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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 14, 16, and 20 have been newly amended. Claims 2-3 and 17-18 have been newly canceled. No claims have been newly added. Claims 1, 5, 6, 14, 16, and 20-23 remain pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant asserts that the previously presented prior art fails to teach every limitation of the claim. Specifically, Applicant asserts that the combination of Li, Park, and Zhou fail to teach at least the limitations of "monitoring a distance between the robot and the first obstacle, controlling the robot to deflect by a preset angle to advance away from the first obstacle when the distance is less than a distance threshold, the distance threshold being larger than zero, and controlling the robot to deflect reversely by the preset angle to travel towards the first obstacle when the distance between the first obstacle and the current position of the robot after advancing is greater than the distance threshold." Regarding this, Applicant states:
Applicant respectfully submits that the above-referenced portion of Zhou, namely paragraphs [0061]-[0062] thereof, describe various operations triggered by a collision between a robot and an obstacle. Such operations include determining whether a collision happens between the robot and the obstacle, acquiring an acceleration direction of the robot in response to the collision, determining a collision position based on the acquired acceleration direction, and determining a first direction based on the collision position.
As an example, Zhou illustrates that, if the collision position is at a left front side of the robot, the first direction may be determined by adjusting the advancing direction of the robot in a clockwise fashion. If the collision position is at a right front side of the robot, the first direction may be determined by adjusting the advancing direction of the robot in a counterclockwise fashion.
However, Applicant respectfully submits that at least due to the usage of wording "collision" [sic] in Zhou, the distance between the robot and the obstacle is clearly zero when the advancing direction is adjusted either in a clockwise or counterclockwise fashion.Applicant notes that paragraph [0035] of Zhou does mention the expression "a first preset distance" [sic] which indicates "a distance between a set reference point on the robot and a set reference point on the obstacle" [sic]. The term "collision" is also recited here in paragraph [0035] of Zhou to "occur in a relatively short time period" [sic] when the distance between the robot and the obstacle is smaller than the first preset distance.
At least in view of the above disclosure in Zhou, the collision occurs at a later time as compared to the moment at which the distance between the robot and the obstacle is smaller than the first preset distance. As shown clearly above in paragraphs [0061]-[0062] of Zhou, the condition, under which the advancing direction of the robot is adjusted or changed, is the occurrence of collision, where the distance between the robot and the obstacle is clearly zero, not some other value less than a distance threshold and larger than zero.
In contrast, according to independent claim 1 amended herein, not only the deflection of the robot occurs successively at two times: the first time of deflection occurs when the distance between the robot and the first obstacle is less than [sic] a distance threshold (which threshold per se is larger than zero), and the second deflection occurs subsequently when the distance between the robot and the first obstacle becomes larger than [sic] the threshold distance; but also the two times of deflections occur in two opposite directions (one is deflecting by a preset angle for the purpose of advancing away from the obstacle, and the other is deflecting reversely by the preset angle for the purpose of traveling towards the obstacle).
Zhou merely mentions adjusting the advancing direction of the robot when the collision occurs between the robot and the obstacle, and adjusting in a clockwise or counterclockwise way depending on where the collision position is.
However, nothing is ever mentioned in Zhou about adjusting the advancing direction of the robot two times successively, where the first time is when the distance between the robot and the first obstacle is less than [sic] a non-zero distance threshold, and the subsequent second time is when the distance between the robot and the first obstacle becomes larger than [sic] the non-zero distance threshold….The examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons.
Regarding Applicant's assertion that the "collision" of Zhou is different from the claimed "less than a distance threshold," the examiner asserts that Applicant themselves has provided the framework to consider the "collision" to be "less than a distance threshold." Specifically, the examiner notes that Applicant states that "due to the usage of the word 'collision' in Zhou, the distance between the robot and the obstacle is clearly zero…," and further states that "the condition, under which the advancing direction of the robot is adjusted or changed, is the occurrence of collision, where the distance between the robot and the obstacle is clearly zero, not some other value less than a distance threshold and larger than zero (emphasis added)." The examiner notes that Applicant does not claim wherein the distance is greater than zero, rather claiming that the distance threshold is greater than zero. Given this, the examiner asserts that a "collision" constitutes a "distance less than a non-zero threshold," because by Applicant's own admission, a "collision" constitutes "zero distance," which is per se less than a "non-zero distance threshold."
Regarding Applicant's assertion that "nothing is ever mentioned in Zhou about adjusting the advancing direction of the robot two times successively, where the first time is when the distance between the robot and the first obstacle is less than a non-zero distance threshold, and the subsequent second time is when the distance between the robot and the first obstacle becomes larger than the non-zero distance threshold…," the examiner points to at least [0035], which recites inter alia, "the robot 100 may move toward an obstacle along a first direction D1, so that the robot 100 lightly hits the obstacle for the first time; in response to detecting that the robot 100 collides with the obstacle, the robot 100 may turn and move away from the obstacle along a second direction D2; then, the robot 100 moves toward the obstacle along a third direction D3," [0059], which recites inter alia, "as shown in Figure 4, step S103 may include: determining a first ray r1 with the collision point with the obstacle as the endpoint, the extension direction of the first ray is opposite to the first direction D1; determining a perpendicular line p that is perpendicular to the collision surface of the obstacle and passes through the collision point; determining a third ray r3 with the collision point with the obstacle as the endpoint, which is located on a different side of the perpendicular line from the first ray; determining the extension direction of the third ray r3 as the second direction D2; and the robot moves along the second direction to stay away from the obstacle … according to some embodiments, the third direction D3 may be parallel to the first direction D1…," [0061], which recites inter alia, "[in] some embodiments, step S103 may further include: determining the distance between the robot and the obstacle in the second direction; the robot moving away from the obstacle in the second direction and the distance between the robot and the obstacle in the second direction is not greater than a second preset distance" and Fig. 4 of Zhou, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
674
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such, the examiner asserts that Zhou does disclose "adjusting the advancing direction of the robot two times successively, where the first time is when the distance between the robot and the first obstacle is less than a non-zero distance threshold, and the subsequent second time is when the distance between the robot and the first obstacle becomes larger than the non-zero distance threshold," contrary to Applicant's assertion. Hence, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “obstacle detection apparatus configured to detect presence or absence of a first obstacle” and “an obstacle avoidance apparatus configured to determine the target traveling position … determine an avoidance mode … and control the robot” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1, 5, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN108780320A), hereafter Li, in view of Park (US 20060229774 A1), hereafter Park, and further in view of Zhou (CN111638719A), hereafter Zhou.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses an obstacle avoidance method for a robot, comprising:
Determining a target traveling position of the robot (0026, robot traveling towards a target point);
In response to detecting that a first obstacle exists between a current position and the target traveling position of the robot during traveling of the robot, controlling the robot to travel along an outer edge of the first obstacle so as to bypass the first obstacle (0026, obstacle detected in the moving direction of the robot, 0030, robot controlled to rotate around the obstacle along a first path);
Detecting presence of the first obstacle between the current position and the target traveling position of the robot at preset time intervals during traveling along the outer edge of the first obstacle (0005-0007, when the robot moves toward a target point, when an obstacle is detected in the moving direction of the robot, information of the obstacle is acquired in real time, wherein the obstacle information includes at least the shortest distance between the robot and the obstacle, when the shortest distance reaches a preset safety distance, controlling the robot to rotate around the obstacle according to the obstacle information, when it is detected that the robot rotates to the direction pointing to the target point and it is detected there is no obstacle in that direction, the robot is controlled to move in a straight line along the direction pointing to the target point, Examiner’s note: the examiner asserts that the "real-time determination" of obstacle information sufficiently reads on "detecting the presence/absence of the obstacle a preset time intervals," as a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a "continuous" or "real-time" determination is actually composed of a multitude of discrete time intervals, typically relating to the refresh-rate of the processor or sensor, or the run-time of the detection algorithm),
Wherein controlling the robot to travel along the outer edge of the first obstacle comprises:
Monitoring a distance between the robot and the first obstacle (0026, information of the obstacle acquired in real time, obstacle information includes shortest distance between the robot and the obstacle).
Li fails to disclose, however, determining an avoidance mode of the robot; and
Wherein a height of the first obstacle is less than a measurement height range of the robot.
Park, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach determining an avoidance mode of the robot (0043, since an obstacle may exist during the approach to the wall, an additional operation of avoiding the obstacle may be performed); and
Wherein a height of the first obstacle is less than a measurement height range of the robot (0015, sensor unit includes an upward sensor unit to detect an obstacle, at an oblique angle, see also Fig. 6, 0038, obstacle sensor for detecting obstacle in front of the robot, upward sensor for detecting an obstacle above the robot).
Li and Park are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robot controls. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the avoidance mode and obstacle determination of Park in order to provide a means of determining when an obstacle in the environment needs to be avoided. The motivation to combine is to allow the robot to travel in areas where it is capable of traveling.
The combination of Li and Park fails to teach, however, wherein the controlling the robot to travel along the outer edge of the first obstacle comprises:
Controlling the robot to deflect by a preset angle to advance away from the first obstacle when the distance is less than a distance threshold, the distance threshold being larger than zero; and
Controlling the robot to deflect reversely by the preset angle to travel towards the first obstacle when the distance between the first obstacle and the current position of the robot after advancing is greater than the distance threshold.
Zhou, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach:
Controlling the robot to deflect by a preset angle to advance away from the first obstacle when the distance is less than the distance threshold, the distance threshold being larger than zero (0035, the robot 100 may move toward an obstacle along a first direction D1, so that the robot 100 lightly hits the obstacle for the first time; in response to detecting that the robot 100 collides with the obstacle, the robot 100 may turn and move away from the obstacle along a second direction D2); and
Controlling the robot to deflect reversely by the preset angle to travel towards the first obstacle when the distance between the first obstacle and the current position of the robot after advancing is greater than the distance threshold (0061, robot moves away from the obstacle in the second direction until the distance is greater than a second preset distance, 0062, after the robot moves away from the obstacle, the robot is moved along a third direction towards the wall).
Li, Park, and Zhou are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robot controls. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the angled advancing and retreating of Zhou in order to provide a means of increasing the traveled area of the robot. The motivation to combine is to maximize the amount of surface area covered by the robot (See at least 0028 of Zhou).
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Li, Park, and Zhou teaches the obstacle avoidance method for a robot according to claim 1, and Li further discloses it further comprising:
Detecting absence of the first obstacle between the current position and the target traveling position of the robot at preset time intervals during traveling along the outer edge of the first obstacle (0007, when it is detected that the robot rotates to the direction pointing to the target point and it is detected there is no obstacle in that direction, the robot is controlled to move in a straight line along the direction pointing to the target point, Examiner’s note: the examiner asserts that the "real-time determination" of obstacle information sufficiently reads on "detecting the presence/absence of the obstacle a preset time intervals," as a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a "continuous" or "real-time" determination is actually composed of a multitude of discrete time intervals, typically relating to the refresh-rate of the processor or sensor, or the run-time of the detection algorithm); and
In response to detecting the absence of the first obstacle between the robot and the target traveling position, controlling the robot to continue traveling along a target traveling path to reach the target traveling position (0007, when it is detected that the robot rotates to the direction pointing to the target point and it is detected there is no obstacle in that direction, the robot is controlled to move in a straight line along the direction pointing to the target point),
Wherein the target traveling path is a straight-line path between the robot and the target traveling position (0007, when it is detected that the robot rotates to the direction pointing to the target point and it is detected there is no obstacle in that direction, the robot is controlled to move in a straight line along the direction pointing to the target point).
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 16, Li discloses an electronic device, comprising:
At least one hardware processor (0014, one or more processors); and
A memory having program instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor (0014, processors execute the program in the computer-readable storage medium), direct the at least one hardware processor to implement an obstacle avoidance method for a robot, comprising:
Determining a target traveling position of the robot (0026, robot traveling towards a target point);
In response to detecting that a first obstacle exists between a current position and the target traveling position of the robot during traveling of the robot, controlling the robot to travel along an outer edge of the first obstacle so as to bypass the first obstacle (0026, obstacle detected in the moving direction of the robot, 0030, robot controlled to rotate around the obstacle along a first path); and
Detecting presence of the first obstacle between the current position and the target traveling position of the robot at preset time intervals during traveling along the outer edge of the first obstacle (0005-0007, when the robot moves toward a target point, when an obstacle is detected in the moving direction of the robot, information of the obstacle is acquired in real time, wherein the obstacle information includes at least the shortest distance between the robot and the obstacle, when the shortest distance reaches a preset safety distance, controlling the robot to rotate around the obstacle according to the obstacle information, when it is detected that the robot rotates to the direction pointing to the target point and it is detected there is no obstacle in that direction, the robot is controlled to move in a straight line along the direction pointing to the target point, Examiner’s note: the examiner asserts that the "real-time determination" of obstacle information sufficiently reads on "detecting the presence/absence of the obstacle a preset time intervals," as a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a "continuous" or "real-time" determination is actually composed of a multitude of discrete time intervals, typically relating to the refresh-rate of the processor or sensor, or the run-time of the detection algorithm).
Li fails to disclose, however, determining an avoidance mode of the robot; and
Wherein a height of the first obstacle is less than a measurement height range of the robot.
Park, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach determining an avoidance mode of the robot (0043, since an obstacle may exist during the approach to the wall, an additional operation of avoiding the obstacle may be performed); and
Wherein a height of the first obstacle is less than a measurement height range of the robot (0015, sensor unit includes an upward sensor unit to detect an obstacle, at an oblique angle, see also Fig. 6, 0038, obstacle sensor for detecting obstacle in front of the robot, upward sensor for detecting an obstacle above the robot).
Li and Park are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robot controls. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the avoidance mode and obstacle determination of Park in order to provide a means of determining when an obstacle in the environment needs to be avoided. The motivation to combine is to allow the robot to travel in areas where it is capable of traveling.
The combination of Li and Park fails to teach, however, wherein the controlling the robot to travel along the outer edge of the first obstacle comprises:
Controlling the robot to deflect by a preset angle to advance away from the first obstacle when the distance is less than a distance threshold, the distance threshold being larger than zero; and
Controlling the robot to deflect reversely by the preset angle to travel towards the first obstacle when the distance between the first obstacle and the current position of the robot after advancing is greater than the distance threshold.
Zhou, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach:
Controlling the robot to deflect by a preset angle to advance away from the first obstacle when the distance is less than the distance threshold, the distance threshold being larger than zero (0035, the robot 100 may move toward an obstacle along a first direction D1, so that the robot 100 lightly hits the obstacle for the first time; in response to detecting that the robot 100 collides with the obstacle, the robot 100 may turn and move away from the obstacle along a second direction D2); and
Controlling the robot to deflect reversely by the preset angle to travel towards the first obstacle when the distance between the first obstacle and the current position of the robot after advancing is greater than the distance threshold (0061, robot moves away from the obstacle in the second direction until the distance is greater than a second preset distance, 0062, after the robot moves away from the obstacle, the robot is moved along a third direction towards the wall).
Li, Park, and Zhou are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robot controls. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the angled advancing and retreating of Zhou in order to provide a means of increasing the traveled area of the robot. The motivation to combine is to maximize the amount of surface area covered by the robot (See at least 0028 of Zhou).
Claims 6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Park and Zhou, and further in view of Kwak (US 20170325647 A1), hereafter Kwak.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Li, Park, and Zhou teaches the obstacle avoidance method for a robot according to claim 1, and Li further discloses it further comprising:
Determining a direction of a current traveling direction when a second obstacle exists in the current traveling direction of the robot during traveling along the outer edge of the first obstacle (0033, number of obstacles is two, robot controlled to rotate around the whole according to a third path, wherein the third path passes through the side closest to the target obstacle); and
Controlling, based on the direction, the robot to travel along the outer edge of the first obstacle (0033, number of obstacles is two, robot controlled to rotate around the whole according to a third path, wherein the third path passes through the side closest to the target obstacle),
Wherein the second obstacle is located at the outer edge of the first obstacle and prevents the robot from continuing traveling (0033, number of obstacles is two, robot controlled to rotate around the whole according to a third path, wherein the third path passes through the side closest to the target obstacle, Examiner's note: the second object would inherently prevent the robot from continuing traveling, as the robot would be unable to pass through an obstacle).
The combination of Li, Park, and Zhou fails to teach, however, wherein the direction is a reverse direction.
Kwak, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the direction is a reverse direction (0209, when an obstacle or cliff is sensed, the control unit drives the wheels in a second direction opposite the first direction).
Li, Park, Zhou, and Kwak are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor, robot controls. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present invention to have included the reverse direction of Kwak in order to provide a means of further adjusting the robot’s course. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robot is capable of successfully navigating around obstacles in its environment.
Claim 21 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Park and Zhou, and further in view of Wu (CN111090282A), hereafter Wu, and Afrouzi (US 20200225673 A1), hereafter Afrouzi.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Li, Park, and Zhou teaches the electronic device according to claim 16, but fails to teach wherein the obstacle avoidance method further comprises:
Controlling the robot to end traveling and to send a warning message, in response to detecting that the first obstacle exists between the current position and the target traveling position of the robot after the robot travels around the outer edge of the first obstacle once.
Wu, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach controlling the robot to end traveling, in response to detecting that the first obstacle exists between the current position and the target traveling position of the robot after the robot travels around the outer edge of the first obstacle once (0132, is accumulated angle is greater than or equal to 2pi, it means the robot may have gone around the obstacle, 0137, it is determined that the robot has circumnavigated the obstacle and returned to the initial collision position, and cannot reach the currently tracked trajectory point, robot replans travel path).
Li, Park, Zhou, and Wu are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robot controls. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the travel ending of Wu in order to provide a means for determining whether a point is able to be reached. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robot does not waste time or battery trying to navigate to a position that is unreachable.
The combination of Li, Park, Zhou, and Wu fails to teach, however, wherein the robot is controlled to send a warning message.
Afrouzi, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the robot is controlled to send a warning message (0397, processor may alert a user when an unanticipated object blocking the path of the robot is encountered or observed, particularly when the robot may not overcome the object by maneuvering around or driving over the object).
Li, Park, Zhou, Wu, and Afrouzi are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robot controls. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the warning message of Afrouzi in order to provide a means for alerting a user to a potentially adverse condition. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robot is able to continue navigating within the environment whenever possible.
Claim 23 is similar in scope to claim 22, and is similarly rejected.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM 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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/BLAKE A WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3658