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 .
Amended claims 1 thru 20 have been entered into the record.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the specification overcome some of the specification objections from the previous office action (6/18/2026). Those specification objections are withdrawn and the pending specification objections are recited below in this office action.
The amendments to claim 7 cause the interpretation of the claim to no longer invoke of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for claim 7(see office action of 6/18/2026). There is now a pending interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of claim 11.
The amendments to the claims overcome 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the previous office action (6/18/2026). The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims overcome 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections from the previous office action (6/18/2026). The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 thru 7 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In the previous office action (6/18/2026), claim 8 was not subject to a prior art rejection.
Based on the applicant’s argument regarding the claimed “resource” and the claimed “resource data” regarding the prior art rejections (pages 15 and 16), new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are recited against claims 1 thru 20. The examiner assumed that the claimed resource and resource information was any data, information, readings, or associated characteristic of the mobile body that was necessary for its passage (movement, entry, functioning in an area). The examiner assumed this would include vehicle health, charge, authorization, capability, function, speed, position, heading, etc. It is apparent from the argument that the applicant interprets the claimed resource and resource data in a much more narrow manner. The examiner requests that the applicant provide a clear meaning to these claimed terms from the disclosure, or amend the claims to clarify their intended meaning from within the applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding the claimed “resource necessary for the passage of the mobile body”, in which the applicant argues that Kuffner does not disclose (argument page 15 last paragraph), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner agrees that Kuffner teaches allocation of robotic tasks based on the health of the robots. But the applicant’s disclosure does not provide a definition of the claimed resource, or the claimed resource necessary for passage of the mobile body. The (necessary) resource is interpreted broadly in light of the disclosure, and because the specification describes the resource in broad terms (without a definite meaning), the examiner has applied the health of Kuffner to equate to the claimed necessary resource. The robotic device would require a certain level of health (not malfunctioning, enough electrical charge to complete the task, etc.) in order to function as directed. The health of the robot is a necessary resource to complete the assigned task. The applicant argues that the health levels and tasks are fundamentally different from passage resources (page 15 last paragraph), but does not define what a “resource necessary for passage” entails, either in the argument or where it is defined in the specification. The specification is written broadly enough to interpret vehicle health as a resource necessary in order to move the vehicle. Additionally, the mobile body itself could be the claimed resource.
Regarding the argument that Kuffner does not teach the claimed separate servers and are generic clients that generally comprise a display system, memory and a processor (argument pages 16 and 17). The applicant defines the servers as “the building resource management server 60 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 61, a memory 62, a communication unit 63, and a storage unit 64” (PGPub P[0041]), and it is assumed that the operation management server 70 would have the same configuration. The configuration of the claimed servers is the same as the computing systems of Kuffner. The computer 112 and host 116 are both computing devices that communicate each other and with mobile devices 114 and robot clients 118 thru the cloud 102 (Figure 1), and are separate computing devices. Additionally, Kuffner recites, “Cloud computing may free users from certain hardware and software installation and maintenance tasks through use of simpler hardware on the user's computer that accesses a vast network of computing resources (e.g., processors, hard drives, etc.). Sharing of resources may reduce cost to individuals. Thus, any computer connected to the cloud may be connected to the same pool of computing power, applications, and files. Users can store and access personal files such as music, pictures, videos, and bookmarks or play games or use productivity applications on a remote server rather than physically carrying around a storage medium, such as a DVD or thumb drive.” (column 1 lines 43 thru 54). A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a vast network of computers would act as servers.
For the above reasons, Kuffner is maintained as prior art in the rejections of the claims, the rejections are modified based on the claim amendments.
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 each of P[0039], “CPU31” should have a space between CPU and 31.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In P[0027], “resource data 64” should be “resource data 64b”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 travel control unit that controls the drive unit in claim 11.
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 travel control unit is interpreted as part of the CPU (central processing unit) 31 (Figure 6 and PGPub P[0065]).
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 20 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.
Claims 1 thru 20 recite “resource” and “resource data” throughout the claims. Based on the applicant’s argument of 7/22/2026 (pages 15 and 16) regarding the prior art, these terms are indefinite. The applicant argues that the claimed resource and resource data are directed to “a resource necessary for the passage of the mobile body”, but does not explain how the examiner interpreted robot health is not resource data that is necessary for the robot movement (passage). Based on the arguments, the claimed “resource” and “resource data” are indefinite because a person having ordinary skill in the art would be unable to define the metes and bounds of these claim limitations directed to resource and resource information.
Claim 3 recites “a plurality of independently operating mobile bodies” in lines 7 and 8, while claim 1 recites “a plurality of mobile bodies” in lines 17 and 18. It is unclear if this is the same as the plurality of mobile bodies, or is a new plurality of mobile bodies. The examiner assumes it is the same plurality of mobile bodies for continued examination.
Claim 8 recites “a plurality of mobile bodies” in line 3, while claim 1 also recites “a plurality of mobile bodies” in lines 17 and 18. It is unclear if this is the same plurality of mobile bodies, or a new plurality of mobile bodies. The examiner assumes it is the same plurality of mobile bodies for continued examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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) 1 thru 6 and 9 thru 11 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 Bell Patent Number 11,163,314 B1.
Regarding claim 1 Kuffner Jr. et al teach 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 computer 112 may be any type of computing device (e.g., PC, laptop computer, etc.), and the mobile device 114 may be any type of mobile computing device (e.g., laptop, mobile telephone, cellular telephone, etc.). The host 116 may be any type of computing device or transmitter including a laptop computer, a mobile telephone, etc., that is configured to transmit data to the cloud 102.” (column 6 lines 54 thru 60 and Figure 1), 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, “The plurality of robotic devices of the system may be configured to receive information from the computing component via the network associated with instructions for performing one or more tasks.” (column 3 lines 40 thru 43), “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).
Kuffner Jr. et al do not teach the claimed resource management server controls and arbitrates traffic of passage of a plurality of mobile bodies that operate independently by allocating and releasing the resource. Kuffner Jr et al do provide instructions for a plurality of robotic devices that receive information from the computing component via the network associated with instructions for performing one or more tasks (column 3 lines 40 thru 43).
Bell teaches,
the claimed plurality of mobile bodies that operate independently, “the techniques discussed herein may be equally applied in other contexts such as resolving contentions between unmanned/autonomous vehicles operating within a facility or operating independent of a facility as part of a wider area of operation” (column 2 lines 31 thru 35), and “the MDUs 106 represent independent, self-powered devices configured to freely move about the workspace 108” (column 6 lines 40 thru 42 and Figure 1),
the claimed resource management server controls and arbitrates traffic of passage, “The potential contention 124 may be determined based on identifying that the MDU 106-1 and the MDU 106-2 may attempt to utilize the location 126 within substantially the same time period. In response to identifying potential contention 124, the drive management module 102 may modify the schedule to include a dependency associated with the MDU 106-1 and/or the MDU 106-2 that indicates that the potential contention 124 is to be analyzed and resolved before either MDU is to be allowed to utilize the space at location 126.” (column 8 lines 29 thru 38 and Figure 1), and “the equipment coordination module 308 may determine an order (or timing) by which the MDUs are allowed to utilize the contended space (or at least that a particular MDU is to be provided usage of the contended space first). The equipment coordination module 308 may execute operations to modify the schedule to enable one MDU to be unrestricted from utilizing the contended space. The schedule may further be modified to include one or more additional dependencies that indicate the other MDUs are to be restricted from utilizing the contended space until the first MDU is no longer utilizing the space. In some examples, the equipment coordination module 308 may determine an order/timing by which the affected MDUs are to be allowed access to the contended space.” (column 16 line 56 thru column 17 line 3 and Figure 3), and
the claimed allocating and releasing the resource, “in a contention involving three MDUs, the equipment coordination module 308 may determine a first MDU is to utilize the contended space first (e.g., based at least in part on the specific contention rules). When the equipment coordination module 308 ascertains that the first MDU has completed the execution step and/or is no longer utilizing the contended space, the equipment coordination module 308 may determine a second MDU of the remaining two MDUs for which the contended space is to be reserved (e.g., based at least in part on the specific contention rules). When the equipment coordination module 308 ascertains that the second MDU has completed the execution step and/or is no longer utilizing the contended space, the equipment coordination module 308 may cause the contended space to be reserved for the third MDU such that the third MDU may utilize the space to perform an execution step.” (column 17 lines 5 thru 21).
