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 .
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.
Status of Claims
The following is an office action in response to the communication filed on 03/25/2026.
Claims 3-7, and 14 are cancelled.
Claims 24 and 25 are allowed.
Claims 1-2, 8-13, and 15-25 are currently pending.
Claims 1-2, 8-13, and 15-25 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements received on 03/19/2026 and 04/29/2026 have been reviewed and considered.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 20-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuuta et al. (WO 2018078859 A1; hereinafter Yuuta) in view of Wodrich et al. (US 20200250352 A1; hereinafter Wodrich) and further in view of Baratz et al. (US 20200033128 A1; hereinafter Baratz).
Regarding claim 1, Yuuta discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
An autonomous movement device configured to receive output information outputted from a target object and autonomously move to the target object, the autonomous movement device comprising at least one circuit to implement the following units (see Yuuta at least [0015] “. . . a GPS is used to autonomously fly to the condominium of the delivery destination, a mark placed on the rooftop of the condominium is detected, and the baggage is lowered near the mark.”; [0041] “. . . each configuration unit is connected by the bus 300 . . .”):
an antenna unit configured to receive the output information (see Yuuta at least [0046] “The beacon receiver 306 receives a beacon signal (wireless signal). Specifically, for example, the beacon receiver 306 includes an antenna that receives the beacon signal . . .”);
an angle estimation unit configured to estimate an arrival direction of the output information (see Yuuta at least [0028] “Specifically, for example, the information processing apparatus 101 measures the reception signal strength of the wireless signal when the unmanned aerial vehicle 110 is moved for a fixed time (for example, about 1 to 3 seconds) for each of the six directions above and below the unmanned aerial vehicle 110.”);
a reception strength determination unit configured to determine a reception strength of the output information in the estimated arrival direction (see Yuuta at least [0028] “Specifically, for example, the information processing apparatus 101 measures the reception signal strength of the wireless signal when the unmanned aerial vehicle 110 is moved for a fixed time (for example, about 1 to 3 seconds) for each of the six directions above and below the unmanned aerial vehicle 110.”);
an operation control unit configured generate movement direction information including a movement direction for moving the autonomous movement device, according to the estimated arrival direction and a magnitude of or a change in the reception strength (see Yuuta at least [0030] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 moves the unmanned aerial vehicle 110 in a direction in which the measured received signal strength is maximized out of the six directions, i.e. the front and rear, left and right, up and down.”); and
a drive unit configured to generate drive information corresponding to the movement direction information (see Yuuta at least [0030] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 moves the unmanned aerial vehicle 110 in a direction in which the measured received signal strength is maximized out of the six directions, i.e. the front and rear, left and right, up and down.”), . . .
when the autonomous movement device is estimated to come into contact with an obstacle if the autonomous movement device travels in a movement direction, the operation control unit does not move in the movement direction of the autonomous movement device up to a position where the contact with the obstacle is estimated to be avoided (see Yuuta at least [0195] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 specifies a direction in which the object is present within a predetermined range of the drone D among the six directions of the front and rear, left, right, and down, based on the measurement result of the distance sensor 1801 (step S 2302). Then, the information processing apparatus 101 measures the RSSI value of the beacon signal received by using the directional antenna 1501 in the remaining direction excluding the specified direction among the front and rear left and right vertical directions (step S 2303).”; [0196] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 specifies a direction in which the measured RSSI value is maximized in the remaining direction (step S 2304). Then, the information processing apparatus 101 moves the drone D for a fixed time t in a direction in which the identified RSSI value becomes maximum (step S 2305).”).
While Yuuta discloses an antenna unit configured to receive the output information, an angle estimation unit configured to estimate an arrival direction of the output information, estimating contact with an obstacle and avoiding moving in the direction of the obstacle, and a robot moving in the direction of a maximum detected reception strength (see Yuuta at least [0030] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 moves the unmanned aerial vehicle 110 in a direction in which the measured received signal strength is maximized out of the six directions, i.e. the front and rear, left and right, up and down.”), it does not appear to explicitly disclose the antenna unit comprising a first antenna element and a second antenna element, the angle estimation unit being configured to estimate the arrival direction from a phase difference of the output information received by the first antenna element and the second antenna element, the case where the movement is being changed and the change in movement is not enacted due to presence of an obstacle, and changing direction during movement based on newly output information to an angle between the original and new movement directions.
Wodrich teaches the subject matter underlined below:
wherein the antenna unit comprises a first antenna element and a second antenna element (see Wodrich at least [0258] “. . . measure a phase shift amongst multiple antenna elements . . .”),
the angle estimation unit is configured to estimate the arrival direction from a phase difference of the output information received by the first antenna element and the second antenna element (see Wodrich at least [0258] “. . . measure a phase shift amongst multiple antenna elements to estimate distance differences between the antennas and to extract an angle from the antenna array to the source of radiation.”), . . .
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the antenna unit configured to receive the output information and angle estimation unit configured to estimate an arrival direction of the output information of Yuuta with the antenna unit comprising a first antenna element and a second antenna element and the angle estimation unit being configured to estimate the arrival direction from a phase difference of the output information received by the first antenna element and the second antenna element as taught by Wodrich to have the antenna unit comprise a first antenna element and a second antenna element and the angle estimation unit be configured to estimate the arrival direction from a phase difference of the output information received by the first antenna element and the second antenna element. Doing so would provide a means for estimating the angle of arrival.
While Yuuta and Wodrich disclose an antenna unit configured to receive the output information, the antenna unit comprising a first antenna element and a second antenna element, an angle estimation unit configured to estimate an arrival direction of the output information, estimating contact with an obstacle and avoiding moving in the direction of the obstacle, the angle estimation unit being configured to estimate the arrival direction from a phase difference of the output information received by the first antenna element and the second antenna element, and a robot moving in the direction of a maximum detected reception strength, it does not appear to explicitly disclose the case where the movement is being changed and the change in movement is not enacted due to presence of an obstacle and changing direction during movement based on newly output information to an angle between the original and new movement directions.
Baratz teaches changing direction during movement based on newly output information to an angle between the original and new movement directions (see Baratz at least [0075] “Based on the estimated location (waypoint) of beacon 120 at any given time step, drone 110 and the trajectory prediction function can calculate one or more of the relative orientation and the distance between drone 110 and beacon 120, such that drone 110 can better navigate through the surrounding environment while performing one or more assigned missions with respect to Subject 130. For example, the drone's navigation system 112 can use the calculated relative orientation and distance to navigate to a new orientation relative to Subject 130. As a particular example, consider a case in which a relative orientation of 90 degrees is calculated (indicating that Subject 130 is to the immediate right of drone 110), but drone 110 has been commanded to follow S from behind—therefore, navigation system 112 will cause the drone to navigate to a new relative orientation of approximately 0 degrees.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the maximum signal strength-based directional movement and obstacle avoidance of Yuuta and Wodrich with the changing direction during movement based on newly output information to an angle between the original and new movement directions as taught by Baratz to have, when a new arrival direction of the output information having a higher reception strength than the reception strength in a direction in which the autonomous movement device is moving is estimated during movement of the autonomous movement device, the operation control unit change the movement direction of the autonomous movement device to the new arrival direction and, when the autonomous movement device is estimated to come into contact with an obstacle if the autonomous movement device travels in a changed movement direction, the operation control unit does not move in the changed movement direction of the autonomous movement device up to a position where the contact with the obstacle is estimated to be avoided. Doing so would allow the system to adjust its movement during operation to better enable target-oriented navigation without compromising planned maneuvers as recognized by Baratz (see Baratz at least [0075] “Based on the estimated location (waypoint) of beacon 120 at any given time step, drone 110 and the trajectory prediction function can calculate one or more of the relative orientation and the distance between drone 110 and beacon 120, such that drone 110 can better navigate through the surrounding environment while performing one or more assigned missions with respect to Subject 130. For example, the drone's navigation system 112 can use the calculated relative orientation and distance to navigate to a new orientation relative to Subject 130. As a particular example, consider a case in which a relative orientation of 90 degrees is calculated (indicating that Subject 130 is to the immediate right of drone 110), but drone 110 has been commanded to follow S from behind—therefore, navigation system 112 will cause the drone to navigate to a new relative orientation of approximately 0 degrees.”).
Regarding claim 2, Yuuta and Wodrich disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Yuuta discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the operation control unit sets the arrival direction of the output information with a highest reception strength, as the movement direction (see Yuuta at least [0030] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 moves the unmanned aerial vehicle 110 in a direction in which the measured received signal strength is maximized out of the six directions, i.e. the front and rear, left and right, up and down.”).
d. Regarding claim 20, Yuuta and Wodrich disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Yuuta disclosed the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . the target object (see Yuuta at least [0024] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 measures the reception signal strength of the radio signal transmitted from the beacon device 102 [(i.e. target object)] . . .”), wherein
the output information is periodically or non-periodically outputted (see Yuuta at least [0024] “Here, the beacon device 102 is a transmitter that transmits a wireless signal (so-called beacon signal) [(i.e., outputs information either periodically or non-periodically)] including identification information of the device itself.”), and
the autonomous movement device includes the antenna unit including the first antenna element (see Yuuta at least [0046] “The beacon receiver 306 receives a beacon signal (wireless signal). Specifically, for example, the beacon receiver 306 includes an antenna that receives the beacon signal . . .”) . . .
While Yuuta discloses an antenna unit including a first antenna element, it does not appear to explicitly disclose the antenna unit including the first antenna element and the second antenna element.
Wodrich teaches a first antenna element and a second antenna element (see Wodrich at least [0258] “. . . measure a phase shift amongst multiple antenna elements to estimate distance differences between the antennas and to extract an angle from the antenna array to the source of radiation.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the antenna unit including a first antenna element of Yuuta with the antenna unit including the first antenna element and the second antenna element as taught by Wodrich to have the antenna unit include the first antenna element and the second antenna element . The examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of these references as applied with regard to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 21, Yuuta and Wodrich disclose the subject matter of claim 20 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Yuuta disclosed the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the output information is in at least one of an ultrasonic wave or an electromagnetic wave including a radio wave, a microwave, a visible light ray, or an infrared ray (see Yuuta at least [0250] “The beacon device Bi is, for example, installed in a baggage storage place provided in the veranda of the delivery destination. Then, an ultrasonic signal is emitted from the ultrasonic transmitter 3101 above the baggage storage place, for example,
directly above.”).
Regarding claim 23, Yuuta and Wodrich disclose the subject matter of claim 20 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Yuuta discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . further comprising a movement unit configured to be driven by the drive unit, wherein the movement unit has a configuration that enables movement on a ground, in air, or in water (see Yuuta at least [0009] “According to one aspect of the present invention, the information processing device includes: a flight control program, a flight control method, and an information processing device [(i.e., movement unit)] that move the unmanned aerial vehicle . . .”).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuuta in view of Wodrich and further in view of Baratz and Duckworth et al. (Duckworth, G. L., & Baranoski, E. J. (2007, October). Navigation in GNSS-denied environments: Signals of opportunity and beacons. In Proceedings of the NATO Research and Technology Organization (RTO) Sensors and Technology Panel (SET) Symposium (pp. 1-14).; hereinafter Duckworth).
Regarding claim 8, Yuuta, Wodrich, and Baratz disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above.
While Yuuta discloses determining movement direction based on reception signal strength and changing direction to avoid obstacles (see Yuuta at least [0195] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 specifies a direction in which the object is present within a predetermined range of the drone D among the six directions of the front and rear, left, right, and down, based on the measurement result of the distance sensor 1801 (step S 2302). Then, the information processing apparatus 101 measures the RSSI value of the beacon signal received by using the directional antenna 1501 in the remaining direction excluding the specified direction among the front and rear left and right vertical directions (step S 2303).”; [0196] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 specifies a direction in which the measured RSSI value is maximized in the remaining direction (step S 2304). Then, the information processing apparatus 101 moves the drone D for a fixed time t in a direction in which the identified RSSI value becomes maximum (step S 2305).”), it does not appear to explicitly disclose avoiding a movement direction where the signal strength periodically oscillates.
Duckworth teaches signal strengths oscillating as a result of blockages (see Duckworth at least pg. 7, paragraph 1 “In these tougher environments, the RF paths are non-line of sight, and fade due to blockage, and are often highly multipathed, so that the errors in time delay “pseudoranges” are non-zero mean, non-Gaussian, and often contain outliers due to missed direct path arrivals and detection of multipath only.”; pg. 8, paragraph 2 “. . . urban/interior true direct paths are reasonably stable in arrival time and angle—they may fluctuate in amplitude and be completely blocked. . . the unstable/scintillating multipath signals . . .”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the determining movement direction based on reception signal strength and changing direction to avoid obstacles of Yuuta with the understanding that signal strengths oscillate as a result of blockages as taught by Duckworth to have, when the reception strength of the output information determined by the reception strength determination unit periodically oscillates, the operation control unit change the movement direction of the autonomous movement device from the movement direction in which the reception strength oscillates to a different movement direction. Doing so would leverage the signal strength measurements being performed to identify and avoid obstacles.
Regarding claim 9, Yuuta, Wodrich, Baratz, and Duckworth disclose the subject matter of claim 8 as recited in the claim and applied above.
While Yuuta discloses determining movement direction based on reception signal strength and changing direction to avoid obstacles (see Yuuta at least [0195] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 specifies a direction in which the object is present within a predetermined range of the drone D among the six directions of the front and rear, left, right, and down, based on the measurement result of the distance sensor 1801 (step S 2302). Then, the information processing apparatus 101 measures the RSSI value of the beacon signal received by using the directional antenna 1501 in the remaining direction excluding the specified direction among the front and rear left and right vertical directions (step S 2303).”; [0196] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 specifies a direction in which the measured RSSI value is maximized in the remaining direction (step S 2304). Then, the information processing apparatus 101 moves the drone D for a fixed time t in a direction in which the identified RSSI value becomes maximum (step S 2305).”), it does not appear to explicitly disclose selecting a direction in which the signal strength is constant.
Duckworth teaches signal strengths oscillating as a result of blockages (see Duckworth at least pg. 7, paragraph 1 “In these tougher environments, the RF paths are non-line of sight, and fade due to blockage, and are often highly multipathed, so that the errors in time delay “pseudoranges” are non-zero mean, non-Gaussian, and often contain outliers due to missed direct path arrivals and detection of multipath only.”; pg. 8, paragraph 2 “. . . urban/interior true direct paths are reasonably stable in arrival time and angle—they may fluctuate in amplitude and be completely blocked. . . the unstable/scintillating multipath signals . . .”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the determining movement direction based on reception signal strength and changing direction to one without any obstacles of Yuuta with the understanding that signal strengths oscillate as a result of blockages as taught by Duckworth to have the operation control unit sets a direction in which the reception strength is constant as the different movement direction. Doing so would leverage the signal strength measurements being performed to identify and avoid obstacles.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuuta in view of Wodrich and further in view of Baratz and Jain et al. (US 11747142 B2; hereinafter Jain).
Regarding claim 10, Yuuta, Wodrich, and Baratz disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Yuuta discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein, when the output information determined by the reception strength determination unit falls below a predetermined threshold, the operation control unit travels a predetermined time without changing the movement direction indicated by the movement direction information (see Yuuta at least [0077] “Here, when the RSSI value is less than the threshold alpha [(i.e., predetermined threshold)], the flight control unit 602 further moves the drone D in the direction specified by the direction identification unit 604.”; [0103] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 specifies a direction in which the measured RSSI value among the front and rear left and right vertical six directions becomes the maximum (step S 1002). Then, the information processing apparatus 101 moves the drone D for a fixed time t in the identified direction (step S 1003).”).
While Yuuta discloses travelling a predetermined time, it does not appear to explicitly disclose travelling a predetermined distance.
Jain discloses a robot moving at a constant velocity (see Jain at least pg. 20, col. 12, lines 25-39 “. . . the vehicle 110 is stationary or moving at a constant velocity.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the movement for a predetermined time of Yuuta with the constant velocity movement as taught by Jain to have the robot travel a predetermined distance. Doing so would serve to substitute the measurement of time with the measurement of distance, which would be mathematically equivalent measurements given a velocity relationship between the variables.
Claims 11-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuuta in view of Wodrich and further in view of Baratz and Sherwin (Sherwin, T., Easte, M., Chen, A. T. Y., Wang, K. I. K., & Dai, W. (2018). A single RF emitter-based indoor navigation method for autonomous service robots. Sensors, 18(2), 585.; hereinafter Sherwin).
Regarding claim 11, Yuuta, Wodrich, and Baratz disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above.
While Yuuta discloses using signal strength to determine movement direction and changing movement to avoid obstacles (see Yuuta at least [0195] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 specifies a direction in which the object is present within a predetermined range of the drone D among the six directions of the front and rear, left, right, and down, based on the measurement result of the distance sensor 1801 (step S 2302). Then, the information processing apparatus 101 measures the RSSI value of the beacon signal received by using the directional antenna 1501 in the remaining direction excluding the specified direction among the front and rear left and right vertical directions (step S 2303).”; [0196] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 specifies a direction in which the measured RSSI value is maximized in the remaining direction (step S 2304). Then, the information processing apparatus 101 moves the drone D for a fixed time t in a direction in which the identified RSSI value becomes maximum (step S 2305).”), it does not appear to explicitly disclose changing direction to that in which a second strongest signal is detected when the current movement direction is a location in which the device has moved in the past.
Sherwin teaches signal-oriented navigation that prioritizes unexplored areas over previously explored areas near obstacles (see Sherwin at least pg. 15, paragraph 4 “As each grid cell is smaller than the robot, there is a possibility that there may be a path that is considered to be viable that the robot cannot actually fit through. In order to mitigate this, the map should assign a higher cost to cells with multiple obstacles near them. This is calculated by summing the cell in question, along with its four adjacent cells. This encourages the robot to take paths that are further away from obstacles, which may lead to slightly less direct paths but decreases the likelihood of taking an invalid path and getting stuck.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the signal-based obstacle avoidance of Yuuta with the unexplored prioritization over explored areas near obstacles as taught by Sherwin to have, when the movement direction indicated by the movement direction information is a direction in which the autonomous movement device has moved in the past, the operation control unit generate the movement direction information with the arrival direction of the output information with a next highest reception strength being a new movement direction. Doing so would reduce invalid pathing as recognized by Sherwin (see Sherwin at least pg. 15, paragraph 4 “This encourages the robot to take paths that are further away from obstacles, which may lead to slightly less direct paths but decreases the likelihood of taking an invalid path and getting stuck.”).
Regarding claim 12, Yuuta, Wodrich, and Baratz disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above.
While Yuuta discloses using signal strength to determine movement direction and changing movement to avoid obstacles (see Yuuta at least [0195] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 specifies a direction in which the object is present within a predetermined range of the drone D among the six directions of the front and rear, left, right, and down, based on the measurement result of the distance sensor 1801 (step S 2302). Then, the information processing apparatus 101 measures the RSSI value of the beacon signal received by using the directional antenna 1501 in the remaining direction excluding the specified direction among the front and rear left and right vertical directions (step S 2303).”; [0196] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 specifies a direction in which the measured RSSI value is maximized in the remaining direction (step S 2304). Then, the information processing apparatus 101 moves the drone D for a fixed time t in a direction in which the identified RSSI value becomes maximum (step S 2305).”), it does not appear to explicitly disclose changing direction when the current movement direction is a location in which the device has moved in the past.
Sherwin teaches signal-oriented navigation that prioritizes unexplored areas over previously explored areas near obstacles (see Sherwin at least pg. 15, paragraph 4 “As each grid cell is smaller than the robot, there is a possibility that there may be a path that is considered to be viable that the robot cannot actually fit through. In order to mitigate this, the map should assign a higher cost to cells with multiple obstacles near them. This is calculated by summing the cell in question, along with its four adjacent cells. This encourages the robot to take paths that are further away from obstacles, which may lead to slightly less direct paths but decreases the likelihood of taking an invalid path and getting stuck.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the signal-based obstacle avoidance of Yuuta with the unexplored prioritization over explored areas near obstacles as taught by Sherwin to have, when the movement direction indicated by the movement direction information is a direction in which the autonomous movement device has moved in the past, the operation control unit generate the movement direction information in which a direction that is different from the movement direction and that is not the direction in which the autonomous movement device has moved in the past is a new movement direction. Doing so would reduce invalid pathing as recognized by Sherwin (see Sherwin at least pg. 15, paragraph 4 “This encourages the robot to take paths that are further away from obstacles, which may lead to slightly less direct paths but decreases the likelihood of taking an invalid path and getting stuck.”).
Regarding claim 13, Yuuta, Wodrich, Baratz, and Sherwin disclose the subject matter of claim 12 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Yuuta discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the new movement direction is a direction in which the reception strength of the output information in the movement direction indicated by the movement direction information is estimated to decrease or a direction in which the reception strength of the output information in the movement direction indicated by the movement direction information is estimated to increase (see Yuuta at least [0195] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 specifies a direction in which the object is present within a predetermined range of the drone D among the six directions of the front and rear, left, right, and down, based on the measurement result of the distance sensor 1801 (step S 2302). Then, the information processing apparatus 101 measures the RSSI value of the beacon signal received by using the directional antenna 1501 in the remaining direction excluding the specified direction among the front and rear left and right vertical directions (step S 2303).”; [0196] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 specifies a direction in which the measured RSSI value is maximized in the remaining direction (step S 2304). Then, the information processing apparatus 101 moves the drone D for a fixed time t in a direction in which the identified RSSI value becomes maximum (step S 2305) [(i.e., direction in which signal strength is expected to increase)].”).
Regarding claim 15, Yuuta, Wodrich, and Baratz disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Yuuta discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the movement direction information is associated with a time for which the autonomous movement device has moved in the movement direction (see Yuuta at least [0067] “. . . the flight control unit 602 controls the drone D to measure the RSSI value of the beacon signal [(i.e., movement direction information)] received by the beacon receiver 306 . . . at a fixed time interval . . .”),
the autonomous movement device further comprises a movement direction information storage unit in which the movement direction information associated with the time for which the autonomous movement device has moved in the movement direction is stored (see Yuuta at least [0068] “The measured RSSI value is stored in the received signal intensity list 700 [(i.e., information storage)] as illustrated in FIG. 7 in association with position information indicating the position of the drone D (information processing apparatus 101) at the time of measuring the RSSI value, for example.”; Figure 7- movement direction information (i.e., signal intensity) is recorded with coordinates that correspond to distance travelled over a fixed time), and . . .
While Yuuta discloses storing historical information regarding movement and pathing to avoid obstacles (see Yuuta at least [0195] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 specifies a direction in which the object is present within a predetermined range of the drone D among the six directions of the front and rear, left, right, and down, based on the measurement result of the distance sensor 1801 (step S 2302). Then, the information processing apparatus 101 measures the RSSI value of the beacon signal received by using the directional antenna 1501 in the remaining direction excluding the specified direction among the front and rear left and right vertical directions (step S 2303).”; [0196] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 specifies a direction in which the measured RSSI value is maximized in the remaining direction (step S 2304). Then, the information processing apparatus 101 moves the drone D for a fixed time t in a direction in which the identified RSSI value becomes maximum (step S 2305) [(i.e., direction in which signal strength is expected to increase)].”), it does not appear to explicitly disclose changing movement direction to avoid an obstacle based on the stored historical information.
Sherwin teaches the subject matter underlined below:
the operation control unit creates movement history information of the autonomous movement device from past movement direction information, estimates presence of an obstacle from the movement history information, and changes the movement direction information for moving the autonomous movement device such that the autonomous movement device avoids the obstacle (see Sherwin at least pg. 15, paragraph 4 “Each map cell has a cost of 100, 1, or 2, depending on if the cell is occupied, unoccupied, or unknown, respectively . . . As each grid cell is smaller than the robot, there is a possibility that there may be a path that is considered to be viable that the robot cannot actually fit through. In order to mitigate this, the map should assign a higher cost to cells with multiple obstacles near them. This is calculated by summing the cell in question, along with its four adjacent cells. This encourages the robot to take paths that are further away from obstacles, which may lead to slightly less direct paths but decreases the likelihood of taking an invalid path and getting stuck.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the storing historical information regarding movement and pathing to avoid obstacles of Yuuta with the use of movement history to estimate and avoid obstacles as taught by Sherwin to create movement history information of the autonomous movement device from the past movement direction information, estimate presence of an obstacle from the movement history information, and change the movement direction information for moving the autonomous movement device such that the autonomous movement device avoids the obstacle. Doing so would reduce invalid pathing as recognized by Sherwin (see Sherwin at least pg. 15, paragraph 4 “This encourages the robot to take paths that are further away from obstacles, which may lead to slightly less direct paths but decreases the likelihood of taking an invalid path and getting stuck.”).
Regarding claim 16, Yuuta, Wodrich, and Baratz disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above.
. . . further comprising:
an information obtaining unit configured to obtain information on an obstacle around the autonomous movement device (see Yuuta at least [0195] “ . . . the information processing apparatus 101 specifies a direction in which the object is present within a predetermined range of the drone D among the six directions of the front and rear, left, right, and down, based on the measurement result of the distance sensor 1801 (step S 2302).”); and
a contact determination unit configured to estimate contact between the autonomous movement device and the obstacle, from the movement direction information and obtained information obtained by the information obtaining unit, wherein the contact determination unit outputs contact prediction information or contact information between the autonomous movement device and the obstacle to the operation control unit (see Yuuta at least [0195] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 [(i.e., contact determination unit and operation control unit)] specifies a direction in which the object is present within a predetermined range of the drone D among the six directions of the front and rear, left, right, and down, based on the measurement result of the distance sensor 1801 (step S 2302).”).
While Yuuta discloses estimating obstacle contact, it does not appear to explicitly disclose determining that contact actually occurs.
Sherwin teaches determining obstacle contact (see Sherwin at least pg. 4, paragraph 1 “A simple method of obstacle detection is available through contact or touch sensors: when the robot comes into contact with an obstacle, it is detected . . .”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the obstacle contact estimation of Yuuta with the contact detection as taught by Sherwin to determine contact between the autonomous movement device and the obstacle. Doing so would enable the system to react to direct contact with an obstacle as recognized by Sherwin (see Sherwin at least pg. 4, paragraph 1 “A simple method of obstacle detection is available through contact or touch sensors: when the robot comes into contact with an obstacle, it is detected and the system can react accordingly (generally by reversing and marking the obstacle in a map).”).
Regarding claim 17, Yuuta, Wodrich, Baratz, and Sherwin disclose the subject matter of claim 16 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Yuuta discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the operation control unit changes the movement direction information to a direction of avoiding the obstacle, based on the contact prediction information or the contact information (see Yuuta at least [0195] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 specifies a direction in which the object is present within a predetermined range of the drone D among the six directions of the front and rear, left, right, and down, based on the measurement result of the distance sensor 1801 (step S 2302). Then, the information processing apparatus 101 measures the RSSI value of the beacon signal received by using the directional antenna 1501 in the remaining direction excluding the specified direction among the front and rear left and right vertical directions (step S 2303).”; [0196] “. . . the information processing apparatus 101 specifies a direction in which the measured RSSI value is maximized in the remaining direction (step S 2304). Then, the information processing apparatus 101 moves the drone D for a fixed time t in a direction in which the identified RSSI value becomes maximum (step S 2305).”).
Regarding claim 18, Yuuta, Wodrich, and Baratz disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Yuuta discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein, when the reception strength determination unit determines that the output information has a reception strength exceeding a predetermined threshold, the autonomous movement device is a predetermined distance away from the target (see Yuuta at least [0031] “The threshold alpha can be arbitrarily set. For example, the threshold alpha is set to a value of the received signal intensity measured when the unmanned aerial vehicle 110 approaches the beacon device 102 to a distance of about 10 cm to 1 m.”), the angle estimation unit estimates the arrival direction of the output information during the movement (see Yuuta at least [0029] “. . . the reception signal strength of the wireless signal received when the unmanned aerial vehicle 110 is moved can be measured for each of the six directions of the front and rear right and left sides of the unmanned aerial vehicle 110.”), and . . .
While Yuuta discloses determining a target location being within a certain distance when the output information has a reception strength exceeding a predetermined threshold and estimating an arrival direction during navigation, it does not appear to explicitly disclose moving the distance to the target destination nor estimating an output position of the output information via a real image or a virtual image and correcting the estimated arrival direction based on the output position.
However, Yuuta also discloses approaching the target to perform end goal interactions, such as delivering packages. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the target approach goal of Yuuta with the threshold distance determination also of Yuuta to move a predetermined distance toward the target. Doing so would assist in downstream operations.
Still unaddressed however that while Yuuta discloses determining a target location being within a certain distance when the output information has a reception strength exceeding a predetermined threshold and estimating an arrival direction during navigation, it does not appear to explicitly disclose estimating an output position of the output information via a real image or a virtual image and correcting the estimated arrival direction based on the output position.
Sherwin teaches the use of camera imaging to determine the precise location of an environmental object (see Sherwin at least pg. 4, paragraph 1 “There are a variety of methods that determine the distance to an obstacle. The use of image processing with a camera allows for detailed information to be provided in a 3D space.”).
Cameras taking images, inherently, capture real images. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the angle estimation of Yuuta with the camera imaging-based localization as taught by Sherwin to estimate an output position of the output information by a real image from a movement distance and an angle of the arrival direction of the output information, and correct the estimated arrival direction of the output information based on the output position. Doing so would improve the accuracy of the estimated arrival direction as recognized by Sherwin (see Sherwin at least pg. 4, paragraph 1 “The use of image processing with a camera allows for detailed information to be provided in a 3D space.”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuuta in view of Wodrich and further in view of Baratz, Sherwin and Reina et al. (Reina, A., & Gonzalez, J. (2000). A two-stage mobile robot localization method by overlapping segment-based maps. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 31(4), 213-225.; hereinafter Reina).
Regarding claim 19, Yuuta, Wodrich, Baratz, and Sherwin disclose claim 18 as recited in the claim and applied above.
While Yuuta discloses estimating a plurality of output positions (see Yuuta at least [0029] “. . . the reception signal strength of the wireless signal received when the unmanned aerial vehicle 110 is moved can be measured for each of the six directions of the front and rear right and left sides of the unmanned aerial vehicle 110.”), it does not appear to explicitly disclose an output position with a largest number of overlapping output position estimations being estimated as the output position by a real image nor the estimated arrival direction of the output information being corrected based on the output position by the real image.
Reina teaches identifying overlapping estimations of position, selecting the most closely overlapping position estimates as a real position, and refining the estimate using additional analysis (see Reina at least pg. 214, paragraph 5 “The key idea consists of rotating the local map through a tentative angle and then checking for the number of equally oriented segments from both the global and local maps, regardless of their relative positions.”; pg. 214, paragraph 6 “The robot position that produces the maximum overlap is selected as the initial robot position for the next iteration . . . In order to improve the final pose estimate a refinement of the orientation provided by the first stage is also permitted.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the estimating a plurality of output positions of Yuuta with the overlap analysis method as taught by Reina to have an output position with a largest number of overlapping output position estimations estimated as the output position and further perform additional analysis to refine the position. Doing so would improve the accuracy of the estimation and provide a robust estimation as recognized by Reina (see Reina at least pg. 225, paragraph 1 “. . . we have presented experimental results on our mobile robot RAM-2 that shows the accuracy and robustness of this method even for poor quality maps and large errors in the initial robot position and orientation.”).
While Yuuta and Reina disclose an output position with a largest number of overlapping output position estimations being estimated as the output position and further performing additional analysis to refine the position, they do not appear to explicitly disclose using a real image to perform the additional analysis.
Sherwin teaches the use of camera imaging to determine the precise location of an environmental object (see Sherwin at least pg. 4, paragraph 1 “There are a variety of methods that determine the distance to an obstacle. The use of image processing with a camera allows for detailed information to be provided in a 3D space.”).
Cameras taking images, inherently, capture real images. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the output position with a largest number of overlapping output position estimations being estimated as the output position and further performing additional analysis to refine the position of Yuuta and Reina with the camera imaging-based localization as taught by Sherwin to use a real image to perform the additional analysis and correct the estimated angle of arrival. Doing so would improve the accuracy of the position and estimated arrival direction as recognized by Sherwin (see Sherwin at least pg. 4, paragraph 1 “The use of image processing with a camera allows for detailed information to be provided in a 3D space.”).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuuta in view of Wodrich and further in view of Baratz and Perkins et al. (Perkins, C., Lei, L., Kuhlman, M., Lee, T. H., Gateau, G., Bergbreiter, S., & Abshire, P. (2011, May). Distance sensing for mini-robots: RSSI vs. TDOA. In 2011 IEEE International Symposium of Circuits and Systems (ISCAS) (pp. 1984-1987). IEEE.; hereinafter Perkins).
Regarding claim 22, Yuuta, Wodrich, and Baratz disclose the subject matter of claim 21 as recited in the claim and applied above.
While Yuuta discloses receiving output information of a specific frequency and storing output information (see Yuuta at least [0247] “The ultrasonic signal is a signal of a sound wave having a high frequency that cannot be captured by a human auditory organ.”; Figure 7- signal information is recorded), it does not appear to explicitly disclose the frequency changing.
Perkins teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . wherein a frequency of the output information changes, and change pattern information of the frequency is stored (see Perkins at least pg. 1985, paragraph 3 “Since channel conditions vary at different frequencies, the measurements were carried out at two carrier frequencies, f1: 2433.2MHz and f2: 2481MHz.”; Figure 2- changed frequency pattern information recorded).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the receiving output information of a specific frequency and storing output information of Yuuta with the changing frequency and change recording as taught by Perkins to have a frequency of the output information change, and have change pattern information of the frequency stored in the autonomous movement device. Doing so would capture additional navigational usage for downstream usage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 25 are allowable. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The claims recite the limitations “. . . the operation control unit changes the movement direction of the autonomous movement device toward the new arrival direction after the autonomous movement device moves a distance longer than a radius of a maximum arc, formed by an outer shape of the autonomous movement device in a case where the autonomous movement device turns toward the new arrival direction, from a position of the autonomous movement device at the estimation of the new arrival direction,” and “. . . when a state where the reception strength of the output information in the movement direction indicated by the movement direction information does not change continues, the operation control unit generates the movement direction information with a direction in which the autonomous movement device travels backward being a new movement direction,” respectively. For the former, the closest prior art for the limitation are in the field of turning radii for vehicle navigation, such as Benders et al. (Benders, S., & Koch, S. (2019, June). Radius of turn and flight path angle estimation from unmanned aircraft flight trajectories. In 2019 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS) (pp. 1336-1343). IEEE.) and Iida et al. (Iida, M., Nakashima, H., Tomiyama, H., Oh, T., & Nakamura, T. (2011). Small-radius turning performance of an articulated vehicle by direct yaw moment control. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 76(2), 277-283.), which describe movement of vehicles in a new arrival direction after moving a distance longer than a radius of a maximum arc, formed by the movement device’s physical constraints as a result of the outer geometry. However, the prior art fail to disclose, teach, or otherwise suggest that the arc be formed exclusively by the outer shape of the movement device itself as required by the claims. As to the latter limitation, the closest prior art is Baratz, which describes changing the movement direction to a new movement direction (see Baratz at least [0075] “Based on the estimated location (waypoint) of beacon 120 at any given time step, drone 110 and the trajectory prediction function can calculate one or more of the relative orientation and the distance between drone 110 and beacon 120, such that drone 110 can better navigate through the surrounding environment while performing one or more assigned missions with respect to Subject 130. For example, the drone's navigation system 112 can use the calculated relative orientation and distance to navigate to a new orientation relative to Subject 130. As a particular example, consider a case in which a relative orientation of 90 degrees is calculated (indicating that Subject 130 is to the immediate right of drone 110), but drone 110 has been commanded to follow S from behind—therefore, navigation system 112 will cause the drone to navigate to a new relative orientation of approximately 0 degrees.”). However, the prior art fail to disclose, teach, or otherwise suggest the new movement direction being backward. Thus, the prior art fail to disclose, teach, or otherwise suggest, even in combination, the claimed subject matter for claims 24 and 25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 8-13, and 15-23 have been considered but are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues, “Yuuta discloses a flight control program, a flight control method, and an information processing device. In Yuuta, the obstacle avoidance mechanism, disclosed in paragraphs [0195]- [0196], detects an obstacle with a distance sensor at a stage prior to determining a movement direction, and is to select the direction of travel by ‘excluding’ the direction of the obstacle from the candidates and measuring the RSSI (Received Signal Strength Indicator) of the remaining directions.
“In other words, Yuuta simply excludes the direction of the obstacle as an option from the beginning (hereinafter referred to ‘prior exclusion mechanism’). However, Yuuta does not teach or suggest at least ‘when the autonomous movement device is estimated to come into contact with an obstacle if the autonomous movement device travels in a changed movement direction, the operation control unit does not change the movement direction of the autonomous movement device up to a position where the contact with the obstacle is estimated to be avoided’ . . . as claimed in claim 1.
“Wodrich also does not teach or suggest at least ‘when the autonomous movement device is estimated to come into contact with an obstacle if the autonomous movement device travels in a changed movement direction, the operation control unit does not change the movement direction of the autonomous movement device up to a position where the contact with the obstacle is estimated to be avoided’ as claimed in claim 1.
“Baratz only discloses updating the relative orientation of the drone 110 based on the estimated location (waypoint) of the beacon 120 (see paragraph [0075]) (hereinafter referred to ‘reorientation mechanism’). However, Baratz also does not teach or suggest at least ‘when the autonomous movement device is estimated to come into contact with an obstacle if the autonomous movement device travels in a changed movement direction, the operation control unit does not change the movement direction of the autonomous movement device up to a position where the contact with the obstacle is estimated to be avoided’ as claimed in claim 1.
“A combination of the ‘prior exclusion mechanism’ of Yuuta and ‘reorientation mechanism’ of Baratz still fails to teach or suggest at least ‘when the autonomous movement device is estimated to come into contact with an obstacle if the autonomous movement device travels in a changed movement direction, the operation control unit does not change the movement direction of the autonomous movement device up to a position where the contact with the obstacle is estimated to be avoided’ as claimed in claim 1.
“Therefore, a combination of Yuuta, Wodrich, and Baratz also still fails to teach or suggest at least ‘when the autonomous movement device is estimated to come into contact with an obstacle if the autonomous movement device travels in a changed movement direction, the operation control unit does not change the movement direction of the autonomous movement device up to a position where the contact with the obstacle is estimated to be avoided’ as claimed in claim 1.
“In view of the foregoing, even in combination the cited references fail to support the rejection of independent claim 1 as amended, and further fail to support the rejection of the dependent claims for at least the reasons discussed in connection with claim 1. Withdrawal of the rejections is therefore appropriate,” (from remarks pages 11-13).
As to Point (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to argue that the prior art fail to disclose the limitation “. . . when the autonomous movement device is estimated to come into contact with an obstacle if the autonomous movement device travels in a changed movement direction, the operation control unit does not move in the movement direction of the autonomous movement device up to a position where the contact with the obstacle is estimated to be avoided . . .” as required by independent claim 1. However, Yuuta discloses estimating contact with an obstacle and avoiding moving in the direction of the obstacle and Baratz teaches changing direction during movement based on newly output information. The disclosed system of Yuuta is incentivized to avoid obstacles, but it fails to explicitly disclose any potential change in movement. Baratz, on the other hand, when combined with the system of Yuuta, would resultingly enable changing to a new movement direction. Given the obstacle avoidance of Yuuta, when augmented with the capacity to change movement directions of Baratz, the claimed invention would be yielded obvious, as the obstacle avoidance of Yuuta and the changing movement direction capacity of Baratz would render the case “where the movement is being changed and the change in movement is not enacted due to presence of an obstacle” obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The judgements of Yuuta are merely applied to the new potential for a change in movement presented by Baratz. See the rejection of claim 1 above. Applicant further argues in the remarks that the combination of Yuuta and Baratz still fails to teach the claim limitation, but it is unclear to the examiner as to why it is believed that the combination fails to yield the claim limitation in question, as all that is provided is a quotation of the claim limitation with no further argument. Again, see the rejection of claim 1 above for details as to how these references are combined for more details.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki et al. (JP 2017151499 A) discloses obstacle avoidance maneuvers for autonomous vehicles.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TABITHA KRESS whose telephone number is (703) 756-1763. The examiner can normally be reached MTWR 06:30-16:30 CST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached on (571) 270-5442. 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.
/TABITHA KRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/23/26
Prosecution Insights