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 .
Status of the Claims
This 1st final action is in response to applicant's filing on Dec. 01, 2025. Claims 13-14 are cancelled. Claims 1-12, 15-22 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Examiner's response
Applicant's amendments/arguments with respect to the objections to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments/arguments with respect to the objections to the claim 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claim(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12, 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Harold ( US 20200150655 A ) in view of Passot (US 20170329347 A) in view of Artes (US 20220074762 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Harold teaches accessing a map of an area, wherein the map comprises mapped elements, and wherein initial route implications are based on distances to the mapped elements ([0008] the map comprises map data representing at least one virtual exclusion region that is taken into consideration by the robot in the same manner in which a real detected obstacle is);
obtaining a planned route through the area based on the map, wherein the planned route is based on traveling around at least one of the mapped elements in accordance with the initial route implications ([0018] determine a path for the robot and to move along this path);
controlling an autonomous mobile robot to move through the area along at least part of the planned route, wherein the autonomous mobile robot comprises a sensor system ([0035]);
the autonomous mobile robot sensing, using the sensor system, one or more obstacles in surroundings of the autonomous mobile robot along the at least part of the planned route ([0073] when carrying out its task, the robot will travel through the region … following the most direct route, [0080]-[0087]),
Harold does not explicitly teach but Passot teaches wherein the autonomous mobile robot perceives a current location of the autonomous mobile robot that is different from an actual location of the autonomous mobile robot in the area ([0200] robot 102 can also correct errors in a map 700, where robot 102 did not travel exactly in a closed loop (e.g., closed loop route 1104 ), the difference between the initialization location and end location can be used to correct the odometry of robot 102. For example, robot 102 can take the difference between the initialization location and end location and determine that the difference is indicative of how much the odometry drifted from the actual. Accordingly, robot 102 can adjust a recorded route to take into account that determined drift),
changing the initial route implications so that one or more of the mapped elements are ignored, thereby producing changed route implications ( Fig. 1C, the trained robot moves following predefined path 116 in middle of mapped elements 118 and 119. Fig. 1C shows that the robot ignore mapped element 118 and deviates from predefined path 116 to avoid obstacle 130. Please note: [0159] in FIG. 7A illustrates example map 700 and route 716 generated by example robot 102 as it travels in environment 100; FIG. 7B illustrates example map 700 once completed. Advantageously, robot 102 can record mapped route 716 and map the surrounding environment of mapped route 716 in map 700 in one demonstration. Accordingly, map 700 can allow robot 102 to navigate route 116 (or a route substantially similar to route 116 ) again autonomously in as few as one demonstration), and
establishing a sub-route through the area based on the changed route implications (Passot, Fig. 1C, Robot changes the route (a new sub-route) based on detected objects 130 and 132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, vehicle routing, as taught by Harold, the autonomous mobile robot perceiving a current location of the autonomous mobile robot that is different from an actual location of the autonomous mobile robot in the area, as taught by Passot, as Harold and Passot are directed to vehicle routing (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements to reduce the map errors.
Harold as modifgied by Passot does not explicitly teach but Artes teaches wherein at least one of the obstacles corresponds to at least one of mapped elements ( Artes, It may also happen that an obstacle can be associated with a mapped obstacle, but the position in the map significantly and repeatedly diverges from the detected position; [0054] obstacles (door) corresponds to mapped elements (door); [0096] fails to accurately determine its position and enters the detected environment data, in particular, the orientation data (e.g. regarding obstacles, landmarks, etc.) at the wrong position in the map. Such errors can be tolerated when they occur in the temporarily saved map (which is compiled anew for every deployment) as the errors in this map have no effect on subsequent deployments. [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, vehicle routing, as taught by Harold as modified by Passot, at least one of the obstacles corresponding to at least one of mapped elements, as taught by Artes, as Harold, Artes, and Passot are directed to vehicle routing (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of at least one of the obstacles corresponding to at least one of mapped elements to detect the map errors.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Harold teaches changing the initial route implications is performed for mapped elements within a sub-route envelope that is based on the current location of the autonomous mobile robot ([0009] wherein the map comprises at least one virtual boundary line with an orientation that allows to distinguish a first side and a second side of the boundary line, Fig. 1C shows that robot change its route based on its current location where object 130 blocks its path).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, vehicle routing, as taught by Harold, perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements, as taught by Passot, as Harold and Passot are directed to vehicle routing (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements to reduce the map errors.
Regarding claim 3, Harold teaches wherein mapped elements outside of the sub-route envelope maintain the initial route implications when the sub-route is established ([0009], Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, vehicle routing, as taught by Harold, perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements, as taught by Passot, as Harold and Passot are directed to vehicle routing (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements to reduce the map errors.
Regarding claim 4, Harold does not explicitly teach but Passot teaches determining that at least one of the obstacles conflicts with the planned route, wherein establishing the sub-route is performed automatically when it is determined that the at least one of the obstacles conflicts with the planned route (Passot, Fig. 1C, Robot changes route based on detected objects 130 and 132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, vehicle routing, as taught by Harold, perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements, as taught by Passot, as Harold and Passot are directed to vehicle routing (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements to reduce the map errors.
Regarding claim 5, Harold does not explicitly teach but Passot teaches wherein determining comprises determining whether the autonomous mobile robot can be moved along the planned route without violating the initial route implications with respect to at least one of the obstacles (Passot, Fig. 1C, robot changes the route but reaches its destination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, vehicle routing, as taught by Harold, perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements, as taught by Passot, as Harold and Passot are directed to vehicle routing (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements to reduce the map errors.
Regarding claim 6, Harold does not explicitly teach but Passot teaches wherein the sub-route is conflicts with one or more of the initial route implications for the one or more mapped elements (Passot, Fig. 1C, the changed route (between 118 and 108 ) conflicts with the original route in Fig. 1B ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, vehicle routing, as taught by Harold, perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements, as taught by Passot, as Harold and Passot are directed to vehicle routing (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements to reduce the map errors.
Regarding claim 7, Harold does not explicitly teach but Passot teaches wherein the sub-route is within the sub-route envelope (Passot, all sub-routes are in the 100 (area, between 118 and 112)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, vehicle routing, as taught by Harold, perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements, as taught by Passot, as Harold and Passot are directed to vehicle routing (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements to reduce the map errors.
Regarding claim 9, Harold does not explicitly teach but Passot teaches wherein changing the initial route implications comprises reducing a distances of the initial route implications one or more of the mapped elements (Passot, Fig. 1C, robot changing route by reducing the distance to object 118 which is mapped ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, vehicle routing, as taught by Harold, perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements, as taught by Passot, as Harold and Passot are directed to vehicle routing (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements to reduce the map errors.
Regarding claims 15, 17 and 20, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Harold does not explicitly teach but Passot teaches wherein the sub-route comprises an expanded sub-route that is beyond a predefined maximum deviation from the planned route when it is not possible to establish a sub-route within the predefined maximum deviation from the planned route (Passot, Fig. 1C, robot changing route).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, vehicle routing, as taught by Harold, perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements, as taught by Passot, as Harold and Passot are directed to vehicle routing (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements to reduce the map errors.
Regarding claim 21, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Harold does not explicitly teach but Passot teaches wherein the sub-route comprises an expanded sub-route that is within a predefined maximum deviation from the planned route (Passot, Fig. 1C, robot changing route within the area between 108 and 118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, vehicle routing, as taught by Harold, perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements, as taught by Passot, as Harold and Passot are directed to vehicle routing (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements to reduce the map errors.
Regarding claim 22, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Harold does not explicitly teach but Passot teaches wherein the sub-route comprises a global sub-route when it is not possible to establish the sub-route within a predefined maximum deviation from the planned route, the global sub-route being based on the initial route implication and information from the sensor system (Passot, Fig. 1C and corresponding paragraphs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, vehicle routing, as taught by Harold, perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements, as taught by Passot, as Harold and Passot are directed to vehicle routing (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements to reduce the map errors.
Regarding claim 16, Harold does not explicitly teach but Passot teaches wherein the changed route implications comprise ignoring a distance to one or more of the mapped elements (Passot, Fig. 1C and correspond paragraphs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, vehicle routing, as taught by Harold, perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements, as taught by Passot, as Harold and Passot are directed to vehicle routing (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of perceiving obstacles as being different from the mapped elements and obstacles being actually physical obstacles corresponding to the mapped elements to reduce the map errors.
Regarding claim 18, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 16.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
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 extension fee 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 JINGLI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am-5 pm 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 Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313)446-6519. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 571-272-100.
/J.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666