DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received 31 March 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-19 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 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), 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 wireless device identification information for one or more wireless devices,
wherein the second floor is identified floor based on the obtained wireless 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 wireless device identification information for one or more wireless 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 wireless 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 wireless device identification information for a plurality of floors;
wherein the robot identifies the floor based on identifying that the obtained wireless device identification information matches the stored wireless 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 wireless 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 wireless device identification information matches the stored wireless 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 wireless device identification information comprises respective wireless signal intensities of each of the one or more wireless devices,
wherein the stored wireless device identification information comprises respective wireless signal intensities of each of one or more wireless 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 wireless devices based on the respective wireless signal intensities,
obtain a second sorting order of one or more wireless devices located on the second floor based on the stored wireless device identification information of the second floor, and
identify whether the obtained wireless device identification information matches the stored wireless 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 wireless device identification information comprises respective wireless signal intensities of each of the one or more wireless 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 wireless device identification information comprises respective wireless signal intensities of each of one or more wireless 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 wireless devices based on the respective wireless 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 wireless devices located on the second floor based on the stored wireless 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 wireless device identification information matches the stored wireless 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 wireless device identification information for one or more wireless devices;
wherein the second floor is identified based on the obtained wireless device identification information;
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 wireless device identification information for one or more wireless 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 wireless 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 wireless device identification information for the second floor from wireless device identification information for a plurality of floors, and wherein the wireless device identification information for the plurality of floors is stored in at least one memory of the robot;
comparing the obtained wireless device identification information with the stored wireless device identification information for the second floor; and
based on identifying that the obtained wireless device identification information matches the stored wireless 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 wireless device identification information for the second floor from wireless device identification information for a plurality of floors, and wherein the wireless 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 wireless device identification information with the stored wireless 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 wireless device identification information matches the stored wireless 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 wireless device identification information comprises respective wireless signal intensities of each of the one or more wireless devices,
wherein the stored wireless device identification information comprises respective wireless signal intensities of each of one or more wireless devices located on the plurality of floors, and wherein the comparing the obtained wireless device identification information with the stored wireless device identification information for the second floor comprises:
obtaining a first sorting order of the one or more wireless devices based on the respective wireless signal intensities,
obtaining a second sorting order of one or more wireless devices located on the second floor based on the stored wireless device identification information of the second floor, and
identifying whether the obtained wireless device identification information matches the stored wireless 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 wireless device identification information comprises respective wireless signal intensities of each of the one or more wireless 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 wireless device identification information comprises respective wireless signal intensities of each of one or more wireless 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 wireless device identification information with the stored wireless device identification information for the second floor comprises:
“obtaining a first sorting order of the one or more wireless devices based on the respective wireless 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 wireless devices located on the second floor based on the stored wireless 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 wireless device identification information matches the stored wireless 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 wireless device identification information for one or more wireless devices;
wherein the second floor is identified based on the obtained wireless 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 wireless device identification information for one or more wireless 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 wireless 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 wireless device identification information for the second floor from wireless device identification information for a plurality of floors, and wherein the wireless device identification information for the plurality of floors is stored in at least one memory of the robot;
comparing the obtained wireless device identification information with the stored wireless device identification information for the second floor; and
based on identifying that the obtained wireless device identification information matches the stored wireless 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 wireless device identification information for the second floor from wireless device identification information for a plurality of floors, and wherein the wireless 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 wireless device identification information with the stored wireless 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 wireless device identification information matches the stored wireless 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 wireless device identification information comprises respective wireless signal intensities of each of the one or more wireless devices,
wherein the stored wireless device identification information comprises respective wireless signal intensities of each of one or more wireless devices located on the plurality of floors, and
wherein the comparing the obtained wireless device identification information with the stored wireless device identification information for the second floor comprises:
obtaining a first sorting order of the one or more wireless devices based on the respective wireless signal intensities,
obtaining a second sorting order of one or more wireless devices located on the second floor based on the stored wireless device identification information of the second floor, and
identifying whether the obtained wireless device identification information matches the stored wireless 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 wireless device identification information comprises respective wireless signal intensities of each of the one or more wireless 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 wireless device identification information comprises respective wireless signal intensities of each of one or more wireless 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, and
wherein the comparing the obtained wireless device identification information with the stored wireless device identification information for the second floor comprises:
“obtaining a first sorting order of the one or more wireless devices based on the respective wireless 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 wireless devices located on the second floor based on the stored wireless 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 wireless device identification information matches the stored wireless 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 wireless device identification information does not match the stored wireless device identification information for the second floor, identify a similarity value between the obtained wireless device identification information and the stored wireless 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 wireless device identification information for the second floor to the obtained wireless 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 wireless device identification information does not match the stored wireless device identification information for the second floor, identify a similarity value between the obtained wireless device identification information and the stored wireless 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; 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 wireless device identification information for the second floor to the obtained wireless 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 wireless device identification information does not match the wireless device identification information for the second floor, identifying a similarity value between the obtained wireless device identification information and the wireless 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 wireless device identification information for the second floor to the obtained wireless 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 wireless device identification information does not match the wireless device identification information for the second floor, identifying a similarity value between the obtained wireless device identification information and the wireless 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 wireless device identification information for the second floor to the obtained wireless 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 wireless device identification information does not match the wireless device identification information for the second floor, identifying a similarity value between the obtained wireless device identification information and the wireless 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 wireless device identification information for the second floor to the obtained wireless 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 wireless device identification information does not match the wireless device identification information for the second floor, identifying a similarity value between the obtained wireless device identification information and the wireless 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 wireless device identification information for the second floor to the obtained wireless 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 (DE102021103038; 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 wireless 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 wireless 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; 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” 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 March 2026 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues objections to the Drawings should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 14 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive. Therefore, these objections are not maintained.
Applicant argues that objections to the Specification should not be maintained (page 15 of Amendment). However, there are no objections to the Specification (see 31 December 2025 Office action at page 3). Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 112 should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 16 of Amendment). These arguments are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections are not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “there is no evidence of record that the use of the system of Mustonen in place of portions of Deyle would be
less costly – this is a speculative assertion on the part of the Examiner” (page 18 of Amendment). However, exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include market forces that could have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the prior art in a predictable manner to result in the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2143). Here, the rejections (see, e.g., page 8-10 of 31 December 2025 Office action) describe market forces leading one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the cost of implementing the system of Deyle by applying the identified teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle. In this way, the motivation identified in the rejections is an appropriate rationale rather than speculative. Therefore, Applicant’s assertion does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “to the extent that the functionality of Mustonen merely replaces functionality taught by Deyle, such a replacement is not sufficient justification for combination” (page 18 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that the functionality of Mustonen provides motivation for applying the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle. As such, Applicant’s argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s assertion does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “As there is no actual evidence of cost reduction, and as the functionality provided in Mustonen is at best a replacement of the functionality of Deyle, the only modification a person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a substitution is found in Applicant’s disclosure, not the cited references” (page 19 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, market forces are appropriately identified in the rejections and no rejection involves an assertion that the functionality of Mustonen provides motivation for applying the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle. Accordingly, no rejection requires looking to Applicant’s disclosure for motivation to apply the teachings of Mustonen to the system of Deyle. Therefore, Applicant’s assertion does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Mustonen does not disclose the conditional relationship recited in [based on identifying that the elevator is stopped, obtain … device identification information]” (page 19 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that Mustonen individually discloses the limitations at issue. Rather, as set forth in the rejections: Deyle discloses an embodiment in which the mobile robot receives a signal from the elevator system indicating that the elevator car has arrived and is stopped at the target floor (Deyle at ¶329); Mustonen discloses associating information describing wireless devices to identification of a specific floor (Mustonen at Figs. 1G, 4-8; ¶113-138); and 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 wireless device identification information for one or more wireless devices” in that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. As set forth in the rejections, the cited references teach or suggest all limitations in the claim language at issue. Therefore, Applicant’s assertion does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “neither Deyle nor Mustonen [discloses] condition ‘[obtaining] …’ … based on ‘identifying …’” as recited in the claims” (page 20 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, no rejection involves an assertion that Mustonen individually discloses the limitations at issue. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s assertion does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “the only basis for condition ‘obtaining’ the wireless information ‘based on identifying that the elevator is stopped’ is found in Applicant’s disclosure” (page 20 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, no rejection involves an assertion that Mustonen individually discloses the limitations at issue and the cited references teach or suggest all limitations in the claim language at issue. Accordingly, no rejection requires looking to Applicant’s disclosure for the limitations at issue. Therefore, Applicant’s assertion does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “there does not appear to be a disclosure of identification of a ‘second floor’ as that term is recited in the claim” and “Rather, Mustonen merely discloses an elevator identifying floors as it moves up and down” (page 20 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that Mustonen identifies whether a floor is the second floor as claimed. Rather, this limitation is disclosed by Deyle. As such, Applicant’s argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s assertion does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Mustonen does not disclose conditioning identification based on RSSI values on identification of whether the elevator is stopped” (page 21 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that Mustonen individually discloses identification based on RSSI values based on whether the elevator is stopped. Rather, this limitation is taught or suggested by a combination of the teachings of Deyle and Mustonen. As such, Applicant’s argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s assertion does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Mustonen does not identify whether the doors are open based on RSSI” (page 21 of Amendment). However, as set forth in the rejections, Mustonen discloses: that 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); that 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); and that the system operates to associate information describing wireless devices to identification of a specific floor (Figs. 1G, 4-8; ¶113-138). In this way, one of ordinary skill in the art would adapt the system of Deyle in view of these teachings of Mustonen such that the system of Deyle operates “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” that the system of Deyle would be adapted to receive and process data describing wireless network devices as per Mustonen. As such, the cited references teach or suggest all limitations in the claim language at issue. Therefore, Applicant’s assertion does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Mustonen does not disclose identification of whether the doors is open ‘based on the RSSI value being greater than a preset value’” (page 22 of Amendment). However, as set forth in the rejections, Mustonen discloses: that 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); that 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); and that the system operates to associate information describing wireless devices to identification of a specific floor (Figs. 1G, 4-8; ¶113-138). In this way, one of ordinary skill in the art would adapt the system of Deyle in view of these teachings of Mustonen such that the system of Deyle 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 such, the cited references teach or suggest all limitations in the claim language at issue. Therefore, Applicant’s assertion does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because: “Sternitzke merely discloses determining a floor position based on acceleration data detected by an inertial sensor”; “In contrast, the present invention first determines movement to a specific floor based on an inter-floor travel time identified by an IMU sensor, and then performs an additional identification of the stopped floor using a Wi-Fi device lists”; “Such a two-step identification process is neither disclosed nor suggested in Sternitzke, Deyle, and Mustonen” and “the only motivation for assembling a system including such a two-step process is Applicant’s disclosure” (page 22-23 of Amendment). However, no claim recites “Wi-Fi device lists”. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not clearly connected to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s assertion does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights