at the second location, parameters of navigation operations for future movements of the mobile device (see Paragraphs 86, 87 teaching that after the robot’s controller updates data indicative of the calculated robot pose relative to the data indicative of the physical layout of the area, the robot returns to the position where its estimated pose confidence decreased to below the pre-determined confidence limit so that coverage resumes from that point).
Vicenti fails to teach determining, by the controller, a hierarchical map of wireless communication signal-based localization measurement accuracy for a mobile device at each of a plurality of locations in an environment.
However, Sundararajan teaches determining, by the controller, a hierarchical map of wireless communication signal-based localization measurement accuracy for a mobile device at each of a plurality of locations in an environment (see Abstract, Figures 1, 2, 6 teaching a wireless communication-based system that uses an analytics engine 212 to create localization accuracy maps based on position communications received from various mobile devices 102).
Vicenti and Sundararajan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mapping systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vicenti’s invention to incorporate a features that indicates communication signal-enabled localization accuracy levels within the map as taught by Sundararajan. Doing so could improve a localization or positioning system by displaying accuracy levels over a given area to a user. This could enable the user to avoid low-accuracy areas. The signals being communication-based rather than doppler-based or based on any other non-communicative system improves it by inherently enabling information to be shared with other nodes or devices within a network without needing to incorporate a second signal transmission system.
In regard to Claim 4, Vicenti further teaches wherein the hierarchical map of localization measurement accuracy is based on dynamically updated estimates of localization accuracy maintained by the mobile device during deployment (see Paragraph 24 lines 9-20, Paragraph 47 lines 3-8 teaching that the robot contains a memory storage element 195, which stores data related to mapping the environment, that the robot tracks and continuously updates data indicative of its pose within an occupancy grid, and that the robot estimates and is capable of decreasing pose estimation uncertainty by moving to suspected locations of path segments).
The rest of Claim 4 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (wherein the map is enabled by wireless communication signals). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regard to Claim 12, Vicenti further teaches wherein the navigation operations include inertial localization operations that compute a location of the mobile device in the environment from inertial sensor data during the future movements of the mobile device (see Paragraphs 12, 13, Paragraph 40 lines 1-5, Paragraphs 86, 87 teaching that after the robot’s controller determines that a pose confidence level has dropped below a confidence limit, the robot may perform re-localization, enabled at least in part via an inertial measurement unit, by returning to the position where its estimated pose confidence decreased to below the pre-determined confidence limit so that coverage resumes from that point).
In regard to Claim 13, Vicenti further teaches wherein the mobile device is caused to navigate to the second location responsive to a determination that localization accuracy of the mobile device has degraded below a threshold accuracy (see Paragraphs 86, 87 teaching that the robot can perform a re-localization behavior, wherein if the robot’s pose confidence decreases below a predefined confidence limit, the robot maneuvers to a suspected location of a path segment, and upon arrival, the robot’s controller updates data indicative of the calculated robot pose relative to the data indicative of the physical layout of the area).
In regard to Claim 14, Vicenti further teaches wherein the determination that the localization accuracy of the mobile device has degraded below the threshold accuracy is based on analysis of checkpoints in the environment (see Paragraph 51 lines 1-14 teaching that the robot’s mapping modules determines and saves grid coordinates during its motion, which are utilized to calculate poses with uncertainty levels within the environment).
In regard to Claim 15, Vicenti further teaches an apparatus, comprising:
One or more network interfaces to communicate with a network (see Paragraph 42 lines 1-10 teaching that the robot contains multiple systems that are in communication with each other, such as a cleaning system, a drive system, a navigation system, and a sensor system);
A processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces and configured to execute one or more processes (see Paragraph 42 lines 1-10 teaching that the various systems are operated by a controller); and
A memory configured to store a process that is executable by the processor (see Paragraph 62 lines 1-7 teaching that the robot has a storage element 195 that maintains behaviors for the robot to perform simultaneous localization and mapping techniques).
The rest of Claim 15 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to Claim 12 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 12 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 20, Vicenti further teaches a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing program instructions that cause a controller to execute a process (see Paragraph 62 lines 1-7 teaching that the robot has a storage element 195 that maintains behaviors for the robot to perform simultaneous localization and mapping techniques).
The rest of Claim 20 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vicenti (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0108499 A1) in view of Sundararajan (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0324813 A1), in further view of Griffin (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0232149 A1).
In regard to Claim 2, Vicenti fails to teach receiving, by the mobile device, the hierarchical map of wireless communication signal-based localization measurement accuracy from a centralized controller, wherein the centralized controller is configured to generate the hierarchical map for dissemination to multiple mobile devices within the environment.
However, Griffin teaches receiving, by the mobile device, the hierarchical map of wireless communication signal-based localization measurement accuracy from a centralized controller, wherein the centralized controller is configured to generate the hierarchical map for dissemination to multiple mobile devices within the environment (see Abstract, Figure 2B, Paragraph 16, Paragraph 48 teaching a robotic mapping network including a plurality of robots that are wirelessly communicatively coupled to a cloud server).
Vicenti and Griffin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that use mobile robots to map environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vicenti’s invention to incorporate a server that wirelessly communicates with a plurality of robots as taught by Griffin. Doing so could improve the mapping capacity of the system by enabling multiple robots to map an area at a given time.
In regard to Claim 3, Vicenti fails to teach wherein the wireless communication signal-based hierarchical map of localization measurement accuracy is collaboratively determined by the mobile device through successive iterations of sharing data with other mobile devices.
However, Griffin teaches wherein the wireless communication signal-based hierarchical map of localization measurement accuracy is collaboratively determined by the mobile device through successive iterations of sharing data with other mobile devices (see Abstract, Figure 2B, Paragraph 16, Paragraph 48 teaching a robotic mapping network including a plurality of robots that generate a map and are wirelessly communicatively coupled to a cloud server, wherein the map may be updated in real-time upon the cloud server receiving new data from the robots, and wherein the robots and the server are engaged in two-way communication).
Vicenti and Griffin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that use mobile robots to map environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vicenti’s invention to incorporate a server that wirelessly communicates with a plurality of robots and updates maps via data provided by the robots, wherein data is provided to the robots from the server as taught by Griffin. Doing so could improve the mapping capacity of the system by enabling maps to be updated and corrected over time. This could be even more effective by communicating map updates to the robots, which could facilitate the robots determining which sections of their environment to map or update.
In regard to Claim 7, Vicenti fails to teach wherein the mobile device is configured to semi-autonomously perform material handling operations along a predefined path.
However, Griffin teaches wherein the mobile device is configured to semi-autonomously perform material handling operations along a predefined path (see Paragraph 32 lines 14-18, Paragraph 54 lines 6-8 teaching that the robots may include autonomous machines for transporting cargo while navigating a route).
Vicenti and Griffin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that use mobile robots to map environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vicenti’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein robots can autonomously navigate routes while transporting cargo as taught by Griffin. This could improve a mapping or cargo transport system by expanding its functionality.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to Claim 7 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 7 above for analysis.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vicenti (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0108499 A1) in view of Sundararajan (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0324813 A1), in further view of Weissman (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0025575 A1).
In regard to Claim 5, Vicenti fails to teach wherein determining the hierarchical map of wireless communication signal-based localization accuracy comprises:
Computing, for each of the plurality of locations, an expected accuracy of determining a location of the mobile device using wireless communication signals based on cross-referencing the wireless communication signal-based localization measurement with at least one of inertial measurements, computer vision, optical tracking, lidar, historical data, or data received from another mobile device.
However, Weissman teaches wherein determining the hierarchical map of wireless communication signal-based localization accuracy comprises:
Computing, for each of the plurality of locations, an expected accuracy of determining a location of the mobile device using wireless communication signals based on cross-referencing the wireless communication signal-based localization measurement with at least one of inertial measurements, computer vision, optical tracking, lidar, historical data, or data received from another mobile device (see Paragraph 64 lines 1-11, Paragraph 111 lines 1-3, Paragraph 112 lines 32-38 teaching an autonomous vehicle navigation system that determines an expected localization accuracy by comparing lidar data with other data, such as GNSS position data received from satellites).
Vicenti and Weissman are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of navigation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vicenti’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein an expected accuracy could be determined by comparing a communication signal with a lidar symbol as taught by Weissman. This could improve a localization system by enabling it to verify localization data via organic and network-based feedback, and determine whether the comparison result matches an expected accuracy. This could not only make localization operations redundant, but historical data could be used to predict when or where the two signals are projected to have higher disparities.
Claims 6, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vicenti (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0108499 A1) in view of Sundararajan (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0324813 A1), in further view of Weissman (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0025575 A1), in further view of Mourad (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0398961 A1).
In regard to Claim 6, Vicenti fails to teach wherein the wireless communication signal-based localization measurement includes one or more of a received signal strength indicator measurement, an angle of arrival measurement, a fine time measurement, or an ultra-wideband based measurement.
However, Mourad teaches wherein the wireless communication signal-based localization measurement includes one or more of a received signal strength indicator measurement, an angle of arrival measurement, a fine time measurement, or an ultra-wideband based measurement (see Paragraph 11 lines 1-5 teaching a communication system that uses ultra-wideband signals for localization).
Vicenti and Mourad are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vicenti’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein localization is achieved via ultra-wideband signals as taught by Mourad. This could improve a localization system by enabling centimeter-level accuracy and higher data transmission speeds.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claims 5, 6 (the bulk of Claim 16 contains the bulk of Claims 5, 6). Please see the rejections of Claims 5, 6 above for analysis.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vicenti (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0108499 A1) in view of Sundararajan (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0324813 A1), in further view of Griffin (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0232149 A1), in further view of Panigrahi (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0310436 A1).
In regard to Claim 8, Vicenti fails to teach wherein the first location of the mobile device within the environment is along the predefined path and the second location within the environment is off the predefined path.
However, Panigrahi teaches wherein the first location of the mobile device within the environment is along the predefined path and the second location within the environment is off the predefined path (see Paragraph 70 line 1-Paragraph 71 line 3 teaching a vehicle localization and navigation system wherein the vehicle 101 can identify its position at a current location, and after doing so, return to a path 205).
Vicenti and Panigrahi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle localization and mapping systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vicenti’s invention to incorporate a system where vehicle localization or calibration can take place apart from an established path as taught by Panigrahi. Doing so could improve a vehicle navigation system by providing corrective functionality even when a vehicle has departed from an established path or route.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vicenti (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0108499 A1) in view of Sundararajan (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0324813 A1), in further view of Griffin (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0232149 A1), in further view of Prosser (U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0303397 A1).
In regard to Claim 9, Vicenti fails to teach wherein the second location within the environment is selected from among a plurality of locations in the environment based on a proximity of the second location to the predefined path.
However, Prosser teaches wherein the second location within the environment is selected from among a plurality of locations in the environment based on a proximity of the second location to the predefined path (see Paragraph 202 lines 15-19 teaching a vehicle charging network system, wherein charging station may be selected based on the proximity of the charging location to an intended destination of the EV or proximity of the charging location to a path that would be used to reach the intended destination).
Vicenti and Prosser are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vicenti’s invention to incorporate a system wherein locations located off of an established path or route are selected based on their proximity to the route as taught by Prosser. Doing so could decrease the travel time of the vehicle by minimizing the time spent traveling off of the established route.
The rest of Claim 9 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (wherein the second location provides increased localization measurement accuracy over the first location). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vicenti (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0108499 A1) in view of Sundararajan (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0324813 A1), in further view of a common design feature or choice.
Although Vicenti does not explicitly teach wherein the second location is selected further based on a location of a second mobile device in the environment, the Office takes the position that this is a design feature or design choice that is well-known in industries involving pluralities of mobile bodies. At the time the instant application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Vicenti’s invention to include a feature wherein if a second mobile device is already within a certain proximity of a potential second location within an environment, that second location is selected based on its proximity to the second mobile device.
Claims 11, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vicenti (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0108499 A1) in view of Sundararajan (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0324813 A1), in further view of a common design feature or choice, in further view of Hu (U.S. Patent 12,212,589 B1).
In regard to Claim 11, Vicenti fails to teach wherein increased localization measurement accuracy at the second location involves communication with the second mobile device.
However, Hu teaches wherein increased localization measurement accuracy at the second location involves communication with the second mobile device (see Column 1 lines 55-62, Column 3 lines 19-47 teaching a localization method for mobile robots wherein low estimation accuracy problems for a multi-mobile robots system is solved via localization based on network communication).
Vicenti and Hu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mobile robot systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vicenti’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein localization accuracy is based on, or increased by, network communication as taught by Hu. Doing so could improve localization operations for a mobile robot, by enabling localization information to be verified or provided via communication with another entity within a local network. This could increase the amount of information available to the mobile robot, potentially increasing the accuracy and efficiency of localization processes.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to Claims 10 (wherein the second location is selected further based on a location of a second mobile device in the environment) and 11 (wherein increased localization measurement accuracy at the second location involves communication with the second mobile device). Please see the rejections of Claims 10, 11 above for analysis.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments and remarks with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 1-9, 11-19, 20 have been fully considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
All 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claim 1, the Applicant argues that “Vicenti cannot be fairly characterized as teaching, among other things: causing, by the controller, the mobile device to navigate to a second location within the environment that provides increased localization measurement accuracy over the first location, the second location being selected based on the hierarchical map.” The Examiner disagrees. Vicenti teaches that “in response to the robot pose confidence level being below a predetermined confidence limit, the controller maneuvers the robot to a suspected location of the path segment . . . to re-localize the robot . . . The re-localization behavior can instruct the robot to select a signature, which includes location and orientation of the path segment that the controller can use to maneuver the robot to the suspected location of the path segment” (see Paragraph 86). Vicenti discloses using location and orientation information of a path segment (map information) to relocate the robot to an alternate location in order to re-localize it when the pose confidence falls below a confidence limit (thereby obtaining or seeking to obtain a higher localization accuracy).
The Applicant also argues that “Vicenti cannot be fairly characterized as teaching, among other things: calibrating, by the controller and based on a wireless communication signal-based localization measurement for the mobile device acquired at the second location, parameters of navigation operations for future movements of the mobile device.” Again, the Examiner disagrees. As explained above, Vicenti teaches a method wherein a robot navigates to an alternate location in order to perform re-localization (recalibrating its navigation system) (see Paragraph 86). Vicenti goes on to teach that “after re-localizing the robot, the controller can direct the robot return to the position where its estimated pose confidence decreased to below the pre-determined confidence limit so that coverage resumes from that point” (see Paragraph 87). The word “resumes” indicates that the robot is intended to resume navigation operations (future movements of the mobile device). Vicenti does not teach the process highlighted above being implemented via a “wireless communication signal-based localization.” However, a new reference (Sundararajan) teaches a wireless communication-based system that uses an analytics engine to create localization accuracy maps based on position communications received from various mobile devices (see Abstract, Figures 1, 2, 6). As stated in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Vicenti and Sundararajan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mapping systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vicenti’s invention to incorporate a features that indicates communication signal-enabled localization accuracy levels within the map as taught by Sundararajan. Doing so could improve a localization or positioning system by displaying accuracy levels over a given area to a user. This could enable the user to avoid low-accuracy areas. The signals being communication-based rather than doppler-based or based on any other non-communicative system improves it by enabling information to be shared with other nodes or devices within a network without needing to incorporate a second signal transmission system.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claim 10 under a design choice rationale, the Applicant argues that the rejection is improper because the disclosed “selection criterion is functionally tied to the result in claim 11: increased localization accuracy at the second location is obtained at least in part by communication with the second mobile device.” The Examiner maintains the position that Claim 10 simply discloses “wherein the second location is selected further based on a location of a second mobile device in the environment,” which is well-known in industries that utilize fleets of robots or mobile devices, such as in applications where two devices must become co-located in order to transfer a package, perform device-to-device charging, etc. If the Applicant wishes Claim 10 to be examined in light of Claim 11, the Examiner recommends incorporating Claim 11 into Claim 10, or vice versa.
The Applicant’s amendments, arguments, and remarks do not overcome these prior art rejections.
Conclusion
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 PAUL W ARELLANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramon Mercado, can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL W ARELLANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights