DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This action is in response to the filing of the Application on 07/10/2024.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 15/658,279, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Specifically, prior-filed application SN 15/658,279 does not provide written description support for the invention, as now claimed. In particular, there is no disclosure in prior-filed application SN 15/658,279 of searching for an unknown space candidate in an occupancy grid mapping generated by the robot when an obstacle’s presence is detected, or initiating motion to move the robot to a first waypoint of a set of waypoints in a path to the unknown candidate that avoids the obstacle detected, as variously required by each of the independent claims of the instant application. After reviewing the prior-filed applications in the priority claim, it appears that these features were first disclosed in prior-filed applications SNs 16/197,329 and 16/197,330, so that the effective filing date for the claims in the instant application is limited to the filing dates of prior-filed applications SNs 16/197,329 and 16/197,330 which were both filed on 20 November 2018. Therefore, the effective filing date for the currently claimed invention is considered to be 20 November 2018.
Specification
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto- processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more
information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http: / /www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs / guidance /eTD- info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 -20 of the instant application with claims 1 – 22 of U.S. Patent 10,571,926.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element of step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Hence, it is obvious that the claimed combination or the narrower claims of the patent would encompass the broader claimed combination of the claims of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aghamohammadi et al. (US 2017/0157769 A1), in view of Farlow et al. (US 2015/ 0158182).
Claim 1, Aghamohammadi discloses a system for finding a new area to cover by a robot performing an area coverage task of an unexplored area (paragraph [0048]), including: a robot comprising a mobile platform (700 in Figure 7) having disposed thereon: at least one camera (728 in Figure 7; paragraph [0084], lines 2-4); and an interface to a host including one or more processors (704 in Figure 7) coupled to memory (714 in Figure 7)
storing computer instructions (paragraph [0083], line 8) to correct at least some estimated poses and locations of at least some 3D from a 3D point cloud of features from images points that define a map (paragraph [0054]), the map used to provide an occupancy grid mapping (paragraph [0043]) that provides guidance to the mobile platform that includes the camera (paragraph [0048]), which computer instructions, when executed on the processors, implement actions comprising: detecting based upon a sensory input received from a set of sensors (paragraph [0050]) including at least one non-tactile sensor (paragraph [0040]) being monitored while performing the area coverage task, (paragraph [0040]).
Aghamohammadi fails to disclose an obstacle present in a path of the robot, and whenever an obstacle’s presence is detected: searching for an unknown space candidate in the occupancy grid mapping generated using sensory input from the set of sensors to update the 3D point cloud that is used to update the occupancy grid; and initiating motion to move the robot to a first waypoint of a set of waypoints in a path to the unknown space candidate that avoids the obstacle detected.
However, Farlow discloses a robot system that includes a mobile robot having a controller executing a control system for controlling operation of the robot, a cloud computing service in communication with the controller of the robot, and a remote computing device in communication with the cloud computing service (para [0004)].
Further teaching, see Figs 17A and 17B, in some circumstances, the robot 100 receives an occupancy map 1700 of objects 12 in a scene 10 and/or work area 5, or the robot controller 500 produces (and may update) the occupancy map 1700 based on image data and/or image depth data received from an imaging sensor 450 (e.g., the second 3-D image sensor 450b) over time. In addition to localization of the robot 100 in the scene 10 (e.g., the environment about the robot 100), the robot 100 may travel to other points in a connected space (e.g., the work area 5) using the sensor system 400. The sensor system 400 can update location confidence levels of each object 12 after each imaging cycle of the sensor system 400. In some examples, a detected new occlusion 16 (e.g., a missing object 12 from the occupancy map 1700) within an occlusion detection period (e.g., less than ten seconds), may signify a "live" object 12 (e.g., a moving object 12) in the scene 10.
A confidence level may be assigned to detected locations or tracked movements of objects 12 in the working area 5. For example, upon producing or updating the occupancy map 1700, the controller 500 may assign a confidence level for each object 12 on the map 1700. The confidence level can be directly proportional to a probability that the object 12 actually located in the working area 5 as indicated on the map 1700 [para (0162 – 0164)].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Aghamohammadi to include an obstacle present in a path of the robot, and whenever an obstacle’s presence is detected: searching for an unknown space candidate in the occupancy grid mapping generated using sensory input from the set of sensors to update the 3D point cloud that is used to update the occupancy grid; and initiating motion to move the robot to a first waypoint of a set of waypoints in a path to the unknown space candidate that avoids the obstacle detected, as suggested and taught by Farlow, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing
Claim 19 is similarly rejected as Claim 1, see above.
Claim 20 is similarly rejected as Claim 1, see above.
Claims 8-11, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aghamohammadi et al., and Farlow et al. as applied to claims 1, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi (US 2019/0025851 A1).
While Aghamohammadi et al., and Farlow variously teach or suggest many elements of the claimed invention, as pointed out more fully above, neither specifically teaches that wherein the area coverage task includes at least one of inspecting a factory floor and cleaning a floor, as further required by claim 18, or that the area coverage task includes a coverage pattern comprising a zig-zag or back-and-forth pattern, with specific overlap, and where the pattern is parallel to a wall of a room, so as to minimize the likelihood of the robot colliding with the wall, as variously stipulated by claims 8-11 and 14.
Afrouzi teaches a robot (Figure 9) that performs an area coverage task that includes cleaning a floor (paragraph [0004]), where the coverage task uses a coverage pattern that is a zig-zag or back-and-forth pattern aligned parallel to the wall of a room (Figures 2A-2D, for example). Because such patterns provide for highly efficient coverage of an area, allowing the robot to cover more area in less time and using less resources, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use such patterns in the coverage tasks of Aghamohammadi et al., or Farlow. Furthermore, while Ebrahimi Afrouzi fails to stipulate the specific overlap amounts defined in claims 10-12, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the amount of overlap needed to ensure proper coverage for cleaning a floor, as performed by Ebrahimi Afrouzi, would depend on the specific size and configuration of the floor cleaning elements of the robot. For example, if a vacuum element of the robot is less than the full width of the robot, the overlap would need to encompass the difference between the width of the robot and the width of the vacuum element. Therefore, the specific overlap amounts stipulated in claims 10-12 would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as being obviously derived from the specific structural details of the robot.
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Aghamohammadi to include wherein the area coverage task includes at least one of inspecting a factory floor and cleaning a floor, or that the area coverage task includes a coverage pattern comprising a zig-zag or back-and-forth pattern, with specific overlap, and where the pattern is parallel to a wall of a room, as suggested and taught by Afrouzi, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing robotic devices responsive to stimulus from a configuration space, thereby cleaning and covering the area faster or more efficiently without the penalty of excessive time.
Prior Art
The following references were considered but not relied upon:
Lee (US 20180239355 A1)
Schnittman (US 20170206418 A1)
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE LAROSE whose telephone number is (313)446-4856. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Renee LaRose/Examiner, Art Unit 3657