CTFR 18/599,749 CTFR 95059 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification (MPEP 608.01, ¶6.31). Claim Objections Applicant’s amendments address the identified typo, and thus the related objections are withdrawn. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Applicant’s amendments remove the invocations for 112f, and thus the interpretations are withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Applicant’s amendments remove the indefinite language, and thus the related rejections are withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Applicant’s amendments sufficiently integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus are considered eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 taught 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. Claim(s) 1-4, 10-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Nakano (JP2014186895A, see IDS dated 11/10/2025) in view of Wang (Usability testing of multimodal feedback interface and simulated collision-avoidance power wheelchair for long-term–care home residents with cognitive impairments, 2011) and Toyoshima (US20230202814A1). Regarding claim 1, Nakano teaches; A control system configured to execute system control of controlling a system including a mobile robot that is configured to autonomously move and on which a user operation is executed ( taught as an autonomous mobile unmanned transfer vehicle, element 1, hereafter referred to as “the vehicle” ), wherein: a stage included in the mobile robot ( taught as a load storage unit, element 61), the system includes a joystick included in the mobile robot to execute a movement operation of the mobile robot ( taught as a joystick to input user control, paragraph 0044 ); a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) including one or more first LEDs and one or more second LEDs ( taught as a status display lamp, element 40, an action start switch lamp, element 46, and a brake release switch lamp, element 47) disposed at a periphery of the stage, and a drive unit including wheels and a drive motor controlled to move or stop the mobile robot ( taught as omni wheels, element 13, paragraph 0025 ); the control system includes one or more processors ( taught as a control board, element 37, including a microprocessor, paragraph 0047 ); the one or more processors are configured to execute the system control (taught as the microprocessor executing programs, paragraph 0047) ; the system control includes (i) driving the plurality of LEDs to emit different light emission patterns including at least one of change of hue, brightness, blinking frequency, and emission position among the plurality of LEDs ( taught as modifying the colors [hue] and blinking patterns of lamps, paragraph 0035, exemplified in paragraph 0059 with red and green ) associated with each of a plurality of predetermined conditions ( taught as controlling lamps based on the control state/status; for example, lighting the status display lamp in red and blinking the action start switch lamp due to a transfer interruption, while other statuses, such as determining the package has been received, causes the status display lamp to be green, paragraph 0059 ), wherein; at least one [ as currently phrased, only one of the following conditions is interpreted to be required ] of the plurality of predetermined conditions is a recommendation condition that is a predetermined condition for recommending a user operation [ interpreted to mean requesting a user input ] on the mobile robot ( taught as the lamps and audio indicating a user interaction, such as “please put a medicine tray” and “press the blinking button when the setting is completed”, paragraph 0097 ) or a non-recommendation condition that is a predetermined condition for not recommending a user operation on the mobile robot ( taught as determining that autonomous movement is possible, and controlling the vehicle accordingly, paragraph 0061, for example, determining that the transfer process is finished causes the status display lamp to turn green to indicate such, paragraph 0096 ). (ii) receiving sensor data indicating a traveling state from sensors provided on a bumper of the mobile object ( taught as a bumper switch, element 24 which detects contact with an obstacle, paragraph 0032 ), (iii) in response to detecting a traveling abnormality based on the sensor data ( taught as determining an issue with the delivery, such as a transfer interruption, paragraph 0059 ), outputting control signals to stop the drive unit of the mobile robot and switch the plurality of LEDs to a conspicuous pattern indicating the abnormality (taught as controlling lamps based on the control state/status; for example, lighting the status display lamp in red and blinking the action start switch lamp due to a transfer interruption, paragraph 0059) , and (v) in a case where the non-recommendation condition is satisfied, controlling the plurality of LEDs to indicate that user operation is not needed, by changing the light emission position and a light color different from that of the recommendation condition (taught as controlling lamps color and blinking pattern based on the control state/status, paragraph 0035) . However, Nakano does not explicitly teach; a stage included in the mobile robot and configured to lift or lower an object mounted on the mobile robot, a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) including one or more first LEDs and one or more second LEDs disposed at a periphery of the stage and a periphery of the joystick, respectively, (iv) in a case where the recommendation condition is satisfied, controlling the plurality of LEDs to indicate a recommended movement direction by changing a light emission position around the stage or the joystick in accordance with a current orientation of the mobile robot, and enabling reception of a user movement operation via the joystick for executing the movement operation of the mobile robot. Wang teaches; a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) including one or more first LEDs and one or more second LEDs and a periphery of the joystick, respectively ( shown as a joystick surrounded by LEDs in Figure 3 ), in a case where the recommendation condition is satisfied, controlling the plurality of LEDs to indicate a recommended movement direction by changing a light emission position around the stage or the joystick in accordance with a current orientation of the mobile robot ( shown in Fig 3; a joystick, surrounded by lighting/LED elements, indicating direction of movement based on the lit/unlit status of the LEDs, page 805 ), and enabling reception of a user movement operation via the joystick for executing the movement operation of the mobile robot ( taught as using the joystick as the input interface to navigate from obstacles, page 802 column 2 ). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the control characteristics of a joystick and feedback from LEDs as taught by Wang in the system taught by Nakano in order to improve human machine communication. Such a system allows for simple but comprehensible feedback; as aught in Wang, joysticks are the most common input interface in power wheelchairs, for example, and follow design principles to be simple and intuitive to use, provide appropriate guidance and feedback for user actions with minimal/no new learning/training requirement to understand or control (page 802, column 2). While Nakano is not directed to a wheelchair, such principles are directly translatable to a moving robot that requires remote/additional manual control. To reiterate, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to modify the robot joystick taught by Nakano with the teachings of Wang in order to improve communications for manual intervention/control. However, Wang does not explicitly teach; a stage included in the mobile robot and configured to lift or lower an object mounted on the mobile robot, Toyoshima teaches; a stage included in the mobile robot and configured to lift or lower an object mounted on the mobile robot ( taught as a lift stage, configured to ascend and descend, paragraph 0006 ). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot taught by Nakano with the lift stage as taught by Toyoshima in order to improve utility. Nakano already teaches the use of an XY stage/tray (paragraph 0042); and adding a vertical Z component like taught by Toyoshima would further improve the ability to deliver/transport material. Regarding claim 2, Nakano as modified by Wang and Toyoshima teaches; The control system according to claim 1 ( see claim 1 rejection ). Nakano further teaches; wherein the plurality of predetermined conditions include at least one [ as currently phrased, only one of the following conditions is interpreted to be required ] set of a set of a plurality of the recommendation conditions in which recommendation operation contents are different [ interpreted to mean that the robot requests different user actions ] from each other ( taught as instructing the user to perform different actions, such as placing a medicine tray on the robot, and press the blinking button, paragraphs 0059 and 0097 ), and a set of a plurality of the non-recommendation conditions in which non-recommendation operation contents are different from each other ( indicated in that several actions without interacting with the robot can be outputted; for example, using a status light to indicate normal procedure in the operation [and thus do not interrupt], and other actions including placing a medicine tray, paragraph 0097 ). Regarding claim 3, Nakano as modified by Wang and Toyoshima teaches; The control system according to claim 1 ( see claim 1 rejection ). Nakano further teaches; wherein the recommendation condition includes a condition for recommending the user movement operation received via the joystick for executing the movement operation of the mobile robot, ( taught as requesting a user action, such as to press a button during a transfer interruption to proceed [such as move] with the process, paragraph 0059 ), and the non-recommendation condition includes a condition for not recommending a user operation of enabling reception of the movement operation on the mobile robot ( indicated in not specifically requesting user intervention and continuing autonomous control, paragraph 0059, reasonably interpreted to be equivalent to leave the vehicle alone ). Regarding claim 4, Nakano as modified by Wang and Toyoshima teaches; The control system according to claim 1 ( see claim 1 rejection ). However, Nakano does not explicitly teach; wherein the non-recommendation condition includes a condition for not recommending the movement operation of causing the mobile robot to move in the recommended movement direction . Wang teaches ; the non-recommendation condition includes a condition for not recommending the movement operation of causing the mobile robot to move in the recommended movement direction ( shown in Fig 3 [reproduced below]; a joystick, surrounded by lighting/LED elements, indicating direction of movement based on the lit/unlit status of the LEDs, page 805, where lit indicates recommended/allowed movement directions, and unlit indicates not recommended/allowed movement directions ) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the control characteristics of a joystick and feedback from LEDs as taught by Wang in the system taught by Nakano in order to improve human machine communication. Such a system allows for simple but comprehensible feedback; as aught in Wang, joysticks are the most common input interface in power wheelchairs, for example, and follow design principles to be simple and intuitive to use, provide appropriate guidance and feedback for user actions with minimal/no new learning/training requirement to understand or control (page 802, column 2). Additionally, Nakano already indicates a mode of not specifically requesting user intervention and continuing autonomous control, (paragraph 0059), which can reasonably be inferred to for the robot essentially not request interference. To reiterate, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to modify the robot joystick taught by Nakano with the teachings of Wang in order to improve communications for manual intervention/control. Regarding claims 10-13 and 19-20, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 1-3 and 6-9. Therefore, claims 10-13 and 19-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-4, wherein; Claims 10-11 and 19-20 correspond to claims 1-2, Claim 12-13 corresponds to claim 3-4 respectively. Response to Arguments Applicant argues on pages 12-14 of the remarks that Nakano does not sufficiently anticipate the amended claimed invention. The examiner agrees, and withdraws the anticipatory rejections. However, a new rejection in light of Wang and Toyoshima is presented to rectify the deficiencies of Nakano, specifically in regards to the joystick LEDs and control, and further replaces Levinson in the rejection of claims 4 and 13. Thus, the arguments against Levinson and the deficiencies of Nakano are moot. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For further suggestions provided to a user intervention/control (claim 4); US20210102813A1 For further robots requesting user interaction; US20150019391A1 For further robots using LEDs to communicate with users on its state; US10311400B2 Levinson ( US20180136651A1) teaches elements of claim 4, including notifying a teleoperator of a subset of candidate trajectories via a display, which the teleoperator then selects from to cause the vehicle to follow, (paragraph 0096). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate suggestions of candidate trajectories as taught by Levinson in the system taught by Nakano in order to improve user interactions. By providing already generated trajectories to a user, one can increase the response speed from the user in overcoming the situation that required manual input. As Nakano deals with aspects of tele-operation (such as via a remote control station using a joystick to control a vehicle, paragraph 0044), one of ordinary skill in the art would think to improve actions taken by the vehicle by offloading some calculations, when possible, from the user and present suggestions for the next action needed, and further account for considerations determined by the vehicle, such as confidence levels and reducing collisions, as suggested by Levinson (paragraph 0072, for example). Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30. 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571)270-3969. 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. /GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662 /JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/599,749 Page 2 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/599,749 Page 3 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/599,749 Page 4 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/599,749 Page 5 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/599,749 Page 6 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/599,749 Page 7 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/599,749 Page 8 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/599,749 Page 9 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/599,749 Page 10 Art Unit: 3662
Prosecution Insights