DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits of the instant application, which was filed January 2, 2024, claiming priority to KR10-2023-0050289, filed April 17, 2023. The application contains Claims 1-3.
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 .
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 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.
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 1-3 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the customer order” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the appropriate self-driving robot” in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as only “a self-driving robot” is previously recited.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “an API” in line 7. It is unclear if this is the same API recited in claim 1, lines 5-6.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “call the smart elevator (200) to a specific floor” on line 3, “identify a desired destination floor” on line 4, and “instruct the smart elevator (200) to stop at the destination floor” on line 5. From the phrasing of the claim, it is unclear which previously claimed element is performing these steps.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al. (US 2022/0308556 A1) in view of Skaaksrud et al. (US 2019/0287063 A1).
Noda et al. teaches, according to claim 1, a self-driving serving robot system (1) for service calls for multi-story buildings, comprising:
a self-driving robot (100) configured to collect and deliver items from a supply point to a customer's location within a multi-story building (Noda et al., at least para. [0025], “…FIG. 1 illustrates an aspect in which an automatic delivery robot 101 gets on an elevator 105 in a building 100 and self-travels to a room 102 on a certain floor. The building 100 is, for example, a high-rise apartment provided with a plurality of floors, and the automatic delivery robot 101 is used, for example, to deliver a delivery item to a resident of the room 102.”);
a smart elevator (200) (Noda et al., at least para. [0029], “… In addition, the control of the automatic delivery robot 101 of the elevator 105 and the call bell of each room and the like may be implemented by communication via the server 110.”); and
a robot server (300) configured to process the customer order and assign a task to the appropriate self-driving serving robot (Noda et al., at least para. [0029], “The automatic delivery robot 101 can communicate with a server 110 installed outside the building 100. The server 110 is, for example, the system management server of the building 100 capable of cooperating with a server of a delivery company, and the automatic delivery robot 101 can acquire the floor map of the building 100, information regarding a delivery item, information regarding a delivery destination, and the like from the server 110...”),
wherein the self-driving serving robot system (1) allows the self-driving serving robot (100) to move to any location within the multi-story building where the customer is located and provide service (Noda et al., at least para. [0029], “…For example, the automatic delivery robot 101 may autonomously plan a travel route, or the server 110 may plan the travel route of the automatic delivery robot 101. In addition, the control of the automatic delivery robot 101 of the elevator 105 and the call bell of each room and the like may be implemented by communication via the server 110.”).
Noda et al. teaches control of the smart elevator via programming and a server, but does not expressly teach control of the elevator by an “application programming interface (API)”. Skaaksrud et al. teaches, in a related autonomous bot system, control of obstacles such as elevators by machine to machine interface, or, more particularly, by application programming interfaces (Skaaksrud et al., at least para. [0447], “Machine-to-Machine Interface (M2M): Communication protocols (typically over wireless communication channels, but can be wired) that enable networked devices to exchange information directly and perform actions without human intervention.”; para. [0484], “…Those skilled in the art will appreciate that M2M communications may be implemented as a standard protocol utilizing Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to support modular software development, and may utilize wired/wireless technologies as applicable for a particular application and embodiment…”; and para. [0715], “And as shown in FIG. 43B, exemplary MALVT bot apparatus assembly 1700 may encounter a pathway obstacle 4310a (e.g., a door, elevator, lock, and the like) that may be an actuated type of pathway obstacle where a facility node 4320 operatively coupled to the pathway obstacle 4310a controls actuation to clear such an obstacle for exemplary MALVT bot apparatus assembly 1700 and allow further movement past the obstacle…”). It would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching of Skaaksrud et al. into the system of Noda et al. for the purpose of integrating systems to minimize necessary human interaction, and as a combination of prior art elements in a known manner with an expectation of predictable results. 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.
Regarding claim 2, the self-driving serving robot (100) is configured to be linked with a smart elevator system, call the smart elevator (200) to a specific floor, identify a desired destination floor, and instruct the smart elevator (200) to stop at the destination floor (Noda et al., at least para. [0027], “After the start of the self-propelled operation, the automatic delivery robot 101 moves to the front of the elevator 105 as indicated by an arrow 107 and waits for the elevator 105. When detecting that the door of the elevator 105 is opened, the automatic delivery robot 101 gets on the elevator 105 and designates the floor of the room 102 as a destination, thereby moving to the floor of the room 102 as indicated by an arrow 108. When detecting that the door of the elevator 105 is opened, the automatic delivery robot 101 gets off the elevator 105 and moves to the room 102 as indicated by an arrow 109. After the transfer of the delivery item to the resident of the room 102 is completed, the automatic delivery robot follows the reverse route of the arrows 107 to 109 to return to the position where the self-propelled operation was started. Incidentally, the building 100 is made such that the delivery service by the automatic delivery robot 101 can be received, and for example, operation of the elevator 105 and calling the room 102 are performed by near field wireless communication or the like.”).
Regarding claim 3, the self-driving serving robot system further comprises a customer terminal (400) configured to allow a customer to view a menu, place an order, and receive an update on the order status (Skaaksrud et al. at least para. [0750], “In further embodiments related to operations within a hotel environment, exemplary method 4400 may be implemented with the exemplary MALVT bot apparatus 1700 where the exemplary MALVT bot apparatus may be stationed in a hotel lobby. In general and as part of this hotel embodiment, when a customer needs an item delivered to their room (e.g., toiletries, food, etc.), the requested items may be loaded into the exemplary MALVT bot apparatus and the exemplary MALVT bot apparatus is dispatched to the customers room, another room designated by the customer, or the customers location leveraging TRON node locating techniques involving the customer's wireless node (e.g., a smartphone operating as a type of ID or master node). The exemplary MALVT bot apparatus arrives at customer's room (or other identified delivery location) and alerts customer that it is there (e.g., via display prompt, audio notification, electronic notification to the customer's user access device, or machine-to-machine notification via association using TRON elements operating as the customer's user access device and the controller in the MAM unit of the exemplary MALVT bot apparatus). The customer authenticates delivery and retrieves the items from the CSS component. The exemplary MALVT bot apparatus ensures all items have been removed and returns to the lobby.”; indication that customer can request items delivered, and include a user access device, implies well-known ordering systems),
wherein, when the self-driving serving robot system (1) includes the customer terminal (400), the robot server (300) manages and coordinates communication between the self-driving serving robot (100) and the customer terminal (400) (Noda et al., at least para. [0042], “…The communication control unit 403 controls communication with the outside on the basis of a communication control program and data stored in the memory 402. For example, the communication control unit 403 of the server 110 controls, for example, communication with the automatic delivery robot 101 and communication with the mobile terminal such as a smartphone held by the resident or the worker 106...”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD J. WALLACE whose telephone number is
(313) 446-4915. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665