DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice on Prior Art Rejections
2. 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 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.
Status of Claims
3. This Office Action is in response to the applicant's arguments/remarks filed February 18, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 5 and 9 are amended; claims 3, 21 and 22 are canceled; and claims 23 and 24 are new. Claims 1, 2, 4-21, 23 and 24 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
4. Objections. Applicant's arguments/amendments filed February 18, 2026 regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection have been fully considered. Applicant's arguments/remarks are not persuasive. Accordingly, the objection is rejection is maintained. While the law governing claim structure fails to require inclusion of an article, such as "a" or "the.", MPEP 608.01(n) describes how claims should follow a proper dependent form in which a reference back to any preceding claim must be clear. (See IV. CLAIM FORM AND ARRANGEMENT).
5. Nonstatutory Double Patenting. Applicant's arguments/amendments filed February 18, 2026 regarding the Nonstatutory Double Patenting have been fully considered. Applicant's arguments/remarks requested holding this rejection in abeyance pending resolution. Accordingly, the Nonstatutory Double Patenting rejection is maintained.
6. 35 USC § 101 rejection. Applicant's arguments/amendments filed February 18, 2026 regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection have been fully considered. Applicant's arguments/remarks are not persuasive. Accordingly, the 335 USC § 101 rejection is maintained. The invention’s limitations do not clearly state that the transporter in moving autonomously. Accordingly, Pursuant to MPEP 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must also be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999)” That is, other than reciting “a signal” nothing in the claims elements precludes the steps from practically being performed as part of human activities. For example, “identifying a door and/or a doorway in the plane”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind where a person is mentally able to observe a door and/or a doorway. The same reasoning applies to the other limitations presented in the claim.
7. 35 USC § 103 rejection. Applicant's arguments/amendments filed February 18, 2026 regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection have been fully considered. Applicant's arguments/remarks are not persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 USC § 103 rejection is maintained. Based on the new features of claim 1 presented in the amendments, further search and/or consideration was required to examine the amended claims, so a new 35 USC § 103 ground(s) of rejection is made further in view of Ostendorff et al, US 2006/0045679, presented in this Final Office Action.
The applicant argues that “Neither the '336 pub. nor the '984 pub., individually or in combination, teach or suggest generating a signal configured for moving the transporter to a location in the elevator based on geometry, hence all the claim limitations of claim 17. Accordingly, claim 17 and claims 18-20 depending therefrom are allowable over the '336 pub. and the '984 pub.”
Pursuant to MPEP 2144 Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103, I. RATIONALE MAY BE IN A REFERENCE, OR REASONED FROM COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN THE ART, SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES, ART-RECOGNIZED EQUIVALENTS, OR LEGAL PRECEDENT, “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law.”
Pursuant to MPEP 2144.01 Implicit Disclosure, “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) …; In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) (Reference disclosure of a compound where the R-S-R¢ portion has "at least one methylene group attached to the sulfur atom" implies that the other R group attached to the sulfur atom can be other than methylene and therefore suggests asymmetric dialkyl moieties.).”.
Pursuant to MPEP 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must also be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999)”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations argued by the applicant are described in the combination of the prior art reference presented in the non-final rejection. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the systems disclosed in the prior art to allow the system to be implemented in a vehicle. The limitation of “determining a geometry of the elevator; and generating a second signal configured for moving the transporter to a location in the elevator based on the geometry” is disclosed and equivalent to the robot of the prior art. For example, (See ¶ 39 “The mobile robot 100 (or simply "robot" hereinafter) can navigate and move around an environment in which the robot is located, for instance by moving forward, backwards, sideways, and by turning or rotating up to 360 degrees”), (See ¶ 100 “The robot can include various sensors, such as cameras, motion detectors, audio detectors, rangefinders, depth sensors, and the like to enable the robot to recognize and process the environment in which the robot operators”). In this case, the examiner uses broadest reasonable interpretation to examine the claim invention. The limitation requires a determination of geometry of s space and moving through the space which is disclosed by the prior art. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Therefore, for the above reasons, the examiner maintains rejection over claims 1, 2, 4-21, 23 and 24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 of this title, 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.
9. Claim 1, 2, 4-21, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Deyle et al, US 2017 /0225336, in view of Kang et al. US 2012/0165984, further in view of Ostendorff et al, US 2006/0045679, hereinafter referred to as Deyle, Kang, and Ostendorff, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Deyle discloses a method of storing a transporter comprising:
identifying a plane in segmented data (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 92, 93, 199, 215, 39, “The mobile robot 100 (or simply "robot" hereinafter) can navigate and move around an environment in which the robot is located, for instance by moving forward, backwards, sideways, and by turning or rotating up to 360 degrees within a plane defined by a surface on which the robot is located. In some embodiments, the robot can be deployed within a building, for instance on one or more floors or portions of floors of a building, can be deployed outside”);
identifying a door and/or a doorway in the plane (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 181, 254, 216, “the robot can analyze images of the object to determine a state of the object. For instance, if the robot detects a door, the robot can also detect whether the door is open or closed.”);
positioning the transporter for entering the doorway based on said identifying (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 136, 137, 141, 169, 172, 207, “the robot can be located within an entrance or doorway and greet people as they enter or leave an area.”); and
generating a signal configured for moving the transporter through the doorway; wherein the transporter responds to the signal (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 39, 92, 93, 199, 215, 214, “When the robot 100 uses a SLAM map to navigate an area (such as the floor of the building represented within the embodiment of FIG. 17), the robot can move within the navigable areas 1702 and avoid the boundary areas to the extent possible, beneficially reducing the likelihood that the robot runs into or otherwise makes contact with an obstacle”) , (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 66, 105, 114, 119, 189, , 214, 65, “In embodiments where the doors and windows are electronic, a user of the central system 210, a robot 100, or a security personnel 250 can close, open, lock, or unlock the doors and windows, for instance manually (by the security personnel or robot) or electronically (by directly interfacing with the electronic subsystems of the doors and windows, or by providing instructions to the doors and windows via the network).”).
Deyle fails to explicitly disclose moving the transporter through the doorway.
However, Kang teaches moving the transporter through the doorway (See at least fig 1-5, ¶ 2, 3, 15, 4, “the robot to move from a space to another space by passing through the door, the robot needs to be implemented to turn a door handle and open the door like human and move to another space and then, close the door again.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Deyle and include moving the transporter through the doorway as taught by Kang because it would allow the mobile robot apparatus to open the door and close the door again when satisfying the predetermined conditions (Kang ¶ 36).
Deyle fails to explicitly disclose generating a second signal configured for closing the door and enclosing the transporter.
However, Ostendorffteaches generating a second signal configured for closing the door and enclosing the transporter (See at least fig 1-5, ¶ 2, 3, 15, 19, “method steps include driving the device until a docking Signal is acquired at a fetch location and then toward the docking Signal to dock with a docking element of a door of a Storage cabinet or refrigerator. The device is then driven away from the door so as to open it; followed by rotation about the docking element to place a vertically extended pincer clamp of the device around a target object positioned at a specified location within the door. This is followed by closing the pincer clamp So as to grip the target object and then rotating the device about the docking element while carrying the target object So as to close the door.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Deyle and include generating a second signal configured for closing the door and enclosing the transporter as taught by Ostendorff because it would allow the transporter to dock with a docking element of a door of a Storage cabinet or refrigerator (Ostendorff ¶ 19).
Regarding claim 2, Deyle discloses Method of claim 1 further comprising generating a second signal configured for opening the door (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 66, 105, 114, 119, 189, , 214, 65, “In embodiments where the doors and windows are electronic, a user of the central system 210, a robot 100, or a security personnel 250 can close, open, lock, or unlock the doors and windows, for instance manually (by the security personnel or robot) or electronically (by directly interfacing with the electronic subsystems of the doors and windows, or by providing instructions to the doors and windows via the network).”).
Regarding claim 4, Deyle discloses Method of claim 1 further comprising prior to said generating: measuring the doorway and defining a measurement; and generating an alert if the measurement does not meet a threshold (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 144, 150, 115, 255, 299, 254, “the robot can, using rangefinders, cameras, or other sensors, determine the height of nearby walls, doors, windows, obstructions, and the like. Using these heights, the robot can generate a 3D model of a 2D semantic map”).
Regarding claim 5, Deyle discloses Method of claim 1 further comprising generating a second signal configured for locking the door (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 66, 105, 114, 119, 189, , 214, 65, “In embodiments where the doors and windows are electronic, a user of the central system 210, a robot 100, or a security personnel 250 can close, open, lock, or unlock the doors and windows, for instance manually (by the security personnel or robot) or electronically (by directly interfacing with the electronic subsystems of the doors and windows, or by providing instructions to the doors and windows via the network).”).
Regarding claim 6, Deyle discloses Method of claim 1 further comprising reacting to an obstacle (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 102, 121, 157, 211, 212, 213, 214, 261, 93, 263, “A robot 100 can navigate within an area using a semantic map or a generated floor map, for instance by
selecting a route that avoids obstacles (e.g., by a threshold distance), by selecting routes that avoid high-trafficked areas, by selecting routes that maximize the robot's exposure or proximity to high-value assets or other objects, and the like”).
Regarding claim 7, Deyle discloses Method of claim 6 wherein the obstacle is moving (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 102, 121, 157, 211, 212, 213, 214, 261, 93, 263, 102, “In addition to detecting obstacles, objects, and individuals, the scanners can track moving objects or individuals, for instance to follow the movement of suspicious individuals. In some embodiments, information captured by the scanners is used by the navigation system when selecting a path of motion for the robot.”).
Regarding claim 8, Deyle discloses Method of claim 7 further comprising tracking the object with simultaneous location and mapping (SLAM) with detection and tracking of moving objects (DATMO) based on a location of the transporter (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 102, 121, 157, 212, 213, 214, 261, 93, 263, 102, 211, “the robot first generates an area map identifying
obstacles and pathways using, for instance, one or more of the scanners 726 (such as a laser rangefinder or other suitable depth sensor) and a simultaneous localization and mapping ( or "SLAM") algorithm. As used herein, such maps are referred to as "SLAM maps"”).
Regarding claim 9, Deyle discloses Method of claim 6 wherein said reacting comprises: identifying a second plane in the segmented data; identifying an obstacle in the second plane; determining a distance between the transporter and the obstacle; identifying an allowed command based on: the distance, the obstacle, a situation identifier and combinations thereof; and generating a second signal configured for moving the transporter based on the allowed command (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 102, 121, 157, 212, 213, 261, 93, 263, 102, 211, 214, “When the robot 100 uses a SLAM map to navigate an area (such as the floor of the building represented within the embodiment of FIG. 17), the robot can move within the navigable areas 1702 and avoid the boundary areas to the extent possible, beneficially reducing the likelihood that the robot runs into or otherwise makes contact with an obstacle”).
Regarding claim 10, Deyle discloses Method of claim 9 wherein the distance is a dynamically-varying amount (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 102, 121, 157, 212, 213, 261, 93, 102, 211, 214, 263, “A robot 100 can navigate within an area using a semantic map or a generated floor map, for instance by selecting a route that avoids obstacles (e.g., by a threshold distance), by selecting routes that avoid high-trafficked areas, by selecting routes that maximize the robot's exposure or proximity to high-value assets or other objects, and the like”).
Regarding claim 11, Deyle discloses Method of claim 9 further comprising receiving a user command, wherein said identifying an allowed command is based on the user command (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 101, 52, 51, 50, “The communication interface can provide instructions or data to one or more infrastructure systems, security systems, or robots, for instance in response to a user command or during the performance of one or more security operations”).
Regarding claim 12, Deyle discloses Method of claim 9 wherein said identifying an obstacle comprises using a point cloud library (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 102, 121, 157, 212, 213, 261, 93, 263, 102, 211, 214, 212, 150, 183, 216, “the robot can access object identification and state information from a repository of object information, such as a building database identifying the location and expected state of various objects within the building. In some embodiments, object information can be received from other robots that have scanned locations and identified objects within the locations. Object information can also be received from accessing the central system 210, one or more infrastructure systems 220, or one or more security systems 230.”).
Regarding claim 13, Deyle discloses Method of claim 9 wherein the situation identifier is based on user information (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 102, 121, 157, 212, 213, 261, 93, 263, 102, 211, 214, “When the robot 100 uses a SLAM map to navigate an area (such as the floor of the building represented within the embodiment of FIG. 17), the robot can move within the navigable areas 1702 and avoid the boundary areas to the extent possible, beneficially reducing the likelihood that the robot runs into or otherwise makes contact with an obstacle”).
Regarding claim 14, Deyle discloses Method of claim 9 further comprising: storing the obstacle in a storage cloud; and enabling external access to the obstacle (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 102, 121, 157, 212, 213, 261, 93, 263, 102, 211, 214, 212, 150, 183, 216, “the robot can access object identification and state information from a repository of object information, such as a building database identifying the location and expected state of various objects within the building. In some embodiments, object information can be received from other robots that have scanned locations and identified objects within the locations. Object information can also be received from accessing the central system 210, one or more infrastructure systems 220, or one or more security systems 230.”).
Regarding claim 15, Deyle discloses Method of claim 1 further comprising: determining a location, a width and a hinge side of the door, and a swing of the door based on said determining, wherein the signal is based on the swing and the width (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 144, 150, 115, 255, 299, 254, “the robot can, using rangefinders, cameras, or other sensors, determine the height of nearby walls, doors, windows, obstructions, and the like. Using these heights, the robot can generate a 3D model of a 2D semantic map”).
Regarding claim 16, Deyle discloses Transporter comprising a processor configured for performing the method of claim 1 (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 312, 311, 116, 91, “FIG. 7. For instance, the robot 100 can include one or more hardware processors or controllers configured to perform various functionalities described herein”).
Regarding claim 17, Deyle discloses Method of negotiating an elevator comprising: generating a first signal configured for moving the transporter into the elevator; determining a geometry of the elevator; and generating a second signal configured for moving the transporter to a location in the elevator based on the geometry; wherein the transporter responds to the first signal and the second signal (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 105, 114, 119, 189, , 214, 65, 66, “Instructions can be provided to the elevators, for instance by a user of the central system, a security personnel 250, or a robot 100 via the network 200 or directly to the elevator via an elevator interface, or manually, via a physical button press by the security personnel or the robot. Elevator instructions can include but are not limited to instructing the elevator to go to a particular floor (such as the floor a robot is on), stopping or disabling the elevator, opening and closing the elevator doors, controlling one or more elevator components”), (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 144, 150, 115, 255, 299, 254, “the robot can, using rangefinders, cameras, or other sensors, determine the height of nearby walls, doors, windows, obstructions, and the like. Using these heights, the robot can generate a 3D model of a 2D semantic map”).
Deyle fails to explicitly disclose moving the transporter through the doorway.
However, Kang teaches moving the transporter through the doorway (See at least fig 1-5, ¶ 2, 3, 15, 4, “the robot to move from a space to another space by passing through the door, the robot needs to be implemented to turn a door handle and open the door like human and move to another space and then, close the door again.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Deyle and include moving the transporter through the doorway as taught by Kang because it would allow the mobile robot apparatus to open the door and close the door again when satisfying the predetermined conditions (Kang ¶ 36).
Regarding claim 18, Deyle discloses Method of claim 17 further comprising generating a third signal configured for moving the transporter out of the elevator (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 105, 114, 119, 189, , 214, 65, 66, “Instructions can be provided to the elevators, for instance by a user of the central system, a security personnel 250, or a robot 100 via the network 200 or directly to the elevator via an elevator interface, or manually, via a physical button press by the security personnel or the robot. Elevator instructions can include but are not limited to instructing the elevator to go to a particular floor (such as the floor a robot is on), stopping or disabling the elevator, opening and closing the elevator doors, controlling one or more elevator components”).
Regarding claim 19, Deyle discloses Method of claim 18 further comprising, prior to said generating a third signal, determining that a door of the elevator is open (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 144, 150, 115, 255, 299, 254, 216, “the robot can analyze images of the object to determine a state of the object. For instance, if the robot detects a door, the robot can also detect whether the door is open or closed.”).
Regarding claim 20, Deyle discloses Transporter comprising a processor configured for performing the method of claim 17 (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 312, 311, 116, 91, “FIG. 7. For instance, the robot 100 can include one or more hardware processors or controllers configured to perform various functionalities described herein”).
Regarding claim 23, Deyle discloses Method of claim 17 further comprising generating a third signal configured for closing the elevator and enclosing the transporter (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 66, 105, 114, 119, 189, , 214, 65, “In embodiments where the doors and windows are electronic, a user of the central system 210, a robot 100, or a security personnel 250 can close, open, lock, or unlock the doors and windows, for instance manually (by the security personnel or robot) or electronically (by directly interfacing with the electronic subsystems of the doors and windows, or by providing instructions to the doors and windows via the network).”).
Regarding claim 24, Deyle discloses Method of claim 1 further comprising receiving and/or responding to a command to store the transporter (See at least fig 1-25, ¶ 122, 94, “the robot can
navigate to a recharge station and can electrically couple the recharging system to the recharge station, enabling the recharge station to refill the power source of the power system.”).
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 LUIS MARTINEZ whose email is luis.martinezborrero@uspto.gov and telephone number is (571)272-4577. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, HUNTER LONSBERRY can be reached on (571)272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights