DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,083,675. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 2 of the present application is directed to an autonomous Colloborative Robot, and requires: a sensor, memory including instructions for navigating the store, a camara, a processor to cause the COBOT to autonomously navigate the store, controlling the camera to capture images, analyzing the images to detect a condition at the location indicative of a need for assistance from the COBOT, and causing the Cobot to autonomously navigate to the location.
Claim 19 in 12,083,675 recites: an autonomous Collaborative Robot (COBOT) comprising a COBOT processor; causing the COBOT to autonomously navigate aisles of a store; the COBOT controller when executed by the server processor causes the server to: autonomously navigate aisles of a store; monitor items on shelves and individuals individual within the aisles for self-discovered tasks relevant to item-shelf restocking and providing individual assistance; receive tasks from the COBOT controller; and perform the tasks based on real-time environmental analysis and autonomous decision making.
The other limitations in claim 19 of the patent which include: processing rules associated with predefined behaviors to identify each of a plurality of behaviors for each of the individuals, and the tasks are iteratively refined based on ongoing real-time image analysis and predefined behavioral patterns indicative of assistance needs of the individuals within the store environment, which are not required in claim 2 of the present application, provide a more specific implementation of determining that a need for assistance exists and so not render the claims patentably distinct, which broadly recite detecting a need for assistance and navigating the COBOT accordingly.
Claims 3-12 depend from claim 2 and are not separately addressed, they stand rejected for the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,083,675. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 13 of the present application recites: a (COBOT), comprising:
a processor; a memory storing executable instructions; a sensor configured to capture sensor data within a store; and a camera configured to capture images in the store in real time, monitoring, using the images and the sensor data, an item on a shelf and an individual in the store; based on the monitoring, identify a task to be performed; and cause the autonomous COBOT to navigate to a location in the store to perform the task.
Claim 19 of the issued patent recites: an COBOT, comprising a COBOT processor; causing the COBOT to autonomously navigate aisles of a store; the COBOT controller causing the server to: autonomously navigate aisles of a store; monitor items on shelves and individuals individual within the aisles for self-discovered tasks relevant to item-shelf restocking and providing individual assistance; receive tasks from the COBOT controller; and perform the tasks based on real-time environmental analysis and autonomous decision making.
The other limitations in claim 19 of the issued patent which include: processing rules associated with predefined behaviors to identify each of a plurality of behaviors for each of the individuals, and the tasks are iteratively refined based on ongoing real-time image analysis and predefined behavioral patterns indicative of assistance needs of the individuals within the store environment, provide a more specific implementation of determining that a need for assistance exists and so not render the claims patentably distinct, which broadly recite detecting a need for assistance and navigating the COBOT accordingly.
Claims 14-19 depend from claim 13 and are not separately addressed, they stand rejected for the same grounds as claim 13.
Claim 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,083,675. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 20 of the present application requires: A system, comprising: an autonomous Collaborative Robot (COBOT) including: a processor; a memory storing executable instructions; a sensor to sense environmental conditions within a store; and a camera for capture images within the store, the processor executing the instructions to cause the autonomous COBOT to: autonomously navigate at least one aisle of the store; identify, using sensor data captured by the sensor indicative of the environmental conditions within the store and the images captured by the camera, an item or an individual present in the store; receive an indication of a task to be performed in relation to the item or the individual from a remote controller; and perform the task.
Claim 19 of the issued patent recites: an autonomous Collaborative Robot (COBOT) comprising a COBOT processor; causing the COBOT to autonomously navigate aisles of a store; the COBOT controller when executed by the server processor causes the server to: autonomously navigate aisles of a store; monitor items on shelves and individuals individual within the aisles for self-discovered tasks relevant to item-shelf restocking and providing individual assistance; receive tasks from the COBOT controller; and perform the tasks based on real-time environmental analysis and autonomous decision making.
The other limitations in claim 19 of the issued patent which include: processing rules associated with predefined behaviors to identify each of a plurality of behaviors for each of the individuals, and the tasks are iteratively refined based on ongoing real-time image analysis and predefined behavioral patterns indicative of assistance needs of the individuals within the store environment, provide a more specific implementation of determining that a need for assistance exists and so not render the claims patentably distinct, which broadly recite detecting a need for assistance and navigating the COBOT accordingly.
Claim 21 depends from claim 20 and is not separately addressed. It stands rejected for the same grounds as claim 20.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation the sub-task includes navigating “retrieve the item for restocking the shelf at the location” in 5. Claim 5 recites the limitation the “condition is at least one of i) a need to restock an item on a shelf within the store or ii) assistance needed in obtaining an item from a shelf”. The need to restock an item is not required in claim 5, and it appears that claim 6 includes this need to restock an item.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-5, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adato et al (US Patent No. 2019/0215424). Relative to claims 2-5, and 12, Adato discloses:
An autonomous Collaborative Robot (COBOT) (robotic device, Para. 115)(Fig. 4C), comprising:
a sensor to sense an environmental condition present in a store (see “other sensors”, Para. 0140);
a memory (226) storing executable instructions including navigation instructions for navigating the store (Para. 0135);
a camera (Para. 0115, 0140); and
a processor (202) configured to execute the executable instructions to: cause the autonomous COBOT (robotic device) to autonomously navigate the store (Para. 0134; 0149); control the camera to capture images of a location within the store (Para. 0149); analyze the images to detect a condition at the location indicative of a need for assistance from the COBOT (Para. 0230; 0231, system determines actionable tasks based on sensed real-time data regarding the store, including store shelves); and cause the COBOT to autonomously navigate to the location responsive to detecting the condition (Para. 0631).
the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to: track at least one of an individual or an item within the store from the images (Para. 0033).
the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to: cause the autonomous COBOT to perform a task at the location to resolve the detected condition (Para. 0632; 0500).
the detected condition is at least one of i) a need to restock an item on a shelf within the store or ii) assistance needed in obtaining an item from a shelf (Para. 0231; 0664).
Relative to claims 13, 15, 17 and 19, the disclosure of Adato includes:
An autonomous Collaborative Robot (COBOT)(robotic device, Para. 0115), comprising:
a processor (Para. 0134);
a memory storing executable instructions (Para. 0135);
a sensor (“other sensors”) configured to capture sensor data within a store (Para. 0140); and
a camera configured to capture images in the store in real time (Para. 0115; 0140),
the processor is configured to execute the executable instructions to: monitor, using the images and the sensor data, an item on a shelf and an individual in the store (Para. 0033);
based on the monitoring, identify a task to be performed (Para. 0230-231); and
cause the autonomous COBOT to navigate to a location in the store to perform the task (Para. 0231; 0632).
process the images in real time (Para. 0150; 0231); and
cause the autonomous COBOT to autonomously navigate aisles of the store based on the real-time processing (Para. 0230-0231).
the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to: iteratively refine the task based on the monitoring (Para. 00479; system determines which items should be relocated based on real-time shelf data (the “task”), and dynamically prioritizes and updates which misplaced item should be addressed first according to urgency levels, for instance a frozen item should be returned to appropriate location first as opposed to a canned good, thereby iteratively refining the relocation task based on the monitoring);
the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to: send the images to a remote controller for processing (Para. 0006, 0149; see “remote server”; and receive an indication of the task from the remote controller (Para. 0149, robotic devices are controlled by server and operated remotely or autonomously).
Relative to claim 20, the disclosure of Adato includes:
A system, comprising: an autonomous Collaborative Robot (COBOT) (robotic device, Para. 0115) including:
a processor (Para. 0134); a memory storing executable instructions (Para. 0135);
a sensor to sense environmental conditions within a store (Para. 0140); and
a camera configured to capture images within the store (Para. 0115, 0140), the processor is configured to execute the executable instructions to cause the autonomous COBOT to:
autonomously navigate at least one aisle of the store (Para. 0149);
identify, using sensor data captured by the sensor indicative of the environmental conditions within the store and the images captured by the camera, an item or an individual present in the store (Para. 0149); and
receive an indication of a task to be performed in relation to the item or the individual from a remote controller (Para. 0230-0231); and perform the task (Para. 0231; 0631).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adato in view of Atchley (US PG. Pub. 2016/0260161).Relative to claims 6 and 8, Adato discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose:
the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to: cause the autonomous COBOT to perform a sub-task as part of performing the task at the location, the sub-task includes navigating to a storage area of the store to retrieve the item for restocking the shelf at the location; or
the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to: engage in a voice dialogue with an individual within the store.
Atchley teaches:
the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to: cause the autonomous COBOT to perform a sub-task as part of performing the task at the location, the sub-task includes navigating to a storage area of the store to retrieve the item for restocking the shelf at the location (Para. 0170, based on condition, MTU may bring items from the back room to place on shelves); and
the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to: engage in a voice dialogue with an individual within the store (Para. 0153),
for the purpose of providing a system and method for assisting customers and/or workers in a shopping environment that can provide adequate assistance to customers when fewer workers are available, can keep up with routing tasks, improves organization of items in the store, and improves overall customer experience (Para. 0002-0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Adato with the COBOT performing the sub-task to navigate to a storage area of the store to retrieve the item for restocking, and engaging in a voice dialogue with an individual described above, as taught in Atchley for the purpose of providing a system and method for assisting customers and/or workers in a shopping environment that can provide adequate assistance to customers when fewer workers are available, can keep up with routing tasks, improves organization of items in the store, and improves overall customer experience.
Relative to claims 14, Adato discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose:
the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to: provide natural language assistance to the individual through voice-based interactions with the individual.
Atchley teaches:
the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to: provide natural language assistance to the individual through voice-based interactions with the individual (Para. 0153),
for the purpose of providing a system and method for assisting customers and/or workers in a shopping environment that can provide adequate assistance to customers when fewer workers are available, can keep up with routing tasks, improves organization of items in the store, and improves overall customer experience (Para. 0002-0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Adato with the providing natural language assistance to the individual through voice-based interactions, as taught in Atchley for the purpose of providing a system and method for assisting customers and/or workers in a shopping environment that can provide adequate assistance to customers when fewer workers are available, can keep up with routing tasks, improves organization of items in the store, and improves overall customer experience.
Claim(s) 7, 9-11, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adato in view of Deyle (US PG. Pub. 2021/0046650). Relative to claims 7, 9-11, Adato discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose:
a touch-screen display configured to present a graphical user interface (GUI).
the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to: cause the autonomous COBOT to navigate within the store based on a predetermined schedule.
the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to: cause the autonomous COBOT to obtain an item from a shelf of the store and provide the item to a customer; or
the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to: cause the autonomous COBOT to identify a behavior of an individual at the location that indicates a need for assistance without an explicit request being made by the individual; and navigate to the location responsive to identifying the behavior.
Deyle teaches:
a touch-screen display configured to present a graphical user interface (GUI)(Para. 0101).
the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to: cause the autonomous COBOT (mobile robot, 2710) to navigate within the store based on a predetermined schedule (Para. 0331, see “scheduled routine”).
the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to: cause the autonomous COBOT (mobile robot) to obtain an item from a shelf of the store and provide the item to a customer (Para. 0346; 0335, in the retail environment 2700, the items are on shelves, see Fig. 27A); and
the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to: cause the autonomous COBOT (mobile robot) to identify a behavior of an individual at the location that indicates a need for assistance without an explicit request being made by the individual (Para. 0348); and navigate to the location responsive to identifying the behavior (Para. 0348),
for the purpose of providing a robot for operation in commercial and industrial settings that can frequently interact with humans and can communicate with building an object infrastructure (Para. 0001-0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the device of Adato with the touch-screen display, causing the autonomous COBOT to navigate within the store based on a predetermined schedule, the autonomous COBOT obtaining an item from a shelf and providing the item to a customer, and identifying a behavior of an individual at the location that indicates a need for assistance described above, as taught in Deyle, for the purpose of providing a robot for operation in commercial and industrial settings that can frequently interact with humans and can communicate with building an object infrastructure.
Relative to claims 16 and 18, Adato discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose:
identify a behavior of the individual that indicates a need for assistance without an explicit request being made by the individual.
the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to: match a behavior of the individual to a predefined behavior indicating a need for assistance by the individual.
Deyle teaches:
identify a behavior of the individual that indicates a need for assistance without an explicit request being made by the individual (Para. 0348).
the processor is further configured to execute the executable instructions to: match a behavior of the individual to a predefined behavior indicating a need for assistance by the individual (Para. 0348),
for the purpose of providing a robot for operation in commercial and industrial settings that can frequently interact with humans and can communicate with building an object infrastructure (Para. 0001-0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the device of Adato with the identifying a behavior of the individual that indicates a need for assistance, matching a behavior of the individual to a predefined behavior described above, as taught in Deyle, for the purpose of providing a robot for operation in commercial and industrial settings that can frequently interact with humans and can communicate with building an object infrastructure.
Relative to claims 21, Adato discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose: detecting a condition requiring the task based on a behavior pattern associated with the individual without an explicit request being made by the individual.
Deyle teaches: detecting a condition requiring the task based on a behavior pattern associated with the individual without an explicit request being made by the individual (Para. 0328), for the purpose of providing a robot for operation in commercial and industrial settings that can frequently interact with humans and can communicate with building an object infrastructure (Para. 0001-0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Adato with the detecting a condition requiring the task based on a behavior pattern associated with the individual, as taught in Deyle, for the purpose of providing a robot for operation in commercial and industrial settings that can frequently interact with humans and can communicate with building an object infrastructure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cole et al (US 2020/0310391), Cui et al (US 2019/0206400)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOLANDA RENEE CUMBESS whose telephone number is (571)270-5527. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/YOLANDA R CUMBESS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights