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 .
Priority
The present application, filed 03 September 2024, is a continuation of U.S. Patent App. No. 17/436276, filed 03 September 2021, which was a 371 National Stage Entry of PCT/US2020/023507, filed 19 March 2020, which claims benefit to U.S. Provisional Patent App. No. 62/822342, filed 22 March 2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 September 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The corrected drawings filed 23 September 2024 have been accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 14, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, Applicant claims: “wherein the autonomous machine cannot navigate to autonomously to the isolated containment zone due to impassible terrain.” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “wherein the autonomous machine cannot navigate
Regarding claim 14, Applicant claims: “wherein prioritizing the at least one operational task comprises revising the operating schedule to prioritize the at least one operational task due to one or more of: a user availability, a schedule of availability of the isolated containment zone, a sensor that detects opening of a barrier or obstacle that allows passage to the isolated containment zone.” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “wherein prioritizing the at least one operational task comprises revising the operating schedule to prioritize the at least one operational task due to one or more of: a user availability, a schedule of availability of the isolated containment zone, and/or a sensor that detects opening of a barrier or obstacle that allows passage to the isolated containment zone,” or the like.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant claims: “determine an operating schedule for a work region that assigns the one or more operational tasks to the one or more windows of availability based the total operation time….” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “determine an operating schedule for a work region that assigns the one or more operational tasks to the one or more windows of availability based on the total operation time…,” or the like.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant claims: “further comprising a sensor that opening of a barrier or obstacle that allows passage to the isolated containment zone, and wherein prioritizing the at least one operational task comprises revising the operating schedule to prioritize the at least one operational task due to an opening of a barrier or obstacle.” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “further comprising a sensor that detects an opening of a barrier or obstacle that allows passage to the isolated containment zone, and wherein prioritizing the at least one operational task comprises revising the operating schedule to prioritize the at least one operational task due to the opening of a barrier or obstacle…,” or the like.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant claims: “wherein the at least one operational task is prioritized after charging to ensure that the autonomous machine has battery power available for the at least one operational task.” The examiner asserts that this limitation renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear which of the “at least one operational task” is being referenced, the “at least one operational task [for covering] an isolated containment zone,” or the “at least one other operational task to cover an autonomous containment zone.” The examiner recommends amending the claim to better indicate which “at least one operational task” is being referenced. For the sake of examination, the examiner is interpreting the “at least one operational task” to be the “at least one operational task to cover an isolated containment zone.”
Regarding claim 8, Applicant claims: “wherein prioritizing the at least one operational task provides a longest duration possible within one round for a user to transport the autonomous machine to the isolated containment zone and stay on schedule.” The examiner asserts that this limitation renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what “one round” is intended to represent. The examiner also notes that this limitation, as claimed, appears to be directed towards the result of the prioritization, rather than a further limitation of the prioritizing. The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “wherein prioritizing the at least one operational task further comprises providing the at least one operational task to cover the isolated containment zone a longest duration possible within the one or more windows of availability for a user to transport the autonomous machine to the isolated containment zone and stay on schedule…” or the like. For the sake of examination, the examiner is interpreting claim 8 in line with the suggested claim language above.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant claims: “wherein prioritizing the at least one operational task to cover the isolated containment zone comprises determining that the isolated containment zone is not isolated before prioritizing the at least one operational task to cover the isolated containment zone.” The examiner asserts that this limitation renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear how the isolated containment zone can be not isolated, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the “isolated containment zone” as being, by definition, isolated. For the sake of examination, the examiner is interpreting claim 13 to mean “wherein prioritizing the at least one operational task to cover the isolated containment zone comprises determining that the isolated containment zone no longer isolated before prioritizing the at least one operational task to cover the isolated containment zone.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-16 are directed towards a method (i.e., a process). Claims 17-20 are directed towards an autonomous machine (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite a mental process (emphasized below) and will be used as the representative claim for the remainder of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for operating an autonomous machine comprising:
Determining one or more windows of availability over a time period when the autonomous machine is allowed to operate to perform one or more operational tasks;
Determining a total operation time over the period;
Determining an operating schedule for a work region that assigns the one or more operational tasks to the one or more windows of availability based on the total operation time; and
Prioritizing at least one operational task to cover an isolated containment zone before at least one other operational task to cover an autonomous containment zone in the operating schedule.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process”, because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers actions capable of being performed in the human mind. Specifically, the examiner asserts that the limitations of “determining one or more windows of availability…,” “determining a total operation time…,” “determining an operating schedule…,” amount to mental processes in the form of a mere mental judgement as to windows of availability, a total operation time, and an operating schedule, respectively. Regarding the limitation of “prioritizing at least one operational task…,” the examiner asserts that this limitation amounts to a mere mental decision as to which of a plurality of tasks is to be prioritized. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
The examiner notes that, as indicated in Step 2A, Prong I, the claims as presented contain no additional limitations which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above, with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Hence, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 17, the examiner notes that independent claim 17 contains the same limitations indicated as amounting to mere mental processes independent claim 1, but also contains the additional elements of “a propulsion controller operably coupled to a set of wheels” and “a scheduling controller operably coupled to the propulsion controller.” The examiner asserts, however, that these additional elements fail to bring independent claim 17 into patent eligibility, as both additional elements amount to mere generic linking of “controllers” to perform the mental processes indicated above. The examiner further notes that the claimed “controllers” are merely objects on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, see at least MPEP § 2106.05(b), and the cases cited therein. Hence, independent claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 2, dependent claim 2 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 2 merely provides further description of the autonomous machine, and does not provide any limitations that would bring the claim into patent eligibility. Hence, dependent claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 3, dependent claim 3 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 3 merely describes how the autonomous machine accesses the isolated containment zone. The examiner notes that this does not appear to be an active control step, and rather serves as further description of the autonomous machine. The examiner further notes that, if dependent claim 3 is interpreted to be an active control step, then dependent claim 3 may additionally not be patent eligible as may amount to a method of organizing human activity. Hence, dependent claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 4, dependent claim 4 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 4 merely describes when the task is prioritized, which amounts to a mere modification of the mental process of “prioritizing.” Hence, dependent claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 5, dependent claim 5 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 5 merely provides further description of the system, insufficient to bring the claim into patent eligibility. Hence, dependent claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 6, dependent claim 6 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 6 merely provides a description of what the isolated containment zone is. Hence, dependent claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 7, dependent claim 7 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 7 merely provides further description of what the isolated containment zone is. Hence, dependent claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 8, dependent claim 8 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 8 merely recites further limitations on how the mental process of “prioritizing” is performed. Hence, dependent claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 9, dependent claim 9 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 9 merely provides further description of the isolated containment zone. Hence, dependent claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 10, dependent claim 10 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 10 merely provides further description of the isolated containment zone. Hence, dependent claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 11, dependent claim 11 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 11 merely provides further description of the environment in which the autonomous machines are intended to operated, or provides an additional element in the form of mere data transmission, which has been shown to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when recited in a generic manner. Hence, dependent claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 12, dependent claim 12 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 12 merely provides further description of the barrier to the isolated containment zone. Hence, dependent claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 13, dependent claim 13 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 13 merely recites an additional mental process in the form of “determining that the isolated containment zone is not isolated,” which the examiner asserts amounts to a mere mental judgement as to whether the containment zone is isolated. Hence, dependent claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 14, dependent claim 14 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 14 merely recites an additional mental process in the form of “revising the operating schedule to prioritize the at least one operational task,” which the examiner asserts amounts to a mere mental judgement in the form of mentally changing the operating schedule”. Hence, dependent claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 15, dependent claim 15 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 15 merely recites additional elements in the form of a “user interface,” which the examiner asserts is a mere apply-it level integration because the user interface has been claimed in a generic manner, and the user interface is performing its typical actions (i.e., taking user inputs), and in the form of mere data gathering in the form of “providing user inputs to the autonomous machine,” which have been shown to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when recited in a generic manner. Hence, dependent claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 16, dependent claim 16 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 16 merely provides a description of what the operational tasks are, rather than an active control step of performing the operational task. Hence, dependent claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 18, dependent claim 18 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 18 merely recites additional elements in the form of “a user interface,” and “a wireless radio” which the examiner asserts is a mere apply-it level integration because the user interface and the wireless radio have been claimed in a generic manner, and in the form of mere data gathering in the form of “receiving user input…,” which have been shown to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when recited in a generic manner. Hence, dependent claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 19, dependent claim 19 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 19 merely provides further description of the autonomous machine, which does not amount to an additional element that would bring the claim into patent eligibility. Hence, dependent claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 20, dependent claim 20 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 20 merely recites further description of the mental process of “prioritizing,” as well as mere data gathering in the form of “[detecting] an opening of a barrier or obstacle,” which has been shown to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Hence, dependent claim 20 is not patent eligible.
The examiner notes that the independent claims could be amended to bring the claims into patent eligibility through the recitation of a discrete control step incapable of being performed in the human mind. For example, a recitation of, e.g., “operating the autonomous machine to perform the prioritized at least one operational task to cover an isolated containment zone…,” or the like, in line with Applicant’s specification, would cause the claims to be drawn towards patent eligible subject matter.
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.
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 1-13, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel (US 20200319640 A1, having a filing date of at least 27 April 2018), hereafter Vogel, in view of Angle (US 20140207282 A1), hereafter Angle.
Regarding claim 1, Vogel discloses a method for operating an autonomous machine comprising:
Determining one or more windows of availability over a time period when the autonomous machine is allowed to operate to perform one or more operational tasks (0063, Additionally or alternatively, the thus generated work plan can be entered into a time table. In this case the work plan will be carried out at the time specified in the time table. The specified time can be freely chosen by the user and can be repeated in suitable intervals. The user, for example, can specify the starting time for carrying out the subtasks that is to be entered in the time table when assigning the task.);
Determining a total operation time over the time period (0080, FIG. 7A shows an exemplary illustration of the planned work sequence for the cleaning of the deployment area shown in FIG. 4A. Here the size of a block that depicts a subtask corresponds to the expected amount of time needed to complete the subtask. In particular, the height of the illustrated block is proportional to the expected amount of time needed to complete a subtask.);
Determining an operating schedule for a work region that assigns the one or more operational tasks to the one or more windows of availability based the total operation time (0059, As described above, one or more subtask can be assigned to each node. In this way, generally known algorithms for graphs and topological maps can be used to determine the sequence in which the subtasks are to be completed. For example, Monte Carlo algorithms or the Dijkstra algorithm can be used to determine the sequence of the processing. When determining the sequence, any other desired parameter can also be applied to help find the best solution (e.g. the shortest path or the fastest processing of the entire work deployment). See also at least Fig. 5); and
Prioritizing at least one operational task to cover a first containment zone before at least one other operational task to cover an autonomous containment zone in the operating schedule (0061, Here it should be pointed out that planning the work of the autonomous mobile robot 100 as described here by way of example starts in the subarea in which its base station 110 is located. This means that the processing, in particular, the cleaning of the subtasks may end in a remotely located subarea. It may not be desirable, however, for the robot to travel over the floor surfaces that have already been cleaned with a collector bin full of dirt and/or with dirtied actuators such as brushes as this could once again dirty the surfaces. In order to avoid this, the processing can be planned in the opposite sequence, making the subarea in which the base station is located the last to be processed. In this manner, movement over previously cleaned surfaces can be reduced to a minimum. 0062, In particular, the user can change the sequence of the subtasks. The user may want, for example, the robot to begin in a specifiable room (e.g. where it is currently located). In such a case, the sequence in which the subtasks are completed is updated in accordance with the wishes of the user.).
Vogel fails to explicitly disclose, however, wherein the first containment zone is an isolated containment zone.
Vogel does, however, explicitly disclose wherein subareas may be inaccessible to the autonomous machine (0116, For example, the robot may have been given the planned task of cleaning a certain room (subarea), to which the user has to open a door open before leaving the apartment. 0117, In a further example, the robot is supposed to carry out, according to schedule, a planned task on a floor of the house that it can only get to when carried there by a user.)
Angle, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach prioritizing at least one operational task to cover an isolated containment zone before at least one other operational task to cover an autonomous containment zone in the operating schedule (0042, In some embodiments, or in an invention disclosed herein and preceding, the mobile robot receives an input parameter related to the measurable characteristic (e.g., using a keyboard or touchscreen, a threshold or target) and determines an order (e.g., a full or partial sequence of rooms, optionally including room-to-room paths or room-to-room gateways, or a priority list in which rooms are addressed by availability--depending on, for example open or closed doors--and suitability--depending on, for example time available in a schedule to clean, or type of floor) of a portion or all of the plurality of rooms to traverse based on the input parameter and a score associated with the measurable characteristic of each room.).
Vogel and Angle are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., autonomous mobile robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the prioritization of operation area based on priority and availability of Angle in order to provide a means of ensuring every area in the environment is processed. The motivation to combine is to allow the autonomous device to prioritize more important operational areas.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Vogel and Angle teaches the method of claim 1, and Vogel further discloses wherein the autonomous machine is not able to access the isolated containment zone independent of a user (0116, There may be certain conditions that can only be verified when the robot is in close proximity. For example, the robot may have been given the planned task of cleaning a certain room (subarea), to which the user has to open a door open before leaving the apartment. In this case the robot can go to the room and check whether the door has been opened shortly before the user leaves the apartment as scheduled. If the door is found to be closed, a reminder is sent. This avoids the necessity of the robot sending a standard reminder to the user every morning that the door should be opened regardless of whether the door is actually open or whether the reminder is needed. 0117, In a further example, the robot is supposed to carry out, according to schedule, a planned task on a floor of the house that it can only get to when carried there by a user. In this case, shortly before the user leaves the apartment as scheduled, the robot can check whether it is on the correct floor. For this a self-localization may be needed. In order to carry out a self-localization, the robot may have to move within the deployment area. If the robot determines that it is not located in the correct deployment area (on the correct floor), a reminder can be sent to the user.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Vogel and Angle teaches the method of claim 2, and Vogel further discloses wherein the autonomous machine is carried by the user to an area where the autonomous machine can access the isolated containment zone (0117, In a further example, the robot is supposed to carry out, according to schedule, a planned task on a floor of the house that it can only get to when carried there by a user. In this case, shortly before the user leaves the apartment as scheduled, the robot can check whether it is on the correct floor. For this a self-localization may be needed. In order to carry out a self-localization, the robot may have to move within the deployment area. If the robot determines that it is not located in the correct deployment area (on the correct floor), a reminder can be sent to the user.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Vogel and Angle teaches the method of claim 1, and Vogel further discloses wherein the at least one operational task is prioritized after charging to ensure that the autonomous machine has battery power available for the at least one operational task (0061, Here it should be pointed out that planning the work of the autonomous mobile robot 100 as described here by way of example starts in the subarea in which its base station 110 is located. This means that the processing, in particular, the cleaning of the subtasks may end in a remotely located subarea. It may not be desirable, however, for the robot to travel over the floor surfaces that have already been cleaned with a collector bin full of dirt and/or with dirtied actuators such as brushes as this could once again dirty the surfaces. In order to avoid this, the processing can be planned in the opposite sequence, making the subarea in which the base station is located the last to be processed. In this manner, movement over previously cleaned surfaces can be reduced to a minimum.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Vogel and Angle teaches the method of claim 4, and Vogel further teaches wherein a base station is not accessible from the isolated containment zone without user intervention (0117, In a further example, the robot is supposed to carry out, according to schedule, a planned task on a floor of the house that it can only get to when carried there by a user. In this case, shortly before the user leaves the apartment as scheduled, the robot can check whether it is on the correct floor. For this a self-localization may be needed. In order to carry out a self-localization, the robot may have to move within the deployment area. If the robot determines that it is not located in the correct deployment area (on the correct floor), a reminder can be sent to the user. Examiner's note: in the instance that the floor of the house that the robot can only get to with user assistance is the floor where the base station is not located, then the base station would be inaccessible to the robot, as it would require user assistance to move to the correct floor).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Vogel and Angle teaches the method of claim 1, and Vogel further discloses wherein the isolated containment zone is a containment zone that the autonomous machine cannot navigate to autonomously (0116, There may be certain conditions that can only be verified when the robot is in close proximity. For example, the robot may have been given the planned task of cleaning a certain room (subarea), to which the user has to open a door open before leaving the apartment. In this case the robot can go to the room and check whether the door has been opened shortly before the user leaves the apartment as scheduled. If the door is found to be closed, a reminder is sent. This avoids the necessity of the robot sending a standard reminder to the user every morning that the door should be opened regardless of whether the door is actually open or whether the reminder is needed. 0117, In a further example, the robot is supposed to carry out, according to schedule, a planned task on a floor of the house that it can only get to when carried there by a user. In this case, shortly before the user leaves the apartment as scheduled, the robot can check whether it is on the correct floor. For this a self-localization may be needed. In order to carry out a self-localization, the robot may have to move within the deployment area. If the robot determines that it is not located in the correct deployment area (on the correct floor), a reminder can be sent to the user.).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Vogel and Angle teaches the method of claim 6, and Vogel further discloses wherein the autonomous machine cannot navigate to autonomously to the isolated containment zone due to impassible terrain (0116, There may be certain conditions that can only be verified when the robot is in close proximity. For example, the robot may have been given the planned task of cleaning a certain room (subarea), to which the user has to open a door open before leaving the apartment. In this case the robot can go to the room and check whether the door has been opened shortly before the user leaves the apartment as scheduled. If the door is found to be closed, a reminder is sent. This avoids the necessity of the robot sending a standard reminder to the user every morning that the door should be opened regardless of whether the door is actually open or whether the reminder is needed. 0117, In a further example, the robot is supposed to carry out, according to schedule, a planned task on a floor of the house that it can only get to when carried there by a user. In this case, shortly before the user leaves the apartment as scheduled, the robot can check whether it is on the correct floor. For this a self-localization may be needed. In order to carry out a self-localization, the robot may have to move within the deployment area. If the robot determines that it is not located in the correct deployment area (on the correct floor), a reminder can be sent to the user.).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Vogel and Angle teaches the method of claim 6, and Vogel further discloses wherein prioritizing the at least one operational task provides a longest duration possible within one round for a user to transport the autonomous machine to the isolated containment zone and stay on schedule (0047, As FIG. 5 exemplarily illustrates, the duration of a deployment can be indicated, for example, by the size of the displayed entry. It is also possible to additionally or alternatively show (e.g. in an hourly view) the starting time, the presumed ending time (of currently running deployments or of those planned for the future) and/or the actual ending time (of past deployments). In the case of currently running deployments, for example, it is possible to show how much of the task has already been completed and the estimated time needed to complete the rest of the task. For example, in the case of a cleaning robot, it is possible to show what portion of the floor surface to be cleaned has already been cleaned, what portion of the surface remains to be cleaned and how much time will presumably be needed to clean it. Other parameters relating to the performance of a task can also be displayed such as, for example, the energy consumed by the task or the amount of dirt collected. See also Fig. 5, element R30. Examiner's note: the examiner notes that "for a user to transport the autonomous machine to the isolated containment area and stay on schedule" appears to be merely the intended use of the "longest duration possible" and as such, is not being given patentable weight.).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Vogel and Angle teaches the method of claim 6, and Vogel further discloses wherein a barrier or obstacle does not physically impede movement of the autonomous machine to the isolated containment zone, the isolated containment zone being isolated based on a user input or schedule (0039, The navigation module 152 can be configured to allow the determined exclusion regions that the robot 100 is not allowed to autonomously enter or travel through while navigating to be marked on the maps. This is done, for example, by the control unit 150 treating an area marked as a virtual exclusion region as if the exclusion region were an obstacle in the deployment area of the robot 100. In order to prevent the robot 100 from entering the exclusion region, the control unit 150 of the robot 100 can make use of an obstacle avoidance strategy, also known as obstacle avoidance algorithm, which is configured to control the robot 100, based on the position of recognized obstacles, to prevent it from colliding with the obstacles. Based on the virtual exclusion regions saved in the map data, the position of one or more exclusion regions can be determined. These positions can then be used by the obstacle avoidance strategy in the same way as if a real obstacle stood at this position. Thus it can be easily ensured that the robot 100 will not autonomously enter and/or travel through a virtual exclusion region).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Vogel and Angle teaches the method of claim 9, and Vogel further discloses wherein the barrier or obstacle comprises an excluded area (0039, The navigation module 152 can be configured to allow the determined exclusion regions that the robot 100 is not allowed to autonomously enter or travel through while navigating to be marked on the maps. This is done, for example, by the control unit 150 treating an area marked as a virtual exclusion region as if the exclusion region were an obstacle in the deployment area of the robot 100. In order to prevent the robot 100 from entering the exclusion region, the control unit 150 of the robot 100 can make use of an obstacle avoidance strategy, also known as obstacle avoidance algorithm, which is configured to control the robot 100, based on the position of recognized obstacles, to prevent it from colliding with the obstacles. Based on the virtual exclusion regions saved in the map data, the position of one or more exclusion regions can be determined. These positions can then be used by the obstacle avoidance strategy in the same way as if a real obstacle stood at this position. Thus it can be easily ensured that the robot 100 will not autonomously enter and/or travel through a virtual exclusion region).
The combination of Vogel and Angle fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the barrier or obstacle comprises a play area. The examiner asserts, however, that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have made the excluded area a play area, because to do so would be an obvious matter of design choice. Specifically, the examiner notes that Applicant’s specification provides no indication that making the obstacle or barrier a play area provides any new or unexpected result.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Vogel and Angle teaches the method of claim 6, and Vogel further discloses wherein a barrier or obstacle isolates the isolated containment zone on a known schedule or the barrier or obstacle's status is communicated to the autonomous machine using a sensor or by manual user input (0116, There may be certain conditions that can only be verified when the robot is in close proximity. For example, the robot may have been given the planned task of cleaning a certain room (subarea), to which the user has to open a door open before leaving the apartment. In this case the robot can go to the room and check whether the door has been opened shortly before the user leaves the apartment as scheduled.).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Vogel and Angle teaches the method of claim 11, and Vogel further discloses wherein the barrier or the obstacle comprises a door (0116, There may be certain conditions that can only be verified when the robot is in close proximity. For example, the robot may have been given the planned task of cleaning a certain room (subarea), to which the user has to open a door open before leaving the apartment. In this case the robot can go to the room and check whether the door has been opened shortly before the user leaves the apartment as scheduled.).
