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
The Examiner notes that the objection to claim 8 due to minor informality is rendered moot as claims 1-10 have been canceled. The relevant claim has been canceled, and therefore the objection due to minor informality has been withdrawn.
The Examiner notes that the interpretation of claims 1-5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rendered moot as claims 1-10 have been canceled. The relevant claims have been canceled, and therefore the claims are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the section titled “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112” on page 4 of the reply filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. As claims 1-10 have been canceled, the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the section titled “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103” starting on page 4 of the reply filed 12/18/2025, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 11-12, 14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schluntz (US 2021/0339399 A1), in view of Xu (CN 110861095 A).
Regarding claim 11, Schluntz discloses a method for an autonomous mobile robot to ride and co-share an elevator with humans, comprising steps of:
(a) navigating an autonomous mobile robot to an elevator lobby, and detecting and locating at least one human relative to the autonomous mobile robot, and identifying and estimating a state of the at least one human by the autonomous mobile robot (In paragraph [0193-0201], Schluntz discloses that the robot 900 may receive navigation instructions to go to a target floor that is different from a current floor of the robot 900, where the robot 900 identifies a location of an elevator and moves via the motorized base 905 based on the navigation instructions to a location within a threshold distance from the elevator, where the robot 900 may receive image data of the inside of the elevator using cameras included in the robot 900 as well as cameras installed in the elevator or on the current floor with visibility into the elevator, where one or more sensors in the elevator 1230 may keep track of the number of individuals that enter and leave the elevator 1210, where the robot 900 determines a number of individuals in the elevator, and based at least in part on the image data received from cameras on the robot 900 and/or cameras installed within the elevator 1210, the robot 900 identifies one or more open locations in the elevator 1210, where the image data may specify locations of one or more individuals and objects that are already in the elevator 1210, and the one or more open locations do not have any individuals or objects in the area associated with the open locations; see also paragraphs [0216-0218] where Schluntz discloses that the robot 900 may use computer vision to determine which elevator 1310 has arrived based on images of the visual indicator captured by the robot, based on images of the elevator doors as they open captured by the robot, based on images of people as they move towards an elevator, and the like, for example, when the robot 900 identifies a person exiting the elevator 1310 or identifies a person moving toward or into the elevator 1310, the robot 900 assumes that the elevator 1310 has arrived and the doors 1320 are open);
(b) pressing a button on a call panel by the autonomous mobile robot so as to start an elevator riding task (In paragraphs [0193-0196], Schluntz discloses that after moving to the location within the threshold distance from the elevator 1210, the robot 900 presses a button 1220 outside of the elevator 1210 to call the elevator 1210);
(c) detecting whether the elevator is in a door-open state or a door-close state by the autonomous mobile robot (In paragraph [0198], Schluntz discloses that the robot 900 detects when the elevator doors 1230 open and may use one or more sensors and/or cameras to detect that the elevator doors 1230 are moving, for example, the robot 900 may have a motion detection sensor that detects the movement of the elevator doors 1230 and may also receive image data of the surrounding environment and use image detection to determine that the elevator doors 1230 are open; see also paragraphs [0216-0218] where Schluntz discloses that the robot 900 may use computer vision to determine which elevator 1310 has arrived based on images of the visual indicator captured by the robot, based on images of the elevator doors as they open captured by the robot, based on images of people as they move towards an elevator, and the like, for example, when the robot 900 identifies a person exiting the elevator 1310 or identifies a person moving toward or into the elevator 1310, the robot 900 assumes that the elevator 1310 has arrived and the doors 1320 are open);
(d) detecting the at least one human inside and outside the elevator, and counting the at least one human by the autonomous mobile robot in response to the elevator is in the door-open state (In paragraphs [0198-0201], Schluntz discloses that once the elevator doors 1230 are fully open, the robot 900 analyzes the inside of the elevator to determine whether there is enough space for the robot 900 to enter the elevator, where the robot 900 may receive image data of the inside of the elevator using cameras included in the robot 900 as well as cameras installed in the elevator or on the current floor with visibility into the elevator, where one or more sensors in the elevator 1230 may keep track of the number of individuals that enter and leave the elevator 1210, where the robot 900 determines a number of individuals in the elevator and compares the determined number to a maximum occupancy of the elevator 1210, where if the determined number is equal to or exceeds the maximum occupancy, the robot 900 does not enter and instead waits for a next elevator 1210; see also paragraphs [0216-0218] where Schluntz discloses that the robot 900 may use computer vision to determine which elevator 1310 has arrived based on images of the visual indicator captured by the robot, based on images of the elevator doors as they open captured by the robot, based on images of people as they move towards an elevator, and the like, for example, when the robot 900 identifies a person exiting the elevator 1310 or identifies a person moving toward or into the elevator 1310, the robot 900 assumes that the elevator 1310 has arrived and the doors 1320 are open); and
(e) carrying out a space positioning inside the elevator according to a result of detecting and counting the at least one human by the autonomous mobile robot, wherein the autonomous mobile robot performs an elevator occupancy state estimation to identify an available position, and chooses to enter the elevator or restart another elevator riding task (In paragraphs [0200-0201], Schluntz discloses that the robot 900 may receive image data of the inside of the elevator using cameras included in the robot 900 as well as cameras installed in the elevator or on the current floor with visibility into the elevator, where one or more sensors in the elevator 1230 may keep track of the number of individuals that enter and leave the elevator 1210, where the robot 900 determines a number of individuals in the elevator and compares the determined number to a maximum occupancy of the elevator 1210, where if the determined number is equal to or exceeds the maximum occupancy, the robot 900 does not enter and instead waits for a next elevator 1210, and based at least in part on the image data received from cameras on the robot 900 and/or cameras installed within the elevator 1210, the robot 900 identifies one or more open locations in the elevator 1210, where the image data may specify locations of one or more individuals and objects that are already in the elevator 1210, and the one or more open locations do not have any individuals or objects in the area associated with the open locations).
Schluntz does not explicitly disclose wherein the autonomous mobile robot performs an elevator occupancy state estimation to identify an available position with at least one traversable path.
However, Xu teaches wherein the autonomous mobile robot performs an elevator occupancy state estimation to identify an available position with at least one traversable path (In the fourth paragraph of the second page of the provided translation, Xu teaches that the step of controlling the robot to enter the elevator along the entering route includes: detecting the entering route to determine whether there is an obstacle continuously in the entering route within a preset time, and when it is detected that there are no obstacles in the route of entering the elevator within the preset time, control the robot to enter the elevator along the route of entering the elevator, or when it is detected that there is an obstacle in the entering route, the robot is controlled to return to the waiting area and judge that the riding task fails and abandon the riding task).
Xu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to identifying if the autonomous mobile robot has at least one traversable path to board the elevator. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Xu with the method as disclosed by Schluntz, where the robot can avoid a safety accident when the robot enters the elevator when it is blocked and unreachable by passengers or other objects, and at the same time, avoid taking too long for the robot entering the elevator to negatively affect the elevator operation as suggested by Xu in the fourth paragraph of the second page of the provided translation, thereby advantageously improving safety and timeliness of operation of the elevator and navigation of the robot, for example.
Regarding claim 12, Schluntz further discloses a step of (f1) determining the at least one human inside and outside the elevator and determining positions and counts of the at least one human (In paragraphs [0200-0201], Schluntz discloses that the robot 900 may receive image data of the inside of the elevator using cameras included in the robot 900 as well as cameras installed in the elevator or on the current floor with visibility into the elevator, where one or more sensors in the elevator 1230 may keep track of the number of individuals that enter and leave the elevator 1210, where the robot 900 determines a number of individuals in the elevator and compares the determined number to a maximum occupancy of the elevator 1210, where if the determined number is equal to or exceeds the maximum occupancy, the robot 900 does not enter and instead waits for a next elevator 1210, and based at least in part on the image data received from cameras on the robot 900 and/or cameras installed within the elevator 1210, the robot 900 identifies one or more open locations in the elevator 1210, where the image data may specify locations of one or more individuals and objects that are already in the elevator 1210, and the one or more open locations do not have any individuals or objects in the area associated with the open locations; see also paragraphs [0216-0218] where Schluntz discloses that the robot 900 may use computer vision to determine which elevator 1310 has arrived based on images of the visual indicator captured by the robot, based on images of the elevator doors as they open captured by the robot, based on images of people as they move towards an elevator, and the like, for example, when the robot 900 identifies a person exiting the elevator 1310 or identifies a person moving toward or into the elevator 1310, the robot 900 assumes that the elevator 1310 has arrived and the doors 1320 are open).
Regarding claim 14, Schluntz further discloses a step of (f3) navigating the autonomous mobile robot into the elevator (In paragraphs [0203-0204], Schluntz discloses that once the target location is selected, the robot 900 generates a motion plan for the motorized base 905 to move the robot 900 to the target location, where the robot 900 enters the elevator 1210 and moves to the target location).
Regarding claim 16, Schluntz further discloses a step of (f5) determining an optimal position to wait in the elevator (In paragraphs [0200-0201], Schluntz discloses that the robot 900 may receive image data of the inside of the elevator using cameras included in the robot 900 as well as cameras installed in the elevator or on the current floor with visibility into the elevator, where one or more sensors in the elevator 1230 may keep track of the number of individuals that enter and leave the elevator 1210, where the robot 900 determines a number of individuals in the elevator and compares the determined number to a maximum occupancy of the elevator 1210, where if the determined number is equal to or exceeds the maximum occupancy, the robot 900 does not enter and instead waits for a next elevator 1210, and based at least in part on the image data received from cameras on the robot 900 and/or cameras installed within the elevator 1210, the robot 900 identifies one or more open locations in the elevator 1210, where the image data may specify locations of one or more individuals and objects that are already in the elevator 1210, and the one or more open locations do not have any individuals or objects in the area associated with the open locations).
Regarding claim 17, Schluntz further discloses a step of (f6) interacting with the at least one human for exception handlings in one or more conditions of: the at least one human is blocking the call panel or the at least one human enters/exits the elevator (In paragraph [0206], Schluntz discloses that if there is at least one individual in the elevator 1210, the robot 900 requests that the individual press the button associated with the target floor instead of moving the mechanical arm 925 to press the button and may generate an audio output specifying the target floor (e.g., “please press the button for the 3rd floor”), where the robot 900 may compare a distance between the robot 900 and the button to a distance between the individual and the button and request that the other individual press the button if the distance between the robot 900 and the button is greater than the distance between the individual and the button).
Regarding claim 18, Schluntz further discloses wherein the step of interacting with the at least one human comprises providing visual displays on an HMI/LED or voice commands (In paragraph [0206], Schluntz discloses that if there is at least one individual in the elevator 1210, the robot 900 requests that the individual press the button associated with the target floor instead of moving the mechanical arm 925 to press the button and may generate an audio output specifying the target floor (e.g., “please press the button for the 3rd floor”); see also paragraph [0080] where Schluntz discloses that indicators 716 can include visual indicators (such as LEDs or other lights) and the like, where the indicators are configured to communicate information or a status associated with the robot 100 to an entity external to the robot, such as a user or individual).
Regarding claim 20, Schluntz further discloses a step of (g2) notifying the at least one human in the elevator of the autonomous mobile robot’s intended motion by using the visual display on HMI/LED or the voice commands (In paragraph [0206], Schluntz discloses that if there is at least one individual in the elevator 1210, the robot 900 requests that the individual press the button associated with the target floor instead of moving the mechanical arm 925 to press the button and may generate an audio output specifying the target floor (e.g., “please press the button for the 3rd floor”); the Examiner understands generating an audio output specifying the target floor of the robot (e.g., “please press the button for the 3rd floor”) to constitute at least a notification of the autonomous mobile robot’s intended motion under its broadest reasonable interpretation in that the target floor of the robot is a target of the robot’s intended motion; see also paragraph [0080] where Schluntz discloses that indicators 716 can include visual indicators (such as LEDs or other lights) and the like, where the indicators are configured to communicate information or a status associated with the robot 100 to an entity external to the robot, such as a user or individual).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schluntz (US 2021/0339399 A1) and Xu (CN 110861095 A), in view of Ichinose (US 2012/0041593 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Schluntz further discloses a step of (f2) estimating an occupancy state of the elevator with reference to a 2D map related to a space inside the elevator (In paragraphs [0200-0201], Schluntz discloses that the robot 900 may receive image data of the inside of the elevator using cameras included in the robot 900 as well as cameras installed in the elevator or on the current floor with visibility into the elevator, where one or more sensors in the elevator 1230 may keep track of the number of individuals that enter and leave the elevator 1210, where the robot 900 determines a number of individuals in the elevator and compares the determined number to a maximum occupancy of the elevator 1210, where if the determined number is equal to or exceeds the maximum occupancy, the robot 900 does not enter and instead waits for a next elevator 1210, and based at least in part on the image data received from cameras on the robot 900 and/or cameras installed within the elevator 1210, the robot 900 identifies one or more open locations in the elevator 1210, where the image data may specify locations of one or more individuals and objects that are already in the elevator 1210, and the one or more open locations do not have any individuals or objects in the area associated with the open locations).
The combination of Schluntz and Xu does not explicitly disclose determining which elevator floor panel to use.
However, Ichinose teaches a step of (f2) estimating an occupancy state of the elevator with reference to a 2D map related to a space inside the elevator and determining which elevator floor panel to use (In paragraph [0067], Ichinose teaches that the riding area 106 includes a riding position 107 in which the autonomous mobile robot 20 is to stop while the cage 20 is moving upward; in paragraphs [0097-0100], Ichinose teaches that a mat-type switch is placed on the floor in the riding area, when pressure is applied to the mat, a signal "weighted" is outputted, and when a "weighted" signal is not outputted, it is determined that the riding area is available, where further, it may be arranged such that in place of the mat-type switch set on the floor, a sheet-type switch is built in the floor, and as another method of detection by the available area detection unit 27, the weight sensor 14 may be employed, where the weight detected with the weight sensor 14 is divided by a predetermined value as an assumed weight per one user, thus an approximate number of users in the cage is obtained, the obtained number of users is multiplied by a predetermined value as an assumed exclusive possession floor area per one user, and is subtracted from the floor area of the cage, and the remaining area corresponds to the size of the available area).
Ichinose is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to determining the availability of an elevator floor panel corresponding to a riding area that a robot may ride in an elevator. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Ichinose with the method as disclosed by the combination of Schluntz and Xu, where doing so may advantageously increase the accuracy of detection of the available space in a wider variety of circumstances, for example, thereby improving accuracy and safety of control of the robot based on the detection of the available space.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Schluntz and Xu further discloses a step of (f4) determining an available position with traversable paths (In paragraphs [0200-0201], Schluntz discloses that the robot 900 identifies one or more open locations in the elevator 1210, where the image data may specify locations of one or more individuals and objects that are already in the elevator 1210, and the one or more open locations do not have any individuals or objects in the area associated with the open locations; In paragraphs [0203-0204], Schluntz discloses that once the target location is selected, the robot 900 generates a motion plan for the motorized base 905 to move the robot 900 to the target location, where the robot 900 enters the elevator 1210 and moves to the target location; in the fourth paragraph of the second page of the provided translation, Xu teaches that the step of controlling the robot to enter the elevator along the entering route includes: detecting the entering route to determine whether there is an obstacle continuously in the entering route within a preset time, and when it is detected that there are no obstacles in the route of entering the elevator within the preset time, control the robot to enter the elevator along the route of entering the elevator, or when it is detected that there is an obstacle in the entering route, the robot is controlled to return to the waiting area and judge that the riding task fails and abandon the riding task).
The combination of Schluntz and Xu does not explicitly disclose determining an elevator floor panel to use.
However, Ichinose teaches a step of (f4) determining an available position and determining an elevator floor panel to use (In paragraph [0067], Ichinose teaches that the riding area 106 includes a riding position 107 in which the autonomous mobile robot 20 is to stop while the cage 20 is moving upward; in paragraphs [0097-0100], Ichinose teaches that a mat-type switch is placed on the floor in the riding area, when pressure is applied to the mat, a signal "weighted" is outputted, and when a "weighted" signal is not outputted, it is determined that the riding area is available, where further, it may be arranged such that in place of the mat-type switch set on the floor, a sheet-type switch is built in the floor, and as another method of detection by the available area detection unit 27, the weight sensor 14 may be employed, where the weight detected with the weight sensor 14 is divided by a predetermined value as an assumed weight per one user, thus an approximate number of users in the cage is obtained, the obtained number of users is multiplied by a predetermined value as an assumed exclusive possession floor area per one user, and is subtracted from the floor area of the cage, and the remaining area corresponds to the size of the available area).
Ichinose is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to determining the availability of an elevator floor panel corresponding to a riding area that a robot may ride in an elevator. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Ichinose with the method as disclosed by Schluntz, where doing so may advantageously increase the accuracy of detection of the available space in a wider variety of circumstances, for example, thereby improving accuracy and safety of control of the robot based on the detection of the available space.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schluntz (US 2021/0339399 A1) and Xu (CN 110861095 A), in view of Tian (US 2016/0059416 A1).
Regarding claim 19, although in paragraph [0087] Schluntz discloses that in response to a detected increase in pressure within the pressurized tube, the pressure sensor 728 can determine that the robot 100 has come into contact with an obstruction, and can slow or stop the motion of the robot, for instance by instructing the navigation unit 710, the combination of Schluntz and Xu does not explicitly disclose a step of (g1) stopping motion in response to the at least one human entering a safety stop zone of the autonomous mobile robot, and alerting the at least one human by using the visual display on HMI/LED or the voice commands.
However, Tian teaches a step of (g1) stopping motion in response to the at least one human entering a safety stop zone of the autonomous mobile robot, and alerting the at least one human by using the visual display on HMI/LED or the voice commands (In paragraphs [0038-0039], Tian teaches that the processing unit 140 may control the navigation system 110 to maintain the robot 100 in a stationary position when a human is detected within a buffer zone, where the robot 100 may also include a flashing light and/or audible messages or alarms and an alarm or message may be provided when the robot 100 has stopped either a navigation activity or a manipulation activity due to the presence of a human, thereby alerting the human and prompting the human to move outside of the zone of interest).
Tian is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to stopping motion of a robot in response to a human entering a safety zone and alerting the human. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Tian with the method as disclosed by the combination of Schluntz and Xu, where doing so may “provide for the safety of the human (e.g., to stop or modify a given movement or action by the robot 100 to avoid contact with the human, or to stay beyond a certain distance of the human)” as suggested by Tian in paragraph [0033], thereby advantageously increasing safety of potential robot and human interaction.
Conclusion
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 Harrison Heflin whose telephone number is (571)272-5629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 1:00PM - 10:00PM 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/HARRISON HEFLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665