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 .
Status of the Claims
This first final action is in response to applicants’ amendments on July 29, 2026. Claim 23 was newly added. Claims 1-23 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Examiner's response
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to claim(s) under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that cited references do not teach or suggest the claimed data processing hardware configured to ''determine the return location based on a first location at which the robot previously received the commands from the operator, the first location being a nearest location to the current location of the robot from among the one or more locations at which the robot received the commands " because Sharma teaches a drone configured to, in response to no communication signal being found at a current location, return to the previous known best location where the signal was received earlier (it returns to the previous best known location 214 where the signal was received earlier) but Sharma does not teach or suggest that the ''best'' location is ''a nearest location to the current location of the robot from among the one or more locations at which the robot received the commands."
Examiner respectfully disagree this argument. Sharma ([0054]) teaches a system that uses available public cellular networks as one of the communication modes to provide high coverage along the flight path of a UAS; In cellular positioning, if the network can’t determine UAS current location with confidence, it should use the last verified position from when UAS was last in range of a tower with good signal. The UAS stores the location where the strong or reliable signal was detected, then uses its navigation system to return to that point. Thus, UAS returns to the nearest location where the strong or reliable signal was detected.
Therefore, rejections under 103 are maintained.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, 11, 13-15 and 19-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Ramanujam (US 20150338852 A1) in view of Bancroft (US 20020165643 A1) in view of Sharma (US 20160328980A1)
Regarding claim 1, Ramanujam teaches data processing hardware for controlling a robot, the data processing hardware configured to (Fig. 1 and corresponding paragraphs):
receive, from an operator, commands at one or more locations for controlling the robot (Fig.1, a mobile device (of a user)120 sends command to ask an autonomous to perform a task; [0015]-[0026] the individual authorized to create and modify the schedule of the autonomous vehicle may include the owner of the autonomous vehicle or an individual granted permission from the owner to create and/or modify the schedule. [0027] The tasks may include driving to a preselected location in order to pick up an individual, driving to a preselected location in order to drop off an individual, driving to a preselected location to enable a service (e.g., vehicle maintenance, vehicle refueling or recharging) to be performed on the autonomous vehicle 320, etc. Step 810 in Fig. 8);
confirm that the received commands are associated with a current execution task (lease) within a queue of execution task (leases) (Figs. 3B, and 5, confirm a new task), the queue of execution leases including a return execution lease (Fig. 4, robot execute a queue of tasks, [0026] return home is one of tasks);
control the robot based on the received commands that are associated with the current execution lease ([0032] the autonomous vehicle 205 may perform the tasks in accordance with schedule 222; [0035] task is to be performed (e.g., a pickup time and/or a drop-off time), a pickup location, a drop-off location, etc. In one example, the task request module 240 may receive a request to perform a recurring task, or alternatively, the task request module 240 may receive a request to perform a one-time task; [0037] The control module 250 may be configured to provide commands to enable the autonomous vehicle 205 to perform the tasks in accordance with the schedule; the control module 250 may provide commands to the autonomous vehicle's actuators, thereby controlling steering, acceleration, braking and throttle of the autonomous vehicle 205; The control module 250 may provide commands to drive the autonomous vehicle 205 to the defined location to drop off the user at the selected time in accordance with the task);
receive a lease expiration trigger; generate a return trigger based on the lease expiration trigger ([0026] the autonomous vehicle may return to a base location (home) between tasks. The autonomous vehicle may return to the base location until a subsequent task is to be performed. For example, if the autonomous vehicle performs a task at 9 PM and the next task is not scheduled until 3 PM, the autonomous vehicle may return to an individual's home after performing the task at 9 AM (a trigger: finish a task). Alternatively, the autonomous vehicle may park itself at a selected location, as instructed by the owner of the autonomous vehicle. The autonomous vehicle may exit the selected location in order to perform a subsequent task); and
While Ramanujam teaches scheduling tasks using a queue of execution task, Bancroft teaches a task of time sharing-- leasing robot ([0046] a grocer could own a robot, but when the robot was not performing a retail function such greeting customers, the grocer could lease the robot's downtime to a marketing agency or product manufacturer that could remotely command the robot around the retail environment to observe and interact with customers to obtain information. The robot provides a medium for obtaining information for marketing agencies and advertisers. The method of selling time in commanding the robot provides a further profit center to the robot owner, that maximizes the robot's downtime), 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 invention of Ramanujam to include the feature of time sharing of robots, as taught by Bancroft, to form a queue of execution leases, with a reasonable expectation of success, because using leasing robots would improve cost-efficiency (Bancroft [0004]) of the invention of Ramanujam.
Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft does not explicitly teach but Sharma teaches obtain a return command for controlling the robot to navigate from a current location of the robot to a return location, the return command obtained from the return execution lease in the queue of execution leases based on the return trigger; determine the return location based on a first location at which the robot previously received the commands from the operator, the first location being a nearest location to the current location of the robot from among the one or more locations at which the robot received the commands ([0053]If the signal is not found on the current location of UAV, it returns to the previous best known location 214 where the signal was received earlier; please note: it is well established that a UAV/robot is controlled by preloaded commands in the queue of execution and a return command (step 214) is one of them; the trig is a losing communication).
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 invention of Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft to include the feature of determining the return location based on a nearest location to the current location of the robot from among the one or more locations at which the robot received the commands taught by Sharma, with a reasonable expectation of success, to let the UAV/robot to regain connection with a remote controller/operator.
Regarding claim 11, please see the rejection above regarding claim 1, which is commensurate in scope to claim 1, with claim 1 being drawn to data processing hardware and claim 11 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 3, Ramanujam teaches determine that at least one of the received commands is not associated with the current execution lease; and in response to determining that at least one of the received commands is not associated with the current execution lease, disregard the at least one of the received commands ([0019] the individual may attempt to enter a new task into the schedule, task coincides with a previously scheduled task, the autonomous vehicle may decline the new task requested from the individual).
Regarding claim 13, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 3, which is commensurate in scope to claim 3, with claim 3 being drawn to data processing hardware and claim 13 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 4, Ramanujam teaches determine that at least one of the received commands is associated with a future execution lease; and in response to determining that at least one of the received commands is associated with the future execution lease, add the at least one of the received commands to the queue of execution leases for execution with the future execution lease ([0036] The scheduling module 245 may add the requested task to the schedule 222 …. The alternative time may be within a defined time frame (e.g., within 30 minutes of a requested time to perform the task), or the alternative time may be immediately after the previously scheduled task is performed by the autonomous vehicle 205 (future)).
Regarding claim 14, please see the rejection above regarding claim 4, which is commensurate in scope to claim 4, with claim 4 being drawn to data processing hardware and claim 14 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 9, Ramanujam teaches wherein the return location comprises a location previously visited by the robot ([0026] the autonomous vehicle may return to a base location between tasks).
Regarding claim 19, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 9, which is commensurate in scope to claim 9, with claim 9 being drawn to data processing hardware and claim 19 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 10, Ramanujam teaches receive a request for a root lease from the operator; and provide the root lease to the operator, wherein the received commands are associated with the root lease ([0028], figs. 4 and 8, corresponding paragraphs).
Regarding claim 20, please see the rejection above with regard claim 10, which is commensurate in scope to claim 10, with claim 10 being drawn to data processing hardware and claim 20 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 5, Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft as modified by Sharma teaches wherein receiving the lease expiration trigger comprises determining that the robot has lost communication with the operator of the robot (Sharma, [0053]).
Regarding claim 15, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 5, which is commensurate in scope to claim 5, with claim 5 being drawn to data processing hardware and claim 15 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 23, Ramanujam teaches wherein each execution lease in the queue of execution leases is associated with at least one command for the robot (Fig. 4 and corresponding paragraphs). Also, it is well established that a UAV/robot is controlled by preloaded commands in the queue of execution, e.g., a return command (a failsafe action)).
Claims 2, 6, 12, 16, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Ramanujam (US 20150338852 A1) in view of Bancroft (US 20020165643 A1) in view of Sharma (US 20160328980 A1) in view of Scott (US 20200368913 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft as modified by Sharma teaches add the return execution lease to the queue of execution leases (Fig. 8, add a task into);
determine that the return execution lease is a next current execution lease in the queue of execution leases based on the expiration of the previous current execution lease, wherein generating the return trigger is in response to determining that the return execution lease is the next current execution lease in the queue of execution leases ([0028] scheduled to return home).
Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft as modified by Sharma teaches does not explicitly teach but Scott teaches the limitation of receive, from the operator, the return execution lease, expire the current execution lease in response to receiving the lease expiration trigger ([0048]allow a Facility Manager to send commands to any deployed robot to stop its task and return to its charging station).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, sharing an autonomous vehicle, as taught by Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft as modified by Sharma, receiving a lease expiration command from the operator of the robot, as taught by Scott, as Bancroft, Ramanujam, Sharma and Scott are directed to robot control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using receiving a lease expiration command from the operator of the robot applied it to sharing an autonomous vehicle of Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft to intelligently control the robot.
Regarding claim 12, please see the rejection above regarding claim 2, which is commensurate in scope to claim 2, with claim 2 being drawn to data processing hardware and claim 12 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 6, Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft as modified by Sharma does not explicitly teach but Scott teaches the specific limitations of wherein receiving the lease expiration trigger comprises receiving a lease expiration command from the operator of the robot ([0048] allow a Facility Manager to send commands to any deployed robot to stop its task and return to its charging station (and later to any point on the map to complete a task).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, sharing an autonomous vehicle, as taught by Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft as modified by Sharma, receiving a lease expiration command from the operator of the robot, as taught by Scott, as Bancroft, Sharma, Ramanujam and Scott are directed to robot control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using receiving a lease expiration command from the operator of the robot applied it to sharing an autonomous vehicle of Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft to intelligently control the robot.
Regarding claim 16, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 6, which is commensurate in scope to claim 6, with claim 6 being drawn to data processing hardware and claim 16 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 21, while Ramanujam teaches and add the return execution lease into the queue of execution leases in response to receiving the return execution enable command (Ramanujam, 630 in Fig. 6, adding tasks to a queue), Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft as modified by Sharma does not explicitly teach but Scott teaches receiving a return execution enable command from the operator ([0048] allow a Facility Manager to send commands to any deployed robot to stop its task and return to its charging station (and later to any point on the map to complete a task); .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, sharing an autonomous vehicle, as taught by Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft as modified by Sharma, receiving a lease expiration command from the operator of the robot, as taught by Scott, as Bancroft, Sharma and Ramanujam and Scott are directed to robot control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using receiving a lease expiration command from the operator of the robot applied it to sharing an autonomous vehicle of Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft as modified by Sharma to intelligently control the robot.
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Ramanujam (US 20150338852 A1) in view of Bancroft (US 20020165643 A1) in view of Sharma (US 20160328980A1) in view of Cohen (US20170217019 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft as modified by Sharma does not explicitly teach but Cohen teaches the specific limitations of wherein the return command comprises one or more parameters defining the robot's movement as the robot executes the return command, the one or more parameters including: a first parameter that define how fast the robot moves, a second parameter that defines how close the robot can get to obstacles, and/or a third parameter that defines whether the robot can step into terrain that is not clearly visible by sensors of the robot (Cohen; [0041]-[0043] The robotic device 40 is operated in the Spot Coverage pattern for a predetermined or random period of time, for a predetermined or random distance (e.g., a maximum spiral distance) and/or until the occurrence of a specified event, e.g., activation of one or more of the obstacle detection systems (collectively a transition condition). Once a transition condition occurs, the robotic device 40 can implement or transition to a different behavioral mode, e.g., a Straight. Line behavioral mode (in one embodiment of the robotic device 40, the Straight Line behavioral mode is a low priority, default behavior that propels the robot in an approximately straight line at a preset velocity of approximately 0.306 m/s) or a Bounce behavioral mode in combination with a Straight Line behavioral mode. The Bounce behavioral mode is a basic function that allows the robot 40 to evade a stationary object or obstacle and continue its task routine. Avoidance is achieved by executing a series of turns until the obstacle is no longer detected (i.e., the bumper 48 is no longer compressed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, sharing an autonomous vehicle, as taught by Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft as modified by Sharma, setting parameters defining the robot's movement, as taught by Cohen, as Bancroft, Sharma, Ramanujam and Cohen are directed to robot control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility setting parameters defining the robot's movement and predictably applied it to sharing an autonomous vehicle of Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft as modified by Sharma to restrict robots’ movement (abstract, Cohen).
Regarding claim 17, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 7, which is commensurate in scope to claim 7, with claim 7 being drawn to data processing hardware and claim 17 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 8, Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft as modified by Sharma does not explicitly teach but Cohen teaches the specific limitations of wherein the return command is configured to prevent the robot from travelling further than a predetermined distance from a location of the robot when the lease expiration trigger is received ([0016] restricts the robotic device from moving within a predetermined distance of the base station).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, sharing an autonomous vehicle, as taught by Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft as modified by Sharma, preventing the robot from travelling further than a predetermined distance, as taught by Cohen, as Bancroft, Sharma, Ramanujam and Cohen are directed to robot control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility preventing the robot from travelling further than a predetermined distance and predictably applied it to sharing an autonomous vehicle of Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft as modified by Sharma to ensure proper mating between a robot and base station ([0006], Cohen).
Regarding claim 18, please see the rejection above regarding claim 8, which is commensurate in scope to claim 8, with claim 8 being drawn to data processing hardware and claim 18 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Claims 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Ramanujam (US 20150338852 A1) in view of Bancroft (US 20020165643 A1) in view of Sharma (US 20160328980 A1) in view of Prest (US 20210053680 A1)
Regarding claim 22, Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft as modified by Sharma does not explicitly teach but Prest teaches the specific limitations of determine that communication with the operator has been reestablished; and halt the navigation of the robot to the return location in response to determining that the communication with the operator has been reestablished (in the event of a communications natural link failure 702, for the vehicle to take certain actions 704. Preferably, these actions would cause the vehicle to return to a known location. For example, in the case of an aerial vehicle, preferably the vehicle would return to its home base and descend to ground level; [0086] The vehicle may be enabled to perform the above tasks in the absence of a functioning radio link, only communicating the defect information when a radio link may be re-established, or determining a KGCW and returning to it periodically to communicate defect information. Claim 3- wherein upon re-establishing the communication link, the processor is configured to navigate the UV to the pre-set course or pre-programmed mission prior to the communication link failure (stop returning home)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, sharing an autonomous vehicle, as taught by Ramanujam as modified by Bancroft as modified by Sharma, determining that communication with the operator has been reestablished and halting the navigation of the robot to the return location in response to determining that the communication with the operator has been reestablished, as taught by Prest, as Bancroft, Ramanujam, Sharma and Prest are directed to robot control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of determining that communication with the operator has been reestablished and halting the navigation of the robot to the return location in response to determining that the communication with the operator has been reestablished to complete the predefined missions.
Prior Art
Please refer to form 892 for cited references. For example, Listwin (US 20170351254 A1) teaches [0056] When the UAV control system loses external communications for a predetermined amount of time, the autopilot may operate according to a set of predetermined behavior fail-safes including continue mission, return home, return to place of last known signal, continue to network hotspot, go to pre-determined location, loiter, circle, hover, land, resurface (lower altitude), follow geographic contours, etc., and combinations thereof. For example, if system is unable to transmit or receive data from the ground station, the cloud, another drone, etc. for a set amount of time, it determines that it has lost connection. With this established, the system defaults to a predetermined setting such as returning to its last known connection location. If connection is still not regained, system may return to home because of programmed settings.
Ciliberti US 20230418313 A1 ([0041]) teaches if the controller 102 detects an emergency situation, a failsafe action can be executed to correct or address the emergency situation. For example, if the controller 102 detects that the battery 16 is low on charge, relative to the UAV's distance from the UAV landing pad 28 (e.g., an emergency situation), the controller 102 can execute a return to UAV station action (e.g., a failsafe action) and return to the closest UAV station 14.
Ferguson; US 20190114564 A1 [0081] If a mechanical failure occurs or an unexpected weather event does not permit the UAV to continue traversing the route plan, failsafe 262 may provide instructions to the UAV to traverse to the nearest carrier location, and so forth.
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 JINGLI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am-5 pm EST.
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 Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313)446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-100.
/J.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights