DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
A Preliminary Amendment was filed on September 20, 2024, amending many of the claims and canceling claims 14 and 22. No new matter was added. Accordingly, the pending claims and those subject to examination are claims 1-13, and 15-21.
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 8-13 and 15-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected for being indefinite about whether the claims are independent or dependent. The claims recite the following:
An information processing system comprising:
the control server according to claim 1; and
one or more traveling bodies controlled by the control server.
The preamble of “An information processing system comprising” implies it is an independent claim. That differs from claim 1 which recites “A control server”. Yet claim 8 also recites a dependency on claim 1. The fee worksheet filed March 11, 2025 states that there are three independent claims. These are presumably claim 1, claim 18, and claim 21. Yet claim 8 may need to be added and the fee worksheet redone.
For examination purposes, claim 8 will be interpreted as an independent claim as follows, with the examiner’s deletions in double strike through and addition in underlined italics:
An information processing system comprising:
the control server for controlling a traveling body, the control server comprising:
instruction circuitry configured to instruct the traveling body to travel on a first route and to acquire state information of a first monitored object on the first route, wherein,
based on a determination of presence of an abnormality in a state of the first monitored object, the determination being made from the acquired state information, the instruction circuitry is configured to instruct the traveling body to travel on a second route different from the first route and acquire state information of a second monitored object related to the state of the first monitored object; and
one or more traveling bodies controlled by the control server.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8,-11, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inagaki (US2014/0358419).
Regarding claim 1, Inagaki discloses:
A control server for controlling a traveling body, the control server comprising (see Fig. 1 for central terminal 10, which is a server. See Fig. 1 for mobile terminal 70, which is a traveling body.):
[[an]] instruction circuitry to acquire state information of a first monitored object on the first route (see Fig. 1 for the central terminal 10 including a communication unit 12 to communicate with the mobile terminal 70. See Inagaki, paragraph 0012 for a traveling vehicle that “moves in accordance with the set route” and “acquires information on results of monitoring which indicates a condition of a first target”. The “set route” can be seen in Fig. 8. Then the system determines “whether or not the first target is in an abnormal state.” This can be determined using sensor data gathered from sensors, such as camera and sound sensors, on the traveling vehicle, as described in paragraph 0061. According to paragraph 0108, when a monitoring robot enters area AA the server determines if it is going to pass through area SA and if not, the server determines “a possible change of route” that would cause the robot to pass through the area SA. Then “the control unit 18 so prepares the changed route”. Note that this is before an abnormality is detected. This changed route becomes the new “set route” for that robot.), wherein,
based on a determination of presence of an abnormality in a state of the first monitored object, the determination being made from the acquired state information, the instruction circuitry what does it mean when the claim recites that the “traveling body” takes a second route and acquires “state information of a second monitored object related to the state of the first monitored object”? In what way is the state information of the second monitored object “related to the state of the first monitored object”?
Note that in the “Letter Accompanying Amended Claims under Article 19(1),” filed on June 30, 2023 and included in the file contents of the present application, the applicant notes that claim 1, and others, “amended to replace the phrase ‘being different from the first monitored object and located on the second route,’ with the phrase ‘related to the state of the first monitored object.’ This amendment is based on paragraph 0018 of the description.”
Paragraph 0018 of the filed specification (which corresponds to paragraph 0070 of the published disclosure, Ohtsuka et al. (US2025/0199530)), recites that when an abnormality is detected from image data “of a particular monitored object (a first monitored object)” the server 12 instructs the robot 11 to switch to a second route and “capture an image of a designated portion (second monitored object) related to the state of the particular monitored object on the second route.”
At first glance, paragraph 0018 does not seem to support the amendment. Paragraph 0019 provides additional information, however. It notes that “As in the above example [of paragraph 0018], when the flowmeter (first monitored object) indicates a flow rate lower than the normal flow rate, clogging of some portion is suspected. Therefore, the route (the first route) for the normal monitoring is switched to the route (the second route) for an abnormal situation, and an image of the value as the designated portion (second monitored object) can be captured, in order to check the malfunction of the value.”
So in one broad reasonable interpretation, paragraph 0019 of the present filed disclosure teaches that the first monitored object and the second monitored object are one and the same; they are a single flowmeter, which is also stated clearly in the last sentence of paragraph 0017. Thus, it appears that the robot is configured to take a picture or gather other sensor data about the flowmeter, and then if an abnormality is detected, the robot moves to gather additional information regarding that same flowmeter. This could reasonably mean, turning or maneuvering the robot to get a better picture, such as a picture from a different angle.
Note that paragraph 0212, last sentence is close to the present clause in question of claim 1.
The present clause can also be reasonably interpreted using Fig. 13 and paragraph 0103. That paragraph teaches that “When there is an abnormality in the flow rate (red value) indicated by the meter 1, the traveling robot 11 is instructed to capture an image of the meter 2 to check the clogging in the way upstream from the meter 1.” The robot may further go to other points, such as pump 1. In one reasonable interpretation, meter 1 and meter 2 appear to be what claim 1 means, at least in one embodiment, when it recites a first monitored object and a second monitored object. Paragraph 0013 teaches that the robot, upon determination of an abnormality, will “travel on a second route different from the first route and acquire state information of a second monitored object related to the state of the first monitored object.” Meter 2 is “related to the state of the first monitored object” but may not have been on the first route of the robot. But since the first monitored object indicated an abnormality, the robot switched to a second route so it could go have a look at meter 2.
Other portions of the disclosure relate to this. Paragraph 0124 teaches that in Fig. 22, an abnormality is found in tank area 1, and therefore “it is necessary to check the states of valves and meters in the valve area 3 in a remote area.” This seems to be related to Fig. 19 and paragraphs 0116-0117 in which the robot travels on a normal route until receiving a “route for abnormal situation” from the server.
With all that in mind, see Inagaki, paragraph 0012 for a traveling vehicle that “moves in accordance with the set route” and “acquires information on results of monitoring which indicates a condition of a first target”. Then the system determines “whether or not the first target is in an abnormal state.” This can be determined using sensor data gathered from sensors, such as camera, gas, and fire sensors, on the traveling vehicle, as described in paragraph 0061. There may be more than one traveling vehicle, or just one. See paragraph 0032 for an “abnormality” being “in a residential house or the monitoring area SA,” in one example, and the abnormality including a “gas leakage or fire”…burglary or the like.” Therefore, according to paragraph 0032, a “house” can be a “monitoring area”. So according to Inagaki, a “monitoring area” is an object. This is important for the present disclosure, which teaches a first object and a second object. See also paragraph 0008 which teaches that the system can detect abnormality in “residential houses” or the area of the houses, which are “referred to as ‘monitoring area’”. Sometimes the monitoring area is a city block, according to paragraph 0026. As much as Inagaki teaches going from one area to another area when an abnormality is detected, Inagaki teaches going from an area with a first object to an area with a second object. The system can also detect a “perilous situation” such as a “fire in the residential house.”
See Inagaki Fig. 7 and paragraphs 0135-0136, which teach that "when an emergency notification is outputted," which is when there is an abnormality, then "a route movement may be specified". For a route movement to occur means that the “set route” originally assigned in the normal situation is changed. Fig. 7 and paragraphs 0135-0137 specifically teach that, if there is an abnormality (YES out of S510), there will be an "update monitoring-required areas" (S540), which involves changing routes. So Inagaki teaches that when there is an abnormality, the vehicle route is changed. Sometimes the change can be as simple as changing the direction of the camera of the vehicle, which can include parking in a specific direction. This coincides with the present disclosure's teaching, too. Other times, the traveling vehicle “changed route” goes to an area that needs monitoring when an abnormality occurs, as seen in Fig. 8. In the case of Fig. 8, there is an initial “set route” and when an abnormality is detected the traveling vehicle changes to a “changed route” where monitoring is now needed. This is because the system can determine that an area has “a higher need of being monitored,” according to paragraph 0037. The traveling vehicle will then use its camera or other sensors to determine if there is an abnormality on its second route including among its second object. Thus, Inagaki teaches this clause, including that phrase “acquire state information of a second monitored object related to the state of the first monitored object”. The traveling vehicle in Inagaki acquires information on another house to determine if it too is on fire, for example. This is similar to the example in the disclosure of determining if a second valve is leaking too.).
Regarding claim 2, Inagaki discloses the control server according to claim 1.
Inagaki further discloses:
The control server according to claim 1, further comprising;
[[a]] determination circuitry see paragraph 0037 for the central terminal 10, “on the basis of the results of the communication with the…mobile terminals 70,” being able to “confirm the presence/absence of abnormality”. This can reasonably be interpreted to mean that in one embodiment the mobile vehicle 70 sends sensor data back to the server and the server determines if there is really an abnormality or not. See paragraph 0041 for teaching that the sensors 30, which can be thought of as sensors installed on the first and second objects, communicating with the central terminal 10 to determine if there is an abnormality.).
Regarding claim 3, Inagaki discloses the control server according to claim 1.
Inagaki further discloses:
The control server according to claim 1 [[or 2]], further comprising:
a receiver see paragraph 0037 for the central terminal 10, “on the basis of the results of the communication with the…mobile terminals 70,” being able to “confirm the presence/absence of abnormality”. Thus the server 10 receives information by which to determine an abnormality. The moving vehicle 70 utilities gathers sensor data from sensors, such as camera and sound sensors on the traveling vehicle, as described in paragraph 0061, in order to make an initial assessment about an abnormality and it must be upon this sensor data received by the server that it makes the final determination.), wherein
the state information is
an image captured by the traveling body (see paragraph 0061),
sound recorded by the traveling body (see paragraph 0061), or
a combination of the captured image and the recorded sound (see paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 4, Inagaki discloses the control server according to claim 3.
Inagaki further discloses:
The control server according to claim 3, wherein:
the second monitored object is located in a monitored area in which the first monitored object is located (see Fig. 8 for a second monitored object being any and all of the houses in the “monitoring required area”. In this example, the first monitored object is the house 30M in the monitoring area SA. But both the first and second monitored objects are in the “Monitoring Target Area AA” in Fig. 8.), and
the state information of the second monitored object is
an image captured by the traveling body (see paragraph 0061),
sound recorded by the traveling body (see paragraph 0061), or
a combination of the captured image and the recorded sound (see paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 6, Inagaki discloses the control server according to claim 1.
Inagaki further discloses:
The control server according to claim 1,wherein;[[,]]
in a case where the second monitored object includes a plurality of second monitored objects, the instruction circuitry see Fig. 8 for a second monitored object being any and all of the houses in the “monitoring required area”.).
Regarding claim 8 (as interpreted, see the 35 USC 112b section) , Inagaki discloses:
An information processing system comprising (see Fig. 1 for central terminal 10, which is a server that contains an information processing system within it, which is control unit 18.):
the control server for controlling a traveling body (see Fig. 1 for central terminal 10, which is a server. Fig. 1 also shows a mobile terminal 70, which is a traveling body; i.e., a moving robot. See Fig. 7 and paragraphs 0135-0136, which teach that "when an emergency notification is outputted," which is when there is an abnormality, then "a route movement may be specified". For a route movement to occur means that the “set route” originally assigned in the normal situation is changed. Inagaki teaches several different embodiments, but in one, “the changed route is prepared by the central terminal 10, which is the server, according to paragraph 0086), the control server comprising:
instruction circuitry configured to instruct the traveling body to travel on a first route and to acquire state information of a first monitored object on the first route (see paragraph 0088 for step S240 being the server essentially approving or disapproving the robots planned route. The server instructs the traveling body either way by either tacitly approving the route the robot proposes or overruling the robot and sending it a new route. In ither case, the server is instructing the robot what to either travel on a first route or change routes and travel on a second route. Yet the server in Inagaki also actively generates routes for the robot, including what can be considered a first route. This can be seen in paragraph 0103. The server determines there is a an area SA within area AA (see Fig. 8) where a monitoring robot is “not present.” According to paragraph 0108, when a monitoring robot enters area AA the server determines if it is going to pass through area SA and if not, the server determines “a possible change of route” that would cause the robot to pass through the area SA. Then “the control unit 18 so prepares the changed route”. Note that this is before an abnormality is detected. This changed route becomes the new “set route” for that robot.), wherein,
based on a determination of presence of an abnormality in a state of the first monitored object, the determination being made from the acquired state information, the instruction circuitry is configured to instruct the traveling body to travel on a second route different from the first route and acquire state information of a second monitored object related to the state of the first monitored object (see Fig. 7 and paragraphs 0135-0136, which teach that "when an emergency notification is outputted," which is when there is an abnormality, then "a route movement may be specified". For a route movement to occur means that the “set route” originally assigned in the normal situation is changed. Fig. 7 and paragraphs 0135-0137 specifically teach that, if there is an abnormality (YES out of S510), there will be an "update monitoring-required areas" (S540), which involves changing routes. So Inagaki teaches that when there is an abnormality, the vehicle route is changed.); and
one or more traveling bodies controlled by the control server (see the above bullets of this claim and Fig. 2 for having a plurality of moving robots 70, such as 70M and 70-1.).
Regarding claim 9, Inagaki discloses the information processing system according to claim 8.
Inagaki further discloses:
The information processing system according to claim 8, wherein
each of the one or more traveling bodies includes (see Fig. 4 for item 70, which is the traveling robot):
[[a]] travel control circuitry see Fig. 4 for the control unit 78 that controls the driving of the robot.);
a state detector see Fig. 4 for item 90); and
a transmitter see Fig. 1 for the mobile terminal 70 and the server 10 being in communication via the communication unit 12 on the server 10, and the communication unit 72 on the robot 70 as seen in Fig. 4.. ).
Regarding claim 10, Inagaki discloses the information processing system according to claim 8.
Inagaki further discloses:
The information processing system according to claim 8 [[or 9]], wherein
the one or more traveling bodies is a plurality of traveling bodies (see Fig. 2 for robots 70), and
a monitored area monitored by the information processing system is divided into a plurality of areas (see Fig. 8), and
each area is monitored by one or more of plurality of traveling bodies (in at least the case of the monitoring area with 30-3, 30-5, and 30-7, there is a traveling robot in each.).
Regarding claim 11, Inagaki discloses the information processing system according to claim 8.
Inagaki further discloses:
The information processing system according to claim 8, wherein
each of the one or more traveling bodies includes:
a state detector see Fig. 4 for item 90 and paragraph 0061);
[[a]] determination circuitry detector see Fig. 7 and paragraphs 0135-0137 specifically teach that, if there is an abnormality (YES out of S510). See paragraph 0068); and
[[a]] presentation circuitry circuitry see paragraph 0080 for the robot 70 notifying the server which, according to paragraph 0112 notifies various entities that there is an abnormality in the area.).
Regarding claim 17, Inagaki discloses the information processing system according to claim 8.
Inagaki further discloses:
The information processing system according to claim 9, further comprising:
a communication terminal see paragraph 0112 for notifying “police stations, fire stations and private security companies” when there is a fire or burglary. In fact the notification goes to the “reception organization” within the police station or fire station, indicating an operator answers it. This occurs whenever an abnormality occurs, whether it is the first or second object. ), wherein
the communication terminal includes [[a]] notification circuitry see paragraph 0112 for notifying “police stations, fire stations and private security companies” when there is a fire or burglary. In fact the notification goes to the “reception organization” within the police station or fire station, indicating an operator answers it. This occurs whenever an abnormality occurs, whether it is the first or second object.).
Regarding claim 18, Inagaki discloses:
A traveling body comprising (see Fig. 1 for mobile terminal 70, which is a traveling body.):
[[an]] instruction circuitry in one embodiment in Inagaki, the server tells the robot where to go. But in another, there is no server, as described in paragraph 0142. In that case, the robot does the path generating using item 110 of Fig. 4 as discussed in paragraph 0065. As mentioned elsewhere in this detailed action, the robot can generate its own paths but it can also get overruled by the server who can also generate and transmit paths to the robot. When the server and robot are effectively incorporated into the unit, the robot generates the routes.), wherein,
based on a determination of presence of an abnormality in a state of the first monitored object, the determination being made from the acquired state information, the instruction circuitrysee Inagaki, paragraph 0012 for a traveling vehicle that “moves in accordance with the set route” and “acquires information on results of monitoring which indicates a condition of a first target”. Then the system determines “whether or not the first target is in an abnormal state.” This can be determined using sensor data gathered from sensors, such as camera, gas, and fire sensors, on the traveling vehicle, as described in paragraph 0061. There may be more than one traveling vehicle, or just one. See paragraph 0032 for an “abnormality” being “in a residential house or the monitoring area SA,” in one example, and the abnormality including a “gas leakage or fire”…burglary or the like.” Therefore, according to paragraph 0032, a “house” can be a “monitoring area”. So according to Inagaki, a “monitoring area” is an object. This is important for the present disclosure, which teaches a first object and a second object. See also paragraph 0008 which teaches that the system can detect abnormality in “residential houses” or the area of the houses, which are “referred to as ‘monitoring area’”. Sometimes the monitoring area is a city block, according to paragraph 0026. As much as Inagaki teaches going from one area to another area when an abnormality is detected, Inagaki teaches going from an area with a first object to an area with a second object. The system can also detect a “perilous situation” such as a “fire in the residential house.”
See Inagaki Fig. 7 and paragraphs 0135-0136, which teach that "when an emergency notification is outputted," which is when there is an abnormality, then "a route movement may be specified". For a route movement to occur means that the “set route” originally assigned in the normal situation is changed. Fig. 7 and paragraphs 0135-0137 specifically teach that, if there is an abnormality (YES out of S510), there will be an "update monitoring-required areas" (S540), which involves changing routes. So Inagaki teaches that when there is an abnormality, the vehicle route is changed. Sometimes the change can be as simple as changing the direction of the camera of the vehicle, which can include parking in a specific direction. This coincides with the present disclosure's teaching, too. Other times, the traveling vehicle “changed route” goes to an area that needs monitoring when an abnormality occurs, as seen in Fig. 8. In the case of Fig. 8, there is an initial “set route” and when an abnormality is detected the traveling vehicle changes to a “changed route” where monitoring is now needed. This is because the system can determine that an area has “a higher need of being monitored,” according to paragraph 0037. The traveling vehicle will then use its camera or other sensors to determine if there is an abnormality on its second route including among its second object. Thus, Inagaki teaches this clause, including that phrase “acquire state information of a second monitored object related to the state of the first monitored object”. The traveling vehicle in Inagaki acquires information on another house to determine if it too is on fire, for example. This is similar to the example in the disclosure of determining if a second valve is leaking too.).
Regarding claim 19, Inagaki discloses the traveling body according to claim 18.
Inagaki further discloses:
The traveling body according to claim 18, further comprising;
[[a]] travel control circuitry see Fig. 4 for the control unit 78 that controls the driving of the robot.).
Regarding claim 20, Inagaki discloses the traveling body according to claim 18.
Inagaki further discloses:
The traveling body according to claim 18 [[or 19]], further comprising:
a state detector see Fig. 4 for item 90),
[[a]] determination circuitry detector see Fig. 7 and paragraphs 0135-0137 specifically teach that, if there is an abnormality (YES out of S510). See paragraph 0068 and paragraph 0061); and
[[a]] presentation circuitry see paragraph 0080 for the robot 70 notifying the server which, according to paragraph 0112 notifies various entities that there is an abnormality in the area.).
Regarding claim 21, Inagaki discloses:
A method for controlling a traveling body, the method comprising (see Fig. 7):
instructing the traveling body to travel on a first route and acquire state information of a first monitored object on the first route (see Fig. 1 for the central terminal 10 including a communication unit 12 to communicate with the mobile terminal 70. See Inagaki, paragraph 0012 for a traveling vehicle that “moves in accordance with the set route” and “acquires information on results of monitoring which indicates a condition of a first target”. The “set route” can be seen in Fig. 8. Then the system determines “whether or not the first target is in an abnormal state.” This can be determined using sensor data gathered from sensors, such as camera and sound sensors, on the traveling vehicle, as described in paragraph 0061. According to paragraph 0108, when a monitoring robot enters area AA the server determines if it is going to pass through area SA and if not, the server determines “a possible change of route” that would cause the robot to pass through the area SA. Then “the control unit 18 so prepares the changed route”. Note that this is before an abnormality is detected. This changed route becomes the new “set route” for that robot.); and
based on a determination of presence of an abnormality in a state of the first monitored object, instructing the traveling body to travel on a second route different from the first route the determination being made from the acquired state information and acquire state information of a second monitored object related to the state of the first monitored object (see Inagaki Fig. 7 and paragraphs 0135-0136, which teach that "when an emergency notification is outputted," which is when there is an abnormality, then "a route movement may be specified". For a route movement to occur means that the “set route” originally assigned in the normal situation is changed. Fig. 7 and paragraphs 0135-0137 specifically teach that, if there is an abnormality (YES out of S510), there will be an "update monitoring-required areas" (S540), which involves changing routes. So Inagaki teaches that when there is an abnormality, the vehicle route is changed. Sometimes the change can be as simple as changing the direction of the camera of the vehicle, which can include parking in a specific direction. This coincides with the present disclosure's teaching, too. Other times, the traveling vehicle “changed route” goes to an area that needs monitoring when an abnormality occurs, as seen in Fig. 8. In the case of Fig. 8, there is an initial “set route” and when an abnormality is detected the traveling vehicle changes to a “changed route” where monitoring is now needed. This is because the system can determine that an area has “a higher need of being monitored,” according to paragraph 0037. The traveling vehicle will then use its camera or other sensors to determine if there is an abnormality on its second route including among its second object. Thus, Inagaki teaches this clause, including that phrase “acquire state information of a second monitored object related to the state of the first monitored object”. The traveling vehicle in Inagaki acquires information on another house to determine if it too is on fire, for example. This is similar to the example in the disclosure of determining if a second valve is leaking too.see paragraph 0037 for the central terminal 10, “on the basis of the results of the communication with the…mobile terminals 70,” being able to “confirm the presence/absence of abnormality”. This can reasonably be interpreted to mean that in one embodiment the mobile vehicle 70 sends sensor data back to the server and the server determines if there is really an abnormality or not. See paragraph 0041 for teaching that the sensors 30, which can be thought of as sensors installed on the first and second objects, communicating with the central terminal 10 to determine if there is an abnormality.).
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (US2014/0358419) in view of Garcia-Gabin et al. (US2017/0349279).
Regarding claim 5, Inagaki teaches the control server according to claim 1.
Yet Inagaki does not further teach:
The control server according to claim 1, wherein;[[,]]
in a case where the second monitored object includes a plurality of second monitored objects, the instruction circuitry unit is configured to instruct the traveling body to acquire the state information of the plurality of second monitored objects one by one until a cause of the abnormality is identified.
However, Garcia-Gabin teaches:
in a case where the second monitored object includes a plurality of second monitored objects, the instruction circuitry unit is configured to instruct the traveling body to acquire the state information of the plurality of second monitored objects one by one until a cause of the abnormality is identified (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0045 for a moving vehicle that knows there is a fault in the moving vehicle goes to a first initial location 22a and begins inspecting solar panel 3a’ using sensors to determine if it is the source of the fault. Then moving vehicle then “continues to the next initial location 22b to perform the same actions…in this way, all of the solar panels 3a’-3f’ of the subset are inspected….to thereby identify the faulty solar panel or solar panels.” See paragraph 0007 for a fault being initially detected and then the moving vehicle, which in this case is a UAV, is dispatched for inspection.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Inagaki, to add the additional features of in a case where the second monitored object includes a plurality of second monitored objects, the instruction circuitry unit is configured to instruct the traveling body to acquire the state information of the plurality of second monitored objects one by one until a cause of the abnormality is identified, as taught by Garcia-Gabin. The motivation for doing so would be to identify the fault, as recognized by Garcia-Gabin (see paragraph 0045).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
In summary, Inagaki teaches that when an abnormality is detected, the traveling vehicle may be sent to other nearby objects to find other abnormalities. Inagaki Fig. 8 strongly implies that the traveling vehicle inspects these other objects one by one because the vehicle travels in order along its route. Garcia-Gabin adds this explicitly and teaches that “a cause” of the abnormality can be found in this way. Inagaki indicates that the inspection of nearby objects are those right next to the first object, as seen in Fig. 8. Suppose the abnormality in Ingaki was a fire, as explicitly taught as an example. The moving vehicle would then be dispatched to nearby units to determine if those too were on fire. Garcia-Gabin essentially says: yes, and the inspection will take place one by one until the cause is found.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (US2014/0358419) in view of Abe (JPH06198586A) in further view of Seemann (US2005/0113975).
Regarding claim 7, Inagaki teaches the control server according to claim 2.
Yet Inagaki does not further teach:
The control server according to claim 2, further comprising:
a memory circuitry
[[a]] deterioration determination circuitry memory
However, Abe teaches:
a memory circuitry see paragraph 0008 for an moving inspection robot that “compares the created data with the data in the database to determine whether the inspection location is different from the normal state.” See page 7 of the attached English translation for the new sensor data from the moving robot “that can be compared with the accumulated database is created from the results”. The system then determines “trend characteristics” and “changes over time” to determine whether or not pipe is in a “normal state.” This means that the robot collects data and stores it in a database to compare it with data taken at a later time to see if there is deterioration.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Inagaki, to add the additional features of a memory circuitry, as taught by Abe. The motivation for doing so would be to perform the comparison in a more accurate way than humans can, or more repeatedly accurate given labor turnover, as recognized by Abe (see paragraph 0007).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Yet Inagaki and Abe do not further teach:
[[a]] deterioration determination circuitry memory
However, Seemann teaches:
[[a]] deterioration determination circuitry the first monitored object stored in the memorysee claim 1 for taking a first pressure reading, then moving the robot, taking a second pressure reading, and then comparing the two readings to determine if there is a pressure leak.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Inagaki and Abe, to add the additional features of deterioration determination circuitry memory, as taught by Seemann. The motivation for doing so would be to perform pressure tests faster and cheaper than can be performed by humans, as recognized by Seemann (see paragraphs 0005-0006).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
The examiner views this clause as very similar to the one taught by Abe, but used Seemann because Seemann was more explicit.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (US2014/0358419) in view of Enejehlm et al. (US2020/0391061)
Regarding claim 12, Inagaki discloses the information processing system according to claim 11.
Yet Inagaki does not further teach:
The information processing system according to claim 11, wherein:
the presentation circuitry
raising a flag, raising a balloon, discharging powder, to present the information on the abnormality.
However, Enejehlm further teaches:
raising a flag, raising a balloon, discharging powder, to present the information on the abnormality (see paragraph 0085 for powder.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Inagaki, to add the additional features of discharging powder, to present the information on the abnormality, as taught by Enejehlm. The motivation for doing so would be to not only detect an abnormality such as a fire, but take appropriate action, such as put out the fire, as recognized by Enejehlm (see paragraph 0085).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Claims 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (US2014/0358419) in view of Funk et al. (US2018/0178781).
Regarding claim 13, Inagaki discloses the information processing system according to claim 11.
Yet Inagaki does not further teach:
The information processing system according to claim 11 [[or 12]], wherein
the traveling body is configured to perform an operation corresponding to the abnormality after the information is presented by the presentation circuitry
However, Funk teaches:
the traveling body is configured to perform an operation corresponding to the abnormality after the information is presented by the presentation circuitry see paragraph 0165 for a system directing one or more fire suppression drones to extinguish a fire and “meanwhile…contacting the fire department”. The directing of the drones is ongoing as indicating by the possibility that they may “fail” to put out the fire. Therefore, the system contacts the fire department, not just simultaneous with the directly the drones, but “after” as well. That is why the fire department needs updates, reasonably including that the drones are working on it, and that they have failed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Inagaki, to add the additional features of the traveling body is configured to perform an operation corresponding to the abnormality after the information is presented by the presentation circuitry, as taught by Funk. The motivation for doing so would be to continue to put out the fire while calling the fire department, as recognized by Funk (see paragraph 0165).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Not that Inagaki teaches calling the fire department and Enejehlm teaches suppressing the fire. Funk essentially puts them in order.
Regarding claim 15, Inagaki discloses the information processing system according to claim 8.
Yet Inagaki does not further teach:
The information processing system according to claim 8, wherein
a monitored area monitored by the one or more traveling bodies is in a factory.
However, Funk teaches:
a monitored area monitored by the one or more traveling bodies is in a factory (see paragraph 0009. The “building” and “customer premises” reasonably includes a factory.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Inagaki, to add the additional features of a monitored area monitored by the one or more traveling bodies is in a factory, as taught by Funk. The motivation for doing so would be to monitor for abnormalities, such as fires and mitigate the damage, as recognized by Funk (see paragraph 0165).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 16, Inagaki discloses the information processing system according to claim 8.
Yet Inagaki does not further teach:
The information processing system according to claim 8,wherein:
a monitored area monitored by the one or more traveling bodies is in a medical facility (see paragraph 0009. The “building” and “customer premises” reasonably includes a medical facility.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Inagaki, to add the additional features of a monitored area monitored by the one or more traveling bodies is in a medical facility, as taught by Funk. The motivation for doing so would be to monitor for abnormalities, such as fires and mitigate the damage, as recognized by Funk (see paragraph 0165).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Hiraoka et al. (JP2006184027A). See Fig. 1 attached below and page 3 for a traveling vehicle that inspects pipes and valves in “power plants, substations, factories, etc.” The vehicle can detect “deterioration…over a long period of time”.
PNG
media_image1.png
386
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cyrus et al. (US2023/0051111). See Fig. 10 and paragraph 0078 for a moving robot that receives a command “to pinpoint a leak within a certain region of interest.” See Fig. 12 attached below and paragraph 0100 for “A virtual map 102 is viewable and which represents a layout of a particular job site where the robotic vehicle is operating. The movement or path of the robotic vehicle in this virtual map is designated by dashed lines. Infrastructure located at the job site is presented to the user as viewing the infrastructure from a view above the vehicle. One or more points 103 may be highlighted on the virtual map as corresponding to the location of a presumptive leak or a location of interest where gas concentration readings reach a threshold magnitude indicating a leak is likely in close proximity.”
PNG
media_image2.png
530
850
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See Fig. 14 attached below and paragraph 0102 for a plurality of vehicles, some in search mode for the source of a leak 143.
PNG
media_image3.png
542
856
media_image3.png
Greyscale
P. Merriaux et al., "The VIKINGS Autonomous Inspection Robot: Competing in the ARGOS Challenge," in IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 21-34, March 2019, doi: 10.1109/MRA.2018.2877189.
See page 3 of the PDF (22 of the article, though the page numbers are hard to read) for a list of sensors that include a gas sensor, and temperature sensor, and cameras.
The robot inspects an oil rig using a “rail mode” and reads gauges, according to page 6. See page 9 for “reading pressure gauges”. See Fig. 10 on page 10 for inspecting valve color, such as for rust. See Figs. 8 and 9 attached below.
PNG
media_image4.png
598
516
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Jones (US2021/0325910). Teaches a cell tower inspection drone. The drone flies from tower to tower. When damage in a tower is detected, the drone flies in for a better look. See Fig. 6 attached below, step 620 and paragraph 0038 for detecting an anomaly while inspecting a cell phone tower on “the original inspection route”. When this happens, the drone will deviate from the original inspection route 201 and adopt “anomaly inspection route 204”. See paragraph 0018 for the anomalous condition including something like “damage” or even a “foreign object such as a bird nest” being detected. The paragraph teaches that “a route may change if an anomalous condition…is detected”. This could be to get a closer look at the damage. See paragraph 0021 for an anomalous condition 118 including damage from wind, hail, or lightning. After obtaining a closer look the UAV “resumes inspection route 201”.
PNG
media_image5.png
850
588
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Zhang (US20180165931) See Fig. 1 attached below for a system that identifies whether or not there is an abnormality. If there is not, the system continues on its pre-planned route. If there is, the system changes its route. The vehicle uses a camera to determine if there is an abnormality.
PNG