DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application No. 18/435882 filed on 2/7/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 .
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
-a data collection system, an assisting module, a local server module, a controller unit in claims 1 and 13;
-a localization module and a communication module in claims 2 and 13;
-a wireless communication module in claims 4 and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 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.
The term “optimal path” in claims 6 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. To one of ordinary skill in the art, the term “optimal” could mean different things depending on the goal of the “optimization.” For example, is the optimal path the fastest, the shortest distance, the highest average speed, the safest? Each of those parameters would arrive at a different “optimal path” depending on the relative importance of them to the user.
As such, the term “optimal path” is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9, 11-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamauchi US 2011/0208357.
As to claim 1, Yamauchi discloses an assisted navigation system for mobile robots comprising:
a data collection system (see at least Fig 7, element 120: GPS, LIDAR, INS, 3D Stereo Vision);
an assisting module (see at least Fig 7, teleoperation transceiver);
a local server module (see at least Fig 7, element 145: non-volatile memory;
a processor (see at least Fig 7; processor);
a communication interface (see at least Fig 7, interfaces between the processor and each of the peripheral components…);
a mobile robot (see at least Abstract; mobile robot);
the mobile robot comprising a body and a controller unit (see at least Fig 7, communication nodes between processor and the drive motors (the mobile robot));
the data collection system, the assisting module, the processor, the local server module, and the communication interface being mounted within the controller unit of the mobile robot;
the data collection system, the assisting module, the local server module, and the communication interface being electronically coupled to the processor (see at least Fig 7, each component coupled to the processor); and
the communication interface being operably integrated between the processor and the body of the mobile robot, such that control values created by the processor are passed on to the body through the communication interface (see at least [0064]: The mobile robot 10 includes a control unit 140 having an onboard processor for executing control software, processing sensor input and commands from an operator, and controlling the components and subsystems of the mobile robot 10).
As to claims 2 and 13, Yamauchi discloses the assisting module comprising: a teleoperator (see at least Fig 7, teleoperation transceiver); a localization module (see at least Fig 7, GPS); and a communication module (see at least Fig 7, interfaces between the processor and each of the peripheral components…); the localization module being communicably coupled with the processor; and the communication module being communicably coupled between the teleoperator and the processor, such that signals from the teleoperator are transferred to the processor through the communication module (see at least Fig 7, relative positioning of each of the modules).
As to claims 3 and 14, Yamauchi discloses wherein the signals transferred from the teleoperator governs activation and deactivation of the mobile robot (see at least Fig 12; [0125]: Further, FIG. 12 illustrates a detail of information flow between a Hough transform routine and the three mission routines (the follow-street, follow-perimeter and follow-waypoints routines). In addition the Hough transform information, the teleoperation transceiver may provide instructions to the mission routines, such as a distance leash to be used during a follow-street mission or a command to abort a mission, for example.).
As to claims 4 and 15, Yamauchi discloses wherein the communication module is a wireless communication module (see at least [0071]: When operating autonomously, the mobile robot 10 performs a mapping behavior that generates and updates the occupancy grid map. Once generated, the occupancy grid map can be transmitted to a teleoperation console 21 by any appropriate mode of communication, such as Wireless Ethernet, or via a tether connection such as a USB cable between the mobile robot 10 and the teleoperation console 21).
As to claims 5 and 16, Yamauchi discloses wherein the localization module comprises a global positioning system (GPS) (see at least Fig 7; GPS).
As to claims 8 and 19¸Yamauchi discloses wherein waypoints received by the communication interface from the processor navigate the mobile robot (see at least [0064]: a follow-waypoints operation that can be selected by the operator on a teleoperation console, as well as various concurrent behaviors or routines such as an obstacle avoidance behavior or a stasis detection behavior that function automatically during operation of the mobile robot 10).
As to claims 9 and 20, Yamauchi discloses wherein the data collection system comprises a plurality of cameras and a plurality of sensors (see at least Fig 7, element 120: INS, GPS, 3D Stereo Vision).
As to claim 11, Yamauchi discloses wherein the local server module stores data from the data collection system (see at least [0066]: A peripheral interface may include a USB port into which a USB memory stick may be placed, and onto which the mobile robot 10 can record a map for later manual retrieval by the operator.).
As to claim 12, Yamauchi discloses wherein the data collection system enables sidewalk recognition by providing information for semantic segmentation and stereo vision (see at least [0075]-[0078]: a mobile robot 10 performing a follow-street operation on a roadway having parked cars 961 on the side of the road. The mobile robot 10 in this example uses LIDAR to detect the parked cars 961 as well as both the right and left edges of the roadway, and selects a linear path corresponding to the direction of the road by performing Hough transform analysis of the LIDAR range-finding data. The follow-street behavior attempts to find a respective Hough line on both the right and left sides of the street, and selects a heading for the mobile robot 10 corresponding to an average of the detected right and left Hough lines.).
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi in view of Ganju et al. US 2023/0334697 (“Ganju”).
As to claims 6 and 17, Yamauchi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processor generates a cost map and an optimal path for the mobile robot based on the information collected by the data collection system and the localization module.
However, Ganju teaches wherein the processor generates a cost map and an optimal path for the mobile robot based on the information collected by the data collection system and the localization module (see at least [0063]: one or more cost maps may be used for route planning. In some embodiments, route planning may include computing one or more distance fields (corresponding to distances to objects and/or surfaces in the environment), and from the one or more distance fields (e.g., a Euclidean Signed Distance Field) the cost map may be derived. The cost map may correspond to a volumetric reconstruction of the physical environment, for example, determined using the process 200. The cost map may be used for collision avoidance and/or path planning. For example, the cost map may be used by one or more downstream navigation components used for path planning, object avoidance, localization, and/or other operations for controlling the client device 102 and/or facilitating navigation of the user through the physical environment)
Thus, Yamauchi discloses a system and method for teleoperation of a mobile robot and Ganju teaches a similar mobile robot operation that also includes cost mapping and optimal route planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system disclosed by Yamauchi, with the cost map route planning taught by Ganju, with reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow the robot of Yamauchi to find and follow an efficient pathway through an area with obstacles.
As to claims 7 and 18, Yamauchi fails to explicitly disclose comprising: a power source; the power source being mounted within the controller unit; and the power source being electrically connected to the processor.
However, Ganju teaches comprising: a power source; the power source being mounted within the controller unit; and the power source being electrically connected to the processor (see at least [0103]: The power supply 716 may include a hard-wired power supply, a battery power supply, or a combination thereof. The power supply 716 may provide power to the computing device 700 to enable the components of the computing device 700 to operate.).
Thus, Yamauchi discloses a system and method for teleoperation of a mobile robot but is silent regarding a conventional feature, a battery, and Ganju teaches a similar mobile robot operation that also discusses the use of a power supply to supply the power demanding functions of the mobile robot. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system disclosed by Yamauchi, with the battery taught by Ganju, with reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow the robot of Yamauchi to operate untethered from any stationary power source, providing greater freedom in the teleoperations.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi in view of Lenser et al. US 8,577,538 (“Lenser”).
As to claim 10, Yamauchi discloses wherein the plurality of cameras comprises a stereo camera (see at least Fig 7; 3D Stereo Vision).
Yamauchi fails to explicitly disclose a front camera. However, Lenser teaches the use of both a stereo camera and a front camera (see at least fig 3, cameras).
Thus, Yamauchi discloses a system and method for a teleoperated robot that utilizes 3D Stereo cameras to operate and Lesner teaches a similar mobile robot that uses 3D stereo cameras but also a regular facing front camera for operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot disclosed by Yamauchi, with the regular pan camera taught by Lenser, because it would provide a regular camera feed for the teleoperator to pilot the mobile robot with.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P INGRAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 ET.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/Thomas Ingram/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668