DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 15-20 are pending.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohn (US Publication No. 2021/0373576) in view of Sugiyama et al. (US Publication No. 2018/0203462).
Sohn teaches:
Re claim 10. A control server, comprising:
a memory storing computer-executable code (paragraph [0388]);
at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the code (paragraph [0388]); and
a communication device configured to perform communication with a guide robot (communication between server 10 and robot 100, Fig. 2A),
wherein the code comprises instructions for the at least one processor to cause the control server to:
generate map information including a point where the guide robot is located and including pieces of content to which the guide robot is able to guide a user (paragraphs [0281-0284]: “in the case of a user who has purchased milk, eggs, or the like before, the second robot 102 can stand by for the user at a corner at which a product such as milk, eggs, or the like is displayed, based on a product purchase time point or a product purchase period … The second robot 102 can propose a recommended path determined based on the previous shopping information of the user and can support user shopping while moving along the recommended path … While moving, the second robot 102 can output a guidance message at a specific product corner based on the previous shopping information of the user.”),
extract a piece of common content capable of being provided to a user in a first area where the guide robot is movable and other areas on the basis of the point where the guide robot is located and pieces of specialized content capable of being provided to the user in a second area where the guide robot is movable on the basis of the point where the guide robot is located, from among pieces of content stored in the control server (Paragraphs [0281-0284], product available at the robot’s current location, and a guidance message directing a user to a previously purchased product. Paragraphs [0349-0350]: “a product can be promoted irrespective of a customer history and guidance for movement to a specific place can be provided, thereby improving sales.”), and
transmit to the guide robot the map information, the pieces of extracted common content, and the pieces of extracted specialized content, in response to a request of the guide robot (paragraphs [0281-0284, 0311, and 0316-0317] and Fig. 10: transferring customer information such as shopping list or preferred product pattern from big-box store server 15, through robot service delivery platform (RSDP) 10 to second robot 102).
Sohn fails to specifically teach: (re claim 10) extract a piece of common content capable of being provided to a user in a first area where the guide robot is movable and other areas where the guide robot is not movable on the basis of the point where the guide robot is located.
Sugiyama teaches, at Fig. 5, and paragraphs [0062, 0068, 0071-0077], guiding a use with a guide robot even when that guide robot cannot move all the way to the user’s destination. This allows for such guiding robots to help a user navigate to their destination even when the guide robot cannot escort the user all the way to the user’s destination.
In view of Sugiyama’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the server as taught by Sohn, (re claim 10) extract a piece of common content capable of being provided to a user in a first area where the guide robot is movable and other areas where the guide robot is not movable on the basis of the point where the guide robot is located, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Sugiyama teaches guiding a use with a guide robot even when that guide robot cannot move all the way to the user’s destination. This allows for such guiding robots to help a user navigate to their destination even when the guide robot cannot escort the user all the way to the user’s destination.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohn (US Publication No. 2021/0373576) as modified by Sugiyama et al. (US Publication No. 2018/0203462) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Takaoka et al. (US Publication No. 2021/0023716).
The teachings of Sohn have been discussed above. Sohn fails to specifically teach: (re claim 11) wherein the code comprises instructions for the at least one processor to cause the control server to: generate a guide map on which the pieces of extracted content are displayed as a selected area, based on the map information, and transmit the guide map to the guide robot, in response to a resource request of a content recommendation device of the guide robot.
Takaoka teaches, at paragraph [0040], displaying a map of a room or building and highlighting an item to be grasped by a robot, and transmitting this data over network interface hardware. This identifies items for interaction with the robot.
In view of Takaoka’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Sohn, (re claim 11) wherein the code comprises instructions for the at least one processor to cause the control server to: generate a guide map on which the pieces of extracted content are displayed as a selected area, based on the map information, and transmit the guide map to the guide robot, in response to a resource request of a content recommendation device of the guide robot, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Takaoka teaches, at paragraph [0040], displaying a map of a room or building and highlighting an item to be grasped by a robot, and transmitting this data over network interface hardware. This identifies items for interaction with the robot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12, 13, and 15-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 4/10/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 10 under 35 USC § 102 in view of Sohn have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made further in view of Sugiyama et al. (US Publication No. 2018/0203462) as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13, filed 4/10/2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12, 13, and 15-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12, 13, and 15-20 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights