DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office action is in response to the reply received on 04 June 2026. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS received on 04 June 2026 has been considered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 4-6 having been amended, the rejection of claims 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
The remarks regarding the rejections of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and of claims 3-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered. The argument that the Li publication does not disclose "scheduling an evasion route around a detected obstacle, wherein the scheduling is restricted to a planning area that moves with the robot and includes only a part of the area," and therefore does not anticipate every limitation recited by claim 1, is not persuasive. The Li publication discloses that the robot "can only scan a local circular region by its on-board sensors around itself" and that the robot continuously receives local information ("With the rolling window moving forward, robot obtains newer environmental information.") (Li pg 5882 col 1), and further discloses that the robot evades an obstacle using "local target points during the searching procedure" (Li pg 5884 col 1). The above portions of the Li publication are considered to meet the claim limitations of a restricted planning area that moves with the robot and scheduling an evasion route within the planning area.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the publication "A Complete Coverage Path Planning Algorithm for Mobile Robot Based on FSM and Rolling Window Approach in Unknown Environment" (Li et al.).
Claim 1.
Li discloses a method of controlling an autonomous mobile robot having a processing module to perform an activity within a region, comprising:
processing a surface of an area along a robot path (pg 5881 col 1 - "Complete coverage path planning (CCPP) of mobile robot is a special type of trajectory generation in 2-[dimensional] (2D) environments. It requires the robot to pass through the whole area of the workspace");
detecting features of a robot environment for detecting obstacles during processing (pg 5882 - Fig 1, pg 5882 col 1 - "At any instant, robot can only scan a local circular region by its on-board sensors around itself", pg 5882 col 2 - "the robot executes [Finite State Machine] FSM repeatedly and makes full use of the newest local environmental information"); and
automatically scheduling an evasion route around a detected obstacle, wherein the scheduling is restricted to a planning area that moves with the robot and includes only a part of the area (pg 5882 - Fig 1, pg 5884 Fig 4, pg 5884 col 1 - "F3 strategy is also designed based on the greedy thought. It's thought is that the robot moves to the target grid always in a straight line. During the moving procedure, the robot changes its direction to avoid the front obstacles while it always head to the target grid").
Claim 2.
Li discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the planning area transverse to a direction of travel of the robot is at least twice as wide as the robot and at most five times as wide as the robot (pg 5882 - Fig 1).
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.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of the publication "Systematic Floor Coverage of Unknown Environments Using Rectangular Regions and Localization Certainty" (Goel et al.).
Claim 3.
Li discloses the method of claim 1.
Goel teaches the limitations not expressly further disclosed by Li, namely:
wherein a robot track comprises a plurality of substantially parallel track segments according to a first processing pattern (pg 3 Fig 1), and
wherein the robot determines a starting point for continuing processing on a track segment other than a current track segment when bypassing an obstacle within the planning area is not possible (pg 3 col 1 - "if it encounters an obstacle, it backs up and evaluates two options in order to continue. Fig. 1(b) illustrates the scenario. One option is to back up from the obstacle and just turn onto the next rank").
As of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Li and Goel because both relate to methods of planning and performing a complete floor coverage path for a mobile robot. The combination would yield predictable results according to the teachings of Goel by providing additional path options for a robot when encountering an obstacle.
Claim 4.
The combination of Li and Goel teaches the method of claim 3.
Goel further teaches wherein the robot checks a reachability of a starting point and, when the starting point is not reachable, the robot shifts along the other track segment until an achievable starting point is found (pg 3 Fig 1, pg 3 col 1 - "At some point the robot is not able to continue its boustrophedon path because it is at the end of the region, or its position certainty is too low, or there are obstacle cells blocking the next rank (example in Fig. 1(c)). At this point, the robot searches for open frontiers in the rectangular region and chooses the next target rank and start location").
Claim 5.
The combination of Li and Goel teaches the method of claim 4.
Goel further teaches the method further comprising the step of, calculating a processing gain based on starting from the starting point in a first direction and a second direction of the other track segment (pg 3 col 2 - "We split frontiers into multiple components by fitting straight line segments aligned to the coordinate axes of the region, and discarding the ones with very small projected length along the main coverage direction"); and
wherein the processing on the other web segment continues in a direction in which the processing gain is highest (pg 3 col 2 - "discarding the ones with very small projected length along the main coverage direction").
Claim 6.
The combination of Li and Goel teaches the method of claim 3.
Goel further teaches wherein bypassing an obstacle along an avoidance route is discontinued when the robot exits the planning area and the robot determines the starting point on the other track segment (pg 3 col 2 - "For example, in Fig. 2, the robot selects the lower endpoint of Target 3 because it's path distance (5 cells) is smaller than the lower endpoint of target 2 (6 cells) and the upper endpoint of Target 1 (7 cells)").
Claim 7.
Li discloses the method of claim 1.
Goel teaches the limitations not expressly further disclosed by Li, namely:
wherein when bypassing a detected obstacle along an avoidance route within the planning area is possible, the robot bypasses the obstacle in a preferred direction (pg 2 col 2 - "The robot moves back and forth within this region using the classic boustrophedon pattern. We call each longitudinal segment of the boustrophedon path a rank. A rank has a start pose, a rank length lr and a progress direction (either left or right)", pg 3 col 1 - "Another option is to follow the obstacle over covered cells, towards the previous rank, and attempt to merge back onto the current rank behind the obstacle", pg 3 col 2-pg 4 col 1 - "Note that at the end of each rank at Target 3, the robot will progress to the left to start the new rank. This progress direction is determined by the side on which unknown cells are located with respect to the target rank").
See claim 3 for a statement of an obviousness rationale.
Claim 8.
The combination of Li and Goel teaches the method of claim 7.
Goel further teaches wherein the preferred direction depends only on an orientation of the robot, or always leads through an already processed area of the area (pg 2 col 2 - "The robot moves back and forth within this region using the classic boustrophedon pattern. We call each longitudinal segment of the boustrophedon path a rank. A rank has a start pose, a rank length lr and a progress direction (either left or right)", pg 3 col 1 - "Another option is to follow the obstacle over covered cells, towards the previous rank, and attempt to merge back onto the current rank behind the obstacle", pg 3 col 2-pg 4 col 1 - "Note that at the end of each rank at Target 3, the robot will progress to the left to start the new rank. This progress direction is determined by the side on which unknown cells are located with respect to the target rank").
Conclusion
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 Todd Melton whose telephone number is (571)270-3871. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays, 9:30am - 6:00pm (Eastern time). 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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/TODD MELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights