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 .
This is a Non-Final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-7 and 15-16 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made that the present application is a national stage entry of PCT/CN2023/094396 filed on 05/16/2023 which claims foreign priority to patent application CN202210596096.7 filed on 05/30/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 11/29/2024, 08/07/2025 and 05/27/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I: claims 1-7 and 15-20 in the reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Upon further consideration of the restriction requirement, it is determined that claim 17-20 were improperly included in group I because claims 17-20 depend from claim 10 and includes all limitations of claim 10. Because claim 10 was identified as being directed to a separate inventive concept of Group III, claims 17-20 should have been included in Group III rather than Group I. Accordingly, the restriction requirement is modified to reflect that claims 17-20 are associated with Group III.
The traversal is on the ground(s) (Pages 2-4 of Applicant’s Remarks dated 05/27/2026) that (a) the restriction requirement was improper because the Examiner allegedly failed to establish a prima facie showing the lack of unity by identifying the special technical features of each group and explaining why the groups do not share a single general inventive concept; (b) the lack of a recited prior art reference supports a finding of unity among the groups; (c) Applicant contends that group I and II are technically linked because the corner points generated by the search method of group II are necessary set by rectangular regions of group I and group I and III are similarly linked because the rectangular unit regions of group I are used during edge wise walking termination process; and (d) Applicant asserts that the groups are closed related and should be considered part of a single general inventive concept based on these alleged technical dependencies and the common objective of simplifying map contour representation and improving robot navigation control. This is not found persuasive because the mere fact that the invention are technically related, sequentially performed, or that one group may utilize the output of another group does not establish unity of invention. The claims of group I are directed to representing contour segments using rectangular unit regions defined by corner points, group II is directed to a distinct method of generating corner points using a neighborhood search technique based on obstacle pixel points, and group III is directed to determining when a robot should terminate edgewise walking based on traversal of defined regions. These groups are directed to DIFFERENT technical solutions and do not share a common special features that links them into a single general inventive concept. Applicant’s assertion that the corner point generation method of group I is the sine qua non for performing the steps of group II is not sufficient, as a method of generating input data and a method of utilizing such data may be separately patentable inventions when the respective features solve different technical problems. Similarly, the use of the unit regions of group I in terminating edgewise walking process of Group III does not establish unity because the termination determination technique represents a separate concept directed to a robot control rather than contour representation. Further, the absence of a cited prior art reference does not establish unity, as a restriction or lack of unity determination does not require prior art rejection but instead requires an evaluation of whether the claimed inventions share the same or corresponding special technical features. Accordingly, the claimed groups represent distinct inventions lacking a single general inventive concept, and the restriction requirement remains proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the recited limitation “wherein two adjacent corner points are located in each of the rectangular regions as a unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking” is indefinite because it is unclear and confusing to the Examiner for at least the following reasons: (1) whether two corner points must be inside each rectangular region is the unit region, or (2) each rectangular region contains a unit region, or (3) the pair of adjacent corner points somehow forms the unit region. Accordingly, this claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding Claim 1, the recited limitation “a contour consistent with an extension direction of two adjacent corner points…is expressed by using the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking or the two adjacent corner points covered by the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking…the extension direction of the two adjacent corner points is represented as an extension direction of a line connecting the two adjacent corner points” is indefinite for at least the following regions: (1) corner points themselves do not have an extension direction since corner point is a point (i.e., a singular/exact location/point that marks where a line segment start/stops and has no length/width) that does not extends? (2) it is unclear what it means for a contour to be “expressed”, whether the contour is represented by the rectangular unit region, by the adjacent corner points, or either alternative, and how the recited or affects the scope of the claim. (3) The phrase “consistent with an extension direction” is a relative term (similarly for claim 6 Lines 3-4) that provides objective standard to determine whether a given contour satisfies the limitation or degree of consistency required to be “consistent with an extension direction”. Accordingly, this claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Claim 1 recites limitation “two adjacent corner points” in lines 10-11. It is unclear for instance in claim 1 if applicant intends to introduce new two adjacent corner points which is different than the one already claimed in claim 1 Lines 6-7 since the phrase “two adjacent corner points” is used again which implies that new two adjacent corner points different from the one in claim 1 Lines 6-7 is being introduced to the claim, hence this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding Claim 2, the recited limitation “when the coordinate values of the same dimension in the two adjacent corner points are unequal … or a line segment intersecting with the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points as a diagonal line of the rectangular region…” is indefinite because almost any non-parallel line interests another line somewhere since the claim does not define where the intersection occurs (e.g., midpoint, endpoint, at particular angle relative to what?). Accordingly, this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding Claim 2, the recited limitation “the two adjacent corner points are two corner points uniquely covered by the rectangular region” is indefinite because the phrase “uniquely covered” is unclear and confusing to the examiner whether the rectangle contains two corner points and these two particular corner points are the ONLY points used to define the rectangle and no other corner points may be inside? Accordingly, this claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the same dimension" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 3, the recited limitation “when there are equal coordinate values of one dimension…one of the endpoints extends toward the other endpoint in a direction parallel to the connecting line…” is indefinite because it is unclear to the Examiner how an endpoint extends toward other endpoints since an endpoint is a point (i.e., a singular/exact location/point that marks where a line segment start/stops and has no length/width) that does not extends? Accordingly, this claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding Claim 3, the recited limitation “a projection line segment of the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points…does not exceed the connecting line of the two endpoints” is indefinite because it is unclear to the Examiner what is this projection line segment (e.g., projected from what object/location such as center/mid of the connecting line at what angle, onto what line, measured how?) and what does the phrase of does not exceed mean (e.g., shorter than, contained within or equal)? Accordingly, this claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding Claim 3, the recited limitation “an intermediate point on a vertical line of the connecting line… the intermediate point respectively extends toward the two sides of the intermediate point in a direction parallel to the connecting line” is indefinite because the phrase “vertical line” depends on coordinate orientation and what happens when the connecting line itself is vertical and where exactly is this intermediate point located? Further, it is unclear to the Examiner how intermediate point extends toward two sides since an intermediate point is a point (i.e., a singular/exact location/point that marks where a line segment start/stops and has no length/width) that does not extends? Accordingly, this claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding Claim 3, the recited limitation “direction intersecting with the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points” is indefinite because almost any non-parallel line interests another line somewhere since the claim does not define where the intersection occurs (e.g., midpoint, endpoint, at particular angle relative to what?). Accordingly, this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the sum of extension lengths" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the connecting line…the length…the linear distance" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the same dimension" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims that dependent upon independent claims are also rejected under 112 second paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1 – YES
Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A map region contour-based setting method, wherein before the setting method is executed, a robot acquires a map of a working region, and the map is used for representing a contour of the working region, so that the robot walks along the contour;
the setting method comprises:
searching for corner points of the working region from the map by the robot;
and then setting, by the robot, rectangular regions, wherein two adjacent corner points are located in each of the rectangular regions as a unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking, the two adjacent corner points are covered by the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking where the two adjacent corner points are located; and
in the map, a contour consistent with an extension direction of two adjacent corner points covered by each unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking is expressed by using the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking or the two adjacent corner points covered by the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking, the extension direction of the two adjacent corner points is represented as an extension direction of a line connecting the two adjacent corner points.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” and/or mathematical concept because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and/or using mathematical concepts. For example, the bolded limitation can be performed by a human, for example, an engineer prints a floor plan on paper (corresponds to “acquires a map…contour”), he/she circles every corner of the floor plan (corresponds to “searching…from the map”); connects the adjacent corners by drawing a rectangle around each wall segment and he/she labels rectangle as an “edge-following region” (corresponds to “setting…a line connecting the two adjacent corner points”).
Examiner would also note MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Here, the determination is a form of making evaluation and judgement based on observation (driver behavior). Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A map region contour-based setting method, wherein before the setting method is executed, a robot acquires a map of a working region, and the map is used for representing a contour of the working region, so that the robot walks along the contour;
the setting method comprises:
searching for corner points of the working region from the map by the robot;
and then setting, by the robot, rectangular regions, wherein two adjacent corner points are located in each of the rectangular regions as a unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking, the two adjacent corner points are covered by the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking where the two adjacent corner points are located; and
in the map, a contour consistent with an extension direction of two adjacent corner points covered by each unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking is expressed by using the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking or the two adjacent corner points covered by the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking, the extension direction of the two adjacent corner points is represented as an extension direction of a line connecting the two adjacent corner points.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of acquiring a map of a working region, the examiner submits that these limitation are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely uses a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the acquiring map step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of acquiring data) and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recite “the robot” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise abstract ideas and/or additional limitations in a generic or general-purpose computer environment, where robot is recited as generic processor performing a generic computer function of acquiring data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impost any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “robot”, the examiner submits that the robot is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer component/processor performing generic calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solutions activities.
As explained, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05; Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S., 208,223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Electric Power Group, LLC v, Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information for collection, analysis and display constitute insignificant extra-solution activity). Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016)( Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-7 and 15-16 do not recite any further limitations that causes the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial except and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 and 15-16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
As such, claims 1-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significant more, and thus are ineligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kolling et al. (US 2020/0089255 A1 hereinafter Kolling).
Regarding claim 1, Kolling teaches A map region contour-based setting method (see at least Abstract), wherein before the setting method is executed, a robot acquires a map of a working region (see at least [0080]: the controller controls the navigational behavior of the robot using map of the environment), and the map is used for representing a contour of the working region, so that the robot walks along the contour; (see at least Fig. 4A-4J [0092-0102, 0122-0131]: The polygon map 400 A can be a persistent map created using information captured by a camera. The controller performs interior region and generate one or more perimeter ranks along at least a portion of the boundary. The perimeter ranks can include one rank per edge of the boundary.)
the setting method comprises: searching for corner points of the working region from the map by the robot; (see at least Fig. 4A-4J [0092-0102, 0122-0131]: In the case of a polygonal map 440 A where the boundary comprises multiple connected linear edges as illustrated in FIG. 4A, the perimeter ranks 422 and 432 can each include one rank per edge of the boundary. If two edges come together at an obtuse angle (between π/2 and π), such as an angle 451 , the perimeter ranks can each be the same length as the corresponding edges. If the angle between edges is an acute angle (less than π/2), such as an angle 452 , then the perimeter ranks can be shorter than the length of the corresponding edges such that the robot does not exit the environment. If the angle between edges is greater than x, such as an angle 453 , then the perimeter rank can be extended by the width of the robot so that there is no missed space around the corner formed by the edges. As illustrated in FIG. 4A, to ensure complete coverage, adjacent perimeter ranks can be at least partially overlapped to each other. That is, the boundary is represented by connected edges and the vertices (i.e. conner points) where those edges meet are used to determine length of perimeter ranks.)
and then setting, by the robot, rectangular regions, wherein two adjacent corner points are located in each of the rectangular regions as a unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking, the two adjacent corner points are covered by the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking where the two adjacent corner points are located; (see at least Fig. 4A-4J and 4J modified [0092-0102, 0122-0131]: The coverage planner of the controller can generate one or more perimeter ranks 422 (as shown in the Figures are rectangular regions connecting two adjacent corner points/vertices) along the boundary 420. The perimeter ranks are paths the robot follows to clean the boundary of an area and the perimeter ranks can interconnect the interior ranks of one partitioned interior region to another. The perimeter ranks 422 can each include one rank per edge of the boundary. If two edges come together at an obtuse angle (between π/2 and π), such as an angle 451 , the perimeter ranks can each be the same length as the corresponding edges. If the angle between edges is an acute angle (less than π/2), such as an angle 452 , then the perimeter ranks can be shorter than the length of the corresponding edges such that the robot does not exit the environment. If the angle between edges is greater than x, such as an angle 453 , then the perimeter rank can be extended by the width of the robot so that there is no missed space around the corner formed by the edges. Fig. 4J illustrates the perimeter ranks 422 can have corresponding endpoints (i.e. corner points) as the vertices in the segments. Fig. 4J modified illustrates rectangular region 422 enclosing two adjacent corner points (e.g. A-B, C-D) subjected for edge traveling.) and
in the map, a contour consistent with an extension direction of two adjacent corner points covered by each unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking is expressed by using the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking or the two adjacent corner points covered by the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking, the extension direction of the two adjacent corner points is represented as an extension direction of a line connecting the two adjacent corner points. (see at least Fig. 4A-4J [0092-0102, 0122-0131]: The coverage planner of the controller can generate one or more perimeter ranks 422 (as shown in the Figures are rectangular regions connecting two adjacent corner points/vertices) along the boundary 420. The perimeter ranks are paths the robot follows to clean the boundary of an area and the perimeter ranks can interconnect the interior ranks of one partitioned interior region to another. The perimeter ranks 422 can each include one rank per edge of the boundary. If two edges come together at an obtuse angle (between π/2 and π), such as an angle 451 , the perimeter ranks can each be the same length as the corresponding edges. If the angle between edges is an acute angle (less than π/2), such as an angle 452 , then the perimeter ranks can be shorter than the length of the corresponding edges such that the robot does not exit the environment. If the angle between edges is greater than x, such as an angle 453 , then the perimeter rank can be extended by the width of the robot so that there is no missed space around the corner formed by the edges.)
PNG
media_image1.png
598
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolling in view of Suvitie (US 2021/0033417 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kolling teaches The setting method according to claim 1, wherein setting, by the robot, the rectangular regions, wherein the two adjacent corner points are located in each of the rectangular regions as the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking comprises:
Kolling further teaches when there are equal coordinate values of one dimension in the two adjacent corner points, selecting a line segment parallel to a connecting line of the two adjacent corner points as a long edge of the rectangular region, and setting the length of the long edge of the rectangular region to be a first preset multiple of a linear distance between the two adjacent corner points, so as to construct the rectangular region; and then setting the rectangular region as the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking, wherein the first preset multiple is greater than or equal to 1; (see at least Fig. 4A-4J [0092-0102, 0122-0131]: see in particular Fig. 4J modified shown, when two adjacent corner points (e.g., points A, B) are equal coordinate values of one dimension (e.g. along y axis), a line segment parallel (e.g., a) are selected/chosen that is parallel to a connecting line (e.g. cl) of the two adjacent corner points (e.g., A, B) as the long edge of the rectangular region 422. As can be seen in the figure, the long edge (e.g. line segment a) segment length is a preset multiple greater than/equal to unit length 1 of connecting line cl.) and
when the coordinate values of the same dimension in the two adjacent corner points are unequal, selecting a line segment parallel to the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points or a line segment intersecting with the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points as a diagonal line of the rectangular region, and setting the length of the diagonal line of the rectangular region to be a second preset multiple of the linear distance between the two adjacent corner points, so as to construct the rectangular region; and then setting the rectangular region as the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking, wherein the second preset multiple is greater than 1; (see at least Fig. 4A-4J, 4J modified [0092-0102, 0122-0131]: see in particular Fig. 4J modified shown, when two adjacent corner points (e.g., points C, D) are unequal coordinate values (e.g., not located on the x and y axis coordinate), a line segment parallel (e.g., b) are selected/chosen that is parallel to a connecting line (e.g. dl) of the two adjacent corner points (e.g., C, D) as the long edge of the rectangular region 422. As can be seen in the figure, the long edge (e.g. line segment b) segment length is a preset multiple greater than/equal to unit length 1 of connecting line dl.) and
the two adjacent corner points are two corner points uniquely covered by the rectangular region. (see at least Fig. 4A-4J, 4J modified [0092-0102, 0122-0131]: as can be seen in the Fig. 4A and 4J modified, the adjacent corner points are each covered by rectangular regions (perimeter ranks 422)).
It may be alleged that Kolling does not explicitly teach when the coordinate values of the same dimension in the two adjacent corner points are unequal, selecting a line segment parallel to the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points or a line segment intersecting with the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points as a diagonal line of the rectangular region,
Suvitie is in the same field of vehicular navigation, Suvitie teaches when the coordinate values of the same dimension in the two adjacent corner points are unequal, selecting a line segment parallel to the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points or a line segment intersecting with the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points as a diagonal line of the rectangular region, (see at least Fig. 2-5 [0047-0063]: The path has a plurality of waypoints 12 and line segments 14 between the waypoints. Waypoints 12 at the ends of the line segments 14 also provide end points 13 for each line segment. Segment boundary rectangles 15 are shown to encompass each of the lines segments 14. A respective segment boundary rectangle can be calculated for each of the line segments with two endpoints. That is, Suvitie teaches that two adjacent coordinate points defining a segment can be converted into a rectangular region when both coordinate dimensions differ, the connecting segment lines along the diagonal of the bounding rectangle as shown in Fig. 4’s lower left corner and upper right corners.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kolling’s system and method for operating a mobile robot in an environment according to a coverage path that connects a number of turns to incorporate the technique of generating a bounding rectangle using a diagonal segment defined by two unequal-coordinate waypoints as the diagonal for the bounding box as taught by Suvitie with reasonable expectation of success to allow the robot controller to more easily identify, travel and navigate along the edge by improving processing efficiency and simplifying path tracking.
Regarding claim 3, the combination Kolling in view of Suvitie teaches The setting method according to claim 2, wherein during the process of setting the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking in the working region, there are the following cases:
Kolling further teaches when there are equal coordinate values of one dimension in the two adjacent corner points, the long edge of the rectangular region comprises two endpoints, one of the endpoints extends towards the other endpoint in a direction parallel to the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points, so as to obtain the long edge of the rectangular region, wherein the length of a connecting line of the two endpoints is equal to the first preset multiple of the linear distance between the two adjacent corner points, and a projection line segment of the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points on the connecting line of the two endpoints does not exceed the connecting line of the two endpoints; (see at least Fig. 4A-4J, 4J modified [0092-0102, 0122-0131]: Fig. 4J modified shows that the rectangular region enclosing corner points A & B covers the original corner A to corner B contour segment. The longer edge of the rectangular 422 is a preset multiple of the linear distance connecting the two adjacent corner points A & B wherein corner points A&B have equal coordinates along the Y-axis.)
when there are equal coordinate values of one dimension in the two adjacent corner points, there is an intermediate point on a vertical line of the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points, the intermediate point respectively extends towards the two sides of the intermediate point in a direction parallel to the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points, so as to obtain the long edge of the rectangular region, wherein the sum of extension lengths on the two sides of the intermediate point is equal to the first preset multiple of the linear distance between the two adjacent corner points, and a projection line segment of the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points on the long edge of the rectangular region does not exceed the long edge of the rectangular region; (see at least Fig. 4A-4J, 4J modified [0092-0102, 0122-0131]: Fig. 4J modified shows an intermediate point M lining on a vertical line VL of the connecting line cl of the two adjacent corner. The line segment a is obtained when intermediate point M respectively extends toward the two sides of the intermediate point M in a direction parallel to the connecting line cl of the adjacent corner points A&B to obtain the long edge (line segments a) of the rectangular region 422. The sum of the extension (i.e. line segment a) is equal to the preset multiple of the linear distance between the two adjacent corner points (i.e. cl).)
when the coordinate values of the same dimension in the two adjacent corner points are unequal, there is an intermediate point on the vertical line of the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points, the intermediate point respectively extends towards the two sides of the intermediate point in the direction parallel to the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points or the direction intersecting with the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points, (see at least Fig. 4A-4J, 4J modified: see hollow circle between corner points C&D as the intermediate point)
It may be alleged that Kolling does not explicitly teach when the coordinate values of the same dimension in the two adjacent corner points are unequal, the diagonal line of the rectangular region comprises two endpoints, one of the endpoints extends towards the other endpoint in the direction parallel to the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points or a direction intersecting with the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points, so as to obtain the diagonal line of the rectangular region, wherein the length of the connecting line of the two endpoints is equal to the second preset multiple of the linear distance between the two adjacent corner points, and the projection line segment of the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points on the connecting line of the two endpoints does not exceed the connecting line of the two endpoints; and
when the coordinate values of the same dimension in the two adjacent corner points are unequal, there is an intermediate point on the vertical line of the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points, the intermediate point respectively extends towards the two sides of the intermediate point in the direction parallel to the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points or the direction intersecting with the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points, so as to obtain the diagonal line of the rectangular region, wherein the sum of extension lengths on the two sides of the intermediate point is equal to the second preset multiple of the linear distance between the two adjacent corner points, and a projection line segment of the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points on the diagonal line of the rectangular region does not exceed the diagonal line of the rectangular region.
Suvitie is in the same field of vehicular navigation, Suvitie teaches when the coordinate values of the same dimension in the two adjacent corner points are unequal, the diagonal line of the rectangular region comprises two endpoints, one of the endpoints extends towards the other endpoint in the direction parallel to the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points or a direction intersecting with the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points, so as to obtain the diagonal line of the rectangular region, wherein the length of the connecting line of the two endpoints is equal to the second preset multiple of the linear distance between the two adjacent corner points, and the projection line segment of the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points on the connecting line of the two endpoints does not exceed the connecting line of the two endpoints; (see at least Suvitie Fig. 4 Edited below: when the two adjacent corners points (L&P) have unequal coordinate values, the diagonal line LP of the rectangular region UVXW comprises two end points (W&V) in the direction parallel to the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points (L&P). The length of WV is equal to the preset multiple of the linear distance LP between the two adjacent corner points.) and
when the coordinate values of the same dimension in the two adjacent corner points are unequal, there is an intermediate point on the vertical line of the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points, the intermediate point respectively extends towards the two sides of the intermediate point in the direction parallel to the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points or the direction intersecting with the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points, so as to obtain the diagonal line of the rectangular region, wherein the sum of extension lengths on the two sides of the intermediate point is equal to the second preset multiple of the linear distance between the two adjacent corner points, and a projection line segment of the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points on the diagonal line of the rectangular region does not exceed the diagonal line of the rectangular region. (see at least Suvitie Fig. 4 Edited below: when the two adjacent corners points (L&P) have unequal coordinate values, an intermediate point (m’) on the vertical line (VL’) of the connecting line LP extends toward the two sides of the intermediate point to obtain the diagonal line VW of the rectangular region.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kolling’s system and method for operating a mobile robot in an environment according to a coverage path that connects a number of turns to incorporate the technique of generating a bounding rectangle using a diagonal segment defined by two unequal-coordinate waypoints as the diagonal for the bounding box as taught by Suvitie with reasonable expectation of success to allow the robot controller to more easily identify, travel and navigate along the edge by improving processing efficiency and simplifying path tracking.
PNG
media_image2.png
526
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kolling teaches The setting method according to claim 1, wherein setting, by the robot, the rectangular regions, wherein the two adjacent corner points are located in each of the rectangular regions as the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking comprises:
Kolling further teaches when there are equal coordinate values of one dimension in the two adjacent corner points (see at least Fig. 4J modified’s adjacent corner points A & B at equal Y-axis coordinate), setting the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points as a long edge of the rectangular region, so that the length of the rectangular region is equal to the linear distance between the two adjacent corner points, so as to construct the rectangular region, wherein the two adjacent corner points are two corner points uniquely covered by the rectangular region; and then setting the rectangular region as the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking; (see at least Fig. 4A-4J, 4J modified [0092-0102, 0122-0131]: Fig. 4J modified shows that the line segments a as the long edge of rectangular regions 422 that’s about the same length as the linear distance between the adjacent corner points, the rectangular regions uniquely cover the two adjacent corner points and are unit regions subject for edgewise walking.) and
It may be alleged the Kolling does not explicitly teach when the coordinate values of the same dimension in the two adjacent corner points are unequal, setting the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points as a diagonal line of the rectangular region, so as to construct the rectangular region, wherein the two adjacent corner points are two corner points uniquely covered by the rectangular region; and then setting the rectangular region as the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking.
Suvitie is in the same field of vehicular navigation, Suvitie teaches when the coordinate values of the same dimension in the two adjacent corner points are unequal, setting the connecting line of the two adjacent corner points as a diagonal line of the rectangular region, so as to construct the rectangular region, wherein the two adjacent corner points are two corner points uniquely covered by the rectangular region; (see at least Suvitie Fig. 4 Edited above: two adjacent waypoints L & P have unequal coordinate points, and the connecting line LP is diagonal line of the rectangular region UVXW and the adjacent corner points LP were uniquely covered by the rectangular region UVXW)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kolling’s system and method for operating a mobile robot in an environment according to a coverage path that connects a number of turns to incorporate the technique of generating a bounding rectangle using a diagonal segment defined by two unequal-coordinate waypoints as the diagonal for the bounding box as taught by Suvitie with reasonable expectation of success to allow the robot controller to more easily identify, travel and navigate along the edge by improving processing efficiency and simplifying path tracking.
Regarding claim 5 (similarly claim 15), The combination of Kolling in view of Suvitie teaches The setting method according to claim 2,
Kolling further teaches wherein a minimum edge length of the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking is greater than or equal to a body width of the robot, or greater than or equal to a wall thickness of the working region, so as to reserve a space for the robot to enter the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking. (see at least [0092]: The environment partitioning concerns decomposing the environment into regions of particular shapes and sizes suitable for robot to traverse. The partitioned region can be further split into rectangles called ranks. Each rank has a unit width, such as equal to the width of the robot's tool (e.g., sweeping, mopping, or mowing tools) and can be arbitrarily long.)
Claim(s) 6-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolling in view of Suvitie and Huang et al. (CA 3135522A1 hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 6 (similarly claim 16), The combination of Kolling in view of Suvitie teaches The setting method according to claim 2, wherein when an edgewise walking trajectory of the robot passes through the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking, it is determined that the robot has walked along a contour segment consistent with the extension direction of the two adjacent corner points covered by the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking;
Kolling further teaches the contour of the working region is formed by connecting a plurality of contour segments; each of the contour segments corresponds to the two adjacent corner points; (see at least Fig. 4A-4J)
It may be alleged that the combination of Kolling in view of Suvitie does not explicitly teach when the each of the contour segments is expressed in the map according to a preset clock direction by the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking where two corresponding adjacent corner points are located, a coordinate coverage range of each unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking in the working region and a sorting of each unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking in the preset clock direction are sequentially recorded in a memory of the robot; and
when each of the contour segments is expressed in the map by two corresponding adjacent corner points according to the preset clock direction, coordinates of every two adjacent corner points in the working region and the sorting of every two adjacent corner points in the preset clock direction are sequentially recorded in the memory of the robot.
Huang is directed to method and system for controlling mobile robot, Huang teaches when the each of the contour segments is expressed in the map according to a preset clock direction by the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking where two corresponding adjacent corner points are located, a coordinate coverage range of each unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking in the working region and a sorting of each unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking in the preset clock direction are sequentially recorded in a memory of the robot; (see at least Fig. 3 Page 7-9: The robot walks a preset path corresponding to a regular dodecagon in a clockwise direction (or anticlockwise direction) to the next adjacent corner points 2, 3, 4, 5, … and 12 sequentially along sides of the regular dodecagon until reaching the initial corner point 1.) and
when each of the contour segments is expressed in the map by two corresponding adjacent corner points according to the preset clock direction, coordinates of every two adjacent corner points in the working region and the sorting of every two adjacent corner points in the preset clock direction are sequentially recorded in the memory of the robot. (see at least Fig. 3 Page 7-9: The robot walks a preset path corresponding to a regular dodecagon in a clockwise direction (or anticlockwise direction) to the next adjacent corner points 2, 3, 4, 5, … and 12 sequentially along sides of the regular dodecagon until reaching the initial corner point 1.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kolling and Suvitie to incorporate the technique of expressing the contour segments by connecting adjacent corner points in a sequential order in the map in a predetermined clockwise/anticlockwise direction subjected to robot’s traversal as taught by Huang with reasonable expectation of success to ensure that robot will clean all segments in a orderly manner without missing any segments and doing so would improve operation efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kolling in view of Suvitie and Huang teaches The setting method according to claim 6,
It may be alleged that the combination of Kolling in view of Suvitie does not explicitly teach wherein during the process of setting the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking in the working region, firstly marking a pre-selected corner point as a current corner point, and starting from the current corner point, selecting one closest corner point in the preset clock direction and marking the corner point as a next corner point, then setting the rectangular region where the two corner points are located as the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking, recording the sorting and the coordinate coverage ranges of the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking and the corresponding corner points in the preset clock direction, and marking the current corner point and the next corner point as the two adjacent corner points; and then updating the next corner point as the current corner point, and performing repetition in this way until corresponding unit regions to be subjected to edgewise walking are set at locations where all adjacent corner points are located, and obtaining the coordinate coverage ranges of all unit regions to be subjected to edgewise walking in the working region and the sorting in the preset clock direction.
Huang is directed to method and system for controlling mobile robot, Huang teaches wherein during the process of setting the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking in the working region, firstly marking a pre-selected corner point as a current corner point, and starting from the current corner point, selecting one closest corner point in the preset clock direction and marking the corner point as a next corner point, then setting the rectangular region where the two corner points are located as the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking, recording the sorting and the coordinate coverage ranges of the unit region to be subjected to edgewise walking and the corresponding corner points in the preset clock direction, and marking the current corner point and the next corner point as the two adjacent corner points; and then updating the next corner point as the current corner point, and performing repetition in this way until corresponding unit regions to be subjected to edgewise walking are set at locations where all adjacent corner points are located, and obtaining the coordinate coverage ranges of all unit regions to be subjected to edgewise walking in the working region and the sorting in the preset clock direction. (see at least Fig. 3 Page 7-9: The robot walks a preset path corresponding to a regular dodecagon in a clockwise direction (or anticlockwise direction) to the next adjacent corner points 2, 3, 4, 5, … and 12 sequentially along sides of the regular dodecagon until reaching the initial corner point 1. The pre-set path designates the sequencing order of connecting corner points to which the robot follows in order to complete a route/path.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kolling and Suvitie to incorporate the technique of expressing the contour segments by connecting adjacent corner points in a sequential order in the map in a predetermined clockwise/anticlockwise direction subjected to robot’s traversal as taught by Huang with reasonable expectation of success to ensure that robot will clean all segments in an orderly manner without missing any segments and doing so would improve operation efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 pm EST.
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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights