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 .
The current application filed on 03/13/2024.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered and are moot in view new grounds of rejection. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered. The arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Regarding the Claim Rejection under 101: Applicant amended claims that overcome the current 101 rejection.
Regarding the Claim Rejection under 112: At page 7-8, Applicant remarked that the current application specification at [0028] that the global map may be obtained using SLAM techniques.
In response to Applicant’s remark above, Applicant misinterprets the principle that claims are interpreted in the light of the specification. Although the “global map obtained using SLAM techniques” which described in the application’s specification, they are not claimed. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. See Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc. 7 USPQ2d 1064.
Based on the claimed amendment, the Claim Rejection under 112 is updated as shown below.
Regarding the Claim Rejection under 103: At page 9-10, Applicant argues that the cited references of Schroeter and Vitzrabin do not teach the claim subject matter (claimed amendment) with “iteratively aligning …generate a combine map that represents an adjusted real-time global map in which the second dynamic map is aligned with the second static map” and controlling movement of a mobile robot based on the combined map”. Examiner disagrees to the Applicant’s argument.
The claimed amendment raises new issue of 112(b) that is unclear and redundant (see the Claim Rejection under 112(b) below). The Claim Rejection under 103 updated and pointed out Vitzrabin discloses the claimed subject matter above.
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 1-20 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 cites:
"The limitation 'dividing a global map into... a first static map and a first dynamic map... comprising an inspection target' lacks clarity. The claim does not specify the source of the global map nor the process by which an inspection target is identified."
The phase “using the second static map to estimate an absolute mobile device position; using the second dynamic map to estimate a relative mobile device position” is ambiguous. It is unclear how an absolute and relative mobile device’s position are determined based on these maps? The claim fails to define specific manner in which any mobile device’s position is identified on the static and dynamic map.
The passage “aligning the absolute mobile device position and the relative mobile device position to generate a combined map that represents an adjusted real-time global map in which the second dynamic map is aligned with the second static map, iteratively aligning the absolute position and the relative position of the mobile device by verifying and qualifying map information before incorporating it into the combined map based on comparing submaps for similarity in terms of occupancy information and categorization to generate a combine map that represents an adjusted real-time global map in which the second dynamic map is aligned with the second static map” is indefinite because the repetition makes it difficult to determine the exact boundaries (“metes and bounds”) of the claim. it unnecessarily duplicates the same functional limitation. Specifically, the clause beginning with 'to generate a combined map...' is recited twice, making the structural flow of the claim unclear.
“Transmitting signals to control movement of a mobile device based on the combine map” is unclear and indefinite. It is unclear whether “a mobile device” refers to the device introduced in the step “using the second static map to estimate an absolute mobile device position”, or it is refers to a difference one?
Claims 12 has same issue above, and further of:
The phase “a robot that configured to align the absolute mobile device position and the relative mobile device position to generate a combined map that represents an adjusted real-time global map in which the second dynamic map is aligned with the second static map configured to iteratively aligning the absolute position and the relative position of the mobile device by verifying and qualifying map information before incorporating it into the combined map based on comparing submaps for similarity in terms of occupancy information and categorization to generate a combine map that represents an adjusted real-time global map in which the second dynamic map is aligned with the second static map” is unclear and redundant. Specifically, it repeats the “combined map” and “alignment” making the claim unclear. The second dynamic and static maps are formed by the map management system and the robot includes sensor and actuator which controlled by the mobile robot control unit (see Fig.6).
Claims 2-11 & 13-20 depend upon rejected claims above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoroeter (20230121226) in view of Vitzrabin (20250216855).
With regard to claims 1, Schoroeter discloses a method for navigating in environments comprising dynamic objects, the method comprising:
dividing a global map into at least a first static map and a first dynamic map, the first dynamic map comprising an inspection target (HP map 510 includes a landmark map (as a static map) and occupancy map (dynamic map), see [0075]-[0076]+);
using the global map as a reference map and a set of external data, which has been obtained from a manufacturing system, to create a real-time global map (a map update module 420 updates previously computed HD map data by receiving recent information form vehicles surrounding, see [0074]+);
dividing the real-time global map to generate a second static map and a second dynamic map, the second dynamic map comprising a target area (see [0076]+);
using the second static map to estimate an absolute mobile device position; using the second dynamic map to estimate a relative mobile device position (determines its current location in the HD map, determine the features on the road relative to the autonomous vehicle’s position, see [0027]+ & [0061]+);
Schoroeter fails to teach iteratively aligning the absolute position and the relative position of the mobile device by verifying and qualifying map information before incorporating it into the combined map based on comparing submaps for similarity in terms of occupancy information and categorization to generate a combine map that represents an adjusted real-time global map in which the second dynamic map is aligned with the second static map, and transmitting signals to control movement of the robot based on the combined map.
Vitzrabin discloses a system for map regeneration of an environment (see the abstract). The system includes a map manager 110 for collecting and evaluating map information from a number of ARMs that operating in the environment, sensing information about the environment (see [0024]-[0025]+). The map manager continuously determines a quality metric of the map data of the mapped subarea with respect to the global map is based on a comparison of the map data of the mapped subarea to an second set of map data that at least partially overlaps with the mapped subarea, see [0044]+, and controls the robot to use the updated global map for navigation (see [0050]+ which meets the scope of the claim of “iteratively aligning the absolute position and the relative position of the mobile device by verifying and qualifying map information before incorporating it into the combined map based on comparing submaps for similarity in terms of occupancy information and categorization to generate a combine map that represents an adjusted real-time global map in which the second dynamic map is aligned with the second static map, and transmitting signals to control movement of the robot based on the combined map”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Schoroeter by including The map manager continuously determines a quality metric of the map data of the mapped subarea with respect to the global map is based on a comparison of the map data of the mapped subarea to an second set of map data that at least partially overlaps with the mapped subarea, and controls the robot to use the updated global map for navigation as taught by Vitzrabin for controlling the robots effectively
With regard to claim 2, Schoroeter teaches that the method according to claim 1, further comprising using the combined map to autonomously update a navigation path associated with the target area, (see [0087]+).
With regard to claim 3, Schoroeter teaches that the method according to claim 1, further comprising using at least one of the absolute mobile device positions, the relative mobile device position, or the combined map to perform at least one of an inspection task or a navigation task (see [0065]+).
With regard to claim 4, Schoroeter teaches that the method according to claim 1, wherein the global map is a 3D map that has been obtained by using sensor data comprising point cloud data (see [0099]+).
With regard to claim 5, Vitzrabin teaches that the method according to claim 1, wherein the set of external data comprises data received from a manufacturing execution system and reflects environmental information, see [0018]+).
With regard to claim 6, Vitzrabin teaches that the method according to claim 5, further comprising receiving at least one of a signal, a file, or an environmental state (see [0013]+)
With regard to claim 7, Vitzrabin teaches that the method according to claim 5, wherein the environmental information comprises status information related to a set of objects (see [0020]+).
With regard to claim 8, Vitzrabin teaches that the method according to claim 7, wherein the status information comprises at least one of a position or presence of an object in the set of objects (see [0021]+).
With regard to claim 9, Vitzrabin teaches that the method according to claim 1, wherein the first static map is associated with a different time than the first dynamic map (see [0020]-[0021]+).
With regard to claim 10, Vitzrabin teaches that the method according to claim 1, further comprising assigning at least one of an identifier or a keyword to at least one of the target area or an object associated with the target area (recognizes the environment, and beginning mapping the environment from its known area, see [0021]+).
With regard to claim 11, Schoroefer teaches that the method according to claim 1, wherein identifier or keyword is obtained from the set of external data (a list of planned routes with information describing a route identified by a route identifier, see [0067]+).
With regard to claim 12, Schoroefer discloses a navigation system for environments comprising dynamic objects, the system comprising:
a map management system (an online HD map system 110) configured to:
divide a global map into at least a first static map and a first dynamic map, the first dynamic map comprising an inspection target (HP map 510 includes a landmark map (as a static map) and occupancy map (dynamic map), see [0075]-[0076]+);
using the global map as a reference map and a set of external data, which has been obtained from a manufacturing system, to create a real-time global map (a map update module 420 updates previously computed HD map data by receiving recent information form vehicles surrounding, see [0074]+); and
divide the real-time global map to generate a second static map and a second dynamic map, the second dynamic map comprising a target area (see [0076]+);
a mobile robot control unit configured to:
use the second static map to estimate an absolute mobile device position; and use the second dynamic map to estimate a relative mobile device position (the autonomous vehicle determines its current location in the HD map, determine the features on the road relative to the autonomous vehicle’s position, see [0027]+ & [0061]+);
an external system that, in response to being queried, provides the set of external data to the map management system (the HD map system 110 receives sensor data from other vehicle 150s, see [0034]+).
Schoroeter fails to teach a robot that configured to align the absolute mobile device position and the relative mobile device position to generate a combined map that represents an adjusted real-time global map in which the second dynamic map is aligned with the second static map, and is controlled to move based on the combined map.
Vitzrabin discloses a system for map regeneration of an environment (see the abstract). The system includes a map manager 110 for collecting and evaluating map information from a number of ARMs (robots) that operating in the environment, sensing information about the environment (see [0024]-[0025]+). The map manager continuously determines a quality metric of the map data of the mapped subarea with respect to the global map is based on a comparison of the map data of the mapped subarea to an second set of map data that at least partially overlaps with the mapped subarea, see [0044]+, and controls the robot to use the updated global map for navigation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Schoroeter by including the map manager continuously determines a quality metric of the map data of the mapped subarea with respect to the global map is based on a comparison of the map data of the mapped subarea to an second set of map data that at least partially overlaps with the mapped subarea, and controls the robot to use the updated global map for navigation as taught by Vitzrabin for controlling the robots effectively
With regard to claims 13, Schoroeter teaches that the navigation system according to claim 12, wherein the external system comprises systems for processing and transmitting data associated with dynamic elements in an environment (see [0029]+).
With regard to claims 14, Vitzrabin teaches that the navigation system according to claim 12, wherein the set of external data comprises data received from a manufacturing execution system and reflects environmental information.
With regard to claims 15, Vitzrabin teaches that the navigation system according to claim 14, wherein the environmental information comprises real-time status information related to a set of objects, the real-time status information comprising at least one of a position of presence of an object in the set of objects.
With regard to claims 16, Vitzrabin teaches that the navigation system according to claim 12, wherein the robot is configured to use the combined map to autonomously update a navigation path associated with the target area (one the map is updated, new global map to the robots for navigation within the environment, see [0021]+).
With regard to claims 17, Vitzrabin teaches that the navigation system according to claim 12, wherein the robot comprises sensors to gather data for updating the global map in real-time based on changes in object positions and statuses (see [0023]+).
With regard to claims 18, Vitzrabin teaches that the navigation system according to claim 12, wherein the robot comprises the robot comprises actuators that are controlled by the mobile robot control unit (see [0018]-[0020] & [0050]+).
(see [0023]+).
With regard to claims 19, Vitzrabin teaches that the navigation system according to claim 12, wherein the map management system is further configured to communicate with the external system to update at least one of the first dynamic map or the second dynamic map (AMRs detect changes from the current global map, they collect and send map information to the map manager 110, see [0026]+).
With regard to claim 20, Vitrabin teaches that the navigation system according to claim 12, wherein the robot is configured to use at least one of the absolute mobile device position, the relative mobile device position, or the combined map to perform at least one of an inspection task or a navigation task, (see [0050]- [0052]+).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30AM - 2:30PM.
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, JELANI SMITH can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights