DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-35 are currently pending, with claims 7-9, 14-16, and 19-34 withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-6, 10-13, 17-18, and 35 addressed on the merits below.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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-9, 14-16, and 19-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected sub-collection device, environmental device, floating unit, and spatial system, and there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 07/18/2024, 10/19/2024, and 12/12/2025 have been received and considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 02/06/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to in lined through documents has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the predetermined location" in “moves to the predetermined location”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
“an acquisition device” (claim 1)
“a control device” (claims 1, 10, 18)
“a detection device” (claims 1, 11)
“a drive device” (claim 18)
“a transmission device” (claim 18)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification ([0177]: “The control devices described with reference to the examples of the present invention can be directly embodied as hardware modules, software modules executed by processors, or combinations of hardware and software modules.”) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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 1-6, 11, 13, 17, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Regarding claims 1 and 35, these claims recite, when considered individually or as a whole, a device and method for acquiring environmental data. Therefore, claims 1 and 35 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A collection device comprising:
an acquisition device configured to acquire information inside a space of a target region;
a control device configured to set a detection path for a collection device based on an unreachable region within the space of the target region; and
a detection device configured to acquire environmental data including environmental data of the unreachable region detected when the collection device moves along the detection path in the space of the target region.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and/or “by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, “set a detection path for a collection device based on an unreachable region within the space of the target region” includes a human mentally determining or using pen and paper on a map to draw a route for a robot that avoids obstacles in a working area. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A collection device comprising:
an acquisition device configured to acquire information inside a space of a target region;
a control device configured to set a detection path for a collection device based on an unreachable region within the space of the target region; and
a detection device configured to acquire environmental data including environmental data of the unreachable region detected when the collection device moves along the detection path in the space of the target region.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “acquire information inside a space of a target region” and “acquire environmental data including environmental data of the unreachable region detected when the collection device moves along the detection path in the space of the target region,” these limitations recite mere data gathering and data transmission that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The independent claims also recite the additional elements of an acquisition device, a control device, and a detection device which are generic computing components merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does 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 the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity and generic computing components.
Therefore, the additional limitations are not a “practical application.” Additionally, it is not “something more” because the limitations include a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d), Nomoto et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0101154 A1 and Tani et al., JP 2012083294 A.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
101 Analysis – Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 2-5, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims recite data calculations that can be performed by a human mentally or by using pen and paper. These claims additionally recite mere data gathering and data transmission that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Nomoto et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0101154 A1, Tani et al., JP 2012083294 A, Fernandez Guzman et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0103547 A1, and Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al., U.S. Patent No. 11561102 B1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 6 and 11, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims recite mere data gathering that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Nomoto et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0101154 A1 and Tani et al., JP 2012083294 A.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, this claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. This claim further defines the abstract idea by specifying the type of path that is set. The specific type of path can be set by a human either mentally or by using pen and paper.
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Nomoto et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0101154 A1 and Tani et al., JP 2012083294 A.
Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, this claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. This claim recites generating a data distribution state map using acquired data. Accordingly, this claim recites data processing and data display that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Nomoto et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0101154 A1 and Tani et al., JP 2012083294 A.
Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 11, 13, 17-18, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomoto et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0101154 A1 (hereinafter Nomoto), in view of Tani et al., foreign patent document JP 2012083294 A (hereinafter Tani), in which a translation has been provided in the IDS dated 07/18/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Nomoto discloses a collection device (Nomoto Fig. 1) comprising:
an acquisition device configured to acquire information inside a space of a target region (see at least Nomoto [0056]-[0060]: “Once the operation is started, a list of areas to which the HGW 600 is moved is acquired (step SB1)… For example, when the HGW 600 moved in order to measure the temperature of the room, the HGW 600 acquires temperature information from a temperature sensor of the room. Alternatively, when the HGW 600 moved in order to image a flower arranged in the room, the HGW 600 images the flower by using the camera 611. Furthermore, when the HGW 600 moved in order to monitor the open/closed state of a window of the room, the HGW 600 acquires opening/closing information from a window sensor of the room or images the window by using the camera.”);
a control device configured to set a detection path for a collection device based on an unreachable region within the space of the target region (see at least Nomoto [0062]: “In step SB3 described above, when it is determined that the HGW 600 cannot reach the unreached area, such an area is excluded from an operation (monitor) target area (step SB21), and the process returns to step SB2.”; [0115]: “The mobile HGW 600 captures an image of a movement path by the camera while moving, and when there is an obstacle, the mobile HGW 600 can avoid the obstacle and keep on moving.”);
Nomoto fails to expressly disclose a detection device configured to acquire environmental data including environmental data of the unreachable region detected when the collection device moves along the detection path in the space of the target region. However, Tani teaches
and a detection device configured to acquire environmental data including environmental data of the unreachable region detected when the collection device moves along the detection path in the space of the target region (see at least Tani [0085]: “Therefore, even at points where measurements have not been taken, the CO.sub.2 concentration can be calculated by interpolation from nearby measurement points and displayed.”; [0071]: “FIG. 6 shows an example of a display of the CO.sub.2 concentration measurement result by the data viewing PC 400, and FIG. 7 shows the processing flow…Furthermore, when the CO.sub.2 environment measuring instrument 100 is moved, a straight line is drawn along the movement path.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device disclosed by Nomoto with the data calculation taught by Tani with reasonable expectation of success. Tani is directed towards the related field of a CO2 environmental measuring device. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Nomoto with Tani to accurately and effectively measure an environment (see at least Tani [0019]: “The object of the present invention is to provide a CO.sub.2 environment measurement system that can accurately measure the CO.sub.2 environment while achieving a compact and low-cost system, and can be easily and effectively used in environmental science research and development, such as determining the environmental state and estimating environmental changes based on the measurement data.”).
Regarding claim 2, Nomoto in view of Tani teach all elements of the collection device according to claim 1 as explained above. Tani further teaches
wherein acquiring the environmental data includes calculating environmental data inside the unreachable region based on environmental data of a region in a surrounding area of the unreachable region (see at least Tani [0085]: “Therefore, even at points where measurements have not been taken, the CO.sub.2 concentration can be calculated by interpolation from nearby measurement points and displayed.”).
Regarding claim 6, Nomoto in view of Tani teach all elements of the collection device according to claim 1 as explained above. Nomoto further teaches wherein acquiring information inside the space of the target region includes
acquiring information inside the space of the target region by recognizing or scanning a layout within the space of the target region using a camera or acquiring information inside the space of the target region from Building Information Modeling (see at least Nomoto [0048]: “Here, the mapping module 619 capable of storing the places of movement and creating a map will be further described. The mapping module 619 can utilize an image from the camera 611 that is mounted, for example. As the mapping function of the mapping module 619, a simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) function, which is the function of simultaneously estimating the self-position and creating the environmental map, is provided.”; Nomoto teaches at least recognizing or scanning a layout within the space of the target region using a camera).
Regarding claim 11, Nomoto in view of Tani teach all elements of the collection device according to claim 1 as explained above. Nomoto further teaches
wherein detection performed by the detection device includes at least one of performing detection at a predetermined location, performing detection at a predetermined time, and performing detection at a predetermined distance (see at least Nomoto [0054]: “The HGW 600 starts the operation based on, for example, an operation setting based on a timer set by the user, the user's direct operation, or some kind of detection information from the other sensors.”; Nomoto teaches at least performing detection at a predetermined time).
Regarding claim 13, Nomoto in view of Tani teach all elements of the collection device according to claim 1 as explained above. Nomoto further teaches
wherein the set detection path includes one of a Z-shaped detection path, a character-shaped detection path, a circular detection path, and a region-specific detection path (see at least Nomoto [0048]: “In contrast to a conventional movable body which merely runs randomly on a floor, this SLAM function creates a map of a target area, and operates while constructing an operation (movement) path in accordance with the created map.”; Nomoto teaches at least a region-specific detection path).
Regarding claim 17, Nomoto in view of Tani teach all elements of the collection device according to claim 1 as explained above. Tani further teaches
wherein the acquired environmental data is used to generate an environmental data distribution state map (see at least Tani [0094]-[0095]: “For example, as shown in FIG. 12, the CO.sub.2 concentration measured at multiple locations are displayed in a gradation on a map. In the example display in the figure, map G1 shows a shrine forest, a shopping district, and roads, and map G2 shows the morning CO.sub.2 concentration around the road increases due to the morning rush hour, but the CO.sub.2 concentration in the forest remains low, which is shown by different colors (red for high concentration, blue for low concentration). Furthermore, in daytime Figure G3, the traffic volume on the road decreases, causing a slight decrease in CO.sub.2 concentration, while people are out in the shopping district, causing an increase in CO.sub.2 concentration, and the CO.sub.2 concentration in the forest also increases slightly. Furthermore, in Figure G4 at night, there is almost no traffic on the roads, so the CO.sub.2 concentration drops, and the CO.sub.2 concentration in the shopping district and forest also drops…In this way, by moving the gradation over time, the change in CO.sub.2 concentration is dynamically displayed.”).
Regarding claim 18, Nomoto in view of Tani teach all elements of the collection device according to claim 1 as explained above. Nomoto further teaches
a drive device configured to drive in order to operate the collection device (see at least Nomoto [0040]: “Further, the HGW 600 comprises an actuator 618a which drives and controls the aforementioned movable device 618.”);
the control device being configured to control the drive device to move the collection device along a preset detection path or an updated detection path (see at least Nomoto [0115]: “The mobile HGW 600 captures an image of a movement path by the camera while moving, and when there is an obstacle, the mobile HGW 600 can avoid the obstacle and keep on moving.”).
Tani further teaches
and a transmission device configured to transmit a data signal to a database (see at least Tani [0037]: “Furthermore, the output data from each CO.sub.2 concentration measuring device 100 stored in the data collection PC 200 is transmitted to the server 300 via the Internet and accumulated in the database of the server 300.”)
Regarding claim 35, this claim recites a method performed by the collection device of claim 1. The combination of Nomoto in view of Tani also teaches a method performed by the collection device of claim 1, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 35 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomoto in view of Tani, and further in view of Fernandez Guzman et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0103547 A1 (hereinafter Fernandez Guzman).
Regarding claim 3, Nomoto in view of Tani teach all elements of the collection device according to claim 2 as explained above. Nomoto in view of Tani fail to expressly disclose calculating environmental data inside the unreachable region based on pieces of environmental data of regions in the surrounding area of the unreachable region detected along different detection paths. However, Fernandez Guzman teaches
wherein the environmental data inside the unreachable region is calculated based on pieces of environmental data of regions in the surrounding area of the unreachable region detected along different detection paths (see at least Fernandez Guzman [0068]: “If data between one of the field robots 1 to 5 being outside of the reach R.sub.20 of the logistic unit 20 and the logistic unit 20 being outside of the reach R.sub.1 to R.sub.5 of the corresponding robot 1 to 5 shall be exchanged through the short range communication devices 11 and 21, the corresponding robot 1 to 5 would need to approximate to the logistic unit 20 until the robot 1 to 5 and the logistic unit 20 are mutually covered by their reaches R.sub.1 to R.sub.5 and R.sub.20.”; [0058]: “Field robot 1 is allocated to subfield 7.1, field robot 2 is allocated to subfield 7.2, and so on, whereas each field robot 1 to 5 has its own path 9.1 to 9.5 to traverse and to treat its correlated subfield 7.1 to 7.5.”; Fernandez Guzman [0059] teaches environmental data because the data includes conditions of the plants or soil of the agricultural field).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device disclosed by Nomoto in view of Tani with the calculating data based on data detected along different detection paths taught by Fernandez Guzman with reasonable expectation of success. Fernandez Guzman is directed towards the related field of data exchange between a plurality of robotic units. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Nomoto in view of Tani with Fernandez Guzman to obtain data without requiring a mobile object to return to obtain the desired data (see at least Fernandez Guzman [0008]: “it is an objective of the present disclosure to provide a robotic system for transferring data, especially a fast transfer of a great amount of data, between a mobile robot and another robotic unit without the need of the mobile robot to return to the robotic unit for the transfer of data and to provide a method to get at least three robotic units connected to build up a communication chain.”).
Regarding claim 4, Nomoto in view of Tani and Fernandez Guzman teach all elements of the collection device according to claim 3 as explained above. Tani further teaches wherein calculating environmental data inside the unreachable region based on the pieces of environmental data of the regions in the surrounding area of the unreachable region detected along different detection paths includes
identifying, for each of the detection paths, a relationship between a location in the surrounding area of the unreachable region and a piece of environmental data (see at least Tani [0094]: “For example, as shown in FIG. 12, the CO.sub.2 concentration measured at multiple locations are displayed in a gradation on a map…Concentrations at locations where measurements were not taken will be calculated from nearby measurement points.”),
and calculating environmental data inside the unreachable region based on the identified relationships between the locations and the pieces of environmental data (see at least Tani [0081]-[0082]: “(S12) From the acquired position information, several nearby measurement points are extracted …(S13) An interpolated value at the same time is calculated from the extracted neighboring measurement points by intra-element interpolation. For example, calculation of an interpolated value when there are three adjacent measurement points will be described”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomoto in view of Tani and Fernandez Guzman, and further in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al., U.S. Patent No. 11561102 B1 (hereinafter Ebrahimi Afrouzi).
Regarding claim 5, Nomoto in view of Tani and Fernandez Guzman teach all elements of the collection device according to claim 4 as explained above. Nomoto in view of Tani and Fernandez Guzman fail to expressly disclose determining the environmental data of the unreachable region using an average value of a plurality of environmental data with a lowest mean squared error. However, Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches
wherein an average value of a plurality of pieces of environmental data or an average value of a pair of pieces of environmental data out of the plurality of pieces of environmental data with a lowest mean squared error is treated as the environmental data of the unreachable region (This limitation is taught through the combination of Tani and Ebrahimi Afrouzi. Tani discloses determining the environmental data of the unreachable region using a plurality of environmental data (see at least Tani [0085]). Tani fails to expressly disclose the average value of data with a lowest mean squared error. However, Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches determining an average value of a plurality of environmental data using minimum mean squared error (see at least Ebrahimi Afrouzi Col. 12, lines 39-44: “For example, the processor of the robotic device may average overlapping readings (or may determine some other measure of central tendency like a median or mode value) or use the minimum sum of error or minimum mean squared error to adjust overlapping readings.”; Ebrahimi Afrouzi Col. 18, lines 45-54 teaches the data is environmental data). Therefore, the combination of Tani and Ebrahimi Afrouzi teach the entirety of this limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device disclosed by Nomoto in view of Tani and Fernandez Guzman with Ebrahimi Afrouzi with reasonable expectation of success. Ebrahimi Afrouzi is directed towards the related field of processing data related to boundaries of an enclosure where a robot moves. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Nomoto in view of Tani and Fernandez Guzman with Ebrahimi Afrouzi to reduce manual input or external control needed for the robot to perform operations (see at least Ebrahimi Afrouzi Col. 1, lines 53-59: “To operate autonomously or to operate with minimal (or less than fully manual) input and/or external control within a working environment, mapping methods are implemented within robotic devices such that the robotic device may autonomously create a map of the working environment and subsequently (or concurrently) use it for navigation.”).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomoto in view of Tani, and further in view of Hayashida et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0272645 A1 (hereinafter Hayashida).
Regarding claim 10, Nomoto in view of Tani teach all elements of the collection device according to claim 1 as explained above. Nomoto in view of Tani fail to expressly disclose recording a location of the collection device as a predetermined location in a case in which the collection device deviates from the set detection path. However, Hayashida teaches wherein the control device is further configured to control the collection device to
record a location of the collection device as a predetermined location in a case in which the collection device deviates from the set detection path (see at least Hayashida [0061]: “A large deviation from a position when the set route is traveled along may be caused by, for example, an obstacle on the route, or the route being not flat but including slope or unevenness and making it impossible to travel straight.”; [0034]: “The storage unit 12 stores various information as defined by the above description.”),
move to a next operating location on the set detection path and perform detection while moving along the set detection path (see at least Hayashida [0067]-[0068]: “Subsequently, the lawn mowing robot 1 travels along the work route set in step S21 by the travel controller 115 (step S32)…Next, the lawn mowing robot 1 repeatedly perform, by the object detection unit 112, object detection to determine whether or not the lawn mowing robot 1 is close to an obstacle (step S35).”),
and perform detection while moving to the predetermined location after completing its movement along the set detection path (see at least Hayashida [0069]-[0070]: “The lawn mowing robot 1 then determines whether or not the lawn mowing robot 1 reaches an end point of the work route set in the current partial area (step S37)…When the lawn mowing robot 1 determines in step S37 that lawn mowing robot 1 reaches the end point of the work route (YES), the lawn mowing robot 1 then determines whether or not the switch condition as a condition for switching the setting method for the current partial area is satisfied (step S41). The switch condition is represented by whether or not the work quality when the route set by the first route setting method is used satisfies the predetermined standard.”; [0061]-[0062]: “Conversely, when the above-mentioned difference is equal to or greater than the threshold value, the determination unit 114 determines that the work quality does not satisfy the predetermined standard. A large deviation from a position when the set route is traveled along may be caused by, for example, an obstacle on the route, or the route being not flat but including slope or unevenness and making it impossible to travel straight…When the setting unit 113 receives the notification from the determination unit 114, that is, when the work quality of a case where the route set by the first route setting method is used does not satisfy the predetermined standard, a route is set by the second route setting method.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device disclosed by Nomoto in view of Tani with Hayashida with reasonable expectation of success. Hayashida is directed towards the related field of an information processing system for a work machine that travels along a path. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Nomoto in view of Tani with Hayashida to improve likelihood that a set route has high work quality (see at least Hayashida [0005]: “In view of the above circumstances, the present invention provides an information processing system, etc. capable of improving a likelihood that a route with high work quality is set in a work area.”).
Regarding claim 12, Nomoto in view of Tani teach all elements of the collection device according to claim 1 as explained above. Nomoto in view of Tani fail to expressly disclose moving the collection device to a predetermined location to perform its detection when switching the detection path. However, Hayashida teaches
wherein when switching the detection path, the collection device immediately moves to a predetermined location and performs its detection, or moves to the predetermined location at a predetermined time and performs its detection (see at least Hayashida [0046]: “Here, the setting may be such that when it is determined that the work using the second route setting method is completed, the setting method is switched to the first route setting method.”; [0125]: “The information processing system, configured to further execute a detection step of detecting an object in the work area, wherein the second method is a method of resetting, based on the acquired boundary information and a position of the detected object, the route each time the work machine travels a predetermined distance.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device disclosed by Nomoto in view of Tani with Hayashida with reasonable expectation of success. Hayashida is directed towards the related field of an information processing system for a work machine that travels along a path. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Nomoto in view of Tani with Hayashida to improve likelihood that a set route has high work quality (see at least Hayashida [0005]: “In view of the above circumstances, the present invention provides an information processing system, etc. capable of improving a likelihood that a route with high work quality is set in a work area.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al., U.S. Patent No. 12042926 B2, directed towards determining a route for a cleaning robot based on an obstacle location.
Bier et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0054574 A1, directed towards building environmental sensor data collection.
Chen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0274310 A1, directed towards path planning to generate collection point information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662