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 .
1. This application has been examined. The preliminary amend filed 8/23/24 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-22 are pending.
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
3. The IDS filed 8/23/24 and 5/21/25 have been considered.
4. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
• 302-310 [0039-0052]
• 402-406 [0055-0062]
• 502-506 [0065-0070]
• 602-606 [0074-0080]
• 701-705 [0084-0089]
• 802-806 [0091, 0092, 0100-0103, 0109, 0112]
• 1302-1306 [0149, 0153-0155]
• 1502-1506 [0176-0186]
• 1602-1606 [0190-0198]
• 1702-1704 [0200-0203]
• 1802-1810 [0207-0217]
• 1902-1908 [0219-0227]
• 2002-2008 [0232-0239]
• 2102-2108 [0245-0249]
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
5. 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.
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (EP 3985218- IDS).
A. As per claim 1, Zhang discloses:
A robot traversal method [0008- an automatic door control method … planning a traveling route passing through an automatic door for an intelligent mobile robot], the method being applied to a target robot (Fig. 1:10), and the target robot being any robot among multiple robots that need to pass through a transition area (Abs.: support passing-through in batch of the intelligent mobile robots during a single open of the automatic door); [0003- applications of intelligent mobile robots are becoming more and more extensive. Among there, some logistics handling scenarios using intelligent mobile robots would contain different areas, and automatic doors are provided between various areas], the method comprising:
determining, when the target robot travels to the transition area, a present door corresponding to the target robot in the transition area (Abs.: the robot control apparatus can plan a traveling route passing through an automatic door for an intelligent mobile robot, and generate, by monitoring a movement position of the intelligent mobile robot along the traveling route, a door-opening request when the movement position of the intelligent mobile robot reaches a traffic upstream section of the automatic door); and
controlling the present door to be opened and passing through the present door (Abs.: enables the control of the automatic door to be coordinated and cooperated with the traveling of the intelligent mobile robot); [0006- passing through an automatic door for an intelligent mobile robot … generate a door-opening request for the automatic door … control opening of the automatic door in response to the door-opening request].
B. As per claim 9, as above whereby after the robot has passed through the door, a request to close the door may be sent [0029- the robot control apparatus 30 may initiate a door-closing request for the automatic door].
C. As per claim 22, as noted above for claim 1 whereby the method is performed by a mobile robot comprising a processor and memory storing executable instructions which enable the robot to travel along a path and control the opening/closing of an electronic door [0007- a robot control apparatus is provided, including: a route planning module … and a control platform module; 0009-0010- processor configured to perform steps of the automatic door control method … a non-transitory computer readable storage medium is provided, which stores instructions thereon, when the instructions are executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform steps of the automatic door control method].
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
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 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (EP 3985218- IDS) in view of Li et al. (CN 114217623- IDS: Note applicant only provided translation of the Abstract; examiner accessed full translation of document on EPO website).
A. As per claims 2-6, Zhang is applied as above for claim 1 whereby the travelling state of the robot is obtained (position: [0006]; traveling speed: [0028]) as the robot travels along a determined route towards a destination which may include passing through a door [0018- the robot control apparatus 30 is configured to plan a traveling route passing through the automatic door 20 for the AGV 10 and to monitor a moving position of the AGV 10 along the traveling route]. Zhang further determines an area marking a distance threshold to the door and upon reaching the area, sending a request to open the door [0018- When it is monitored that the moving position of the AGV 10 reaches a traffic upstream section of the automatic door 20, a door-opening request for the automatic door 20 is generated; 0023- if the AGV 10 is moving towards the automatic door 20, it can be determined that the AGV is located upstream the automatic door. The traffic upstream section herein can be understood as a section range where the AGV 10 is about to arrive at the automatic door 20, that is, a predetermined section range that triggers a door to be opened]. The claimed invention essentially differs in that a deceleration area is defined before the door. However, Zhang was concerned about the travelling speed and the range to the door such that the request for opening the door would be timed to avoid the robot colliding with the door [0028- setting of the section range of the traffic upstream section, for example, the setting of the predetermined threshold of a travel distance, in addition to consideration of a relationship between the remaining trip from the AGV to the automatic door, a travel speed of the AGV and a duration of the door-opening operation of the automatic door 20, following factors may be further considered, such as a processing delay of the robot control apparatus 30, a communication delay between the robot control apparatus 30 and the device control apparatus 40, an interaction delay between the device control apparatus 40 and the automatic door driving mechanism, an execution delay for driving the automatic door 20 by the automatic door driving mechanism, and a possible positioning signal drift when the robot control apparatus 30 detects the moving position of the AGV, etc. The main purpose of considering these factors is to avoid asynchrony between the time when the AGV arrives at the automatic door and the time when the automatic door arrives at an opened-in-position state, so as to avoid the collision between the AGV without obstacle avoidance function and the automatic door]. Li is in the same field of endeavor of robotic vehicles and travel control as it pertains to approaching closed gates (“doors”) and initiating automatic opening thereof (Abs.: The invention relates to the technical field of intelligent robots, in particular to a method and device for a robot to pass through a gate machine). Li discloses similar control features as noted above for Zhang as well as performing deceleration of the robot as it moves into range of the gate/door (obtain a plane map of the current position of the robot, and the plane map is marked with the location of the gate; determining the route to be driven by the robot; monitor the distance between the robot and the target gate; based on the distance, controlling the movement of the robot based on the distance; judging whether the distance satisfies a preset condition; when the judgment result is yes, control the robot to decelerate). Li highlights the problem to be solved as reducing likelihood of the robot colliding with the gate (reduce the risk of the intelligent robot hitting the gate; when it is determined that the robot needs to pass through the gate, the robot is controlled to move according to the distance between the robot and the gate, so as to ensure that the robot does not hit the gate when it reaches the gate, which reduces the chance of the robot hitting the gate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the robotic control art prior to the effective filing date to modify Zhang with the teachings of Li as it applies to decelerating the robot as it moves into range of the gate/door, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would have further reduced the likelihood of the robot colliding with the gate/door before it was opened. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references as claimed because both Zhang and Li were concerned with the timing of the approach of the robot and the opening of the gate/door (supra). The establishment of threshold distances, buffer and deceleration zones, etc. would have been dependent on various factors related to the environment, particulars of the robot and its capabilities, gate/door specifications, safety concerns/limitations, etc. (see for example Zhang at [0028- setting of the section range of the traffic upstream section, for example, the setting of the predetermined threshold of a travel distance, in addition to consideration of a relationship between the remaining trip from the AGV to the automatic door, a travel speed of the AGV and a duration of the door-opening operation of the automatic door 20, following factors may be further considered, such as a processing delay of the robot control apparatus 30, a communication delay between the robot control apparatus 30 and the device control apparatus 40, an interaction delay between the device control apparatus 40 and the automatic door driving mechanism, an execution delay for driving the automatic door 20 by the automatic door driving mechanism, and a possible positioning signal drift when the robot control apparatus 30 detects the moving position of the AGV, etc. The main purpose of considering these factors is to avoid asynchrony between the time when the AGV arrives at the automatic door and the time when the automatic door arrives at an opened-in-position state, so as to avoid the collision between the AGV without obstacle avoidance function and the automatic door. Also, the section range of the traffic upstream section may be set by comprehensively considering environmental conditions of the logistics scenario and combining the experience of the management personnel]).
B. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 8, 10-13 and 15-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular,
• Zhou et al. (US 2020/0290202)- robot determines target position to be reached and determines movement path; determines if there are roadblocks (doors) located on the path; robot transmits removal request (open door) when the robot reaches position located a predetermined distance to the roadblock; appears to communicate open request via a control server, not clear whether robot is capable of communicating to the roadblock directly.
• Pan et al. (CN 109236107)- determines position of a robot is in a predetermined area and sends an opening signal to an automatic door; door automatically closes after robot passes through door.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J. ZANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-6969. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 9-4; Th 9-2.
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, Ramya P. Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/MICHAEL J ZANELLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661