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 .
Claims 1 thru 9 have been examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In P[0013], the phrase “sub areas 21 to 24” should be “sub areas A21 to A24” to agree with Figure 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In P[0013], the phrase “sub area 42” should be “sub area A42” to agree with Figure 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In P[0031], “CPU61” should have a space between CPU and 61.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In each of P[0039] and P[0043], “CPU31” should have a space between CPU and 31.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, the claimed storage unit, resource management unit and use request processing unit are recited to be included as part of the resource management server. Therefore, these claimed unit would not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they are part of a server (structure known in the art).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a marker management unit that provides in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The marker management unit is interpreted as part of the resource management server CPU (Figure 4).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 thru 9 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.
Claim 1 recites, “a resource management server is provided separately from an operation management server that manages the mobile body” (lines 3 and 4). It is unclear which server manages the mobile body. The examiner assumes the operation management server manages the mobile body for continued examination, and suggest the limitation should recite, “a resource management server is provided separately from an operation management server, wherein the operation management server manages the mobile body”.
Claim 5 recites, “a sub area” (for requested allocation) in line 3, while claim 2 also recites, “a sub area” (that receives allocation) in line 6. It is unclear if this is a new sub area or the same sub area. The examiner assumes it is the same sub area for continued examination.
Claim 8 recites, “the resource management server is provided separately from a plurality of operation management servers that manage movement of the mobile body” (lines 3 and 4). It is unclear which server manages the movement of the mobile body. The examiner assumes the plurality of operation management servers manage the mobile body for continued examination, and suggest the limitation should recite, “the resource management server is provided separately from a plurality of operation management servers, wherein the plurality of operation management servers manage movement of the mobile body”.
Claim 9 recites, “a resource management server is provided separately from an operation management server that manages the mobile body” (lines 3 and 4). It is unclear which server manages the mobile body. The examiner assumes the operation management server manages the mobile body for continued examination, and suggest the limitation should recite, “a resource management server is provided separately from an operation management server, wherein the operation management server manages the mobile body”.
Claim 9 recites, “and stores and manages a resource” in line 4. It is unclear which server performs the storing and managing of the resource. The examiner suggests the claim be amended to identify which server performs the storing and managing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 thru 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 9 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A mobile body passage management system that manages passage of a mobile body that moves autonomously,
wherein a resource management server is provided separately from an operation management server that manages the mobile body,
the resource management server includes
a storage unit that stores a resource necessary for the passage of the mobile body as resource data,
a resource management unit that manages an allocation situation of the resource to the mobile body, and
a use request processing unit that receives a request from the mobile body, performs new allocation of the resource, and releases the resource when use by the mobile body is finished, and
the operation management server manages an operation of the mobile body by associating the resource data provided from the resource management server with a situation of the mobile body.
The above underlined limitation constitutes “a mental process” because it is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person could decide (manage) what is to be accomplished by a mobile body and determine what resources to should be used for the situation. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Independent claim 9 recites,
A mobile body passage management method for managing passage of a mobile body that moves autonomously, the mobile body passage management method comprising:
a step of receiving, by a resource management server that is provided separately from an operation management server that manages the mobile body and stores and manages a resource necessary for the passage of the mobile body as resource data, a request for the resource from the mobile body;
a step of permitting, by the resource management server, use of the requested resource in a case where the requested resource is usable as a result of referring to a use situation by another mobile body; and
a step of, by the resource management server, rejecting use of the requested resource in a case where the requested resource is not usable as a result of referring to a use situation by another mobile body,
wherein the operation management server manages the operation of the mobile body by associating the resource data provided from the resource management server with a situation of the mobile body.
The underlined portions of claim 9 constitute an abstract idea (mental activity) similar to the abstract idea of claim 1, and thus also recite at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), 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 such as 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.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A mobile body passage management system that manages passage of a mobile body that moves autonomously,
wherein a resource management server is provided separately from an operation management server (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) that manages the mobile body,
the resource management server (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) includes
a storage unit that stores a resource (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) necessary for the passage of the mobile body as resource data,
a resource management unit (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) that manages an allocation situation of the resource to the mobile body, and
a use request processing unit (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) that receives a request from the mobile body (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), performs new allocation of the resource, and releases the resource when use by the mobile body is finished, and
the operation management server (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) manages an operation of the mobile body by associating the resource data provided from the resource management server with a situation of the mobile body.
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of a resource management server (including a storage unit, resource management unit and use request processing unit) and an operation management server, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of receives a request from the mobile body (data gathering) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Similarly, claim 9 recites,
A mobile body passage management method for managing passage of a mobile body that moves autonomously, the mobile body passage management method comprising:
a step of receiving, by a resource management server that is provided separately from an operation management server (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) that manages the mobile body and stores (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and manages a resource necessary for the passage of the mobile body as resource data, a request for the resource from the mobile body (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
a step of permitting, by the resource management server (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), use of the requested resource in a case where the requested resource is usable as a result of referring to a use situation by another mobile body; and
a step of, by the resource management server (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), rejecting use of the requested resource in a case where the requested resource is not usable as a result of referring to a use situation by another mobile body,
wherein the operation management server (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) manages the operation of the mobile body by associating the resource data provided from the resource management server with a situation of the mobile body.
Regarding the additional limitations of a resource management server and an operation management server, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of receiving a request for the resource from the mobile body, this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 9 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1 and 9 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 reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, the additional limitations of a resource management server (including a storage unit, resource management unit and use request processing unit) and an operation management server, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of receiving a request for the resource from the mobile body, this additional limitation has been reevaluated, and it has been determined that such a limitation is not unconventional as it merely consist of data gathering which is recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Further, adding a preliminary step of gathering data (receiving a request) to a process that only recites managing data and resource allocation (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of managing a mobile body. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g).
The dependent claims 2 thru 8 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims are directed to:
Claim 2 - the resource data is data obtained by assigning identification data to sub areas obtained by dividing an area through which the mobile body passes in a building, the sub areas are allocable in different combinations according to specifications and/or tasks of the mobile body, and the mobile body designates a sub area to be used by the mobile body and receives an allocation.
Claim 3 – the resource data is data obtained by assigning identification data to sub areas obtained by dividing an area through which the mobile body passes in a building, the mobile body designates a sub area to be used by the mobile body and requests allocation, and the use request processing unit (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) controls traffic of passage of a plurality of independently operating mobile bodies by performing any one of control to give use permission to only one of the mobile bodies at a time with respect to the sub area, control to limit the number available for the sub area to a predetermined number, and control to give use permission to the sub area only in a specific entry direction (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Giving permission or not giving permission (limiting the number) are considered well understood, routine and conventional activities and are not interpreted as control of the mobile bodies beyond a simple command of granting or denying permission.
Claim 4 - the resource management unit (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) provides the resource data to the mobile body (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and the mobile body searches for a moving route using the resource data (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and requests allocation of sub areas constituting the moving route (extra-solution activity (data gathering), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 5 - the mobile body stores specification data (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) indicating the specification of the mobile body, and determines a sub area for which allocation is requested based on the specification data.
Claim 6 - the use request processing unit (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) notifies the mobile body of a use condition of the resource (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) when allocating the resource to the mobile body, and the use condition includes at least one of a maximum speed limit, a maximum volume, a maximum luminous intensity, and a limit changed by time.
Claim 7 - the storage unit further stores marker data (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) in which position information of a marker disposed in an area through which the mobile body passes is associated with identification data of the marker, and the mobile body passage management system further includes a marker management unit (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) that provides position information of a corresponding marker when an inquiry specifying identification information of the marker data is received from the mobile body.
Claim 8 – a plurality of mobile bodies moves autonomously to perform a task, the resource management server is provided separately from a plurality of operation management servers (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) that manage movement of the mobile body, the plurality of operation management servers (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) manage the movement of the mobile body by associating the resource data provided from the resource management server with a situation of the movement of the mobile body managed by each of the plurality of operation management servers, the resource data is data representing a plurality of sub areas obtained by dividing an area through which the mobile body passes in a building, each of the plurality of sub areas has an area, and is allocable in different combinations of sub areas according to a size and the task of the mobile body, and the mobile body searches for a moving route of the mobile body (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), determines a sub area for which allocation is requested based on the size and task of the mobile body and the moving route, specifies one of the sub areas and requests allocation from the resource management server when one sub area to be used by the mobile body is sufficient, specifies a combination of a plurality of sub areas at the same time and requests allocation from the resource management server when the combination of the plurality of sub areas adjacent to each other in a direction in which the mobile body moves is required based on the size of the mobile body, specifies the combination of the plurality of sub areas at the same time and requests allocation (extra-solution activity (data gathering), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) from the resource management server (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) in a case where the combination of the sub areas is required based on the task of the mobile body even when the combination of the sub areas is not required based on the size of the mobile body, and receives allocation (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) of the sub area or the combination of the sub areas from the resource management server.
The dependent claims recite either a part of the abstract idea (underlined portion) or are additional elements that do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea.
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 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kuffner Jr. et al Patent Number 9,008,839 B1.
Regarding claim 1 Kuffner Jr. et al disclose the claimed mobile body passage management system that manages passage of a mobile body that moves autonomously, a system and method for allocating tasks to robotic devices (abstract), and “The processor 202 may be coupled to the storage 204 and may be configured to control the robotic device 200 based on the program instructions.” (column 8 lines 5 thru 7), the control based on the program instructions equates to the claimed autonomous mobile body, wherein
the claimed resource management server is separate from an operation management server, “The system 100 includes a number of client devices coupled to or configured to be capable of communicating with components of the cloud 102. For example, a computer 112, a mobile device 114, a host 116, and a robot client 118 are shown coupled to the cloud 102. Of course, more or fewer client devices may be coupled to the cloud 102. In addition, different types of client devices may be coupled to the cloud 102. For example, any of the client devices may generally comprise a display system, memory, and a processor.” (column 6 lines 45 thru 53, and Figure 1), the computer 112, a mobile device 114, a host 116, and a robot client 118 equate to the claimed separate servers, wherein
the claimed operation management server manages the mobile body, “At block 502, the method 500 includes receiving information associated with task logs for a plurality of robotic devices. In one example, the plurality of robotic devices may publish task statuses, associated with tasks or functions assigned to and performed by the plurality of robotic devices, to a database. The database may also include information from other robotic devices similar to the robotic devices. Other types of information associated with the task logs may include information indicating what tasks or types of tasks a robotic device is capable of performing. For example, a given robotic device may be capable of performing a repetitive task with a given amount of tolerance accompanying a result of the task or navigating with a given amount of precision.” (column 11 lines 52 thru 64, and Figure 5), “The information may be sent by the robotic devices 604 to the database 606 in real-time, periodically, or sporadically, in some examples. For example, a fleet of robotic devices may be connected to the database 606 via a wired or wireless network and transmit information to the database 606.” (column 14 lines 36 thru 41, and Figure 6), and “the computing component 608 may also receive information associated with task logs for the robotic devices 604 from the database 606. The computing component 608 may determine information associated with a health level for the robotic devices 604 based on the information associated with the task logs.” (column 14 lines 46 thru 51),
the resource management server includes:
the claimed storage unit that stores a resource necessary for the passage of the mobile body as resource data, “At block 504, the method 500 includes in a computing system configured to access a processor and a memory determining information associated with a health level for the plurality of robotic devices based on the information associated with the task logs.” (column 12 lines 14 thru 18, and Figure 5),
the claimed resource management unit manages an allocation situation of the resource to the mobile body, “At block 508, the method 500 includes the computing system optimizing an allocation of the plurality of tasks to one or more robotic devices of the plurality of robotic devices based on the information associated with respective health levels for the plurality of robotic devices. In the instance in which a first task is associated with a first amount of precision that is greater than a second amount of precision associated with a second task, the computing system may allocate the first task to a first robotic device having a first health level that is greater than a second health level of a second robotic device. For example, the first robotic device may be newer or younger than the second robotic device and the first task may accordingly be allocated to the first robotic device. In some examples, the second task may be allocated to the second robotic device.” (column 13 lines 13 thru 27, and Figure 5), and
the claimed use request processing unit receives a request from the mobile body, performs new allocation of the resource and releases the resource when use by the mobile body is finished, “The plurality of robotic devices may also be configured to transmit information associated with a status of the one or more tasks to the computing component via the network. In one instance, the status may indicate whether the one or more tasks are completed. In addition, the maintenance component of the system may be configured to transmit information associated with repairs of the plurality of robotic device to the computing component via the network.” (column 3 lines 43 thru 51), and “the task status may include information sent by the robotic device 604a indicating whether the first task 610a is completed or information describing an update of completion of the task. In another instance, the computing component 608 may determine whether the task 610a is completed based on information sent to the database 606 from sensors of the robotic device 604a or sensors configured to determine when the task 610a is completed.” (column 15 lines 4 thru 11), and
the claimed operation management server manages an operation of the mobile body by associating the resource data provided from the resource management server with a situation of the mobile body, “At block 506, the method 500 includes determining information associated with a plurality of tasks to be performed by one or more of the plurality of robotic devices. In one example, the information associated with the plurality of tasks may include information regarding amounts of precision associated with one or more of the tasks. For instance, a first task may be associated with a first amount of precision that is greater than a second amount of precision associated with a second task. As an example, a first task may require a higher amount of precision (e.g., navigating to a position within one meter of a location, applying an amount of force to an object within a force range, etc.) that is greater than a lower amount of precision associated with the second task.” (column 12 line 59 thru column 13 line 4, and Figure 5).
Regarding claim 9 Kuffner Jr. et al disclose the claimed mobile body passage management method for managing passage of a mobile body that moves autonomously, a system and method for allocating tasks to robotic devices (abstract), the method of allocating tasks to a plurality of robotic devices (Figure 5), and “The processor 202 may be coupled to the storage 204 and may be configured to control the robotic device 200 based on the program instructions.” (column 8 lines 5 thru 7), the control based on the program instructions equates to the claimed autonomous mobile body, the method comprising:
the claimed receiving a request for the resource form the mobile body by a resource management server is separate for an operation management server, “The system 100 includes a number of client devices coupled to or configured to be capable of communicating with components of the cloud 102. For example, a computer 112, a mobile device 114, a host 116, and a robot client 118 are shown coupled to the cloud 102. Of course, more or fewer client devices may be coupled to the cloud 102. In addition, different types of client devices may be coupled to the cloud 102. For example, any of the client devices may generally comprise a display system, memory, and a processor.” (column 6 lines 45 thru 53, and Figure 1), the computer 112, a mobile device 114, a host 116, and a robot client 118 equate to the claimed separate servers, and “The plurality of robotic devices may also be configured to transmit information associated with a status of the one or more tasks to the computing component via the network. In one instance, the status may indicate whether the one or more tasks are completed. In addition, the maintenance component of the system may be configured to transmit information associated with repairs of the plurality of robotic device to the computing component via the network.” (column 3 lines 43 thru 51), and “the task status may include information sent by the robotic device 604a indicating whether the first task 610a is completed or information describing an update of completion of the task. In another instance, the computing component 608 may determine whether the task 610a is completed based on information sent to the database 606 from sensors of the robotic device 604a or sensors configured to determine when the task 610a is completed.” (column 15 lines 4 thru 11),
the claimed operation management server manages the mobile body, “At block 502, the method 500 includes receiving information associated with task logs for a plurality of robotic devices. In one example, the plurality of robotic devices may publish task statuses, associated with tasks or functions assigned to and performed by the plurality of robotic devices, to a database. The database may also include information from other robotic devices similar to the robotic devices. Other types of information associated with the task logs may include information indicating what tasks or types of tasks a robotic device is capable of performing. For example, a given robotic device may be capable of performing a repetitive task with a given amount of tolerance accompanying a result of the task or navigating with a given amount of precision.” (column 11 lines 52 thru 64, and Figure 5), “The information may be sent by the robotic devices 604 to the database 606 in real-time, periodically, or sporadically, in some examples. For example, a fleet of robotic devices may be connected to the database 606 via a wired or wireless network and transmit information to the database 606.” (column 14 lines 36 thru 41, and Figure 6), and “the computing component 608 may also receive information associated with task logs for the robotic devices 604 from the database 606. The computing component 608 may determine information associated with a health level for the robotic devices 604 based on the information associated with the task logs.” (column 14 lines 46 thru 51), and
the claimed stores and manages a resource necessary for passage of the mobile body as resource data, “At block 504, the method 500 includes in a computing system configured to access a processor and a memory determining information associated with a health level for the plurality of robotic devices based on the information associated with the task logs.” (column 12 lines 14 thru 18, and Figure 5);
the claimed permitting use of the requested resource in a case where the requested resource is usable as a result of referring to a use situation by another mobile body, “At block 508, the method 500 includes the computing system optimizing an allocation of the plurality of tasks to one or more robotic devices of the plurality of robotic devices based on the information associated with respective health levels for the plurality of robotic devices. In the instance in which a first task is associated with a first amount of precision that is greater than a second amount of precision associated with a second task, the computing system may allocate the first task to a first robotic device having a first health level that is greater than a second health level of a second robotic device. For example, the first robotic device may be newer or younger than the second robotic device and the first task may accordingly be allocated to the first robotic device. In some examples, the second task may be allocated to the second robotic device.” (column 13 lines 13 thru 27, and Figure 5);
the claimed rejecting use of the requested resource in a case where the requested resource is not usable as a result of referring to a use situation by another mobile body, “Other types of information associated with the task logs may include information indicating what tasks or types of tasks a robotic device is capable of performing. For example, a given robotic device may be capable of performing a repetitive task with a given amount of tolerance accompanying a result of the task or navigating with a given amount of precision. In other examples, a given robotic device may have performed tasks involving lifting objects adhering to size or weight constraints or transporting objects. Still other types of information associated with the task logs may include information indicating an amount of precision associated with performance of one or more tasks. In one instance, the amount of precision may be an ideal amount of precision (e.g., an amount of precision that a new robotic device of a given type could demonstrate). In another instance, the amount of precision may be a real-time measure that takes into consideration the current state of the robotic device given the effects of "wear and tear" or the like on the robotic device.” (column 11 line 59 thru column 12 line 9), a lack of capabilities of the robot equate to claimed rejecting use,
the claimed operation management server manages an operation of the mobile body by associating the resource data provided from the resource management server with a situation of the mobile body, “At block 506, the method 500 includes determining information associated with a plurality of tasks to be performed by one or more of the plurality of robotic devices. In one example, the information associated with the plurality of tasks may include information regarding amounts of precision associated with one or more of the tasks. For instance, a first task may be associated with a first amount of precision that is greater than a second amount of precision associated with a second task. As an example, a first task may require a higher amount of precision (e.g., navigating to a position within one meter of a location, applying an amount of force to an object within a force range, etc.) that is greater than a lower amount of precision associated with the second task.” (column 12 line 59 thru column 13 line 4, and Figure 5).
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.
Claim(s) 2 thru 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuffner Jr. et al Patent Number 9,008,839 B1 in view of Wang et al Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0364719 A1.
Regarding claim 2 Kuffner Jr. et al teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above). Kuffner Jr. et al do not teach the claimed resource data is obtained by assigning identification data to sub areas obtained by dividing an area through which the mobile body passes in a building, the claimed sub areas are allocatable in different combinations according to specifications or tasks of the mobile body, and the claimed mobile body designates a sub area to be used by the mobile body and receives an allocation.
Wang et al teach,
the claimed resource data is obtained by assigning identification data to sub areas obtained by dividing an area through which the mobile body passes in a building, “Each minispace can be identified by the tagging with a unit location ID and a plurality of attributes for instance coordinates. FIG. 9 shows a simplified generic view of a minispace including location tagging.” (P[0116] and Figure 9), and allow a robot to identify each mini space by the tagging, and to plan the next movement accordingly in a warehouse space, the minispaces equate to the claimed sub areas, the unit location ID tagging equates to the claimed assigning identification data, the warehouse equates to the claimed building, and the robot movement equates to the claimed mobile body passes,
the claimed sub areas are allocatable in different combinations according to specifications or tasks of the mobile body, “The warehouse map allows robot to know its current position, and what movement to be performed in a particular direction in order to navigate to the destination. FIG. 10 is a simplified view of a warehouse layout utilizing the minispace concept.” (P[0118] and Figure 10), and “The route determination is based on the warehouse layout model. FIG. 13 shows an example of a route plan 1300” (P[0131] and Figure 13), the route plan equates to the claimed allocatable sub areas and tasks, and
the claimed mobile body designates a sub area to be used by the mobile body and receives an allocation, “FIG. 15 shows how the robot actions planning in the example of FIG. 13 may grouped to avoid collisions” with actions (P[0152], Figure 15 and Table 1), and “FIG. 20 shows a simplified view of a rackspace minispace change. The WMS plans the layout change by creating tasks for rack internal movement from the old rackspace to be removed to the new rackspace.” (P[0163] and Figure 20).
The identifying of minispaces and assigning tasks of Wang et al would be applied to Kuffner Jr et al as part of the allocation optimization of the tasks of the robotic devices. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system and methods for allocation tasks to a plurality of robots of Kuffner Jr et al with the identifying of minispaces and assigning tasks of Wang et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, facilitate robot collision avoidance by grouping actions together and performing locking and checking procedures (Wang et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 3 Kuffner Jr. et al teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above). Kuffner Jr et al do not teach the claimed resource data is obtained by assigning identification data to sub areas obtained by dividing an area through which the mobile body passes in a building, the claimed mobile body designates a sub area to be used by the mobile body and requests allocation, and the claimed use request processing unit controls traffic of passage of a plurality of independently operating mobile bodies by performing control to five use permission to the sub area only in a specific entry direction.
Wang et al teach,
the claimed resource data is obtained by assigning identification data to sub areas obtained by dividing an area through which the mobile body passes in a building, “Each minispace can be identified by the tagging with a unit location ID and a plurality of attributes for instance coordinates. FIG. 9 shows a simplified generic view of a minispace including location tagging.” (P[0116] and Figure 9), and allow a robot to identify each mini space by the tagging, and to plan the next movement accordingly in a warehouse space, the minispaces equate to the claimed sub areas, the unit location ID tagging equates to the claimed assigning identification data, the warehouse equates to the claimed building, and the robot movement equates to the claimed mobile body passes,
the claimed mobile body designates a sub area to be used by the mobile body and requests allocation, “FIG. 15 shows how the robot actions planning in the example of FIG. 13 may grouped to avoid collisions” with actions (P[0152], Figure 15 and Table 1), and “FIG. 20 shows a simplified view of a rackspace minispace change. The WMS plans the layout change by creating tasks for rack internal movement from the old rackspace to be removed to the new rackspace.” (P[0163] and Figure 20), and
the claimed use request processing unit controls traffic of passage of a plurality of independently operating mobile bodies by performing control to five use permission to the sub area only in a specific entry direction, “The warehouse map allows robot to know its current position, and what movement to be performed in a particular direction in order to navigate to the destination.” P[0118], and the robots move along a route plan that is for a designated direction and for only one robot to enter a minispace at a time (Figures 13 thru 16).
The identifying of minispaces having movement directions and assigning tasks of Wang et al would be applied to Kuffner Jr et al as part of the allocation optimization of the tasks of the robotic devices. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system and methods for allocation tasks to a plurality of robots of Kuffner Jr et al with the identifying of minispaces having assigned directions and assigning tasks of Wang et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, facilitate robot collision avoidance by grouping actions together and performing locking and checking procedures (Wang et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 4 Kuffner Jr. et al and Wang et al teach the claimed system of claims 1 and 2 (see above).
Kuffner Jr et al teach,
the claimed resource management unit provides the resource data to the mobile body, “the robot may receive data from the cloud” (column 10 lines 22 and 23), and “A computing system of the robotic device may receive the information associated with the task logs, determine the information associated with health levels and the information associated with the plurality of tasks, and optimize the allocation of the plurality of tasks to one or more robotic devices.” (column 14 lines 1 thru 6), and
the claimed mobile body searches for a moving route using the resource data, “the robotic device may allocate one or more tasks to itself” (column 14 line 8), the allocated task equates to the claimed moving route.
Kuffner Jr et al do not teach the claimed request allocation of sub areas constituting the moving route. Wang et al teach, “Route planning under the minispace concept is shown at 1108. After the robot is assigned with warehouse task, the WMS starts planning the route from the start point of robot to the Rackspace and then from the rackspace to the workstation or next rackspace.” (P[013] and Figure 11), “Robot action planning under the minispace concept is shown at 1110. Based on the route planning, the task and traveling is broken down into robot atomic actions.” P[0138], and Figures 13 thru 16 and 20 show planned routing for the robots. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system and methods for allocation tasks to a plurality of robots of Kuffner Jr et al with the identifying of minispaces, assigning tasks and planning movement routes of the robots of Wang et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, facilitate robot collision avoidance by grouping actions together and performing locking and checking procedures (Wang et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 5 Kuffner Jr. et al and Wang et al teach the claimed system of claims 1 and 2 (see above). Kuffner Jr et al teach the claimed mobile body stores specification data indicating the specification of the mobile body, “the method 500 may also include determining information associated with capabilities of the plurality of robotic devices and optimizing the allocation of the plurality of tasks to one or more of the robotic devices based on the capabilities of the robotic devices (e.g., delivering objects, picking up objects with different grips, navigating through an area, throwing an object, capturing an image of an object, etc.)” (column 13 lines 35 thru 42), and “the storage 204 may be used for compiling data from various sensors 206 of the robotic device 200 and storing program instructions. The processor 202 may be coupled to the storage 204 and may be configured to control the robotic device 200 based on the program instructions. The processor 202 may also be able to interpret data from the various sensors 206 on the robot.” (column 8 lines 3 thru 9 and Figure 2A).
Kuffner Jr et al do not teach the claimed determine the sub area for which allocation is requested based on the specification data. Kuffner Jr et al do teach the claimed allocation is requested based on the specification data, “a given robotic device may be capable of performing a repetitive task with a given amount of tolerance accompanying a result of the task or navigating with a given amount of precision. In other examples, a given robotic device may have performed tasks involving lifting objects adhering to size or weight constraints or transporting objects. Still other types of information associated with the task logs may include information indicating an amount of precision associated with performance of one or more tasks. In one instance, the amount of precision may be an ideal amount of precision (e.g., an amount of precision that a new robotic device of a given type could demonstrate). In another instance, the amount of precision may be a real-time measure that takes into consideration the current state of the robotic device given the effects of "wear and tear" or the like on the robotic device.” (column 11 line 61 thru column 12 line 9).
Kuffner Jr et al merely lacks the association with the sub area for the allocation. Wang et al teach, “Assigning the task to the robot for execution is shown at 1106. The particular robot selected for the task may be based upon criteria such as robot availability and proximity to the rack.” P[0129], and “Route planning under the minispace concept is shown at 1108. After the robot is assigned with warehouse task, the WMS starts planning the route from the start point of robot to the Rackspace and then from the rackspace to the workstation or next rackspace.” P[0130]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system and methods for allocation tasks to a plurality of robots of Kuffner Jr et al with the identifying of minispaces, assigning tasks and planning movement routes of the robots of Wang et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, facilitate robot collision avoidance by grouping actions together and performing locking and checking procedures (Wang et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 7 Kuffner Jr. et al teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above). Kuffner Jr et al do not teach the claimed storage unit stores marker data in which position information of a marker is disposed in an area through which the mobile body passes is associated with identification data of the marker, and the claimed system further includes a marker management unit that provides position information of a corresponding marker when an inquiry specifying identification information of the marker data is received from the mobile body.
Wang et al teach,
the claimed storage unit stores marker data in which position information of a marker is disposed in an area through which the mobile body passes is associated with identification data of the marker, “Each minispace is identified by the tagging with a unit location ID and attribute(s) such as coordinates” P[0101], and “the minispaces may be stored in an in-memory database” (P[0106] and Figure 7), the identified minispace based on location equates to the claimed marker data in which position information of a marker is disposed in an area, and
the claimed system further includes a marker management unit that provides position information of a corresponding marker when an inquiry specifying identification information of the marker data is received from the mobile body, “The WMS comprises an engine 720 that is configured to reference a plurality of minispaces 722. Those minispaces may include attributes such as coordinates.” (P[0105] and Figure 7), “The WMS may provide instructions 701 to the robotics system to cause the robots to take certain actions. The robotics system may in turn provide feedback 703 to the WMS comprising the status of actions taken (or pending).” P[0103], and the robots communicate the action and the completion of the action at a particular location to the WMS (Figure 12).
The location identification of minispaces and finishing of tasks of Wang et al would be applied to Kuffner Jr et al as part of the allocation optimization of the tasks of the robotic devices. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system and methods for allocation tasks to a plurality of robots of Kuffner Jr et al with the location identification of minispaces and finishing of tasks of Wang et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, facilitate robot collision avoidance by grouping actions together and performing locking and checking procedures (Wang et al P[0004]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuffner Jr. et al Patent Number 9,008,839 B1 in view of Ito et al WIPO/PCT Publication Number 2019/181917 A1 (translation cited).
Regarding claim 6 Kuffner Jr. et al teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above). Kuffner Jr et a teach the claimed use request processing unit notifies the mobile body of a use condition of the resource when allocating the resource to the mobile body, “At block 504, the method 500 includes in a computing system configured to access a processor and a memory determining information associated with a health level for the plurality of robotic devices based on the information associated with the task logs. In one example, a health level for a given robotic device may be proportional to a current level of ability of the given robotic device to perform a function. For instance, the current level of ability of the given robotic device to perform a function may be determined based on a current amount of precision the robotic device is capable of performing the function with.” (column 12 lines 14 thru 24 and Figure 5), and “At block 508, the method 500 includes the computing system optimizing an allocation of the plurality of tasks to one or more robotic devices of the plurality of robotic devices based on the information associated with respective health levels for the plurality of robotic devices.” (column 13 lines 13 thru 17).
Kuffner Jr et al do not teach the claimed use condition includes a maximum speed. Ito et al teach, an autonomous mobile body movement management server that allocates tasks (abstract), and a database DB 90 accumulates information for the mobile body that includes a maximum speed (translation page 4 paragraph 4). The maximum speed of the mobile body of Ito et al would be applied to the robots of Kuffner Jr et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system and methods for allocation tasks to a plurality of robots of Kuffner Jr et al with the maximum speed for a mobile body of Ito et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, restrict searching by transmitting the task change signal (Ito et al translation page 13 paragraph 2).
Related Art
The examiner points to Byeon et al PGPub 2024/0152154 A1 as related art, but not relied upon for any rejection. Byeon et al is directed to a server controlling the movement schedule for a plurality of robots (abstract), and the schedule of the moving routes may be selected based on a size of the robot occupying travel nodes P[0011].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights