Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/509,202

METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING A MAP OF A PARAMETER IN AN AREA BASED ON A SENSOR MOUNTED ON AN AUTONOMOUS ROBOT

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Nov 14, 2023
Examiner
BAAJOUR, SHAHIRA
Art Unit
3666
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Orange
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
114 granted / 159 resolved
+19.7% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
188
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.5%
-29.5% vs TC avg
§103
41.0%
+1.0% vs TC avg
§102
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
§112
32.6%
-7.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 159 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/03/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Claims 1 and 13 have been amended, claim 15 has been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-14 are pending herein. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed on 02/03/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 12 is 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. Claims 2, 12, and 13 recite “device when moving about within the area”. This claim is considered indefinite because the claim recites two contradicting movements for the device, the first one is moving about the area (i.e. surrounding the area, along the perimeter) and the second one is moving within the area (i.e. inside the area). Accordingly, it is unclear what this claim intends to disclose about the movement path of the device. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are considered indefinite. Claim 14 depends from claim 13, includes all of its limitations but does not cure its deficiencies, rendering them rejected under the same rationale. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erko (US 2009/0216449) in view of Tanaka (US 2006/0235585). Regarding claims 1, 9, and 10, Erko teaches a method of obtaining measurement data for at least one parameter, based on at least one sensor, wherein the sensor is mounted on a robot type of device capable of moving within an area in order to carry out a first function ([0013]: “a portable machine performs a routine cleaning function”; [0017]: “a mobile floor cleaning device that transmits a radio frequency (‘RF’) signal and that has the ability to receive digital RF signals back from passive RFID tags”; Note: First function: floor cleaning), the method comprising: activating the sensor in order to measure the parameter at least during a movement of the device within the area ([0023]: “the RFID reader is transported within a field of dispersed RFID tags as the cleaning equipment traverses a facility”, “information gathering can be performed simultaneously with a floor cleaning process”), acquiring data, in a second function of the device that is distinct from the first function, in order to establish a map of the parameter in the area ([0006]: “a mapping engine acquires signals or related information from the dispersed tags”; [0023]: “the activity of floor cleaning can automatically create or update a map of the floor field during the cleaning process”; Note: second function: mapping the environment). However, Erko does not explicitly state using the map to perform the first function. On the other hand, Tanaka teaches using map data to perform the first function (Abstract: “a self-guided cleaning robot performs map cleaning in which the self-guided cleaning robot refers to cleaning region information (map) and travels.”; [0012]: “the first traveling control unit refers to the cleaning region information to control the traveling drive unit”). It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Erko reference and include features from the TANAKA reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Using the map generated during operation of the cleaning machine in Erko to control robot operation as taught by TANAKA in order to improve navigation efficiency and coverage of the cleaning device. Regarding claim 2, Erko discloses the sensor is activated to measure the parameter while the device is moving about within the area to carry out the first function ([0023]: “the RFID reader is transported within a field of dispersed RFID tags as the cleaning equipment traverses a facility.”, “information gathering can be performed simultaneously with a floor cleaning process.”). Regarding claim 3, Erko discloses the parameter is one among: at least one wifi signal strength, a temperature, a humidity level, a pressure, and a light intensity ([0014]: “the internal battery of active tags may be employed to power integrated environmental sensors”). Regarding claim 4, Erko discloses the acquisition of data in order to establish the map of the parameter uses topology data for the area from a previously saved digital map corresponding to a topology of the area ([0006]: “the mapping information obtained by this process can be stored in a location server associated with the portable machine”; [0007]: “the floor map may be communicated to a remote map server and be utilized by a second floor cleaning machine during a different floor cleaning process”; Note: The term “topology data” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Under this interpretation, topology data broadly refers to information describing the spatial layout, structure, or connectivity of an environment, such as information indicating positions of landmarks, nodes, or waypoints and the relationships or paths between them, which can be used to generate or represent a map of the area). Regarding claim 5, Erko does not explicitly state a measurement of topology data for the area by determining distances traveled by the device between obstacles present in the area, in order to obtain a digital map of the area. On the other hand, TANAKA discloses a measurement of topology data for the area by determining distances traveled by the device between obstacles present in the area, in order to obtain a digital map of the area ([0012]: “a distance detection unit for detecting a traveling distance of the main body”, “an angle detection unit for detecting an angle indicative of a moving direction of the main body.”; [0019]: “a mapping unit for mapping a cleaned partial region on the basis of information from the distance detection unit and the angle detection unit”). It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Erko reference and include features from the TANAKA reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Using the map generated during operation of the cleaning machine in Erko to control robot operation as taught by TANAKA in order to improve navigation efficiency and coverage of the cleaning device. Regarding claim 6, Erko does not explicitly state the device is reprogrammed to use the topology data for the area, for the purposes of a new function in the implementation of the first function. On the other hand, TANAKA teaches the device is reprogrammed to use the topology data for the area, for the purposes of a new function in the implementation of the first function ([0012]: “the first traveling control unit refers to the cleaning region information to control the traveling drive unit”). ‘ It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Erko reference and include features from the TANAKA reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Using the map generated during operation of the cleaning machine in Erko to control robot operation as taught by TANAKA in order to improve navigation efficiency and coverage of the cleaning device. Regarding claim 7, Erko does not explicitly state at least two sensors are mounted on the robot type of device, the method comprising: activating a first sensor mounted on the robot type of device for measuring a first parameter at a given location of the robot type of device during a predetermined time interval; activating a second sensor distinct from the first sensor and mounted on the robot type of device for measuring a second parameter at the location of the robot type of device during the predetermined time interval; and iterating the measurement of the first parameter and the second parameter, and determining an occurrence of an event or an absence of the event in the area, based on the measurements of the first parameter and the second parameter. On the other hand, TANAKA teaches at least two sensors are mounted on the robot type of device ([0035]: “proximity sensors 12 to 17… sensing presence/absence of an obstacle and a distance to the obstacle”), the method comprising: activating a first sensor mounted on the robot type of device for measuring a first parameter at a given location of the robot type of device during a predetermined time interval; activating a second sensor distinct from the first sensor and mounted on the robot type of device for measuring a second parameter at the location of the robot type of device during the predetermined time interval; and iterating the measurement of the first parameter and the second parameter, and determining an occurrence of an event or an absence of the event in the area, based on the measurements of the first parameter and the second parameter ([0035]; [0042]; [0048]). It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Erko reference and include features from the TANAKA reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Using the map generated during operation of the cleaning machine in Erko to control robot operation as taught by TANAKA in order to improve navigation efficiency and coverage of the cleaning device. Regarding claim 8, Erko does not explicitly state wherein at least three sensors are mounted on the robot type of device, the method further comprising: activating a third sensor distinct from the first sensor and the second sensor and mounted on the robot type of device for measuring a third parameter at the location of the robot type of device during the predetermined time interval; and iterating the measurement of the first parameter, the second parameter and the third parameter, and determining an occurrence of an event or an absence of the event in the area, based on the measurements of the first parameter, the second parameter and the third parameter. On the other hand, TANAKA teaches wherein at least three sensors are mounted on the robot type of device, the method further comprising: activating a third sensor distinct from the first sensor and the second sensor and mounted on the robot type of device for measuring a third parameter at the location of the robot type of device during the predetermined time interval; and iterating the measurement of the first parameter, the second parameter and the third parameter, and determining an occurrence of an event or an absence of the event in the area, based on the measurements of the first parameter, the second parameter and the third parameter ([0035]; [0042]; [0048]). It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Erko reference and include features from the TANAKA reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Using the map generated during operation of the cleaning machine in Erko to control robot operation as taught by TANAKA in order to improve navigation efficiency and coverage of the cleaning device. Regarding claim 11, Erko discloses an expansion module connected to the processing circuit and comprising: at least one sensor configured to be activated and to measure the parameter at least during a movement of the device within the area ([0006]: “a mapping engine acquires signals or related information from the dispersed tags”) and an acquisition interface configured to acquire data according to the second function of the device, in order to establish a map of the parameter in the area ([0023]: “the activity of floor cleaning can create or update a map of the floor field during the cleaning process”). Regarding claim 12, Erko does not explicitly state the expansion module further comprises a position sensor configured to determine a location of the device when moving about within the area. On the other hand, TANAKA teaches the expansion module further comprises a position sensor configured to determine a location of the device when moving about within the area ([0042]: “rotary encoders capable of detecting a traveling distance”; [0044]: “gyro sensor… detecting an angle indicative of a moving direction.”). It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Erko reference and include features from the TANAKA reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Using the map generated during operation of the cleaning machine in Erko to control robot operation as taught by TANAKA in order to improve navigation efficiency and coverage of the cleaning device. Regarding claim 13, Erko discloses an expansion module configured to be connected to a processing circuit of a device able to move about within an area in order to carry out a first function ([0013]), the expansion module comprising: at least one sensor configured to be activated and to measure at least one parameter during a movement of the device within the area ([0023]); and an acquisition interface configured to acquire data, according to a second function of the device that is distinct from the first function, in order to establish a map of the parameter in the area ([0006]), wherein the data acquisition interface is connected to the processing circuit of the device in order to send mapping data for the parameter to the processing circuit ([0006]). However, Erko does not explicitly state a connection interface configured to connect the expansion module to the processing circuit of the device and the processing circuit being programmed to be configured to use the mapping data in performing the first function. On the other hand, TANAKA teaches a connection interface configured to connect the expansion module to the processing circuit of the device ([0048]) and the processing circuit being programmed to be configured to use the mapping data in performing the first function ([0012]). It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Erko reference and include features from the TANAKA reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Using the map generated during operation of the cleaning machine in Erko to control robot operation as taught by TANAKA in order to improve navigation efficiency and coverage of the cleaning device. Regarding claim 14, Erko discloses the data acquisition interface is connected to a remote server and is configured to transmit the acquired data to the remote server ([0007]: “the floor map may be communicated to a remote map server”; [0024]: “information can be transferred using a data cellphone connection to a file site on the Internet”). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jacobs (US-6667592-B2) discloses a method of utilizing a robot system is provided comprising the steps of commanding the robot system to perform a function in an area, the area having an area layout including at least one area segment. The method further includes accessing by the robot system a stored map of the area layout, the stored map having at least one function task associated with the at least one area segment, localizing a first position of the robot system in the area, determining a function path from the first position of the robot system for navigation of the area and completion of the at least one function task, repeatedly continuously localizing a current position of the robot system while navigating the robot system along the function path, and completing the at least one function task that is associated with the current position of the robot system. Angle (US-9802322-B2) discloses a mobile robot includes a processor connected to a memory and a wireless network circuit, for executing routines stored in the memory and commands generated by the routines and received via the wireless network circuit. The processor drives the mobile robot to a multiplicity of accessible two dimensional locations within a household, and commands an end effector, including at least one motorized actuator, to perform mechanical work in the household. A plurality of routines include a first routine which monitors a wireless local network and detects a presence of a network entity on the wireless local network, a second routine which receives a signal from a sensor detecting an action state of one of the network entities, the action state changeable between waiting and active, and a third routine which commands the end effector to change state of performing mechanical work based on the presence and on the action state. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm. 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, SCOTT BROWNE can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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. /SHAHIRA BAAJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 14, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 14, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
May 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 04, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Feb 03, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 24, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596374
TRAVELING VEHICLE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597345
METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND DEVICES FOR E-MIRROR TRAFFIC LANE IDENTIFICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589319
A system and method for controlling a plurality of karts implementing at least two communication networks.
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592089
Method of Classifying a Road Surface Object, Method of Training an Artificial Neural Network, and Method of Operating a Driver Warning Function or an Automated Driving Function
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583315
DISPLAY CONTROL DEVICE, DISPLAY DEVICE, VEHICLE, DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM RECORDED WITH DISPLAY CONTROL PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+21.7%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 159 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month