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 .
Amended claims 1 thru 14 have been entered into the record.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the specification overcomes the specification objection from the previous office action (12/3/2025). The specification objection is withdrawn.
The amendment to the claims partially overcome the claim objections from the previous office action (12/3/2025). The pending claim objections are recited below in this office action.
The amendment to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the previous office action (12/3/2025). The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The interpretation of the storage device of claim 6 remains as recited in the previous office action (12/3/2025) and is also recited below in this office action. The applicant requested that the storage device be interpreted in view of the entire disclosure (argument page 14), but only P[0145] provides a description of the storage device that includes any type of structure. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of the storage device remains unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the map generating step is performed by an autonomous mobile device and the other steps are performed by a processor and therefore cannot be performed by a human mind (argument page 16 paragraph 1). The examiner respectfully disagrees. According to the MPEP, “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C. and “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C.
The specification defines the autonomous mobile device to include “cleaning robots (e.g., smart floor sweeping robots, smart floor mopping robots, window cleaning robots), companion mobile robots (e.g., smart electronic pets, nanny robots), service type mobile robots (e.g., reception robots at restaurants, hotels, meeting places), industrial inspection smart devices (e.g., electric power inspection robots, smart forklifts, etc.), security robots (e.g., home or commercial use bodyguard robots), etc.” (PGPub P[0004]). The claimed autonomous mobile device is interpreted as a computing environment that is merely a tool used in performing the mental process. And, the specification defines the processor “may be any suitable processor, such as a central processing unit (CPU), a graphic processing unit (GPU), a microprocessor, etc.” (PGPub P[0146]). The claimed processor is therefore interpreted to be any processor that would include a generic computer.
Regarding the claimed processor, the MPEP recites, “1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are "human cognitive actions" that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as "directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging." 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C.1. The steps performed by the claimed processor (which may be a generic computer) may still be performed as a mental process. The generic computer is merely a tool to assist a person in performing the abstract idea.
Regarding the claimed autonomous mobile device, the claims recite that the processor may be part of the autonomous mobile device (claim 1). Therefore, the mobile device may also include a generic computer processor to perform the steps. Additionally the MPEP recites, “2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that "with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper". 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C.2. The autonomous mobile device is merely the computing environment that performs the method steps (abstract idea).
The MPEP further recites, “3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C.3. Because the claimed processors and mobile device may be, or include, any processing device (generic processor), the use of the processor(s) are merely as a tool to aid a person in performing the mental activity.
The applicant further argues that the step of optimizing a map for improved navigation is a practical application (argument page 16 paragraph 3). The examiner respectfully disagrees that optimizing a map is a practical application because a person may perform the optimizing of the map. A person can use the gathered information to determine an improved route. The route is not being implemented, the map is merely improved (which a person can do). A person may do this by merely changing the navigation plan when furniture is rearranged.
The applicant further argues that the additional elements or features are not well-understood, routine or conventional (argument pages 16 and 17). The examiner respectfully disagrees because an autonomous mobile device (i.e. cleaning robot) and a processor (may be any processor including generic computer) are well-understood, routine and conventional to persons of ordinary skill in the art. Examples of these additional elements are found in the cited prior art (Artes et al and Wu et al).
The applicant makes the same arguments regarding claim 6 as for claim 1 (see above examiner’s responses), in addition to arguing that a storage device is an additional element that cannot be part of a mental process (argument page 17 paragraph 1). The claimed storage device is merely a memory, which is merely a typical part of a computing device that is also well-understood, routine and conventional. Similar responses to the arguments also apply to the arguments regarding claim 11.
Based on the above responses to the arguments and the below rejections, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1 thru 14 are maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/2026 regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant appears to be arguing that the cited prior art of Artes et al and Wu et al do not include the exact words or phrase that are included in the claim limitations (argument pages 18 thru 21). The examiner is not required to recite the exact claim language, but cite prior art that performs the same functions (but uses different words), such as equivalent language. For example, the claimed “extracting” is not specifically define in the specification and is interpreted to include sensing, indicating, finding, measuring, detecting, or similar. The exploring again recited by Artes et al in P[0122] equates to the claimed extracting.
The applicant further argues that the method steps should be performed on the map data and not on the explored areas of Artes et al (argument page 19). The claim language does not support this argument. The claims recite that the autonomous mobile device has a processor that performs the method steps while it move around a work area (claim 1 lines 2 thru 7). The claims are written broadly enough to encompass both processing of map data and processing of the explored areas of travel of the robot.
The applicant further goes on to argue that the Artes et al do not teach specific claim limitations (pages 19 thru 21). The applicant merely recites the paragraphs of Artes et al that the examiner cited in the rejection, restate the teaching of the paragraph, and then state that Artes et al do not teach the exact claim language. The claims are subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification. In this case, the specification and the arguments, do not provide any details that can be applied to the claim language (specification continually repeats the claim language). Therefore, the examiner has interpreted the claim limitations broadly, in which the teachings of Artes et al read on these limitations. Artes et al merely does not use the exact claim language as the applicant claims, but Artes et al performs the claimed limitations based on equivalent language to the claims.
Therefore, the prior art rejections of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11 and 12 are maintained and additional recitation in the prior art are recited to include the newly amended portions of the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of the claims recite "a plurality of key points on the..." then later recite "the key points on the...". When reciting “the key points”, each time it should to “the plurality of key points” to match the claim language that was recited earlier in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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: a storage device configured to store program instructions in claim 6.
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. The storage device is interpreted as “The storage device 701 may be any suitable non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, such as a read-only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), a flash memory, a hard disk, a solid state drive, an optic disk, etc.” (PGPub P[0145] and Figure 7).
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 thru 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 6 is directed to a device (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claim 6 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A map optimization method, comprising:
generating, by an autonomous mobile device, an original map of a work zone while the autonomous mobile device moves in the work zone, the original map including an explore zone, a covered zone, an obstacle zone;
separating, by a processor, a wall zone from the obstacle zone, wherein the processor is a processor of the autonomous mobile device or a processor of a management system of the autonomous mobile device; and
determining and deleting, by the processor, an error zone from the explore zone in view of the covered zone and the obstacle zone,
wherein determining and deleting, by the processor, the error zone from the explore zone in view of the covered zone and the obstacle zone, includes:
extracting, by the processor, an outer profile of the explore zone, to obtain an explore zone profile line;
extracting, by the processor, an outer profile of the covered zone, to obtain a covered zone profile line;
with regard to a plurality of key points on the covered zone profile line, expanding, by the processor, the covered zone outwardly based on the key points on the covered zone profile line until the covered zone touches the obstacle zone and/or the explore zone profile line, to obtain an expanded covered zone;
with regard to a plurality of key points on the explore zone profile line, searching, by the processor, toward an inside of the explore zone based on the key points on the explore zone profile line, to determine a first error zone, wherein the first error zone is located between the explore zone profile line and the obstacle zone, and has no overlap with the expanded covered zone; and
deleting, by the processor, the first error zone from the explore zone, to obtain a first optimized map.
The above underlined limitation constitutes “a mental process” because it is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person could get a map that has several indicated zones, separate different zones, determine and delete errors, extract data from the zones, expanding and searching the zones and creating an optimized map. A person can perform all of the abstract idea using a pencil and paper or by using a general purpose computer, and applying the information about the zones to the map. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claims 6 and 11 recite the same method steps and thus also recite at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, claims 1, 6 and 11 recites additional elements (indicated in bold).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
Claim 1. A map optimization method, comprising:
generating, by an autonomous mobile device, an original map of a work zone while the autonomous mobile device moves in the work zone (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the original map including an explore zone, a covered zone, an obstacle zone;
separating, by a processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), a wall zone from the obstacle zone, wherein the processor is a processor of the autonomous mobile device or a processor of a management system of the autonomous mobile device (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
determining and deleting, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), an error zone from the explore zone in view of the covered zone and the obstacle zone,
wherein determining and deleting, by the processor, the error zone from the explore zone in view of the covered zone and the obstacle zone, includes:
extracting, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), an outer profile of the explore zone, to obtain an explore zone profile line;
extracting, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), an outer profile of the covered zone, to obtain a covered zone profile line;
with regard to a plurality of key points on the covered zone profile line, expanding, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the covered zone outwardly based on the key points on the covered zone profile line until the covered zone touches the obstacle zone and/or the explore zone profile line, to obtain an expanded covered zone;
with regard to a plurality of key points on the explore zone profile line, searching, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), toward an inside of the explore zone based on the key points on the explore zone profile line, to determine a first error zone, wherein the first error zone is located between the explore zone profile line and the obstacle zone, and has no overlap with the expanded covered zone; and
deleting, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the first error zone from the explore zone, to obtain a first optimized map.
For claim 6 the additional elements are:
An electronic device, comprising:
a storage device configured to store program instructions (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
a processor configured to retrieve and execute the program instructions from the storage device (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), to execute a map optimization method, wherein when executing the map optimization method, the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) is configured to:
[execute the method steps – see claim 1].
For claim 11 the additional elements are:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program including instructions (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which when executed by a processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), cause the processor to perform a map optimization method comprising:
[execute the method steps – see claim 1].
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of a storage device, a processor, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Additionally, the limitation of the autonomous mobile device moves in the work zone is merely a tool used to perform the method steps, and is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP § 2106.05(b).II.).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claims 1, 6 and 11 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 1, 6 and 11 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1, 6, and 11 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claims 6 and 11, the additional limitations of a storage device, a processor, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claims 2 thru 5,7 thru 10 and 12 thru 14 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2, 7 and 12 are directed to:
deleting, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), a zone corresponding to the obstacle zone from an explore zone in the first optimized map, to obtain a partitioned map, the partitioned map including a plurality of explore zone blocks;
determining, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), a second error zone from the plurality of explore zone blocks, wherein the second error zone has no overlap with the covered zone, and has at least one edge that is not adjacent to the obstacle zone; and
deleting, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the second error zone from the explore zone in the first optimized map, to obtain a second optimized map.
Claims 3, 8 and 13 are directed to:
the obstacle zone includes an ordinary obstacle zone;
wherein the method further includes optimizing, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the wall zone after the wall zone is separated from the obstacle zone, and
wherein optimizing the wall zone includes:
performing, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), a dilation operation or a profile filling operation on a location corresponding to the ordinary obstacle zone in the second optimized map, to fill a cavity in the second optimized zone, and performing, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), a smooth operation on an edge of an explore zone in the second optimized map, to obtain a third optimized map;
extracting, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), an outer profile of an explore zone in the third optimized map, to obtain a new explore zone profile line;
with regard to the new explore zone profile line, performing, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), a straightening operation on an edge of the new explore zone profile line within a margin of error, to obtain a new outer wall zone profile line; and
with regard to a plurality of key points on the new outer wall zone profile line, searching, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), toward an inside of the third optimized map based on the key points on the new outer wall zone profile line, to obtain a new wall zone profile line.
Claims 4 and 9 are directed to:
optimizing, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the wall zone also includes: expanding, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), based on the new outer wall zone profile line, the explore zone in the third optimized map to the new outer wall zone profile line, to obtain an optimized explore zone.
Claims 5, 10 and 14 are directed to:
expanding, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), based on the new outer wall zone profile line, the explore zone in the third optimized map to the new outer wall zone profile line, to obtain an optimized explore zone, includes:
with regard to the plurality of key points on the new outer wall zone profile line, searching, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), in a predetermined direction toward the inside of the third optimized map based on the key points on the new outer wall zone profile line, and labelling, by the processor (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), non-explore zone points found in the search as new explore zone points, until points in the explore zone of the third optimized map are found, wherein the new explore zone points and the points in the explore zone of the third optimized map form an optimized explore zone.
These limitations are part of the abstract idea or are insignificant additional elements (generic computer components). They do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artes et al Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0074762 A1 in view of Wu et al Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0044410 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 11 Artes et al teach the claimed map optimization method, procedures for exploring and updating a map (Figures 8 thru 10), the claimed electronic device, autonomous mobile robot 100 (Figure 2), and the claimed non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program including instructions that are executed by a processor, “FIG. 2 exemplarily shows, making use of a block diagram, various units of an autonomous mobile robot 100. One such unit may comprise an independent component or may be a portion (module) of software for controlling the robot. One unit may also comprise numerous subunits. A unit may be completely implemented as hardware or as a combination of hardware and software (e.g. firmware). The software responsible for the behavior of the robot 100 can be run on the control unit 150 of the robot 100. In the example illustrated here, the control unit 150 contains a processor 155 which is configured to execute software instructions saved in a memory 156.” (P[0031] and Figure 2), the electronic device comprising:
the claimed storage device to store program instructions and the claimed processor to retrieve and execute the program instructions, “the control unit 150 contains a processor 155 which is configured to execute software instructions saved in a memory 156” P[0031]; the map optimization method comprising:
the claimed generating an original map that includes an explore zone, a covered zone and an obstacle zone by an autonomous mobile device while moving in a work zone, “an (electronic) map 500 for use by the robot 100 is a compilation of map data in which information is stored that relates to a deployment area DA of the robot and to the, for the robot relevant, environment within this deployment area” P[0048], “During exploration the robot detects obstacles as it moves through the robot deployment area. In the example illustrated in FIG. 1, the robot 100 has already recognized portions of the walls W1 and W2 in a room. Methods for exploring and mapping the environment of an autonomous mobile robot are widely known. For example, the robot can travel over the entire accessible surface while compiling the map using a SLAM method (simultaneous localization and mapping).” P[0030], and “walls and other obstacles (e.g. furniture and other objects) are detected and their location and position is recorded in the map” P[0072], the stored map information equates to the claimed explore zone, the mapping of the environment equates to the claimed covered zone, the obstacles and walls equate to the claimed obstacle zone, the robot moving through the deployment area equates to the claimed autonomous mobile device moving in a work zone;
the claimed separating a wall zone from the obstacle zone, “the robot 100 has already recognized portions of the walls W1 and W2 in a room” P[0030], and “When the robot's 100 area of deployment 200 is a living environment, it is constantly subject to changes carried out by the inhabitants. Doors may be opened and closed, new obstacles (e.g. a bag, a standing lamp, etc.) may be temporarily or permanently placed in the robot deployment area. These changes bring about corresponding changes in certain aspects of the orientation data. Other aspects, however, in particular the positions of walls, larger pieces of furniture (wardrobe, couch) generally remain unchanged, which facilitates a robust navigation.” P[0053],
the claimed processor is in the autonomous mobile device or in a management system, processor 155 is part of the autonomous mobile robot 100 (Figure 2);
the claimed determining and deleting an error zone from the explore zone in view of the covered zone and the obstacle zone, “Thus a method is needed that not only makes it possible to continue the exploration and map compilation after a navigation or movement problem of the robot arises, but that also enables the robot to handle the navigation and/or movement problem robustly, meaning without allowing the problems to cause errors in the compilation of the map. This can be achieve, for example, by determining the exact time and/or place (problem area) at which the problem arose. Starting from here, erroneously recorded data can be deleted and/or the problem area can be excluded from further navigation.” P[0097],
wherein determining and deleting the error zone from the explore zone in view of the covered zone and the obstacle zone, includes:
the claimed extracting an outer profile of the explore zone to obtain an explore zone profile line, “Before a problem is detected, erroneous map data may be generated, for example. Taking into consideration the problem area may entail, for example, the deletion and/or correction of map data that are based, entirely or partially, on measurements taken in the problem area and/or following the point in time at which the problem was detected. The subarea can then be once again explored when the exploration run is continued (while taking into consideration the attributes assigned to the problem area, such as “do not enter” or “to be avoided”).” P[0122];
the claimed extracting an outer profile of the covered zone to obtain a covered zone profile line, “As an alternative, instead of deleting the map data, the problem area may again be explored. For example, the robot may recognize (as described above) that it is locked in in a given area, e.g. due to a door falling shut. In this case the robot would notify the user via the HMI 200 so that door, and with it the robot's path, can be opened, thus liberating the robot. Afterwards the user can tell the robot via the HMI 200 to carry on with the exploration.” P[0123];
the claimed expanding the covered zone outward based on a plurality of key points on the covered zone profile line until the covered zone touches the obstacle zone or the explore zone profile line to obtain an expanded covered zone, “In such a case it may be useful for the problem area (that is, the room) to be, entirely or partially, explored again. The doorway (of the reopened door), for example, can now be recognized as freely accessible. The renewed exploration of the problem area may start from its edge or even be limited to its edge (e.g. locating and identifying the doorway).” P[0123];
the claimed searching toward an inside of the explore zone based on a plurality of key points on the explore zone profile line to determine a first error zone located between the explore zone profile line and the obstacle zone and has no overlap with the expanded covered zone, “Example “New Room”—As shown in FIG. 12, the user may open up access to a new room R for the robot, for example. This new room has not yet been recorded in the permanent map of the robot 100. Since an unmapped area can potentially present a danger for the robot (for example, an open door may lead to an area outside of a home), it is also possible for the robot to ignore a newly (due to the open door) accessible area that is not recorded in the map while carrying out its work tasks.” P[0141], and “The robot 100 may carry out a renewed exploration run through the deployment area DA and thereby expand the map such that the room R will be entered into the updated map so that it is taken into account and included in the planning of future deployments. When starting the renewed exploration run, the user can let the entire deployment area DA be newly explored and/or select a subarea for the exploration.” P[0142]; and
the claimed deleting the first error zone from the explore zone to obtain a first optimized map, “During the renewed exploration the data in this work copy 501 can be directly updated, in the course of which, in particular, obstacles and/or landmarks no longer present are deleted, new obstacles and/or landmarks are added and recognized obstacles and/or landmarks are confirmed. After completion of the renewed exploration, the thus compiled work copy 501 can be compared to the still existing map 500. Alternatively or additionally, the data intended for deletion or addition can be directly utilized to determine what changes were made.” P[0135].
Artes et al do not explicitly teach the claimed explore and covered zone profile lines, but does use sensors that include optical and/or acoustic sensors that can measure distances by means of triangulation or runtime measurement of an emitted signal (triangulation sensors, 3D cameras, laser scanners, ultrasonic scanners, etc.) for gathering data about the environment P[0037], and “The coverage area Z can generally be described, depending on the employed sensor and it arrangement on the robot, by one or more points, a line, a surface area or a volume, arranged in an appropriate manner in relation to the robot.” P[0079]. The areas may be defined by any number of geometric figures. These types of sensors could create environment maps similar to the applicant’s Figures 5D and 5E (claimed explore and covered zone profile lines).
Wu et al teach, “Using the zone division being the room division as an example, simulated graphs from determining the trajectory points to determining the correct door are shown in FIG. 8a-FIG. 8g. FIG. 8a shows the trajectory points in the map. The trajectory points may be actual trajectory points and/or virtual trajectory points. FIG. 8b shows candidate points obtained through filtering in the vertical direction. Filtering in the vertical direction means that the selectable direction of the straight line passing the trajectory point is the vertical direction. FIG. 8c shows candidate points after the clustering. FIG. 8d shows the cluster representative points and doors represented by the cluster representative points. The doors represented by the cluster representative points are shown as segments. FIG. 8e shows candidate doors determined after filtering the cluster representative points. Each candidate door is shown as a black thick segment. It should be understood that FIG. 8e includes candidate doors in the horizontal direction. Correspondingly, although not shown, similar to FIG. 8b, there may be candidate points in the horizontal direction after the filtering. It can be seen that the algorithm can extract the locations of all of the correct doors. But it also reserved locations of unnecessary doors. FIG. 8f schematically shows reasonable doors determined after filtering the candidate doors. It can be seen that after filtering the candidate doors, unreasonable room zones are removed. The reserved zones that are divided by the reasonable doors physically satisfy characteristics of a room, i.e., the size and structure of the room are reasonable. FIG. 8g schematically shows the determined correct door after fusing the zones. It can be seen that after fusing the rooms, redundant doors on the hallway are removed.” (P[0184] and Figures 8a thru 8g). The process for the determination of the doors of Wu et al would be applied to the map updating for walls, obstacles, new areas, and open/closed doors of Artes et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the procedures for exploring and updating a map of Artes et al with the door determination of Wu et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, increase the zone division accuracy (mapping) (Wu et al P[0077]).
Regarding claims 2, 7 and 12 Artes et al and Wu et al teach the claimed method, device and storage medium of claims 1, 6 and 11 (see above), further comprising, Artes et al teach:
the claimed deleting a zone corresponding to the obstacle zone from an explore zone in the first optimized map to obtain a partitioned map including a plurality of explore zone blocks, “A renewed exploration of the deployment area and the subsequent renewed compilation of the map would, however, result in the loss of a large amount of metadata that the robot had learned over time or that the user had entered (e.g. the partitioning of rooms, the designation of room, the frequency with which an area becomes soiled, etc.). The user may also find it very irritating to have to repeatedly enter lost information. In order to improve this situation, a method is needed with which the orientation data 505 of the map 500 can be reliably updated without losing the metadata 510 in the map (in particular, the data entered by the user).” P[0127], “During the renewed exploration the data in this work copy 501 can be directly updated, in the course of which, in particular, obstacles and/or landmarks no longer present are deleted, new obstacles and/or landmarks are added and recognized obstacles and/or landmarks are confirmed. After completion of the renewed exploration, the thus compiled work copy 501 can be compared to the still existing map 500.” P[0135], and “The robot recognizes that the room R lying behind the door is an accessible surface and will explore the room R in order to correspondingly expand the map. The new orientation data (i.e. the detected walls, obstacles and other landmarks) that concern the room R (including the information regarding the now open doorway) are then entered into the updated map 502. The remaining orientation data can be carried over unchanged into the updated map.” P[0142];
the claimed determining a second error zone from the plurality of explore zone blocks that has no overlap with the covered zone and has at least one edge that is not adjacent to an obstacle zone, “After completion of the renewed exploration, the thus compiled work copy 501 can be compared to the still existing map 500. Alternatively or additionally, the data intended for deletion or addition can be directly utilized to determine what changes were made. When, for example, a newly identified obstacle is added to the map, the information that this obstacle was newly added can also be recorded (e.g. by marking it with a time stamp).” P[0135], and “The robot 100 may carry out a renewed exploration run through the deployment area DA and thereby expand the map such that the room R will be entered into the updated map so that it is taken into account and included in the planning of future deployments. When starting the renewed exploration run, the user can let the entire deployment area DA be newly explored and/or select a subarea for the exploration. For example, the user may send the robot 100 to a point before the opened door to room R. The robot would then begin exploring its environment starting at this point and would immediately recognize that the mapping of the deployment area is not yet complete.” P[0142]; and
the claimed deleting the second error zone from the explore zone in the first optimized map to obtain a second optimized map, “During the renewed exploration the data in this work copy 501 can be directly updated, in the course of which, in particular, obstacles and/or landmarks no longer present are deleted, new obstacles and/or landmarks are added and recognized obstacles and/or landmarks are confirmed. After completion of the renewed exploration, the thus compiled work copy 501 can be compared to the still existing map 500. Alternatively or additionally, the data intended for deletion or addition can be directly utilized to determine what changes were made.” P[0135], and the deployment area is repeatedly explored P[0127].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 thru 5, 8 thru 10, 13 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Related Art
The examiner points to An et al Patent Number 12,140,960 B2 as related art, but not relied upon for any rejection. An et al is directed to obtaining a plurality of self-locations of the mobile device, obtaining a plurality of obstacle locations, obtaining a boundary profile based on the obstacle locations, obtaining a self-circle based on the self-locations, determining the boundary profile as an outer profile when the boundary profile encircles the self-circle at an outer side of the self-circle, and processing a map of a closed space based on the outer profile (Figure 2).
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 DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662