DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-19 as originally filed are pending and have been considered as follows.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Korean Patent Application No. 10-2023-0134493 filed 10-10-2023. However, a Priority Document Exchange Failure Status Report dated 10 March 2025 appears in the file indicating that retrieval via the priority document exchange program was unsuccessful. Accordingly, a copy of the foreign priority application does not appear in the file as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: 70-1, 70-2, 70-15, and 70-20 in Fig. 6.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of terms like “Wi-Fi” in ¶5 and “3GPP” in ¶62, which appear to be trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. Such terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, such terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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:
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;
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
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.
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 1-19 are 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.
As per Claim 1, the claim recites: “Wi-Fi device identification information” in, e.g., line 12; and “Wi-Fi devices” in, e.g., line 12-13. In these phrases, the word “Wi-Fi” is used as an adjective to identify or describe a type of information and a type of device. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See MPEP § 2173.05(u). “Wi-Fi” is a trademark or trade name. Accordingly, the claims recite a trademark or trade name that is used to identify or describe a type of information and a type of device. As such, the identification or description is indefinite. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 2-9 depending from Claim 1 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 2, the claim recites “Wi-Fi device identification information” in, e.g., line 2. See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of the use of trademarks or tradenames in claims. As such, the identification or description is indefinite. Therefore, Claim 2 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 3-5 depending from Claim 2 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 3, the claim recites: “Wi-Fi device identification information” in, e.g., line 2; “Wi-Fi signal intensities”, e.g., line 2-3; and “Wi-Fi devices”, e.g., line 3. See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of the use of trademarks or tradenames in claims. As such, the identification or description is indefinite. Therefore, Claim 3 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claim 4 depending from Claim 3 is therefore rejected.
As per Claim 4, the claim recites “Wi-Fi device identification information” in, e.g., line 3. See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of the use of trademarks or tradenames in claims. As such, the identification or description is indefinite. Therefore, Claim 4 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 6, the claim recites “Wi-Fi device identification information” in line 9-10. See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of the use of trademarks or tradenames in claims. As such, the identification or description is indefinite. Therefore, Claim 6 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 7-9 depending from Claim 6 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 10, the claim recites: “Wi-Fi device identification information” in, e.g., line 5; and “Wi-Fi devices” in, e.g., line 6. See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of the use of trademarks or tradenames in claims. As such, the identification or description is indefinite. Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 11-14 depending from Claim 10 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 11, the claim recites “Wi-Fi device identification information” in, e.g., line 3. See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of the use of trademarks or tradenames in claims. As such, the identification or description is indefinite. Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 12-14 depending from Claim 11 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 12, the claim recites: “Wi-Fi device identification information” in, e.g., line 2; “Wi-Fi signal intensities”, e.g., line 2-3; and “Wi-Fi devices”, e.g., line 3. See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of the use of trademarks or tradenames in claims. As such, the identification or description is indefinite. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claim 13 depending from Claim 12 is therefore rejected.
As per Claim 13, the claim recites “Wi-Fi device identification information” in, e.g., line 2. See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of the use of trademarks or tradenames in claims. As such, the identification or description is indefinite. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 15, the claim recites: “Wi-Fi device identification information” in, e.g., line 7; and “Wi-Fi devices” in, e.g., line 8. See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of the use of trademarks or tradenames in claims. As such, the identification or description is indefinite. Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 16-19 depending from Claim 15 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 16, the claim recites “Wi-Fi device identification information” in, e.g., line 3. See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of the use of trademarks or tradenames in claims. As such, the identification or description is indefinite. Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claim 17-19 depending from Claim 16 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 17, the claim recites: “Wi-Fi device identification information” in, e.g., line 2; “Wi-Fi signal intensities”, e.g., line 2-3; and “Wi-Fi devices”, e.g., line 3. See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of the use of trademarks or tradenames in claims. As such, the identification or description is indefinite. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claim 18 depending from Claim 17 is therefore rejected.
As per Claim 18, the claim recites “Wi-Fi device identification information” in, e.g., line 3. See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of the use of trademarks or tradenames in claims. As such, the identification or description is indefinite. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-12, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deyle (US Pub. No. 2021/0046650) in view of view of Mustonen (US Pub. No. 2020/0130990).
As per Claim 1, Deyle discloses a robot (100) (Figs. 1A-C, 7; ¶42-43, 94) comprising:
a driver (710) (Fig. 7; ¶94-96);
a first communication interface (714) (Fig. 7; ¶94, 98-99);
a second communication interface (730) (Fig. 7; ¶94, 109);
at least one memory (as per “computer memory” in ¶119; as per “computer-readable medium” in ¶399) storing one or more instructions (as per “computer programs” in ¶398; as per “computer program code” in ¶399); and
one or more processors (as per “processors” in ¶119; as per “computer processor” in ¶399) configured to execute the one or more instructions (as per “computer programs” in ¶398; as per “computer program code” in ¶399),
wherein the one or more instructions (as per “computer programs” in ¶398; as per “computer program code” in ¶399), when executed by the one or more processors (as per “processors” in ¶119; as per “computer processor” in ¶399), are configured to cause the robot (100) to:
based on receiving an instruction to move the robot (100) to a second floor (as per “target floor different from a current floor” in ¶313) from a first floor (as per “current floor” in ¶313), control the driver (710) to cause the robot (100) to board an elevator (as per 2620) (Fig. 26; ¶312-313, 325-326),
identify whether a floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second (as per “The mobile robot determines when the elevator car is at the target floor” in ¶329),
based on identifying that the elevator is stopped on the second floor (as per “The mobile robot determines when the elevator car is at the target floor” in ¶329), identify whether a door of the elevator is open (as per “The mobile robot determines when the elevator doors are open” in ¶330), and
based on identifying that the door of the elevator is open (as per “The mobile robot determines when the elevator doors are open” in ¶330), control the driver (710) to cause the robot (100) to get off the elevator (as per “After the doors have opened, the mobile robot navigates 2625 out of the elevator car” in ¶330).
Deyle determines a current floor of the elevator by communication with the elevator controller, based on attitude information, and/or by imaging information (¶315-317, 324, 328-329). Deyle does not expressly disclose:
based on identifying that the elevator is stopped, obtain through the first communication interface Wi-Fi device identification information for one or more Wi-Fi devices,
wherein the second floor is identified floor based on the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information, and
wherein identifying whether the door is open is based on a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) value of a signal received through the second communication interface.
Mustonen discloses an elevator system (100) in which an elevator shaft (140) includes an elevator car (101) that moves to serve different floors (150-158) (Fig. 1; ¶64). In the elevator system (100), there are two sides (122, 124) towards which landing doors (108, 126) at each floor can be opened (Fig. 1A; ¶64). The elevator car (101) includes an elevator car mounted wireless device (106) that is configured with wireless transmission/reception capabilities (Fig. 1A; ¶65). Each side (122, 124) at each floor (150-158) includes at least one wireless device (102A-102J, 104A-104J) (Fig. 1A; ¶66). Due to signal attenuation, the wireless signals attenuate when traveling through an obstacle, such as closed door (elevator car and/or landing doors) or a floor/ceiling of the elevator car or a building (¶69). This leads to a situation in which the signal strength of the wireless signals received at the elevator car mounted wireless device (106) varies (¶69). The elevator car mounted wireless device (106) records for each detected wireless device at each floor information describing the wireless signal strength (164) of each device and the status of the door (Figs. 1G, ¶71, 98). In this way, the system operates to associate information describing wireless devices to identification of a specific floor (Figs. 1G, 4-8; ¶113-138). Like Deyle, Mustonen is concerned with elevator data systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Deyle and Mustonen, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing the cost of the system in the event that determining elevator location data as per Mustonen is cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed techniques as per Deyle. Applying the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle would result in a system that operates:
“based on identifying that the elevator is stopped, obtain through the first communication interface Wi-Fi device identification information for one or more Wi-Fi devices” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen;
“wherein the second floor is identified floor based on the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen; and
“wherein identifying whether the door is open is based on a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) value of a signal received through the second communication interface” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen.
As per Claim 2, the combination of Deyle and Mustonen teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Deyle further discloses wherein the plurality of floors includes the first floor (as per “current floor” in ¶313) and the second floor (as per “target floor different from a current floor” in ¶313), and
wherein the one or more instructions (as per “computer programs” in ¶398; as per “computer program code” in ¶399), when executed by the one or more processors (as per “processors” in ¶119; as per “computer processor” in ¶399), are further configured to cause the robot (100) to identify that the floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second floor (as per “The mobile robot determines when the elevator car is at the target floor” in ¶329).
Deyle does not expressly disclose:
wherein the at least one memory stores Wi-Fi device identification information for a plurality of floors;
wherein the robot identifies the floor based on identifying that the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information matches the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mustonen.
Therefore, from these teachings of Deyle and Mustonen, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing the cost of the system in the event that determining elevator location data as per Mustonen is cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed techniques as per Deyle. Applying the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the at least one memory stores Wi-Fi device identification information for a plurality of floors” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen; and
“wherein the robot identifies the floor based on identifying that the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information matches the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen.
As per Claim 3, the combination of Deyle and Mustonen teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 2. Deyle does not expressly disclose wherein the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information comprises respective Wi-Fi signal intensities of each of the one or more Wi-Fi devices,
wherein the stored Wi-Fi device identification information comprises respective Wi-Fi signal intensities of each of one or more Wi-Fi devices located on the plurality of floors, and
wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the robot to:
obtain a first sorting order of the one or more Wi-Fi devices based on the respective Wi-Fi signal intensities,
obtain a second sorting order of one or more Wi-Fi devices located on the second floor based on the stored Wi-Fi device identification information of the second floor, and
identify whether the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information matches the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor by comparing the first sorting order and the second sorting order.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mustonen.
Therefore, from these teachings of Deyle and Mustonen, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing the cost of the system in the event that determining elevator location data as per Mustonen is cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed techniques as per Deyle. Applying the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information comprises respective Wi-Fi signal intensities of each of the one or more Wi-Fi devices” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen;
“wherein the stored Wi-Fi device identification information comprises respective Wi-Fi signal intensities of each of one or more Wi-Fi devices located on the plurality of floors” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen;
wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the robot to:
“obtain a first sorting order of the one or more Wi-Fi devices based on the respective Wi-Fi signal intensities” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen;
“obtain a second sorting order of one or more Wi-Fi devices located on the second floor based on the stored Wi-Fi device identification information of the second floor” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen; and
“identify whether the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information matches the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor by comparing the first sorting order and the second sorting order” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen.
As per Claim 5, the combination of Deyle and Mustonen teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 2. Deyle does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the robot to: based on the RSSI value being greater than a preset value, identify that the door of the elevator is open.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mustonen.
Therefore, from these teachings of Deyle and Mustonen, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing the cost of the system in the event that determining elevator location data as per Mustonen is cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed techniques as per Deyle. Applying the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle would result in a system that operates: “wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the robot to: based on the RSSI value being greater than a preset value, identify that the door of the elevator is open” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen.
As per Claim 10, Deyle discloses a method (as per Fig. 26) of controlling a robot (100) (Figs. 1A-C, 7, 26; ¶42-43, 94, 312-329), the method (as per Fig. 26) comprising:
based on the robot (100) receiving an instruction to move the robot (100) to a second floor (as per “target floor different from a current floor” in ¶313) from a first floor (as per “current floor” in ¶313), controlling a driver (710) of the robot (100) to cause the robot (100) to board an elevator (as per 2620) (Figs. 7, 26; ¶94-96, 312-313, 325-326);
identifying whether a floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second floor (as per “The mobile robot determines when the elevator car is at the target floor” in ¶329);
based on identifying that the elevator is stopped on the second floor (as per “The mobile robot determines when the elevator car is at the target floor” in ¶329), identifying whether a door of the elevator is open (as per “The mobile robot determines when the elevator doors are open” in ¶330); and
based on identifying that the door of the elevator is open (as per “The mobile robot determines when the elevator doors are open” in ¶330), controlling the driver (710) to cause the robot (100) to get off the elevator (as per “After the doors have opened, the mobile robot navigates 2625 out of the elevator car” in ¶330).
Deyle further discloses one or more reader antennas (730) in the form of a WiFi antenna (Fig. 7; ¶94, 109). Deyle does not expressly disclose:
based on identifying that the elevator is stopped, obtaining through a first communication interface of the robot Wi-Fi device identification information for one or more Wi-Fi devices;
wherein the second floor is identified based on the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information; and
wherein identifying whether the door is open is based on a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) value of a signal received through a second communication interface of the robot.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mustonen.
Therefore, from these teachings of Deyle and Mustonen, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing the cost of the system in the event that determining elevator location data as per Mustonen is cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed techniques as per Deyle. Applying the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle would result in a system that operates:
“based on identifying that the elevator is stopped, obtaining through a first communication interface of the robot Wi-Fi device identification information for one or more Wi-Fi devices” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen;
“wherein the second floor is identified based on the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen; and
“wherein identifying whether the door is open is based on a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) value of a signal received through a second communication interface of the robot” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen.
As per Claim 11, the combination of Deyle and Mustonen teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 10. Deyle further discloses wherein the identifying whether the floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second floor (as per “target floor different from a current floor” in ¶313) comprises:
wherein the plurality of floors include the first (as per “current floor” in ¶313) and the second floors (as per “target floor different from a current floor” in ¶313).
Deyle does not expressly disclose wherein the identifying whether the floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second floor comprises:
obtaining Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor from Wi-Fi device identification information for a plurality of floors, and wherein the Wi-Fi device identification information for the plurality of floors is stored in at least one memory of the robot;
comparing the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information with the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor; and
based on identifying that the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information matches the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor, identifying that the floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second floor.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mustonen.
Therefore, from these teachings of Deyle and Mustonen, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing the cost of the system in the event that determining elevator location data as per Mustonen is cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed techniques as per Deyle. Applying the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle would result in a system that operates by:
“obtaining Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor from Wi-Fi device identification information for a plurality of floors, and wherein the Wi-Fi device identification information for the plurality of floors is stored in at least one memory of the robot” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen;
“comparing the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information with the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen; and
“based on identifying that the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information matches the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor, identifying that the floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second floor” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen.
As per Claim 12, the combination of Deyle and Mustonen teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Deyle does not expressly disclose wherein the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information comprises respective Wi-Fi signal intensities of each of the one or more Wi-Fi devices,
wherein the stored Wi-Fi device identification information comprises respective Wi-Fi signal intensities of each of one or more Wi-Fi devices located on the plurality of floors, and
wherein the comparing the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information with the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor comprises:
obtaining a first sorting order of the one or more Wi-Fi devices based on the respective Wi-Fi signal intensities,
obtaining a second sorting order of one or more Wi-Fi devices located on the second floor based on the stored Wi-Fi device identification information of the second floor, and
identifying whether the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information matches the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor by comparing the first sorting order and the second sorting order.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mustonen.
Therefore, from these teachings of Deyle and Mustonen, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing the cost of the system in the event that determining elevator location data as per Mustonen is cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed techniques as per Deyle. Applying the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information comprises respective Wi-Fi signal intensities of each of the one or more Wi-Fi devices” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen;
“wherein the stored Wi-Fi device identification information comprises respective Wi-Fi signal intensities of each of one or more Wi-Fi devices located on the plurality of floors” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen;
wherein the comparing the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information with the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor comprises:
“obtaining a first sorting order of the one or more Wi-Fi devices based on the respective Wi-Fi signal intensities” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen;
“obtaining a second sorting order of one or more Wi-Fi devices located on the second floor based on the stored Wi-Fi device identification information of the second floor” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen; and
“identifying whether the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information matches the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor by comparing the first sorting order and the second sorting order” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen.
As per Claim 14, the combination of Deyle and Mustonen teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Deyle does not expressly disclose wherein the identifying that the door of the elevator is open comprises, based on the RSSI value being greater than a preset value, identifying that the door of the elevator is open.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mustonen.
Therefore, from these teachings of Deyle and Mustonen, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing the cost of the system in the event that determining elevator location data as per Mustonen is cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed techniques as per Deyle. Applying the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle would result in a system that operates: “wherein the identifying that the door of the elevator is open comprises, based on the RSSI value being greater than a preset value, identifying that the door of the elevator is open” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen.
As per Claim 15, Deyle discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (as per “computer memory” in ¶119; as per “computer-readable medium” in ¶399) having instructions (as per “computer programs” in ¶398; as per “computer program code” in ¶399) stored therein, which when executed by at least one processor (as per “processors” in ¶119; as per “computer processor” in ¶399) of a robot (100), cause the robot (100) to execute a method (as per Fig. 26) of operation, the method (as per Fig. 26) (Figs. 1A-C, 7, 26; ¶42-43, 94, 119, 312-329, 399) comprising:
based on the robot (100) receiving an instruction to move the robot (100) to a second floor (as per “target floor different from a current floor” in ¶313) from a first floor (as per “current floor” in ¶313), controlling a driver (710) of the robot (100) to cause the robot (100) to board an elevator (as per 2620) (Figs. 7, 26; ¶94-96, 312-313, 325-326);
identifying whether a floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second floor (as per “The mobile robot determines when the elevator car is at the target floor” in ¶329);
based on identifying that the elevator is stopped on the second floor (as per “The mobile robot determines when the elevator car is at the target floor” in ¶329), identifying whether a door of the elevator is open (as per “The mobile robot determines when the elevator doors are open” in ¶330); and
based on identifying that the door of the elevator is open (as per “The mobile robot determines when the elevator doors are open” in ¶330), controlling the driver (710) to cause the robot (100) to get off the elevator (as per “After the doors have opened, the mobile robot navigates 2625 out of the elevator car” in ¶330).
Deyle further discloses one or more reader antennas (730) in the form of a WiFi antenna (Fig. 7; ¶94, 109). Deyle does not expressly disclose:
based on identifying that the elevator is stopped, obtaining through a first communication interface of the robot Wi-Fi device identification information for one or more Wi-Fi devices;
wherein the second floor is identified based on the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information; and
wherein identifying whether the door is open is based on a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) value of a signal received through a second communication interface of the robot.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mustonen.
Therefore, from these teachings of Deyle and Mustonen, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing the cost of the system in the event that determining elevator location data as per Mustonen is cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed techniques as per Deyle. Applying the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle would result in a system that operates:
“based on identifying that the elevator is stopped, obtaining through a first communication interface of the robot Wi-Fi device identification information for one or more Wi-Fi devices” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen;
“wherein the second floor is identified based on the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen; and
“wherein identifying whether the door is open is based on a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) value of a signal received through a second communication interface of the robot” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen.
As per Claim 16, the combination of Deyle and Mustonen teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Deyle further discloses wherein the identifying whether the floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second floor (as per “target floor different from a current floor” in ¶313) comprises:
wherein the plurality of floors include the first (as per “current floor” in ¶313) and the second floors (as per “target floor different from a current floor” in ¶313).
Deyle does not expressly disclose wherein the identifying whether the floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second floor comprises:
obtaining Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor from Wi-Fi device identification information for a plurality of floors, and wherein the Wi-Fi device identification information for the plurality of floors is stored in at least one memory of the robot;
comparing the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information with the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor; and
based on identifying that the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information matches the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor, identifying that the floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second floor.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mustonen.
Therefore, from these teachings of Deyle and Mustonen, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing the cost of the system in the event that determining elevator location data as per Mustonen is cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed techniques as per Deyle. Applying the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle would result in a system that operates by:
“obtaining Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor from Wi-Fi device identification information for a plurality of floors, and wherein the Wi-Fi device identification information for the plurality of floors is stored in at least one memory of the robot” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen;
“comparing the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information with the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen; and
“based on identifying that the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information matches the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor, identifying that the floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second floor” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen.
As per Claim 17, the combination of Deyle and Mustonen teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 16. Deyle does not expressly disclose wherein the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information comprises respective Wi-Fi signal intensities of each of the one or more Wi-Fi devices,
wherein the stored Wi-Fi device identification information comprises respective Wi-Fi signal intensities of each of one or more Wi-Fi devices located on the plurality of floors, and
wherein the comparing the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information with the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor comprises:
obtaining a first sorting order of the one or more Wi-Fi devices based on the respective Wi-Fi signal intensities,
obtaining a second sorting order of one or more Wi-Fi devices located on the second floor based on the stored Wi-Fi device identification information of the second floor, and
identifying whether the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information matches the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor by comparing the first sorting order and the second sorting order.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mustonen.
Therefore, from these teachings of Deyle and Mustonen, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing the cost of the system in the event that determining elevator location data as per Mustonen is cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed techniques as per Deyle. Applying the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information comprises respective Wi-Fi signal intensities of each of the one or more Wi-Fi devices” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen;
“wherein the stored Wi-Fi device identification information comprises respective Wi-Fi signal intensities of each of one or more Wi-Fi devices located on the plurality of floors” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen;
wherein the comparing the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information with the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor comprises:
“obtaining a first sorting order of the one or more Wi-Fi devices based on the respective Wi-Fi signal intensities” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen;
“obtaining a second sorting order of one or more Wi-Fi devices located on the second floor based on the stored Wi-Fi device identification information of the second floor” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen; and
“identifying whether the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information matches the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor by comparing the first sorting order and the second sorting order” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen.
As per Claim 19, the combination of Deyle and Mustonen teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 16. Deyle does not expressly disclose wherein the identifying that the door of the elevator is open comprises, based on the RSSI value being greater than a preset value, identifying that the door of the elevator is open.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mustonen.
Therefore, from these teachings of Deyle and Mustonen, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing the cost of the system in the event that determining elevator location data as per Mustonen is cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed techniques as per Deyle. Applying the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle would result in a system that operates: “wherein the identifying that the door of the elevator is open comprises, based on the RSSI value being greater than a preset value, identifying that the door of the elevator is open in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen.
Claims 4, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deyle (US Pub. No. 2021/0046650) in view of view of Mustonen (US Pub. No. 2020/0130990), further in view of Geraghty (US Pub. No. 2017/0361463).
As per Claim 4, the combination of Deyle and Mustonen teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 3. Deyle does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the robot to:
based on identifying that the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information does not match the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor, identify a similarity value between the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information and the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor, and
based on the similarity value being equal to or greater than a preset value, identify that the floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second floor, and update the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor to the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mustonen.
Geraghty discloses a system for recognizing a location of a robotic device (20) in a site including a plurality of data centers (10-1, 10-n) (Fig. 1; ¶16-18). The robotic device (20) includes processor (210) and a data collection unit (220) that collects raw data (RD1, RD2) describing location, the data collection unit (220) featuring a network ID detector (221) and a network connection strength detector (223) (Figs. 2-3; ¶23, 29, 49). In operation, if the robotic device (20) determines that there is a match within a predetermined threshold (TH) between first raw data (RD1) and second raw data (RD2), the robotic device (20) determines that location has not changed (Fig. 4A; ¶30, 49-51). If there is not a match, the robotic device (20) determines whether the raw data matches a previously known location (S560) and resumes operation in response to a determination that the raw data matches previously known location (Fig. 5A; ¶30, 41). The threshold (TH) may be input by a user (¶49). Like Deyle, Geraghty is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Deyle, Mustonen, and Geraghty, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mustonen and Geraghty to the system of Deyle since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing the cost of the system in the event that determining elevator location data as per Mustonen is cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed techniques as per Deyle; and providing user customization of location parameters. Applying the teachings of Mustonen and Geraghty to the system of Deyle would result in a system that operates wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the robot to:
“based on identifying that the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information does not match the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor, identify a similarity value between the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information and the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen and adapted to match location data relative to a threshold as per Geraghty;
“based on the similarity value being equal to or greater than a preset value, identify that the floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second floor, and update the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor to the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen and adapted to match location data relative to a threshold as per Geraghty.
As per Claim 13, the combination of Deyle and Mustonen teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 12. Deyle does not expressly disclose based on identifying that the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information does not match the Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor, identifying a similarity value between the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information and the Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor;
based on the similarity value being equal to or greater than a preset value, identifying that the floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second floor; and
updating the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor to the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mustonen.
See rejection of Claim 4 for discussion of teachings of Geraghty.
Therefore, from these teachings of Deyle, Mustonen, and Geraghty, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mustonen and Geraghty to the system of Deyle since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing the cost of the system in the event that determining elevator location data as per Mustonen is cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed techniques as per Deyle; and providing user customization of location parameters. Applying the teachings of Mustonen and Geraghty to the system of Deyle would result in a system that operates:
“based on identifying that the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information does not match the Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor, identifying a similarity value between the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information and the Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen and adapted to match location data relative to a threshold as per Geraghty;
“based on the similarity value being equal to or greater than a preset value, identifying that the floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second floor” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen and adapted to match location data relative to a threshold as per Geraghty; and
“updating the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor to the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen and adapted to match location data relative to a threshold as per Geraghty.
As per Claim 18, the combination of Deyle and Mustonen teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 17. Deyle does not expressly disclose wherein the method further comprises:
based on identifying that the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information does not match the Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor, identifying a similarity value between the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information and the Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor;
based on the similarity value being equal to or greater than a preset value, identifying that the floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second floor; and
updating the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor to the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mustonen.
See rejection of Claim 4 for discussion of teachings of Geraghty.
Therefore, from these teachings of Deyle, Mustonen, and Geraghty, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mustonen and Geraghty to the system of Deyle since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing the cost of the system in the event that determining elevator location data as per Mustonen is cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed techniques as per Deyle; and providing user customization of location parameters. Applying the teachings of Mustonen and Geraghty to the system of Deyle would result in a system that operates:
“based on identifying that the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information does not match the Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor, identifying a similarity value between the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information and the Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen and adapted to match location data relative to a threshold as per Geraghty;
“based on the similarity value being equal to or greater than a preset value, identifying that the floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second floor” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen and adapted to match location data relative to a threshold as per Geraghty; and
“updating the stored Wi-Fi device identification information for the second floor to the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen and adapted to match location data relative to a threshold as per Geraghty.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deyle (US Pub. No. 2021/0046650) in view of view of Mustonen (US Pub. No. 2020/0130990), further in view of Sternitzke (DE102020103308; citations to US Pub. No. 2023/0039466).
As per Claim 6, the combination of Deyle and Mustonen teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Deyle further discloses an inertial measurement unit sensor (as per “inertial sensors” in ¶328).
Deyle does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the robot to:
identify an inter-floor travel time based on a sensing value obtained through the IMU sensor; and
based on identifying that the elevator has moved from the first floor to the second floor based on the inter-floor travel time, identify whether the floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second floor based on the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mustonen.
Sternitzke discloses a robot (1) having wheels (805), a controller (41), a navigation module (10), and a sensing module (12) (Figs. 1-2; ¶36-38, 42). The robot (1) operates to travel via an elevator (700) (Fig. 10; ¶73-74). The robot (1) includes an inertial sensor (45) that detects acceleration of the robot (1) inside the elevator (700) and the robot (1) determines the course of the acceleration over time, including distance and duration data, and assigns floor values to these in the form of a floor difference-dependent acceleration pattern recognition (Fig. 12a-c; ¶109-117). In this way, the robot (1) determines the position of the elevator when scanning data is inadequate (¶109). Like Deyle, Sternitzke is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Deyle, Mustonen, and Sternitzke, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mustonen and Sternitzke to the system of Deyle since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing the cost of the system in the event that determining elevator location data as per Mustonen is cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed techniques as per Deyle; and determining elevator position when scanning data is inadequate. Applying the teachings of Mustonen and Sternitzke to the system of Deyle would result in a system that operates wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the robot to:
“identify an inter-floor travel time based on a sensing value obtained through the IMU sensor” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen with alternative positioning operations performed as per Sternitzke; and
“based on identifying that the elevator has moved from the first floor to the second floor based on the inter-floor travel time, identify whether the floor on which the elevator is stopped is the second floor based on the obtained Wi-Fi device identification information” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen with alternative positioning operations performed as per Sternitzke.
As per Claim 7, the combination of Deyle, Mustonen, and Sternitzke teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 6. Deyle does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one memory stores inter-floor travel time information, and
wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the robot to:
identify an estimated inter-floor travel time from the first floor to the second floor based on the inter-floor travel time information, and
based on identifying that the identified inter-floor travel time matches the estimated inter-floor travel time, identify that the elevator has moved from the first floor to the second floor.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mustonen.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Sternitzke.
Therefore, from these teachings of Deyle, Mustonen, and Sternitzke, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mustonen and Sternitzke to the system of Deyle since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing the cost of the system in the event that determining elevator location data as per Mustonen is cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed techniques as per Deyle; and determining elevator position when scanning data is inadequate. Applying the teachings of Mustonen and Sternitzke to the system of Deyle would result in a system that operates
“wherein the at least one memory stores inter-floor travel time information” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen with alternative positioning operations performed as per Sternitzke;
wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the robot to:
“identify an estimated inter-floor travel time from the first floor to the second floor based on the inter-floor travel time information” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen with alternative positioning operations performed as per Sternitzke;
“based on identifying that the identified inter-floor travel time matches the estimated inter-floor travel time, identify that the elevator has moved from the first floor to the second floor” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen with alternative positioning operations performed as per Sternitzke.
As per Claim 8, the combination of Deyle, Mustonen, and Sternitzke teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 7. Deyle does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the robot to, based on identifying that the identified inter-floor travel time does not match the estimated inter-floor travel time:
identify a third floor on which the elevator is stopped based on the inter-floor travel time information and the identified inter-floor travel time,
based on identifying that the elevator resumes movement after stopping at the third floor, re-identify the inter-floor travel time based on the sensing value obtained through the IMU sensor, and
identify whether the elevator has moved from the third floor to the second floor based on the re-identified inter-floor travel time.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mustonen.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Sternitzke.
Therefore, from these teachings of Deyle, Mustonen, and Sternitzke, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mustonen and Sternitzke to the system of Deyle since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing the cost of the system in the event that determining elevator location data as per Mustonen is cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed techniques as per Deyle; and determining elevator position when scanning data is inadequate. Applying the teachings of Mustonen and Sternitzke to the system of Deyle would result in a system that operates wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the robot to, based on identifying that the identified inter-floor travel time does not match the estimated inter-floor travel time:
“identify a third floor on which the elevator is stopped based on the inter-floor travel time information and the identified inter-floor travel time” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen with alternative positioning operations performed as per Sternitzke;
“based on identifying that the elevator resumes movement after stopping at the third floor, re-identify the inter-floor travel time based on the sensing value obtained through the IMU sensor” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen with alternative positioning operations performed as per Sternitzke; and
“identify whether the elevator has moved from the third floor to the second floor based on the re-identified inter-floor travel time” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen with alternative positioning operations performed as per Sternitzke.
As per Claim 9, the combination of Deyle, Mustonen, and Sternitzke teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 6. Deyle does not expressly disclose the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the robot to:
identify a first time point at which the elevator begins to accelerate based on the obtained sensing value,
identify a second time point at which the elevator begins to decelerate based on the obtained sensing value, and
identify the inter-floor travel time of the elevator based on the first and the second time points.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Mustonen.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Sternitzke.
Therefore, from these teachings of Deyle, Mustonen, and Sternitzke, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mustonen and Sternitzke to the system of Deyle since doing so would enhance the system by: reducing the cost of the system in the event that determining elevator location data as per Mustonen is cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed techniques as per Deyle; and determining elevator position when scanning data is inadequate. Applying the teachings of Mustonen and Sternitzke to the system of Deyle would result in a system that operates with the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the robot to:
“identify a first time point at which the elevator begins to accelerate based on the obtained sensing value” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen with alternative positioning operations performed as per Sternitzke;
“identify a second time point at which the elevator begins to decelerate based on the obtained sensing value” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen with alternative positioning operations performed as per Sternitzke; and
“identify the inter-floor travel time of the elevator based on the first and the second time points” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen with alternative positioning operations performed as per Sternitzke.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chambers (US Pub. No. 2018/0321687) discloses methods, systems, and devices for mapping wireless communication signals for mobile robot guidance. Lee (US Pub. No. 2021/0041547) discloses a robot and method for localizing robot. Liu (CN 113108792 A) discloses a Wi-Fi fingerprint map reconstruction method and device, terminal device and medium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656