The combination of Vogel and Angle fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the barrier or obstacle comprises a gate. The examiner asserts, however, that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have made the barrier or obstacle a gate, because to do so would be an obvious matter of design choice. The examiner notes that a door would be a functional equivalent to a gate, and further notes that Applicant’s specification provides no indication that the barrier or obstacle being a gate provides any new or unexpected result.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Vogel and Angle teaches the method of claim 6, and Vogel further discloses wherein prioritizing the at least one operational task to cover the isolated containment zone comprises determining that the isolated containment zone is not isolated before prioritizing the at least one operational task to cover the isolated containment zone (0120, Already during the planning of some tasks it becomes apparent that their completion will require a preceding user intervention in the form of opening a door or of moving the robot to a different floor. 0121, In a further example, it is possible to determine whether a reminder was successful, in particular, based on whether a user intervention was actually carried out following a reminder. This means, for example, that a collector bin has been emptied, a door has been opened, or the robot has been repositioned or serviced.).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Vogel and Angle teaches the method of claim 1, and Vogel further discloses wherein a user interface is wirelessly coupled to the autonomous machine, the user interface providing user inputs to the autonomous machine that define one or more of: the one or more of the windows of availability, the one or more operational tasks, and the isolated containment zone (0040-0041, FIG. 4A shows an example of a map of the exemplary deployment area from FIG. 1 that has been compiled by the robot 100. The map can be displayed, e.g. on an HMI 200 or on a tablet PC. Control buttons or control elements 401, 402, 403, 404 are displayed next to the actual map of the deployment area. Four control elements 401, 402, 403, 404 are exemplarily illustrated in FIG. 4A. This, however, is only an example. It may be that more or fewer control elements 401, 402, 403, 404 are shown. In some views, for example, no control elements 401, 402, 403, 404 at all might be shown. The control elements 401, 402, 403, 404 can be used by the user to give commands for controlling the robot 100. For this purpose, the control elements 401, 402, 403, 404 can be correspondingly labeled. In the present example, the control elements 401, 402, 403, 404 are labeled, for example, “Clean”, “Home” and “Schedule”… By touching or activating the control element “Clean” 401, for example, a cleaning of the entire area of robot deployment can be started. For autonomous mobile robots that are not, or not exclusively, intended for the cleaning of surfaces, for example, other or additional control elements can be provided for starting one or more other tasks. Touching or activating the “Home” control element 402, for example, quickly directs the robot 100 back to its base station 110. When this takes place, for example, a task that is currently being carried out can be put on pause, interrupted or discontinued upon sending the robot 100 back to its base station 110. By touching or activating the “Edit” control element 403, for example, the user can manually correct a division of the robot deployment area that was previously completed (by the user or the robot) and/or adapt it to their/her preferences. This is done, for example, by correcting the borders of the previously determined subareas or by adding or removing subareas. Such a procedure, however, is generally known and will therefore not be discussed here in greater detail. Touching or activating the “Schedule” control element 404, for example, switches the display to a different view, e.g. to a time table view. This means that, instead of the map view shown in FIG. 4A, a time table view will be displayed on the HMI 200. A time table view, for example, can display all current, planned and/or past activities of the robot 100 and can enable the planning and/or control of future deployments. For these purposes, a weekly overview of the days Monday (Mon.) through Sunday (Sun.) can be displayed, for example. In addition to this or as an alternative, the previous, current and following days can be displayed. For example, the preceding three days and the following three days can be displayed with the result that, together with the current day, seven days (that is, one week) are displayed. Additionally or alternatively, the user can browse through (scroll) the daily view. The current day can be highlighted using, for example, a certain color or marking (e.g. the label “today”).).
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 15, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 17, Vogel discloses an autonomous machine comprising:
A propulsion controller operably coupled to a set of wheels (0030, The autonomous mobile robot 100 has a drive unit 170 that may comprise, for example, electromotors, transmissions, and wheels); and
A scheduling controller operably coupled to the propulsion controller (0035, The aforementioned control unit 150 can be configured to provide all of the functions that are needed for the autonomous mobile robot 100 to be able to autonomously move throughout its deployment area and to carry out a task. For this purpose the control unit 150 has, for example, a processor 155 and a memory 156 for executing a control software of the robot 100 (see FIG. 3, control software module 151). Based on the information provided by the sensor unit 120 and the communication unit 140, the control unit 150 generates the control commands or control signals for the work unit 160 and the drive unit 170. The drive units can transform these control signals or control commands into a movement of the robot. The control software module 151 may include software functions for object recognition and for work planning), the scheduling controller comprising processing circuitry configured to:
Determine one or more windows of availability over a time period when the autonomous machine is allowed to operate to perform one or more operational tasks (0063, Additionally or alternatively, the thus generated work plan can be entered into a time table. In this case the work plan will be carried out at the time specified in the time table. The specified time can be freely chosen by the user and can be repeated in suitable intervals. The user, for example, can specify the starting time for carrying out the subtasks that is to be entered in the time table when assigning the task.);
Determine a total operation time over the time period (0080, FIG. 7A shows an exemplary illustration of the planned work sequence for the cleaning of the deployment area shown in FIG. 4A. Here the size of a block that depicts a subtask corresponds to the expected amount of time needed to complete the subtask. In particular, the height of the illustrated block is proportional to the expected amount of time needed to complete a subtask.);
Determine an operating schedule for a work region that assigns the one or more operational tasks to the one or more windows of availability based the total operation time (0059, As described above, one or more subtask can be assigned to each node. In this way, generally known algorithms for graphs and topological maps can be used to determine the sequence in which the subtasks are to be completed. For example, Monte Carlo algorithms or the Dijkstra algorithm can be used to determine the sequence of the processing. When determining the sequence, any other desired parameter can also be applied to help find the best solution (e.g. the shortest path or the fastest processing of the entire work deployment). See also at least Fig. 5); and
Prioritize at least one operational task to cover a first containment zone before at least one other operational task to cover an autonomous containment zone in the operating schedule (0061, Here it should be pointed out that planning the work of the autonomous mobile robot 100 as described here by way of example starts in the subarea in which its base station 110 is located. This means that the processing, in particular, the cleaning of the subtasks may end in a remotely located subarea. It may not be desirable, however, for the robot to travel over the floor surfaces that have already been cleaned with a collector bin full of dirt and/or with dirtied actuators such as brushes as this could once again dirty the surfaces. In order to avoid this, the processing can be planned in the opposite sequence, making the subarea in which the base station is located the last to be processed. In this manner, movement over previously cleaned surfaces can be reduced to a minimum. 0062, In particular, the user can change the sequence of the subtasks. The user may want, for example, the robot to begin in a specifiable room (e.g. where it is currently located). In such a case, the sequence in which the subtasks are completed is updated in accordance with the wishes of the user.).
Vogel fails to explicitly disclose, however, wherein the first containment zone is an isolated containment zone.
Vogel does, however, explicitly disclose wherein subareas may be inaccessible to the autonomous machine (0116, For example, the robot may have been given the planned task of cleaning a certain room (subarea), to which the user has to open a door open before leaving the apartment. 0117, In a further example, the robot is supposed to carry out, according to schedule, a planned task on a floor of the house that it can only get to when carried there by a user.)
Angle, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach prioritizing at least one operational task to cover an isolated containment zone before at least one other operational task to cover an autonomous containment zone in the operating schedule (0042, In some embodiments, or in an invention disclosed herein and preceding, the mobile robot receives an input parameter related to the measurable characteristic (e.g., using a keyboard or touchscreen, a threshold or target) and determines an order (e.g., a full or partial sequence of rooms, optionally including room-to-room paths or room-to-room gateways, or a priority list in which rooms are addressed by availability--depending on, for example open or closed doors--and suitability--depending on, for example time available in a schedule to clean, or type of floor) of a portion or all of the plurality of rooms to traverse based on the input parameter and a score associated with the measurable characteristic of each room.).
Vogel and Angle are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., autonomous mobile robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the prioritization of operation area based on priority and availability of Angle in order to provide a means of ensuring every area in the environment is processed. The motivation to combine is to allow the autonomous device to prioritize more important operational areas.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel in view of Angle, and further in view of Yoshino (US 20170235312 A1), hereafter Yoshino.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Vogel and Angle teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein prioritizing the at least one operational task comprises revising the operating schedule to prioritize the at least one operational task due to one or more of: a user availability, a schedule of availability of the isolated containment zone, a sensor that detects opening of a barrier or obstacle that allows passage to the isolated containment zone.
Yoshino, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach revising the operating schedule to prioritize the at least one operational task due to a sensor that detects opening of a barrier or obstacle that allows passage to the isolated containment zone (0052, The arithmetic unit 30 includes an operation result map creation unit 21 (creation unit) and a next-cleaning-area setting unit 22 (setting unit). The operation result map creation unit 21 creates an operation result map on which an area, within the cleaning area, through which the body 24 has moved is indicated as a cleaned area (operation-performed area) on the basis of a log of the position of the body 24 in the cleaning area detected by the own position detection unit 31 and the environment map 27. The operation result map created by the operation result map creation unit 21 is displayed on the operation panel 13, 0073, In a case where it is known that, in the non-cleaned area R43 for which cleaning has failed due to the presence of an obstacle that is not indicated on the environment map 27, the obstacle is no longer present at the time of the next cleaning, it is decided to preferentially clean the non-cleaned area R43 in the next cleaning. In this case, after the button B3 has been pressed, a rectangular area can be used to select a priority cleaning area R5 (priority operation area) by performing a touch-and-drag operation for the non-cleaned area R43 for which cleaning is to be preferentially performed. With setting performed as a result of this selection, the cleaning robot 1 preferentially cleans the non-cleaned area R43 for which cleaning has failed in the previous cleaning as the priority cleaning area R5 in the next cleaning.).
Vogel, Angle, and Yoshino are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., autonomous mobile robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the combination of Vogel and Angle to have included the prioritizing a previously-isolated area of Yoshino in order to provide a means of ensuring that an isolated area is cleaned when available. The motivation to combine is to further allow isolated areas to be prioritized.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Vogel and Angle teaches the autonomous machine of claim 17, but fails to teach it further comprising a sensor that detects opening of a barrier or obstacle that allows passage to the isolated containment zone, and wherein prioritizing the at least one operational task comprises revising the operating schedule to prioritize the at least one operational task due to an opening of a barrier or obstacle.
Yoshino, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach an autonomous machine comprising a sensor that detects opening of a barrier or obstacle that allows passage to the isolated containment zone (0052, The arithmetic unit 30 includes an operation result map creation unit 21 (creation unit) and a next-cleaning-area setting unit 22 (setting unit). The operation result map creation unit 21 creates an operation result map on which an area, within the cleaning area, through which the body 24 has moved is indicated as a cleaned area (operation-performed area) on the basis of a log of the position of the body 24 in the cleaning area detected by the own position detection unit 31 and the environment map 27. The operation result map created by the operation result map creation unit 21 is displayed on the operation panel 13.), and wherein prioritizing the at least one operational task comprises revising the operating schedule to prioritize the at least one operational task due to an opening of a barrier or obstacle (0073, In a case where it is known that, in the non-cleaned area R43 for which cleaning has failed due to the presence of an obstacle that is not indicated on the environment map 27, the obstacle is no longer present at the time of the next cleaning, it is decided to preferentially clean the non-cleaned area R43 in the next cleaning. In this case, after the button B3 has been pressed, a rectangular area can be used to select a priority cleaning area R5 (priority operation area) by performing a touch-and-drag operation for the non-cleaned area R43 for which cleaning is to be preferentially performed. With setting performed as a result of this selection, the cleaning robot 1 preferentially cleans the non-cleaned area R43 for which cleaning has failed in the previous cleaning as the priority cleaning area R5 in the next cleaning.).
Vogel, Angle, and Yoshino are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., autonomous mobile robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the combination of Vogel and Angle to have included the prioritizing a previously-isolated area of Yoshino in order to provide a means of ensuring that an isolated area is cleaned when available. The motivation to combine is to further allow isolated areas to be prioritized.
Claim 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel in view of Angle, and further in view of Balutis (US 20160174459 A1), hereafter Balutis.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Vogel and Angle teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the one or more operational tasks comprise mowing in the work region.
Balutis, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the one or more operational tasks comprise mowing in the work region (0046, The robot 10, shown parked at a charging dock 50, mows the lawn areas 102a-c according to a schedule pre-determined by the user).
Vogel, Angle, and Balutis are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., autonomous mobile robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the combination of Vogel and Angle to have included the mowing task of Balutis in order to provide a means of expanding the capabilities of the autonomous machine. The motivation to combine is to allow for a means to schedule and prioritize operational tasks involving mowing.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Vogel and Angle teaches the autonomous machine of claim 17, but fail to teach it further comprising a blade operable to cut vegetation.
Balutis, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein an autonomous machine comprises a blade operable to cut vegetation (0032, FIG. 1A shows a schematic bottom view of the robot 10 with a forward direction F, which includes a main body 20 that contains wheel modules 610a-b of a drive system 600 (shown in FIG. 1C) and a cutter 410 of a cutting system 400 (shown in FIG. 1C). 0034, The cutter 410 is, for example, rotatable reciprocating blades that can cut grass as a cutter drive sub-system 420 (Shown in FIG. 1C) drives the cutter 410 to rotate.).
Vogel, Angle, and Balutis are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., autonomous mobile robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the combination of Vogel and Angle to have included the cutting blade of Balutis in order to provide a means of expanding the capabilities of the autonomous machine. The motivation to combine is to allow for a means to schedule and prioritize operational tasks involving mowing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson (US 20190230850 A1) teaches a system for autonomous lawn care, wherein an autonomous lawn mowing device of a plurality of autonomous lawn mowing devices is prioritized for charging based on a schedule for access to a specific operational environment.
Artes (US 20190025838 A1) teaches a system for subdividing a map used by an autonomous device into a plurality of sub-areas, wherein each of the sub-areas has a priority for cleaning and an anticipated time for cleaning of the sub-area.
Mou (US 20150105904 A1) teaches an autonomous lawn mowing device which can notify a user when the autonomous lawn mowing device requires user intervention for navigating to a charging station.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/BLAKE A WOOD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3658