DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
0The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 14-15, 17, and 20 have been amended. Claims 8 and 13 have been newly canceled. No claims have been newly added. Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-20 remain pending in the present application. The previous objections to claims 7, 14, 17, and 20, the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claims 4, 8, and 13, and the previous 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn as a result of amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant claims: “prioritizing, based on a known schedule indicating a first time period when a particular containment zone is isolated and a second time period when the particular containment zone is not isolated, at least one operational task to cover the particular containment zone when the containment zone is not isolated before at least one other operational task to cover the particular containment zone in the operating schedule….” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “prioritizing, based on a known schedule indicating a first time period when a particular containment zone is isolated and a second time period when the particular containment zone is not isolated, at least one operational task to cover the particular containment zone when the particular containment zone is not isolated before at least one other operational task to cover an autonomous containment zone in the operating schedule…,” or the like. Specifically, the examiner notes that the lack of “particular” may make it unclear whether the “containment zone” is the “particular containment zone,” and further notes that the inclusion of “an autonomous” rather than “the particular” when referring to the “containment zone” may work to better differentiate the “particular containment zone being prioritized” from other containment zones, and would bring the claim closer to the language used in claim 17.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 Jones (US 20190213438 A1), hereafter Jones.
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 particular containment zone before at least one other operational task to cover a particular containment zone before at least one other operational task to cover the particular 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.); and
Operating the autonomous machine based on the operating schedule to perform the prioritized at least one operational task (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. This allows the user to easily recognize, how much time for each (sub-)task will be required and when the robot will begin to carry out a new (sub-)task (in particular, the following (sub-)task. Other ways of displaying this information are also conceivable. 0081, In particular, the user can be shown when a planned subtask will begin. For this the corresponding time of day can be displayed next to the task that is to be carried out. This allows the user to arrange their schedule to accommodate the robot's work. While the robot is working through the work plan it may happen that a subtask is completed more quickly (or more slowly) than expected. In this case the starting time of the following subtasks can be correspondingly moved forward (or back).).
Vogel fails to explicitly disclose, however, wherein the prioritizing is based on a known schedule indicating a first time period when a particular containment zone is isolated and a second time period when the particular containment zone is not isolated in order to cover the particular containment zone when the containment zone is not isolated.
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.)
Jones, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the prioritizing is based on a known schedule indicating a first time period when a particular containment zone is isolated and a second time period when the particular containment zone is not isolated in order to cover the particular containment zone when the containment zone is not isolated. (0112, For example, the control module 110 can be configured to identify objects whose positions vary over time, such as doors whose positions vary over time. The task scheduler 112 determines a schedule for cleaning tasks in the home 300 based on information about time-varying characteristics of at least some of the objects, such as how often each door is open or closed, or during what time periods the door is typically open or closed. The task scheduler 112 schedules a cleaning task in a room at a time period when the door of that room is typically open. The control module 110 controls the mobile cleaning robot to navigate in the environment using the map and perform the cleaning tasks according to the schedule.).
Vogel and Jones 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 Jones 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 Jones teaches the method of claim 1, and Vogel further teaches wherein the autonomous machine is not able to access the particular 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 Jones teaches the method of claim 2, and Vogel further teaches wherein the autonomous machine is carried by the user to an area where the autonomous machine can access the particular 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 Jones teaches the method of claim 1, and Vogel further teaches wherein the at least one operational task is prioritized after charging to ensure that the autonomous machine has battery power available for the prioritized 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 Jones teaches the method of claim 4, and Vogel further teaches wherein a base station is not accessible from the particular 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 Jones teaches the method of claim 1, and Vogel further teaches wherein the particular 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 Jones teaches the method of claim 6, and Vogel further teaches wherein the autonomous machine cannot navigate to the particular 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 9, the combination of Vogel and Jones teaches the method of claim 6, and Vogel further teaches wherein a barrier or obstacle does not physically impede movement of the autonomous machine to the particular containment zone, the particular 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 Jones teaches the method of claim 1, and Vogel further teaches wherein the particular containment zone 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 Jones fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the particular containment zone 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 particular containment zone a play area provides any new or unexpected result.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Vogel and Jones teaches the method of claim 1, and Vogel further teaches wherein a barrier or obstacle isolates the particular containment zone(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 Jones teaches the method of claim 11, and Vogel further teaches 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 Jones 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 15, the combination of Vogel and Jones teaches the method of claim 1, and Vogel further teaches 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 particular 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 particular 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.); and
Perform the prioritized at least one operational task (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. This allows the user to easily recognize, how much time for each (sub-)task will be required and when the robot will begin to carry out a new (sub-)task (in particular, the following (sub-)task. Other ways of displaying this information are also conceivable. 0081, In particular, the user can be shown when a planned subtask will begin. For this the corresponding time of day can be displayed next to the task that is to be carried out. This allows the user to arrange their schedule to accommodate the robot's work. While the robot is working through the work plan it may happen that a subtask is completed more quickly (or more slowly) than expected. In this case the starting time of the following subtasks can be correspondingly moved forward (or back).).
Vogel fails to explicitly disclose, however, wherein the prioritizing is based on a known schedule indicating a first time period when a particular containment zone is isolated and a second time period when the particular containment zone is not isolated in order to cover the particular containment zone when the containment zone is not isolated.
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.)
Jones, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the prioritizing is based on a known schedule indicating a first time period when a particular containment zone is isolated and a second time period when the particular containment zone is not isolated in order to cover the particular containment zone when the containment zone is not isolated. (0112, For example, the control module 110 can be configured to identify objects whose positions vary over time, such as doors whose positions vary over time. The task scheduler 112 determines a schedule for cleaning tasks in the home 300 based on information about time-varying characteristics of at least some of the objects, such as how often each door is open or closed, or during what time periods the door is typically open or closed. The task scheduler 112 schedules a cleaning task in a room at a time period when the door of that room is typically open. The control module 110 controls the mobile cleaning robot to navigate in the environment using the map and perform the cleaning tasks according to the schedule.).
Vogel and Jones 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 Jones 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 Jones, and further in view of Yoshino (US 20170235312 A1), hereafter Yoshino.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Vogel and Jones teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein prioritizing the at least one operational task is further based on one or more of: a user availability and 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, Jones, 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 Jones 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 Jones teaches the autonomous machine of claim 17, but fails to teach it further comprising a sensor that detects an opening of a barrier or obstacle that allows passage to the particular 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 an opening of a barrier or obstacle that allows passage to the particular 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, Jones, 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 Jones 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 Jones, and further in view of Balutis (US 20160174459 A1), hereafter Balutis.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Vogel and Jones 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, Jones, 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 Jones 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 Jones 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, Jones, 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 Jones 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights