DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 1/09/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-11 have been amended and claims 12-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are considered moot because the amendments have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the objection to the specification, Applicant has amended the abstract to overcome the objection. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Regarding the objections to the claims, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the previously set forth objections. The previously set forth objections to the claims have been withdrawn. However, the amendments have necessitated new objections as outlined below.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §112, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the previously set forth rejections. The previously set forth rejections under 35 USC §112 have been withdrawn. However, the amendments have necessitated new rejections as outlined below.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §101, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the rejections. The rejections under 35 USC §101 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, amendments made to the claims have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “processing circuitry configured to” should read “processing circuitry configured to:”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “set an entry restriction for the area such that a total number of controlled mobile bodies and virtual mobile bodies allowed to simultaneously exist in the area is one” renders the claim indefinite and unclear. If a controlled mobile body enters a virtual mobile body (robot in an elevator) the total number of bodies would be at minimum two. It is unclear how this number could possibly be one.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 10-11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0211942 A1; hereinafter Carter) in view of Chang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0138648 A1; hereinafter Chang) and Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0017332 A1; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Carter discloses:
An information processing apparatus comprising: processing circuitry configured to generate a graph (navigation route is dynamically created from points of interest, see at least [0005]) including a door on a passage, a shunting line of a virtual mobile body (segment may be an elevator, see at least [0024]) *Examiner sets forth elevator has doors and a segment is a line; and
plan a path of the virtual mobile body such that the controlled mobile body does not conflict with the virtual mobile body at an intersection between the passage and the shunting line when the controlled mobile body passes through the passage (elevator can be controlled to arrive at or near the time the subject approaches the elevator entry, see at least [0038]) *Examiner sets forth a “conflict” would be if the elevator was not available for the subject.
control movement of the door on the passage based upon the planned path of the virtual mobile body (elevator can be controlled to arrive at or near the time the subject approaches the elevator entry, see at least [0038])
Carter does not explicitly disclose
replace the door on the passage in the generated graph with a shunting line of a virtual mobile body plan a path of a controlled mobile body
control movement of the controlled mobile body based upon the planned path of the controlled mobile body
However, Chang teaches:
replace the door on the passage in the generated graph with a shunting line of a virtual mobile body (see Fig. 4 with graph of robot 100, elevator 220, and door 326 which is a line)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter by adding the figure taught by Chang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to better conceptualize the elements in a created plan. Furthermore, drawing figures in a certain manner is also considered a design choice.
Furthermore, Kim teaches:
plan a path of a controlled mobile body and a path of the virtual mobile body such that the controlled mobile body does not conflict with the virtual mobile body at an intersection between the passage and the shunting line when the controlled mobile body passes through the passage (robot control system 140 controls robot to recognize called elevator and board the elevator and to alight from the elevator on the floor on which robot is to provide a service, see at least [0099]; elevator may move appropriate elevator to a floor on which robot is present, see at least [0069]) *Examiner sets forth the path of robot is to board at a current floor and alight at a specified floor and the path of an elevator is to arrive at the robot’s current floor and stop at the specified floor
control movement of the controlled mobile body based upon the planned path of the controlled mobile body (robot control system 140 controls robot to recognize called elevator and board the elevator and to alight from the elevator on the floor on which robot is to provide a service, see at least [0099])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter and the figure taught by Chang by adding the control of robot along with the control of elevators taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “safety and efficiency for elevator use may be promoted in such a manner that an elevator control system may maintain control over opening and closing a door of an elevator when a robot boards or alights from the elevator” ( see [0027]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Carter, Chang, and Kim teaches the elements above and Carter further discloses:
the processing circuitry is configured to present visually making settings (display 750 visually displays a path selection during navigation of path selections and devices such as keyboard, a pointing device or other devices enable user to interact with host and occur via input/output interfaces, see at least [0045])
Carter does not explicitly disclose:
UI
However, Kim teaches:
the processing circuitry is configured to present a user interface (UI) for visually making settings for the door (indicator indicates a robot-only elevator may be displayed on user interface and provide information about whether elevator is ascending or descending and a door close button of the elevator, see at least [0023])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter and the figure taught by Chang by adding the user interface for elevators taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “safety and efficiency for elevator use may be promoted in such a manner that an elevator control system may maintain control over opening and closing a door of an elevator when a robot boards or alights from the elevator” (see [0027]).
Regarding claim 10, Carter discloses:
An information processing method executed by a computer (computer system, see at least [0007]), the method comprising: generating a graph (navigation route is dynamically created from points of interest, see at least [0005]) including a door on a passage;
planning a path of the virtual mobile body such that the controlled mobile body does not conflict with the virtual mobile body at an intersection between the passage and the shunting line when the controlled mobile body passes through the passage (elevator can be controlled to arrive at or near the time the subject approaches the elevator entry, see at least [0038]) *Examiner sets forth a “conflict” would be if the elevator was not available for the subject.
controlling movement of the door on the passage based upon the planned path of the virtual mobile (elevator can be controlled to arrive at or near the time the subject approaches the elevator entry, see at least [0038])
Carter does not explicitly disclose:
replacing the door on the passage in the generated graph with a shunting line of a virtual mobile body
controlling movement of the controlled mobile body based upon the planned path of the controlled mobile body
However, Chang teaches:
replacing the door on the passage in the generated graph with a shunting line of a virtual mobile body (see Fig. 4 with graph of robot 100, elevator 220, and door 326 which is a line)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter by adding the figure taught by Chang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to better conceptualize the elements in a created plan. Furthermore, drawing figures in a certain manner is also considered a design choice.
Furthermore, Kim teaches:
planning a path of a controlled mobile body and a path of the virtual mobile body such that the controlled mobile body does not conflict with the virtual mobile body at an intersection between the passage and the shunting line when the controlled mobile body passes through the passage (robot control system 140 controls robot to recognize called elevator and board the elevator and to alight from the elevator on the floor on which robot is to provide a service, see at least [0099]; elevator may move appropriate elevator to a floor on which robot is present, see at least [0069]) *Examiner sets forth the path of robot is to board at a current floor and alight at a specified floor and the path of an elevator is to arrive at the robot’s current floor and stop at the specified floor
controlling movement of the controlled mobile body based upon the planned path of the controlled mobile body (robot control system 140 controls robot to recognize called elevator and board the elevator and to alight from the elevator on the floor on which robot is to provide a service, see at least [0099])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter and the figure taught by Chang by adding the control of robot along with the control of elevators taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “safety and efficiency for elevator use may be promoted in such a manner that an elevator control system may maintain control over opening and closing a door of an elevator when a robot boards or alights from the elevator” ( see [0027]).
Regarding claim 11, Carter discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program (computer program product, see at least [0004]) that causes a computer (computer system, see at least [0007]) to perform a method, the method comprising:
generating a graph (navigation route is dynamically created from points of interest, see at least [0005]) including a door on a passage;
planning a path of the virtual mobile body such that the controlled mobile body does not conflict with the virtual mobile body at an intersection between the passage and the shunting line when the controlled mobile body passes through the passage (elevator can be controlled to arrive at or near the time the subject approaches the elevator entry, see at least [0038]) *Examiner sets forth a “conflict” would be if the elevator was not available for the subject.
controlling movement of the door on the passage based upon the planned path of the virtual mobile body (elevator can be controlled to arrive at or near the time the subject approaches the elevator entry, see at least [0038])
Carter does not explicitly disclose:
replacing the door on the passage in the generated graph with a shunting line of a virtual mobile body
controlling movement of the controlled mobile body based upon the planned path of the controlled mobile body
However, Chang teaches:
replacing the door on the passage in the generated graph with a shunting line of a virtual mobile body (see Fig. 4 with graph of robot 100, elevator 220, and door 326 which is a line)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter by adding the figure taught by Chang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to better conceptualize the elements in a created plan. Furthermore, drawing figures in a certain manner is also considered a design choice.
Furthermore, Kim teaches:
planning a path of a controlled mobile body and a path of the virtual mobile body such that the controlled mobile body does not conflict with the virtual mobile body at an intersection between the passage and the shunting line when the controlled mobile body passes through the passage (robot control system 140 controls robot to recognize called elevator and board the elevator and to alight from the elevator on the floor on which robot is to provide a service, see at least [0099]; elevator may move appropriate elevator to a floor on which robot is present, see at least [0069]) *Examiner sets forth the path of robot is to board at a current floor and alight at a specified floor and the path of an elevator is to arrive at the robot’s current floor and stop at the specified floor
controlling movement of the controlled mobile body based upon the planned path of the controlled mobile body (robot control system 140 controls robot to recognize called elevator and board the elevator and to alight from the elevator on the floor on which robot is to provide a service, see at least [0099])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter and the figure taught by Chang by adding the control of robot along with the control of elevators taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “safety and efficiency for elevator use may be promoted in such a manner that an elevator control system may maintain control over opening and closing a door of an elevator when a robot boards or alights from the elevator” (see [0027]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Carter, Chang, and Kim teaches the elements above but Carter does not disclose:
the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the virtual mobile body has arrived at a shunting position node upon detection of a completed opening operation of the door.
However, Kim teaches:
the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the virtual mobile body has arrived at a shunting position node upon detection of a completed opening operation of the door (elevator control system has control over moving elevator to floor on which robot is on and opening the door and secure boarding space for robot, see at least [0092])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter and the figure taught by Chang by adding the control of robot along with the control of elevators taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “safety and efficiency for elevator use may be promoted in such a manner that an elevator control system may maintain control over opening and closing a door of an elevator when a robot boards or alights from the elevator” (see [0027]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Carter, Chang, and Kim teaches the elements above but Carter does not disclose:
the processing circuitry is configured to set an entry restriction for the area such that a total number of controlled mobile bodies and virtual mobile bodies allowed to simultaneously exist in the area is one.
However, Kim teaches:
the processing circuitry is configured to set an entry restriction for the area such that a total number of controlled mobile bodies and virtual mobile bodies allowed to simultaneously exist in the area is one (elevator control system assigns one elevator as a dedicated elevator for boarding of the robot, see at least [0106])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter and the figure taught by Chang by adding the control of robot along with the control of elevators taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “safety and efficiency for elevator use may be promoted in such a manner that an elevator control system may maintain control over opening and closing a door of an elevator when a robot boards or alights from the elevator” (see [0027]).
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter in view of Chang and Kim as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Harris (“How Elevators Work,” see reference U on PTO-892) and Grant et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0147385 A1; hereinafter Grant).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Carter, Chang, and Kim teaches the elements above and Carter further discloses:
set, as one area, a plurality of doors (segment may be an elevator) *Examiner sets forth elevator shaft contains a plurality of doors
Carter does not disclose:
a plurality of doors whose opening and closing depend on each other so that only one of the plurality of doors is in an open state at a time, and plan paths of a plurality of virtual mobile bodies corresponding to the plurality of doors such that the plurality of virtual mobile bodies does not conflict in the same area.
However, Harris teaches:
a plurality of doors (each floor has outer doors, see at least page 9 paragraph 7) whose opening and closing depend on each other so that only one of the plurality of doors is in an open state at a time (elevator outer doors only open at the floor that the elevator car is on, see, page 9, paragraph 7) and
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter, the figure taught by Chang, and the control of robot along with the control of elevators taught by Kim by adding the elevator door setup taught by Harris with a reasonable expectation of success. It is well known that elevators open only on the floor the elevator car is on for safety reasons and to “keep[s] the outer doors from opening up into an empty elevator shaft” (see page 9 paragraph 7).
Furthermore, Grant teaches:
plan paths of a plurality of virtual mobile bodies corresponding to the plurality of doors such that the plurality of virtual mobile bodies does not conflict in the same area (estimate times at which each actor, such as a first robot and second robot, is to access the particular resource and duration of access, see at least [0073]; intersection resource includes elevators that actors may use to complete a task, see at least [0044])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter, the figure taught by Chang, the control of robot along with the control of elevators taught by Kim, and the elevator door setup taught by Harris by adding the resource access determination taught by Grant with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “ensure that the paths created by navigation subsystem 303 do not create bottlenecks, productivity stoppages, obstacles, and/or delay actor operation” (see [0078]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Carter, Chang, Kim, Harris, and Grant teaches the elements above but Carter does not disclose:
the plurality of doors includes a pair of doors constituting a double door
However, Harris teaches:
the plurality of doors includes a pair of doors constituting a double door (elevators use two sets of doors, see at least page 9, paragraph 4)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter, the figure taught by Chang, and the control of robot along with the control of elevators taught by Kim by adding the elevator door setup taught by Harris with a reasonable expectation of success. It is well known that elevators have two doors and that “They are there to keep people from falling down an open shaft” (see page 9, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Carter, Chang, Kim, Harris, and Grant teaches the elements above but Carter does not explicitly disclose:
the plurality of doors includes doors of an elevator installed on different floors
However, Harris teaches:
the plurality of doors includes doors of an elevator installed on different floors. (each floor has outer doors, see at least page 9 paragraph 7)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter, the figure taught by Chang, and the control of robot along with the control of elevators taught by Kim by adding the elevator doors taught by Harris with a reasonable expectation of success. It is well known that elevator doors are present on each floor for safety reasons such as to “keep[s] the outer doors from opening up into an empty elevator shaft” (see page 9 paragraph 7) to prevent people from falling into the elevator shaft (see page 9 paragraph 3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter in view of Chang, Kim, Harris, and Grant as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0207974 A1; hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Carter, Chang, Kim, Harris, and Grant teaches the elements above but Carter does not disclose:
the processing circuitry is configured to calculate a cost of a path plan of one or more controlled mobile bodies to be optimized on a basis of a number of steps until each controlled mobile body reaches a corresponding goal and time taken to open or close each door existing in the graph
However, Grant teaches:
the processing circuitry is configured to calculate a cost of a path plan of one or more controlled mobile bodies to be optimized on a basis of a number of steps until each controlled mobile body reaches a corresponding goal time (generate multiple paths in parallel while accounting for state changes, see at least [0027]; determine paths and resources that actors may access to perform assigned tasks without conflicting with one another, see at least [0041]; provide an ordering that minimizes or eliminates conflict between different paths involving different actors accessing the same resource by updating paths and changing expected time at which an actor may access a particular resource, see at least [0065]; estimates for times at which each actor is to access a resource can be tracked such as determining second robot is 8 feet from particular resource, see at least [0073])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter, the figure taught by Chang, and the control of robot along with the control of elevators taught by Kim, the elevator door setup taught by Harris by adding the resource access time taught by Grant with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “ensure that the paths created by navigation subsystem 303 do not create bottlenecks, productivity stoppages, obstacles, and/or delay actor operation” (see [0078]).
Furthermore, Zhou teaches:
the processing circuitry is configured to calculate a cost of a path plan of one or more controlled mobile bodies to be optimized on a basis of a number of steps until each controlled mobile body reaches a corresponding goal time taken to open or close each door existing in the graph (edges stand for elevators, each which has a cost in the form of physical distance or moving time, Dukstra’s algorithm can be used to compute the shortest path, see at least [0090])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter, the figure taught by Chang, and the control of robot along with the control of elevators taught by Kim, the elevator door setup taught by Harris, and the resource access time taught by Grant by adding the computed shortest path taught by Zhou with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for using a known algorithm for a shortest path (see [0090]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter in view of Chang, Kim, Harris, and Grant as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Liao et al. (CN112819368A; see reference N on PTO-892; hereinafter Liao).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Carter, Chang, Kim, Harris, and Grant teaches the elements above but Carter does not disclose:
the processing circuitry is configured to calculate a cost of a path plan of one or more controlled mobile bodies to be optimized on a basis of a number of steps until each controlled mobile body reaches a corresponding goal, time taken to open or close each door existing in the graph, and time taken for a car of the elevator to reach a position of a door that is to be in an open state
However, Grant teaches:
the processing circuitry is configured to calculate a cost of a path plan of one or more controlled mobile bodies to be optimized on a basis of a number of steps until each controlled mobile body reaches a corresponding goal (generate multiple paths in parallel while accounting for state changes, see at least [0027]; determine paths and resources that actors may access to perform assigned tasks without conflicting with one another, see at least [0041]; provide an ordering that minimizes or eliminates conflict between different paths involving different actors accessing the same resource by updating paths and changing expected time at which an actor may access a particular resource, see at least [0065]; estimates for times at which each actor is to access a resource can be tracked such as determining second robot is 8 feet from particular resource, see at least [0073])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter, the figure taught by Chang, and the control of robot along with the control of elevators taught by Kim, and the elevator door setup taught by Harris by adding the resource access time taught by Grant with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “ensure that the paths created by navigation subsystem 303 do not create bottlenecks, productivity stoppages, obstacles, and/or delay actor operation” (see [0078]).
Furthermore, Liao teaches:
the processing circuitry is configured to calculate a cost of a path plan of one or more controlled mobile bodies to be optimized (optimizing using cost to determine which elevator to use, see at least [0012]-[0014]) on a basis of a number of steps until each controlled mobile body reaches a corresponding goal (time required for robot to reach the elevator entrance, see at least [0014]), time taken to open or close each door existing in the graph (T4 is amount of time robot to wait for elevator to open the door and enter the elevator, see at least [0014]), and time taken for a car of the elevator to reach a position of a door that is to be in an open state (T1 is time required for the elevator to reach the current floor of the robot, see at least [0014])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter, the figure taught by Chang, and the control of robot along with the control of elevators taught by Kim, the elevator door setup taught by Harris, and the resource access time taught by Grant by adding the cost to determine optimal elevator using time taught by Liao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for multiple robots to select elevators, so that multiple robots can arbitrarily walk through the same building, so as to maximize the utilization of various equipment elevators” (see [0007]).
Claims 8-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter in view of Chang and Kim as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Millhouse et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0050784 A1; hereinafter Millhouse).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Carter, Chang, and Kim teaches the elements above but Carter does not disclose:
the processing circuitry is configured to incorporate the virtual mobile body and the shunting line into the graph on a basis of information regarding the door input through the UI
However, Kim teaches:
information regarding the door input through the UI (indicator indicates a robot-only elevator may be displayed on user interface and provide information about whether elevator is ascending or descending and a door close button of the elevator, see at least [0023])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter and the figure taught by Chang by adding the user interface for elevators taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “safety and efficiency for elevator use may be promoted in such a manner that an elevator control system may maintain control over opening and closing a door of an elevator when a robot boards or alights from the elevator” (see [0027]).
Furthermore, Millhouse teaches:
the processing circuitry is configured to incorporate the virtual mobile body and the shunting line into the graph on a basis of information regarding the door (current position of user and status of resource such as open or closed door can be marked on map, see at least [0048])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter, the figure taught by Chang, and the user interface for elevators taught by Kim by adding the status marker taught by Millhouse with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to provide users with integrated views and access to a variety of supply chain system components” (see [0006]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Carter, Chang, and Kim teaches the elements above but does not teach:
replace a current position of the virtual mobile body on the shunting line with a figure indicating an open state or a closed state of the door, and display the figure on the graph.
However, Millhouse teaches:
replace a current position of the virtual mobile body on the shunting line with a figure indicating an open state or a closed state of the door, and display the figure on the graph (current position of user and status of resource such as open or closed door can be marked on map, see at least [0048])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter, the figure taught by Chang, and the user interface for elevators taught by Kim by adding the status marker taught by Millhouse with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to provide users with integrated views and access to a variety of supply chain system components” (see [0006]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Carter, Chang, and Kim teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the processing circuitry is configured to determine a current position of the virtual mobile body on the shunting line based on a detected real-time open or closed state of the door.
However, Millhouse teaches:
the processing circuitry is configured to determine a current position of the virtual mobile body on the shunting line based on a detected real-time open or closed state of the door (current position of user and status of resource such as open or closed door can be marked on map, see at least [0048])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter, the figure taught by Chang, and the user interface for elevators taught by Kim by adding the status marker taught by Millhouse with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to provide users with integrated views and access to a variety of supply chain system components” (see [0006]).
Claims 12-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter in view of Chang and Kim as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Friedli (U.S. Patent No. 4,991,694).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Carter, Chang, and Kim teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the processing circuitry is configured to set a movement cost for the virtual mobile body along the shunting line based on a period of time required for the door to complete an opening or closing state change.
However, Friedli teaches:
the processing circuitry is configured to set a movement cost for the virtual mobile body along the shunting line based on a period of time required for the door to complete an opening or closing state change (computing operating costs includes door opening and closing times , see at least abstract)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter, the figure taught by Chang, and the control of robot along with the control of elevators taught by Kim by adding the cost of door open and closing times taught by Friedli with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize elevator call times (see col. 3 lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Carter, Chang, Kim, and Friedli teaches the elements above but Carter, Chang, and Kim do not teach:
the processing circuitry is configured to set a different movement cost for an opening direction of the door than for a closing direction of the door.
However, Friedli teaches:
the processing circuitry is configured to set a different movement cost for an opening direction of the door than for a closing direction of the door (door opening time, see col. 7 line 20 and door closing time, see col. 7 line 53, are taken into consideration for computation of operating cost, see at least col. 3 lines 6-21) *Examiner sets forth that if the door opening time and door closing time are different, the cost using only one of each would result in different costs
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter, the figure taught by Chang, and the control of robot along with the control of elevators taught by Kim by adding the cost of door open and closing times taught by Friedli with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize elevator call times (see col. 3 lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Carter, Chang, and Kim teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the processing circuitry is configured to set a movement cost for the virtual mobile body in an opening direction based on an average time taken for the elevator car to move to a floor and a time taken for the door to open.
However, Friedli teaches:
the processing circuitry is configured to set a movement cost for the virtual mobile body in an opening direction based on an average time taken for the elevator car to move to a floor and a time taken for the door to open (computer utilizes traveling time table in which traveling times between each floor and door opening are used to determine operating costs, see at least col. 3 lines 6-21)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter, the figure taught by Chang, and the control of robot along with the control of elevators taught by Kim by adding the cost of door open and closing times taught by Friedli with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize elevator call times (see col. 3 lines 3-4).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter in view of Chang and Kim as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Grant.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Carter, Chang, and Kim teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the processing circuitry is configured to generate the graph as a time-series topological map by duplicating a unit graph for a plurality of time steps.
However, Grant teaches:
the processing circuitry is configured to generate the graph as a time-series topological map by duplicating a unit graph for a plurality of time steps (multiple plans in parallel, see at least [0027] and Fig. 2 with graph with time steps)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter, the figure taught by Chang, and the control of robot along with the control of elevators taught by Kim by adding the time series graph taught by Grant with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “ensure that the paths created by navigation subsystem 303 do not create bottlenecks, productivity stoppages, obstacles, and/or delay actor operation” (see [0078]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter in view of Chang and Kim as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Palmieri et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0342715 A1; hereinafter Palmieri).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Carter, Chang, and Kim teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the processing circuitry is configured to use a conflict-based search (CBS) algorithm to resolve conflicts between the planned path of the controlled mobile body and the planned path of the virtual mobile body
However, Palmieri teaches:
the processing circuitry is configured to use a conflict-based search (CBS) algorithm to resolve conflicts between the planned path of the controlled mobile body and the planned path of the virtual mobile body (conflict-based search to find paths for multiple agents to avoid conflict, see at least [0015] and [0054])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter, the figure taught by Chang, and the control of robot along with the control of elevators taught by Kim by adding the conflict-based search taught by Palmieri with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “avoid[s] conflicts and minimize overall agent movement costs” (see [0054]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Carter, Chang, Kim, and Palmieri teaches the elements above but Carter does not disclose:
the processing circuitry is configured to resolve the conflict by adding a constraint to a binary constraint tree such that one of the controlled mobile body or the virtual mobile body waits for a specified time step.
However, Palmieri teaches:
the processing circuitry is configured to resolve the conflict by adding a constraint to a binary constraint tree such that one of the controlled mobile body or the virtual mobile body waits for a specified time step (resolve conflicts in constraint tree by adding new constraints, see at least [0015] and [0017]; constraints include constraints on time, see at least [0015])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route creation using nodes in a graph as disclosed by Carter, the figure taught by Chang, and the control of robot along with the control of elevators taught by Kim by adding the constraint tree taught by Palmieri with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “avoid[s] conflicts and minimize overall agent movement costs” (see [0054]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM 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, 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662