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 . This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-15 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 8, and 13 are independent claims.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority of Korean application KR10-2019-0033317 filed 03/25/2019. The instant application is a continuation of application 17/442,562 filed 09/23/2021.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 is a method claim. Claim 8 is a method claim. Claim 13 is a system claim. Therefore, claims 1-15 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“storing first information on a plurality of cells constituting the area and second information on first feature of each of the plurality of cells”
“estimating a first pose of the robot based on driving information of the robot, the first pose comprising a position of the robot”
“determining third information detected
“selecting cells corresponding to a region detected
“determining a second pose of the robot by modifying the first pose based on a result of comparing the second information of the cell corresponding to the region and the third information”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper [see, e.g., Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474].
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
third information detected “by a sensor of the robot”
a region detected “by the sensor”
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
third information detected “by a sensor of the robot”
a region detected “by the sensor”
Regarding claim 2,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“dividing the area into the plurality of cells”
“determining the first information of each of the plurality of cells, the first information including identification information of each of the plurality of cells”
“mapping the first and the second information of the plurality of cells”
“storing the first information and the second information
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
storing the first information and the second information in “a memory of the robot”
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
storing the first information and the second information in “a memory of the robot”
Regarding claim 3,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“updating and storing the second information when
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
“the robot” detects that the first feature is changed
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“the robot” detects that the first feature is changed
Regarding claim 4,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“wherein the second information includes information representing a shape of an object located in the area in a geometric form” (this limitation further details the abstract ideas from the parent claims)
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“wherein the second information includes any one of information on obstacles in the area, a moving point registered in advance, or identification for location recognition” (this limitation further details the abstract ideas from the parent claims)
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“wherein the estimating includes estimating the first pose of the robot based on the pose immediately before the robot moves and the travelling distance determined
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
the travelling distance determined by “the sensor of the robot”
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
the travelling distance determined by “the sensor of the robot”
Regarding claim 7,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“wherein the selecting includes selecting the cells corresponding to the region detected by the sensor in the plurality of cells based on the first pose of the robot”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper [see, e.g., Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474].
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
the region detected by “the sensor”
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
the region detected by “the sensor”
Regarding claim 8,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“storing first information on a plurality of cells constituting the area and second information on first feature of each of the plurality of cells”
“determining third information detected
“selecting cells corresponding to a region detected by the sensor in the plurality of cells based on the current position of the robot”
“determining the pose of the robot based on a result of comparing the second information of the cell corresponding to the region and the third information”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper [see, e.g., Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474].
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
third information detected “by a sensor of the robot”
a region detected “by the sensor”
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
third information detected “by a sensor of the robot”
a region detected “by the sensor”
Regarding claim 9,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“dividing the area into the plurality of cells”
“determining the first information of each of the plurality of cells, the first information including identification information of each of the plurality of cells”
“mapping the first and the second information of the plurality of cells”
“storing the first information and the second information
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
storing the first information and the second information in “a memory of the robot”
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
storing the first information and the second information in “a memory of the robot”
Regarding claim 10,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“updating and storing the second information when
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
“the robot” detects that the first feature is changed
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“the robot” detects that the first feature is changed
Regarding claim 11,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“wherein the second information includes information representing a shape of an object located in the area in a geometric form” (this limitation further details the abstract ideas from the parent claims)
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 12,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“wherein the second information includes any one of information on obstacles in the area, a moving point registered in advance, or identification for location recognition” (this limitation further details the abstract ideas from the parent claims)
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 13,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“
“store first information on a plurality of cells constituting the area and second information on first feature of each of the plurality of cells”
“determine third information detected
“select cells corresponding to a region detected
“determine the pose of the robot based on a result of comparing the second information of the cell corresponding to the region and the third information”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper [see, e.g., Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474].
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
“a memory”
“a sensor” configured to collect environmental data around the robot
“one or more processor programmed to”
third information detected “by a sensor of the robot”
a region detected “by the sensor”
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“a memory”
“a sensor” configured to collect environmental data around the robot
“one or more processor programmed to”
third information detected “by a sensor of the robot”
a region detected “by the sensor”
Regarding claim 14,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“estimate a second pose of the robot based on driving information of the robot, the second pose comprising a position of the robot”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper [see, e.g., Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474].
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 15,
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The following limitation(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. B.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
“determine the first pose of the robot by modifying the second pose based on a result of comparing the second information of the cell corresponding to the region and the third information”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitation(s) cover concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper [see, e.g., Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474].
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 6 and 13-15 is 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 6, the claim recites “the travelling distance” which does not have proper antecedent basis. Parent claim 1 recites “a distance”, not “a travelling distance”. It is indefinite whether “the travelling distance” refers to the same distance introduced in claim 1 or another distance. Moreover, claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear how “the travelling distance determined by the sensor of the robot” is linked with other elements in the claim. For example, it is unclear if this particular limitation is directly linked to “the estimating includes”, “based on”, or so on. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim as “wherein the estimating includes estimating the first pose of the robot based on (i) the pose immediately before the robot moves and (ii) the
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “the first pose” which does not have proper antecedent basis. It is unclear if this element refers to the “pose” recited in line 1. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “the first pose” as “a first pose”. Note that, comparing independent claim 13 to independent claim 1, it is unclear why Applicant has chosen to switch corresponding instances of the “first pose” and the “second pose” between these independent claims. Applicant is advised to provide an explanation of this switch in claim 13 and/or amend claim 13 and the relevant dependent claims if this switch was a drafting error.
Dependent claims 14 and 15 are also rejected due to inheriting the deficiencies of claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, similar to claim 13, the claim recites “the first pose” which does not have proper antecedent basis. It is unclear if this element refers to the “pose” recited in line 1. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “the first pose” in claim 13 as “a first pose”, thereby establishing proper antecedent basis for “the first pose” in claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2006/0149465 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a method for estimating a pose of a robot travelling in a prescribed area (FIG. 5 and [0059-0061], FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]), the method comprising:
storing first information on a plurality of cells constituting the area and second information on first feature of each of the plurality of cells (FIG. 5 and [0059]: first information on a plurality of cells and second information on first feature, including existence or absence of obstacles, of each of the plurality of cells is stored);
estimating a first pose of the robot based on driving information of the robot, the first pose comprising a position of the robot (S200-S210 of FIG. 5 and [0059-0060], FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: a first pose may be a position of the robot while driving, which is estimated as seen in FIGS. 7A-B. For example, a first pose of the robot is estimated as Cell(5,3) at a certain point of the robot’s movement based on driving information);
determining third information detected by a sensor of the robot at a current position of the robot, the third information comprising a second feature adjacent to the current position and a distance from the current position to the second feature (S238-S240 of FIG. 5 and [0061]: third information, is detected by a sensor of the robot at a current position. The third information comprises a second feature, or obstacle, adjacent to the current position and a distance from the current position to the second feature; FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: for example, the robot at position Cell(5,3) senses an obstacle adjacent to the current position, the obstacle part of the third information; [0081-0083]: the third information also includes a distance from the current position to the obstacle via obstacle sensor 210);
selecting cells corresponding to a region detected by the sensor in the plurality of cells based on the current position of the robot (FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: certain cells, like Cell(6,2), Cell(6,3), and Cell(6,4), corresponding to a region detected by the sensor, are selected based on the current position of the robot at Cell(5,3)); and
determining a second pose of the robot by modifying the first pose based on a result of comparing the second information of the cell corresponding to the region and the third information (S238-S240 of FIG. 5 and [0061], FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: based on comparing the second information, which did not indicate the new obstacle in the cells corresponding to the detected region, and the third information, indicating existence of the newly detected obstacle, a second pose of the robot is determined by modifying the first pose. The second pose may be a position in the replanned path, such as Cell(5,4)).
Regarding claim 2, Park further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the storing comprises:
dividing the area into the plurality of cells (S200 of FIG. 5 and [0059-0060]: the area is divided into a plurality of cells, such as a quadrilateral shape; For additional details regarding format of cells see FIG. 6 and [0062-0069]);
determining the first information of each of the plurality of cells, the first information including identification information of each of the plurality of cells (S200 of FIG. 5 and [0059-0060], FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: each cell’s first information is determined, including their identification. For example, each cell has a unique identifier representative of their coordinate position);
mapping the first and the second information of the plurality of cells (S200 of FIG. 5 and [0059-0060], FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: the first information and the second information of the plurality of cells are mapped); and
storing the first information and the second information in a memory of the robot (FIGS. 1A-C and [0009-0011] and FIGS. 13(a) and 13(b) and [0126] with respect to S200 of FIG. 5 and [0059-0060], FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: the first information and the second information are stored in a memory of the robot).
Regarding claim 3, Park further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the storing further comprises:
updating and storing the second information when the robot detects that the first feature is changed (S238-S240 of FIG. 5 and [0061], FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: based on comparing the second information, which did not indicate the newly detected obstacle in the cells corresponding to the detected region, and the third information, indicating existence of the new obstacle, second information may be updated to third information, which is stored as supported by FIGS. 1A-C and [0009-0011] and FIGS. 13(a) and 13(b) and [0126]. The first feature is changed as a new obstacle is detected).
Regarding claim 4, Park further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the second information includes information representing a shape of an object located in the area in a geometric form (S200 of FIG. 5 and [0059-0060]: known obstacle(s) in the area are stored as part of information regarding movement space, and the obstacles represent a shape as they pertain to their positions in the cells, which comprise geometric shapes, themselves; For additional details regarding format of cells see FIG. 6 and [0062-0069]).
Regarding claim 5, Park further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the second information includes any one of information on obstacles in the area (S200 of FIG. 5 and [0059-0060]: known obstacle(s) in the area are stored as part of information regarding movement space), a moving point registered in advance, or identification for location recognition.
Regarding claim 6, Park further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the estimating includes estimating the first pose of the robot based on the pose immediately before the robot moves and *the travelling distance determined by the sensor of the robot (*see 112(b) issue for interpretation; FIG. 5 and [0059-0060], FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: immediately before the robot moves, a minimum cost path is planned based on the start position of the robot, the minimum cost path including the estimated first pose of the robot. Estimating the first pose is also based on the distance determined by the sensor of the robot).
Regarding claim 7, Park further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the selecting includes selecting the cells corresponding to the region detected by the sensor in the plurality of cells based on the first pose of the robot (FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: certain cells, like Cell(6,2), Cell(6,3), and Cell(6,4), corresponding to the region detected by the sensor, are selected based on the first pose of the robot).
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches the method for estimating a pose of a robot travelling in a prescribed area (FIG. 5 and [0059-0061], FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]), the method comprising:
storing first information on a plurality of cells constituting the area and second information on first feature of each of the plurality of cells (FIG. 5 and [0059]: first information on a plurality of cells and second information on first feature, including existence or absence of obstacles, of each of the plurality of cells is stored),
determining third information detected by a sensor of the robot at a current position of the robot, the third information comprising a second feature adjacent to the current position and a distance from the current position to the second feature (S238-S240 of FIG. 5 and [0061]: third information, is detected by a sensor of the robot at a current position. The third information comprises a second feature, or obstacle, adjacent to the current position and a distance from the current position to the second feature; FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: for example, the robot at position Cell(5,3) senses an obstacle adjacent to the current position, the obstacle part of the third information; [0081-0083]: the third information also includes a distance from the current position to the obstacle via obstacle sensor 210);
selecting cells corresponding to a region detected by the sensor in the plurality of cells based on the current position of the robot (FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: certain cells, like Cell(6,2), Cell(6,3), and Cell(6,4), corresponding to a region detected by the sensor, are selected based on the current position of the robot at Cell(5,3)); and
determining the pose of the robot based on a result of comparing the second information of the cell corresponding to the region and the third information (S238-S240 of FIG. 5 and [0061], FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: based on comparing the second information, which did not indicate the new obstacle in the cells corresponding to the detected region, and the third information, indicating existence of the newly detected obstacle, the pose of the robot is determined. The pose may be a position in the replanned path, such as Cell(5,4)).
Regarding claim 9, Park further teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the storing comprises:
dividing the arca into the plurality of cells (S200 of FIG. 5 and [0059-0060]: the area is divided into a plurality of cells, such as a quadrilateral shape; For additional details regarding format of cells see FIG. 6 and [0062-0069]);
determining the first information of each of the plurality of cells, the first information including identification information of each of the plurality of cells (S200 of FIG. 5 and [0059-0060], FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: each cell’s first information is determined, including their identification. For example, each cell has a unique identifier representative of their coordinate position);
mapping the first and the second information of the plurality of cells (S200 of FIG. 5 and [0059-0060], FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: the first information and the second information of the plurality of cells are mapped); and
storing the first information and the second information in a memory of the robot (FIGS. 1A-C and [0009-0011] and FIGS. 13(a) and 13(b) and [0126] with respect to S200 of FIG. 5 and [0059-0060], FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: the first information and the second information are stored in a memory of the robot).
Regarding claim 10, Park further teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the storing further comprises:
updating and storing the second information when the robot detects that the first feature is changed (S238-S240 of FIG. 5 and [0061], FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: based on comparing the second information, which did not indicate the newly detected obstacle in the cells corresponding to the detected region, and the third information, indicating existence of the new obstacle, second information may be updated to third information, which is stored as supported by FIGS. 1A-C and [0009-0011] and FIGS. 13(a) and 13(b) and [0126]. The first feature is changed as a new obstacle is detected).
Regarding claim 11, Park further teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the second information includes information representing a shape of an object located in the area in a geometric form (S200 of FIG. 5 and [0059-0060]: known obstacle(s) in the area are stored as part of information regarding movement space, and the obstacles represent a shape as they pertain to their positions in the cells, which comprise geometric shapes, themselves; For additional details regarding format of cells see FIG. 6 and [0062-0069]).
Regarding claim 12, Park further teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the second information includes any one of information on obstacles in the area (S200 of FIG. 5 and [0059-0060]: known obstacle(s) in the area are stored as part of information regarding movement space), a moving point registered in advance, or identification for location recognition.
Regarding claim 13, Park teaches the system for estimating a pose of a robot travelling in a prescribed area (mobile home appliance 1000 including storage medium, one or more processors, and obstacle sensor 210 of FIG. 9 and [0075-0099]), the system comprising: a memory; a sensor configured to collect environmental data around the robot; and one or more processor programmed to:
store first information on a plurality of cells constituting the area and second information on first feature of each of the plurality of cells (FIG. 5 and [0059]: first information on a plurality of cells and second information on first feature, including existence or absence of obstacles, of each of the plurality of cells is stored);
determine third information detected by a sensor of the robot at a current position of the robot, the third information comprising a second feature adjacent to the current position and a distance from the current position to the second feature (S238-S240 of FIG. 5 and [0061]: third information, is detected by a sensor of the robot at a current position. The third information comprises a second feature, or obstacle, adjacent to the current position and a distance from the current position to the second feature; FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: for example, the robot at position Cell(5,3) senses an obstacle adjacent to the current position, the obstacle part of the third information; [0081-0083]: the third information also includes a distance from the current position to the obstacle via obstacle sensor 210);
select cells corresponding to a region detected by the sensor in the plurality of cells based on the current position of the robot (FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: certain cells, like Cell(6,2), Cell(6,3), and Cell(6,4), corresponding to a region detected by the sensor, are selected based on the current position of the robot at Cell(5,3)); and
determine *the first pose of the robot based on a result of comparing the second information of the cell corresponding to the region and the third information (*See 112(b) rejection for interpretation; S238-S240 of FIG. 5 and [0061], FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: based on comparing the second information, which did not indicate the new obstacle in the cells corresponding to the detected region, and the third information, indicating existence of the newly detected obstacle, a first pose of the robot is determined. The first pose may be a position in the replanned path, such as Cell(5,4)).
Regarding claim 14, Park further teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the processor is further programmed to:
estimate a second pose of the robot based on driving information of the robot, the second pose comprising a position of the robot (S200-S210 of FIG. 5 and [0059-0060], FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: a second pose may be a position of the robot while driving, which is estimated as seen in FIGS. 7A-B. For example, a first pose of the robot is estimated as Cell(5,3) at a certain point of the robot’s movement based on driving information).
Regarding claim 15, Park further teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the processor is programmed to:
determine *the first pose of the robot by modifying the second pose based on the result of comparing the second information of the cell corresponding to the region and the third information (*See 112(b) rejection for interpretation; S238-S240 of FIG. 5 and [0061], FIGS. 7A-B and [0070-0072]: based on comparing the second information, which did not indicate the new obstacle in the cells corresponding to the detected region, and the third information, indicating existence of the newly detected obstacle, a second pose of the robot is determined by modifying the first pose. The second pose may be a position in the replanned path, such as Cell(5,4)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, including:
US 2015/0239125 A1: cell map navigation with distance measurement between robot and object
US 2009/0326713 A1: position-posture estimation during robot movement
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7AM to 5PM.
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, KIEU D VU can be reached on (571)272-4057. 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.
/KENNY NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights