DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1, 4-6, 15-17, 19, and 21 have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 17, 19, and 21 are amended. Claims 4-6 are as previously presented. Claims 15 and 16 are original. Claims 9-14, 18, and 20 are withdrawn. Claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 are cancelled.
This is a non-final office action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 11/20/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application KR10-2021-0058461 filed in The Republic of Korea on 05/06/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 10/21/2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 13, ln. 1 – p.13, ln. 7), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 103 (presented on p. 1 under the heading “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103”), the arguments and amendments are not persuasive. Upon further review of the arguments and references, an alternative interpretation of JP2003067054A (Harasaki) is possible where the entry area is 33a, as seen in Figure 3, and the specific area is 33b and 33c. Under this interpretation, the stopping of robot 10p at 33a is not a stopping within the specific area. Applicant’s arguments do not address this updated interpretation. Therefore, the claims are rejected in view of WO2021/027964A1 (Chen), JP2003067054A (Harasaki), and US2022/0253072A1 (Oda et al.) based on an updated mapping of the references (see below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 15-17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 17, and 19, the claims recite “controlling the first robot to move to, and stop at, the first point, without stopping at another point within the specific area prior to reaching the first point.” The disclosure as originally filed does not appear to contain this language. The disclosure as originally filed (e.g. Claims 10, 18, and 20 as originally filed and specification ¶0156) recites that “the first robot may be controlled to directly move” to the exit location (corresponding to the first point, in the context of the claims). However, the term “directly” is not exclusively defined as “without stopping.” The plain and ordinary definition of “directly” includes without changing direction, or without delay (immediately), or in a direct line, way, or manner; straight. The specification does not appear to define or limit “directly” to mean “without stopping” or provide further support for the language. In other words, the claimed subject matter is narrower than what is broadly recited in the disclosure. Additionally, the portion of the specification describing the control for direct movement corresponds to step 920 in the embodiment of Figure 9, whereas the claimed invention of Claims 1, 17, and 19 correspond to the embodiment of Figure 7. These are distinct embodiment (see the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed 2/27/2024) and there does not appear to be written description providing for the specific combination of elements from the different embodiments, as now claimed.
Therefore, the subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 4-6, 15, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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, 4-6, 15-17, 19, and 21 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 17, and 19, the phrase “without stopping at another point within the specific area prior to reaching the first point” renders the claims indefinite. Upon review of the specification for clarity about this limitation, the movement “without stopping” is not found. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the controlling for moving “directly,” and if so, which definition of “directly” is encompassed by the term and limitation, in order to understand the claimed control. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the phrase is interpreted as any travel that meets any definition of “directly,” e.g. in a straight line.
Claims 4-6, 15, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed 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.
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, 4-6, 15-17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication WO2021/027964A1 (Chen) (English translation relied upon for citations), in view of Publication JP2003067054A (Harasaki) (English translation relied upon for citations), further in view of Published Application US2022/0253072A1 (Oda et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses a robot control method (see Figure 2, [0021]) performed by a robot control system (see [0027] executed on server) that controls a plurality of robots (see [0034] control of first and second robot) moving in a space (see [0007] in a building), the robot control method comprising:
identifying a specific area through which the plurality of robots are to pass (see [0032] S202, "first area" identified as part of method step, as area that first robot and second robot compete (intend) to pass through), wherein the specific area is a section within the space of a narrowed width such that the plurality of robots can only pass therethrough sequentially in a line (see [0032] passage width of the first area allows only one robot to pass through, [0090] second robot has to pass through after, i.e. single file line type travel), and further wherein the specific area includes an entry side and an exit side that is on an opposite end of the entry side (see [0064-0065] an entry of the first area and [0033] travel through the first area, i.e. to an exit side);
for a first robot that enters the specific area, wherein the first robot is one of the plurality of robots(see [0010, 0062-0065], the detecting of the competing being for a state wherein the first robot is in (has entered) the first area or enters the first area): controlling the first robot to pass through the specific area (see [0033], S204, controlling the first robot to pass through the first area) via a first point defined in the specific area by the robot control system (see [0038-0041], via a path through the first area (a path being points or lines which are made of points), the path being defined by the server (robot control system)),
controlling each robot entering the specific area after the first robot among the plurality of robots to sequentially pass through the specific area (see [0082] S206, the second robot controlled to be outside the first area and [0090] after step S206, the second robot controlled to pass through the first area after the first robot (in sequence with the first robot), or [0097-0099] for multiple second robots, control for navigation in a sequence), and
wherein the controlling of the first robot comprises:
identifying that the first robot is located in an entry area of the specific area (see [0046] determine position of robot and [0064-0065] detecting the first robot enters the first area (i.e. crosses the boundary of the first area, and see also Applicant’s specification ¶0109, the term “entry area” may be a point on an entrance side of the specific area)), wherein the entry area is closer to the entry side of the specific area than to the exit side of the specific area (see [0033, 0064-0065] the entry boundary, i.e. before passing through to the exit side); and
controlling the first robot to move to the first point (see [0038-0041], control to move via a path through the first area),
wherein the first point is a point to which the first robot is movable (see [0033] the first robot uses the path to pass through the first area, i.e. points on the route must be points to which the robot can move) and is a point farthest from the entry area, such that the first point is located closer to the exit side of the specific area than to the entry side of the specific area (see [0038-0041], via a path through the first area, e.g. for case wherein the first point is located at the intersection of the path as it exits the specific area – a point farthest along the path from the entry area, and closest to the exit side), and
the controlling of each robot comprises:
identifying that a second robot is located in the entry area after the first robot, wherein the second robot is one of the plurality of robots (see [0074] the second robot entering the first area (i.e. crossing the boundary into the area) after the first robot has already entered the first area gives the second robot lower priority); and
controlling the second robot to move to a second point (see [0090] the second robot controlled for passing through the area (via the second robot's path) after the first robot. In other words, any point of the second robot's path in the first area will be a second point).
Chen does not explicitly recite, for a first robot that enters the specific area:
wherein the controlling of the first robot comprises:
wherein the entry area is outside of the specific area,
controlling the first robot to stop at the first point, without stopping at another point within the specific area prior to reaching the first point, and
the controlling of each robot comprises:
controlling the second robot to stop at a second point, located adjacent to the first point occupied by the first robot, wherein the second point is located within the specific area and is between the first point and the entry side of the specific area, wherein the second robot passes through the entry side of the specific area before arriving at the second point.
However, Harasaki teaches a technique to control robots (see [0027], host controller for plural carriers) for a first robot that enters the specific area (see Figure 3(b) for first robot 10P that enters the specific area comprising 33b and 33c, which [0006] is a non-overtaking area (i.e. robots must sequentially pass)),
wherein the controlling of the first robot comprises:
wherein the entry area is outside of the specific area (see Figure 3(a), entry area 33a outside specific are a 33b and 33c),
controlling the first robot to stop at the first point (see Figure 3(c), [0027-0029], first robot 10P moving to most downstream waiting point 33c, and see [0009] temporarily stopping), without stopping at another point within the specific area prior to reaching the first point (see Figure 3C, [0028] movement from 33a to 33c, straight line travel, when 33b is absent), and
the controlling of each robot comprises:
controlling the second robot to stop at a second point (see Figure 3(e), [0030] second robot 10Q moves to 33b), located adjacent to the first point occupied by the first robot (see Figure 3(e) 33b being adjacent waiting point to 33c), wherein the second point is located within the specific area and is between the first point and the entry side of the specific area (see Figure 3(e)), wherein the second robot passes through the entry side of the specific area before arriving at the second point (see Figures 3(b) through 3(e)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the passage through the narrow specific area of Chen to further include control for waiting at a first and second point, as taught by Harasaki, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the robustness and flexibility of the method to account for areas for transferring cargo, while improving installation space efficiency (see Harasaki, [0037]).
Chen does not explicitly recite:
wherein the first point and the second point are points dynamically defined in the specific area, and
further wherein the second point is defined to be separated from the first point by a distance that is determined based on attribute information of the first robot and attribute information of the second robot, and wherein the attribute information includes a size of the first robot and a size of the second robot.
However, Oda et al. teaches a technique to control robots (see Figure 1, [0052, 0058] operations performed by host management device 10 to control a plurality of mobile robots 20) for a specific area (see Figures 2, 5-7, [0114] a standby area WA),
wherein the first point and the second point are points dynamically defined in the specific area (see [0093] host management device 10 can manage the current position… of each mobile robot 20, and see Figure 5 vs 6 and Figure 10 vs 11, relative positions of robots in an area can be adjusted), and
further wherein the second point is defined to be separated from the first point by a distance (see [0093, 0116] positions of plural robots managed to have gap (i.e. positions occupied by a first and second robot define separation distance)) that is determined based on attribute information of the first robot and attribute information of the second robot, and wherein the attribute information includes a size of the first robot and a size of the second robot (see [0126-0127] variable size of robots affects gap).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first and second points of Chen to have a dynamic separation distance, as taught by Oda et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to adapt to different loads with specific requirements while using space efficiently (see Oda et al., [0004, 0146]).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen does not explicitly recite the robot control method of claim 1, wherein the controlling of each of the plurality of robots comprises controlling the second robot to move to the first point if the first robot moves within the specific area and does not occupy the first point.
However, Harasaki teaches the technique as above,
wherein the controlling of each of the plurality of robots comprises controlling the second robot to move to the first point if the first robot moves within the specific area and does not occupy the first point (see Figure 4(b) and 4(c), [0033], second robot 10Q moves to waiting point 33c after first robot 10P leaves to return to travel path 2).
The motivation to combine Chen and Harasaki was provided in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Chen discloses wherein:
the controlling of the first robot to move to the first point (see [0033, 0038-0041], S204, controlling the first robot to pass through the first area on specified path (the "first point" being where the path exits the specific area) comprises:
assigning the first point to the first robot as an available point for the first robot (see [0038-0039] the server using traversable, possible locations); and
controlling the first robot to move to the assigned first point (see [0033, 0038-0039] controlling to the points of the path),
the controlling of the second robot to move to the second point (see [0090] the second robot controlled to passing through the area, after the first robot) comprises:
assigning the second point to the second robot as an available point for the second robot (see [0038-0039] the server using traversable, possible locations); and
controlling the second robot to move to the assigned second point (see [0038-0039, 0090]).
Chen does not explicitly recite the robot control method of claim 4, wherein:
the controlling of the second robot to move to the first point comprises:
assigning the first point to the second robot as an available point for the second robot; and
controlling the second robot to move to the assigned first point.
However, Harasaki teaches the technique as above,
the controlling of the second robot to move to the first point (see Figure 4(b) and 4(c), [0033], second robot 10Q moves to waiting point 33c) comprises:
assigning the first point to the second robot as an available point for the second robot (see [0027] host controller tracks position of all carriers, and [0033] second robot 10Q controlled to move to 33c (i.e. first point being assigned/associated to the robot by controller in order to output control information)); and
controlling the second robot to move to the assigned first point (see [0033]).
The motivation to combine Chen and Harasaki was provided in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Chen does not explicitly recite the robot control method of claim 5, wherein the first point and the second point are points predefined in the specific area,
the robot control method further comprises:
acquiring occupancy information indicating whether each of the first and second points is occupied by any of the plurality of robots, and
an available point for the first robot and the second robot is assigned based on the occupancy information.
However, Harasaki teaches the technique as above,
wherein the first point and the second point are points predefined in the specific area (see Figure 3(a), points 33c and 33b being points of the specific area 33b-33c),
the robot control method further comprises:
acquiring occupancy information indicating whether each of the first and second points is occupied by any of the plurality of robots (see [0027] host controller tracking positions and [0028] host controller determines vacancy information for 33b and 33c), and
an available point for the first robot and the second robot is assigned based on the occupancy information (see [0029] assigning of furthest downstream to which the vehicle can move (i.e. vacancy)).
The motivation to combine Chen and Harasaki was provided in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, Chen discloses a computer program stored in a non-transitory computer- readable recording medium (see [0027-0028] server with memory storing program corresponding to control method) to execute the method according to claim 1 (see the rejection and mapping of Claim 1 above) in the robot control system that is a computer system (see [0027]).
Regarding Claim 16, Chen discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program to execute the method (see [0027-0028] server with memory storing program corresponding to control method) according to claim 1 (see the rejection and mapping of Claim 1 above) in the robot control system that is a computer system (see [0027]).
Regarding Claim 17, Chen discloses a robot control system (see [0027] executed on server) that controls a plurality of robots (see [0034] control of first and second robot) moving in a space (see [0007] in a building), the robot control system comprising:
at least one processor configured to execute a computer-readable instruction (see [0027-0028] processor executing computer program stored in memory),
wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify a specific area through which the plurality of robots are to pass (see [0032] S202, "first area" identified as part of method step, as area that first robot and second robot compete (intend) to pass through), to, for a first robot that enters the specific area (see [0010, 0062-0065], the detecting of the competing being for a state wherein the first robot is in (has entered) the first area or enters the first area), wherein the first robot is one of the plurality of robots, control the first robot to pass through the specific area (see [0033], S204, controlling the first robot to pass through the first area) via a first point defined in the specific area by the robot control system (see [0038-0041], via a path through the first area (a path being points or lines which are made of points), the path being defined by the server (robot control system)), and to control each robot entering the specific area after the first robot among the plurality of robots to sequentially pass through the specific area (see [0082] S206, the second robot controlled to be outside the first area and [0090] after step S206, the second robot controlled to pass through the first area after the first robot (in sequence with the first robot), or [0097-0099] for multiple second robots, control for navigation in a sequence),
wherein the specific area is a section within the space of a narrowed width such that the plurality of robots can only pass therethrough sequentially in a line (see [0032] passage width of the first area allows only one robot to pass through, [0090] second robot has to pass through after, i.e. single file line type travel), and further wherein the specific area includes an entry side and an exit side that is on an opposite end of the entry side (see [0064-0065] an entry of the first area and [0033] travel through the first area, i.e. to an exit side),
wherein the controlling of the first robot comprises:
identifying that the first robot is located in an entry area of the specific area (see [0046] determine position of robot and [0064-0065] detecting the first robot enters the first area (i.e. crosses the boundary of the first area, and see also Applicant’s specification ¶0109, the term “entry area” may be a point on an entrance side of the specific area)), wherein the entry area is closer to the entry side of the specific area than to the exit side of the specific area (see [0033, 0064-0065] the entry boundary, i.e. before passing through to the exit side); and
controlling the first robot to move to the first point (see [0038-0041], control to move via a path through the first area),
wherein the first point is a point to which the first robot is movable (see [0033] the first robot uses the path to pass through the first area, i.e. points on the route must be points to which the robot can move) and is a point farthest from the entry area, such that the first point is located closer to the exit side of the specific area that to the entry side of the specific area (see [0038-0041], via a path through the first area, e.g. for case wherein the first point is located at the intersection of the path as it exits the specific area – a point farthest along the path from the entry area, and closest to the exit side), and
the controlling of each robot comprises:
identifying that a second robot is located in the entry area after the first robot, wherein the second robot is one of the plurality of robots (see [0074] the second robot entering the first area (i.e. crossing the boundary into the area) after the first robot has already entered the first area gives the second robot lower priority); and
controlling the second robot to move to a second point (see [0090] the second robot controlled for passing through the area (via the second robot's path) after the first robot. In other words, any point of the second robot's path in the first area will be a second point).
Chen does not explicitly recite:
wherein the controlling of the first robot comprises:
wherein the entry area is outside of the specific area, and
controlling the first robot to stop at the first point, without stopping at another point within the specific area prior to reaching the first point, and
the controlling of each robot comprises:
controlling the second robot to stop at a second point located adjacent to the first point occupied by the first robot, wherein the second point is located within the specific area and is between the first point and the entry side of the specific area, wherein the second robot passes through the entry side of the specific area before arriving at the second point.
However, Harasaki teaches a technique to control robots (see [0027], host controller for plural carriers) for a first robot that enters the specific area (see Figure 3(b) for first robot 10P that enters the specific area comprising 33b and 33c, which [0006] is a non-overtaking area (i.e. robots must sequentially pass)),
wherein the controlling of the first robot comprises:
wherein the entry area is outside of the specific area (see Figure 3(a), entry area 33a outside specific are a 33b and 33c), and
controlling the first robot to stop at the first point (see Figure 3(c), [0027-0029], first robot 10P moving to most downstream waiting point 33c, and see [0009] temporarily stopping) without stopping at another point within the specific area prior to reaching the first point (see Figure 3C, [0028] movement from 33a to 33c, straight line travel, when 33b is absent), and
the controlling of each robot comprises:
controlling the second robot to stop at a second point (see Figure 3(e), [0030] second robot 10Q moves to 33b) located adjacent to the first point occupied by the first robot (see Figure 3(e) 33b being adjacent waiting point to 33c), wherein the second point is located within the specific area and is between the first point and the entry side of the specific area (see Figure 3(e)), wherein the second robot passes through the entry side of the specific area before arriving at the second point (see Figures 3(b) through 3(e)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the passage through the narrow specific area of Chen to further include control for waiting at a first and second point, as taught by Harasaki, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the robustness and flexibility of the method to account for areas for transferring cargo, while improving installation space efficiency (see Harasaki, [0037]).
Chen does not explicitly recite:
wherein the first point and the second point are points dynamically defined in the specific area, and
further wherein the second point is defined to be separated from the first point by a distance that is determined based on attribute information of the first robot and attribute information of the second robot, and wherein the attribute information includes a size of the first robot and a size of the second robot.
However, Oda et al. teaches a technique to control robots (see Figure 1, [0052, 0058] operations performed by host management device 10 to control a plurality of mobile robots 20) for a specific area (see Figures 2, 5-7, [0114] a standby area WA),
wherein the first point and the second point are points dynamically defined in the specific area (see [0093] host management device 10 can manage the current position… of each mobile robot 20, and see Figure 5 vs 6 and Figure 10 vs 11, relative positions of robots in an area can be adjusted), and
further wherein the second point is defined to be separated from the first point by a distance (see [0093, 0116] positions of plural robots managed to have gap (i.e. positions occupied by a first and second robot define separation distance)) that is determined based on attribute information of the first robot and attribute information of the second robot, and wherein the attribute information includes a size of the first robot and a size of the second robot (see [0126-0127] variable size of robots affects gap).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first and second points of Chen to have a dynamic separation distance, as taught by Oda et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to adapt to different loads with specific requirements while using space efficiently (see Oda et al., [0004, 0146]).
Regarding Claim 19, Chen discloses a building (see [0035]), comprising:
a plurality of robots (see [0034] control of first and second robot) providing a service while driving in the building is provided (see [0035] delivery of items),
the robots are controlled by a robot control system (see [0027] executed on server),
the robot control system comprises at least one processor configured to execute a computer-readable instruction (see [0027-0028] processor executing computer program stored in memory), and
the at least one processor is configured to identify a specific area through which the robots are to pass (see [0032] S202, "first area" identified as part of method step, as area that first robot and second robot compete (intend) to pass through), and for a first robot that enters the specific area, wherein the first robot is one of the plurality of robots (see [0010, 0062-0065], the detecting of the competing being for a state wherein the first robot is in (has entered) the first area or enters the first area), control the first robot to pass through the specific area (see [0033], S204, controlling the first robot to pass through the first area) via a first point defined in the specific area by the robot control system (see [0038-0041], via a path through the first area (a path being points or lines which are made of points), the path being defined by the server (robot control system)), and to control each robot entering the specific area after the first robot among the plurality of robots to sequentially pass through the specific area (see [0082] S206, the second robot controlled to be outside the first area and [0090] after step S206, the second robot controlled to pass through the first area after the first robot (in sequence with the first robot), or [0097-0099] for multiple second robots, control for navigation in a sequence),
wherein the specific area is a section within the space of a narrowed width such that the plurality of robots can only pass therethrough sequentially in a line (see [0032] passage width of the first area allows only one robot to pass through, [0090] second robot has to pass through after, i.e. single file line type travel), and further wherein the specific area includes an entry side and an exit side that is on an opposite end of the entry side (see [0064-0065] an entry of the first area and [0033] travel through the first area, i.e. to an exit side),
wherein the controlling of the first robot comprises:
identifying that the first robot is located in an entry area of the specific area (see [0046] determine position of robot and [0064-0065] detecting the first robot enters the first area (i.e. crosses the boundary of the first area, and see also Applicant’s specification ¶0109, the term “entry area” may be a point on an entrance side of the specific area)), wherein the entry area is closer to the entry side of the specific area than to the exit side of the specific area (see [0033, 0064-0065] the entry boundary, i.e. before passing through to the exit side); and
controlling the first robot to move to the first point (see [0038-0041], control to move via a path through the first area),
wherein the first point is a point to which the first robot is movable (see [0033] the first robot uses the path to pass through the first area, i.e. points on the route must be points to which the robot can move) and is a point farthest from the entry area, such that the first point is located closer to the exit side of the specific area that to the entry side of the specific area (see [0038-0041], via a path through the first area, e.g. for case wherein the first point is located at the intersection of the path as it exits the specific area – a point farthest along the path from the entry area, and closest to the exit side), and
the controlling of each robot comprises:
identifying that a second robot is located in the entry area after the first robot, wherein the second robot is one of the plurality of robots (see [0074] the second robot entering the first area (i.e. crossing the boundary into the area) after the first robot has already entered the first area gives the second robot lower priority); and
controlling the second robot to move to a second point (see [0090] the second robot controlled for passing through the area (via the second robot's path) after the first robot. In other words, any point of the second robot's path in the first area will be a second point).
Chen does not explicitly recite:
wherein the controlling of the first robot comprises:
wherein the entry area is outside of the specific area,
controlling the first robot to stop at the first point, without stopping at another point within the specific area prior to reaching the first point, and
the controlling of each robot comprises:
controlling the second robot to move to, and stop at, a second point located adjacent to the first point occupied by the first robot, wherein the second point is located within the specific area and is between the first point and the entry side of the specific area, wherein the second robot passes through the entry side of the specific area before arriving at the second point.
However, Harasaki teaches a technique to control robots (see [0027], host controller for plural carriers) for a first robot that enters the specific area (see Figure 3(b) for first robot 10P that enters the specific area comprising 33b and 33c, which [0006] is a non-overtaking area (i.e. robots must sequentially pass)),
wherein the controlling of the first robot comprises:
wherein the entry area is outside of the specific area (see Figure 3(a), entry area 33a outside specific are a 33b and 33c),
controlling the first robot to stop at the first point (see Figure 3(c), [0027-0029], first robot 10P moving to most downstream waiting point 33c, and see [0009] temporarily stopping) without stopping at another point within the specific area prior to reaching the first point (see Figure 3C, [0028] movement from 33a to 33c, straight line travel, when 33b is absent), and
the controlling of each robot comprises:
controlling the second robot to stop at a second point (see Figure 3(e), [0030] second robot 10Q moves to 33b) located adjacent to the first point occupied by the first robot (see Figure 3(e) 33b being adjacent waiting point to 33c), wherein the second point is located within the specific area and is between the first point and the entry side of the specific area (see Figure 3(e)), wherein the second robot passes through the entry side of the specific area before arriving at the second point (see Figures 3(b) through 3(e)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the passage through the narrow specific area of Chen to further include control for waiting at a first and second point, as taught by Harasaki, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the robustness and flexibility of the method to account for areas for transferring cargo, while improving installation space efficiency (see Harasaki, [0037]).
Chen does not explicitly recite:
wherein the first point and the second point are points dynamically defined in the specific area, and
further wherein the second point is defined to be separated from the first point by a distance that is determined based on attribute information of the first robot and attribute information of the second robot, and wherein the attribute information includes a size of the first robot and a size of the second robot.
However, Oda et al. teaches a technique to control robots (see Figure 1, [0052, 0058] operations performed by host management device 10 to control a plurality of mobile robots 20) for a specific area (see Figures 2, 5-7, [0114] a standby area WA),
wherein the first point and the second point are points dynamically defined in the specific area (see [0093] host management device 10 can manage the current position… of each mobile robot 20, and see Figure 5 vs 6 and Figure 10 vs 11, relative positions of robots in an area can be adjusted), and
further wherein the second point is defined to be separated from the first point by a distance (see [0093, 0116] positions of plural robots managed to have gap (i.e. positions occupied by a first and second robot define separation distance)) that is determined based on attribute information of the first robot and attribute information of the second robot, and wherein the attribute information includes a size of the first robot and a size of the second robot (see [0126-0127] variable size of robots affects gap).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first and second points of Chen to have a dynamic separation distance, as taught by Oda et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to adapt to different loads with specific requirements while using space efficiently (see Oda et al., [0004, 0146]).
Regarding Claim 21, Chen does not explicitly recite the robot control method of claim 1, wherein the attribute information includes information indicating a risk level of a service provided by a robot, and the distance is determined to be greater as the risk level of the service provided by the first robot or the second robot increases.
However, Oda et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the attribute information includes information indicating a risk level of a service provided by a robot (see [0145] cargo cleanliness indicative of risk of contamination or risk to humans), and the distance is determined to be greater as the risk level of the service provided by the first robot or the second robot increases (see [0146] a larger threshold distance for a clean transported object by any robot).
The motivation to combine Chen and Oda et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669