The decision making, task/MDU prioritization and scheduling of Bell would be applied to the robot tasking 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 decision making, task/MDU prioritization and scheduling of Bell in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, prevent delays in task completion (Bell column 1 lines 40 and 41).
Regarding claim 2 Kuffner Jr. et al and Bell 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.
Bell teaches,
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, “given a single execution step corresponding to path 410 and the intersection 414, the contention identification module 306 may modify the schedule to divide the execution step of MDU A into segment A1 (corresponding to motion/acts prior to the contention), segment A2 (corresponding to motions/acts involved in the contention indicated by the intersection 414), and segment A3 (corresponding to motion/acts subsequent to the contention). The contention identification module 306 may modify the schedule to replace the single execution step of MDU A with three execution steps corresponding to segments A1, A2, and A3 as shown in schedule 416. In a similar manner, the contention identification module 306 may modify the schedule to divide an execution step of MDU B corresponding to path 412 into segment B1 (corresponding to motion/acts prior to the contention), segment B2 (corresponding to motion/acts involved in the contention indicated by the intersection 414), and segment B3 (corresponding to motion/acts subsequent to the contention).” (column 19 line 58 thru column 20 line 9 and Figure 4), the paths 410 and 412 equate to the claimed area through which the mobile body passes, and segments A1, A2, A3, B1, B2 and B3 equate to the claimed divided sub area assigned identification data,
the claimed sub areas are allocatable in different combinations according to specifications or tasks of the mobile body, “Once the schedule 416 has been modified to include the execution steps corresponding to each segment, the contention identification module 306 may indicate a contention associated with the segments A2 and B2 (corresponding to intersection 414) with dependency 418. Dependency 418 may be in any suitable form within the schedule 416. The dependency 418 may be any suitable data that indicates that performance the execution steps associated with segment A2 and segment B2 are dependent on resolving a contention indicated by the dependency. That is, these execution steps are not to be performed until the contention indicated by the dependency 418 is resolved.” (column 20 lines 13 thru 24 and Figure 4), and “Continuing with the example contention of FIG. 4, as MDU A and MDU B of FIG. 4 proceed to perform the execution steps identified in schedule 416. One or both of the MDUs may arrive at (or approach) the area associated with the contention. By way of example, A1 may perform operations associated with the execution step A1. At substantially the same time MDU performs operations associated with the execution step B2. For purposes of illustration, MDU A may arrive at a location and/or request further instructions. The equipment coordination module 308 of FIG. 3 may determine that, according to the schedule 416 the next execution step associated with MDU A is execution step A2.” (column 20 lines 27 thru 39 and Figure 5), and
the claimed mobile body designates a sub area to be used by the mobile body and receives an allocation, “Upon determining that MDU A is associated with the dependency 418, the equipment coordination module 308 may execute logic corresponding to contention resolution rules in order to identify a resolution. By way of example, the equipment coordination module 308 may identify from the schedule 416 and/or from the dependency 418, that MDU A and MDU B are involved in the contention. The equipment coordination module 308 may determine from the schedule (or from another equipment coordination module configured to manage task execution of MDU B) that MDU B has not reached execution step B2. In some embodiments, the contention resolution rules executed by the equipment coordination module 308 may dictate that because MDU A was the first MDU to reach the contention, MDU A should be allowed to use the contended space first.” (column 20 lines 42 thru 56).
The assignment of task priority for the segments of Bell 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, prevent delays in task completion (Bell column 1 lines 40 and 41).
Regarding claim 3 Kuffner Jr. et al and Bell 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.
Bell teaches,
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, “given a single execution step corresponding to path 410 and the intersection 414, the contention identification module 306 may modify the schedule to divide the execution step of MDU A into segment A1 (corresponding to motion/acts prior to the contention), segment A2 (corresponding to motions/acts involved in the contention indicated by the intersection 414), and segment A3 (corresponding to motion/acts subsequent to the contention). The contention identification module 306 may modify the schedule to replace the single execution step of MDU A with three execution steps corresponding to segments A1, A2, and A3 as shown in schedule 416. In a similar manner, the contention identification module 306 may modify the schedule to divide an execution step of MDU B corresponding to path 412 into segment B1 (corresponding to motion/acts prior to the contention), segment B2 (corresponding to motion/acts involved in the contention indicated by the intersection 414), and segment B3 (corresponding to motion/acts subsequent to the contention).” (column 19 line 58 thru column 20 line 9 and Figure 4), the paths 410 and 412 equate to the claimed area through which the mobile body passes, and segments A1, A2, A3, B1, B2 and B3 equate to the claimed divided sub area assigned identification data,
the claimed mobile body designates a sub area to be used by the mobile body and requests allocation, “For purposes of illustration, MDU A may arrive at a location and/or request further instructions. The equipment coordination module 308 of FIG. 3 may determine that, according to the schedule 416 the next execution step associated with MDU A is execution step A2. The equipment coordination module 308 may determine that the execution step A2 is associated with the dependency 418.” (column 20 lines 35 thru 41 and Figures 3 thru 5), and
the claimed use request processing unit controls traffic of passage of a plurality of independently operating mobile bodies by performing control to give use permission to the sub area only in a specific entry direction, “Upon determining that MDU A is associated with the dependency 418, the equipment coordination module 308 may execute logic corresponding to contention resolution rules in order to identify a resolution. By way of example, the equipment coordination module 308 may identify from the schedule 416 and/or from the dependency 418, that MDU A and MDU B are involved in the contention. The equipment coordination module 308 may determine from the schedule (or from another equipment coordination module configured to manage task execution of MDU B) that MDU B has not reached execution step B2. In some embodiments, the contention resolution rules executed by the equipment coordination module 308 may dictate that because MDU A was the first MDU to reach the contention, MDU A should be allowed to use the contended space first.” (column 20 line 42 thru 56), and the MDA’s A and B are traveling along paths 410 and 412 in different directions (Figure 4).
The assignment of task priority for the segments of Bell 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, prevent delays in task completion (Bell column 1 lines 40 and 41).
Regarding claim 4 Kuffner Jr. et al and Bell 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. Bell teaches, “the schedule 416 may be modified by the equipment coordination module 308 such that the dependency 418 of schedule 416 is removed and a new dependency 502 is added to indicate that the execution step B2 is restricted from being performed until the execution of execution step A2 is completed. Schedule 504 depicts the modified schedule including dependency 502. When MDU B reaches a point in execution when execution step B2 is the next step to be executed, MDU B may not be provided instructions to perform execution step B2 until MDU A is instructed to perform execution A3, MDU A is no longer occupying the contended space (determinable using location information provided by MDU A), or upon any suitable indication that MDU A is no longer performing execution step A2 and/or occupying the contended space.” (column 20 line 57 thru column 21 line 4), and “At 804, a contention may be identified by a computing device (e.g., the contention identification module 306 of FIG. 3). The contention may be related to a first execution step associated with a first mobile drive unit (MDU) of the plurality of MDUs and a second execution step associated with a second MDU of the plurality of MDUs. The first execution step and the second execution step associated with the respective MDUs may include navigational operations related to speed, heading, rotational motion, and the like.” (column 26 lines 4 thru 12 and Figure 8). The assignment of task priority for the segments of Bell 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, prevent delays in task completion (Bell column 1 lines 40 and 41).
Regarding claim 5 Kuffner Jr. et al and Bell 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. Bell teaches, “Upon determining that MDU A is associated with the dependency 418, the equipment coordination module 308 may execute logic corresponding to contention resolution rules in order to identify a resolution. By way of example, the equipment coordination module 308 may identify from the schedule 416 and/or from the dependency 418, that MDU A and MDU B are involved in the contention. The equipment coordination module 308 may determine from the schedule (or from another equipment coordination module configured to manage task execution of MDU B) that MDU B has not reached execution step B2. In some embodiments, the contention resolution rules executed by the equipment coordination module 308 may dictate that because MDU A was the first MDU to reach the contention, MDU A should be allowed to use the contended space first.” (column 20 lines 42 thru 56).
The assignment of task priority for the segments of Bell 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, prevent delays in task completion (Bell column 1 lines 40 and 41).
Regarding claim 6 Kuffner Jr. et al and Bell 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, maximum volume, maximum luminous intensity or a limit changed by time. Bell teaches the claimed use condition includes a maximum speed and maximum volume, “the task assignment module 104 may select a particular MDU of the MDUs 106 based on a current location of the particular MDU, one or more locations associated with the task, various capabilities and/or attributes of the MDU (e.g., a speed capability, a maximum load capacity, etc.), other tasks assigned to one or more MDUs, or any suitable combination” (column 11 lines 30 thru 36), the speed capability equates to the claimed maximum speed, and the maximum load capacity equates to the claimed maximum volume.
The assignment of an MDU for the task based on speed and load of Bell would be applied to Kuffner Jr et al as part of the capability of the robotic devices to optimally perform the allocated tasks. 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 assignment of an MDU for the task based on speed and load of Bell in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, prevent delays in task completion (Bell column 1 lines 40 and 41).
Regarding claim 9 Kuffner Jr. et al teach 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 computer 112 may be any type of computing device (e.g., PC, laptop computer, etc.), and the mobile device 114 may be any type of mobile computing device (e.g., laptop, mobile telephone, cellular telephone, etc.). The host 116 may be any type of computing device or transmitter including a laptop computer, a mobile telephone, etc., that is configured to transmit data to the cloud 102.” (column 6 lines 54 thru 60 and Figure 1), 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 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 operation management server manages the mobile body, “The plurality of robotic devices of the system may be configured to receive information from the computing component via the network associated with instructions for performing one or more tasks.” (column 3 lines 40 thru 43), “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 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).
Kuffner Jr. et al do not teach the claimed resource management server controls and arbitrates traffic of passage of a plurality of mobile bodies that operate independently by allocating and releasing the resource. Kuffner Jr et al do provide instructions for a plurality of robotic devices that receive information from the computing component via the network associated with instructions for performing one or more tasks (column 3 lines 40 thru 43).
Bell teaches,
the claimed plurality of mobile bodies that operate independently, “the techniques discussed herein may be equally applied in other contexts such as resolving contentions between unmanned/autonomous vehicles operating within a facility or operating independent of a facility as part of a wider area of operation” (column 2 lines 31 thru 35), and “the MDUs 106 represent independent, self-powered devices configured to freely move about the workspace 108” (column 6 lines 40 thru 42 and Figure 1),
the claimed resource management server controls and arbitrates traffic of passage, “The potential contention 124 may be determined based on identifying that the MDU 106-1 and the MDU 106-2 may attempt to utilize the location 126 within substantially the same time period. In response to identifying potential contention 124, the drive management module 102 may modify the schedule to include a dependency associated with the MDU 106-1 and/or the MDU 106-2 that indicates that the potential contention 124 is to be analyzed and resolved before either MDU is to be allowed to utilize the space at location 126.” (column 8 lines 29 thru 38 and Figure 1), and “the equipment coordination module 308 may determine an order (or timing) by which the MDUs are allowed to utilize the contended space (or at least that a particular MDU is to be provided usage of the contended space first). The equipment coordination module 308 may execute operations to modify the schedule to enable one MDU to be unrestricted from utilizing the contended space. The schedule may further be modified to include one or more additional dependencies that indicate the other MDUs are to be restricted from utilizing the contended space until the first MDU is no longer utilizing the space. In some examples, the equipment coordination module 308 may determine an order/timing by which the affected MDUs are to be allowed access to the contended space.” (column 16 line 56 thru column 17 line 3 and Figure 3), and
the claimed allocating and releasing the resource, “in a contention involving three MDUs, the equipment coordination module 308 may determine a first MDU is to utilize the contended space first (e.g., based at least in part on the specific contention rules). When the equipment coordination module 308 ascertains that the first MDU has completed the execution step and/or is no longer utilizing the contended space, the equipment coordination module 308 may determine a second MDU of the remaining two MDUs for which the contended space is to be reserved (e.g., based at least in part on the specific contention rules). When the equipment coordination module 308 ascertains that the second MDU has completed the execution step and/or is no longer utilizing the contended space, the equipment coordination module 308 may cause the contended space to be reserved for the third MDU such that the third MDU may utilize the space to perform an execution step.” (column 17 lines 5 thru 21).
The decision making, task/MDU prioritization and scheduling of Bell would be applied to the robot tasking 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 decision making, task/MDU prioritization and scheduling of Bell in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, prevent delays in task completion (Bell column 1 lines 40 and 41).
Regarding claim 10 Kuffner Jr. et al and Bell teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above). Kuffner Jr et al teach the claimed resource management server includes a central processing unit, a memory, a communication unit and a storage unit, “The computing component may comprise a processor and a memory coupled to the processor and capable of communicating with the plurality of robotic devices over a network.” (column 3 lines 12 thru 15), the processor equates to the claimed central processing unit, the memory equates to the claimed storage unit (and claimed memory), and the capable of communicating equates to the claimed communication unit, and
the claimed resource management unit and the use request processing unit are implemented by the central processing unit executing a program read from the storage unit into the memory, “The program code may be stored on any type of computer readable medium, for example, such as a storage device including a disk or hard drive. The computer readable medium may include non-transitory computer readable medium, for example, such as computer-readable media that stores data for short periods of time like register memory, processor cache and Random Access Memory (RAM). The computer readable medium may also include non-transitory media, such as secondary or persistent long term storage, like read only memory (ROM), optical or magnetic disks, compact-disc read only memory (CD-ROM), for example. The computer readable media may also be any other volatile or non-volatile storage systems. The computer readable medium may be considered a computer readable storage medium, for example, or a tangible storage device.” (column 11 lines 33 thru 51).
Regarding claim 11 Kuffner Jr. et al and Bell teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above). Kuffner Jr et al teach the claimed mobile body includes a drive unit having wheels, a motor, and a travel control unit that controls the drive unit based on a message transmitted to and received from the resource management server to cause the mobile body to travel using the allocated resource, “The robotic device 200 may also have components or devices that allow the robotic device 200 to interact with an environment of the robotic device 200. For example, the robotic device 200 may have a camera to provide images of a field of view of the environment as well as mechanical actuators 208, such as motors, wheels, movable arms, etc., that enable the robotic device 200 to move or interact with the environment.” (column 8 lines 18 thru 25) (claimed wheels, motor, and travel control unit), “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. Furthermore, the computing component 608 may receive or determine information associated with the plurality of tasks 602 to be performed by the robotic devices 604.” (column 14 lines 46 thru 54 and Figure 6), “the computing component 608 may optimize an allocation of the plurality of tasks 602 to one or more of the robotic devices 604 based on the information indicating statuses of the robotic devices 604 and the determined respective health levels for the robotic devices 604” (column 14 lines 55 thru 59), and “the computing component 608 may send information to a robotic device 604a instructing the robotic device 604a to perform a first task 610a, and send information to another robotic device 604b instructing the other robotic device 604b to perform a second task 610b. The computing component 608 or database 606 may receive from the robotic device 604a an indication of the robotic device 604a performing the first task 610a.” (column 14 line 60 thru 67).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuffner Jr. et al Patent Number 9,008,839 B1 and Bell Patent Number 11,163,314 B1 as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Wang et al Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0364719 A1.
Regarding claim 7 Kuffner Jr. et al and Bell 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, and would equate to the receptacle locations 110 of Bell (Figure 1). 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 and the decision making, task/MDU prioritization and scheduling of Bell 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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuffner Jr. et al Patent Number 9,008,839 B1 and Bell Patent Number 11,163,314 B1 as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Sakikawa et al Japanese Patent Application Publication Number JP-2005138679-A (translation cited).
Regarding claim 12 Kuffner Jr. et al and Bell teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above). Kuffner Jr et al do not teach the claimed case where use permission is given to only one of the mobile bodies at a time with respect to the resource. Bell teaches, “Upon determining that MDU A is associated with the dependency 418, the equipment coordination module 308 may execute logic corresponding to contention resolution rules in order to identify a resolution. By way of example, the equipment coordination module 308 may identify from the schedule 416 and/or from the dependency 418, that MDU A and MDU B are involved in the contention. The equipment coordination module 308 may determine from the schedule (or from another equipment coordination module configured to manage task execution of MDU B) that MDU B has not reached execution step B2. In some embodiments, the contention resolution rules executed by the equipment coordination module 308 may dictate that because MDU A was the first MDU to reach the contention, MDU A should be allowed to use the contended space first.” (column 20 lines 42 thru 56). 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 decision making, task/MDU prioritization and scheduling of Bell in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, prevent delays in task completion (Bell column 1 lines 40 and 41).
Kuffner Jr et al and Bell do not teach the claimed resource management server achieves the arbitration by an exclusive lock mechanism, but an exclusive lock mechanism would be applied to the allocation of the area to MDU A and preventing MDU B from entering the area of Bell. Sakikawa et al teach, “The operation schedule data stored in the storage means indicates whether or not an exclusive lock execution request can be executed. Information and the information indicating the operation schedule data of the exclusive lock target that the exclusive lock execution request has, the exclusive lock determined to be executable is executed, and the request source of the exclusive lock execution request To which the exclusive lock execution permission is notified, and based on the exclusive lock execution end notification from the request source, the data is released from the storage means and the exclusive lock is released” (translation page 4 top paragraph), in which this applies to a traffic schedule management server (translation page 4 paragraph 4). 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 and the decision making, task/MDU prioritization and scheduling of Bell with the exclusive lock execution of Sakikawa et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, ensure that each operation such as planning and operation control coexists in the same database system while maintaining processing efficiency (Sakikawa et al translation page 3 paragraph 2).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuffner Jr. et al Patent Number 9,008,839 B1 and Bell Patent Number 11,163,314 B1 as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Troy et al Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0324688 A1.
Regarding claim 14 Kuffner Jr. et al and Bell teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above). Kuffner Jr et al and Bell do not teach the claimed case where use permission for the resource is given only in a specific entry direction achieved by a passage light mechanism. Troy et al teach, “The indicator lights 80 may change to another color (e.g., green) to indicate the allowed forward movement.” P[0092]. The allowed movement based on an indicator light of Troy et al would be applied to the decision making, task/MDU prioritization and scheduling of Bell for deciding and indicating which of the MDUs should proceed into the work area. 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 and the decision making, task/MDU prioritization and scheduling of Bell with the allowed movement based on an indicator light of Troy et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, move in one or more directions that do not result in contact (Troy et al P[0007]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuffner Jr. et al Patent Number 9,008,839 B1 and Bell Patent Number 11,163,314 B1 as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Takahama et al Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0076039 A1.
Regarding claim 15 Kuffner Jr. et al and Bell teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above). Kuffner Jr et al and Bell do not teach the claimed resource includes an elevator in a building in which the resource management server arbitrates use of the elevator among the plurality of mobile bodies that operate independently, but the inclusion of an elevator being used by mobile devices is merely defining a location for the system to operate. Takahama et al teach, package movement using an elevator path for opening and closing the doors, loading the elevator, and actuating the elevator (P[0425] and P[0426]). The decision making, task/MDU prioritization and scheduling of Bell would be applied to the use of the elevator of Takahama et al for control of the MDUs to perform the task that require vertical movement, as well as horizontal. 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 and the decision making, task/MDU prioritization and scheduling of Bell with the using an elevator path for opening and closing the doors, loading the elevator, and actuating the elevator of Takahama et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, make the delivery management system deliveries more efficient (Takahama et al P[1176]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuffner Jr. et al Patent Number 9,008,839 B1 and Bell Patent Number 11,163,314 B1 as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Whitaker et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0089237 A1.
Regarding claim 18 Kuffner Jr. et al and Bell teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above). Kuffner Jr et al and Bell do not teach the claimed the use request processing unit notifies the mobile body of a use condition of the resource when allocating the resource and the use condition includes a traffic rule for a building that includes traveling one way. Any rule may be applied to the operation of the robots of Kuffner Jr et al and Bell. Whitaker et al teach, a one-way zone 903 can be provided for a warehouse (P[0063] and Figure 9). 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 and the decision making, task/MDU prioritization and scheduling of Bell with the setting of a one way travel zone in a warehouse of Whitaker et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, avoid collisions and alleviate crowding (Whitaker et al P[0063]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuffner Jr. et al Patent Number 9,008,839 B1 and Bell Patent Number 11,163,314 B1 as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Loda et al Patent Application Publication Number 2025/0039643 A1.
Regarding claim 19 Kuffner Jr. et al and Bell teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above). Kuffner Jr et al and Bell do not teach the claimed storage unit stores a detailed log indicating an operation history of the resource management server, but the storage of information is common and well known in the art. Loda et al teach, “The second location 304 also includes a server 308 for storing data, such as historical tracking information and analytics.” P[0044]. 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 and the decision making, task/MDU prioritization and scheduling of Bell with the storing of historical information of Loda et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, improve efficiency of manufacturing and other operations (Loda et al P[0002]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuffner Jr. et al Patent Number 9,008,839 B1 and Bell Patent Number 11,163,314 B1 as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Tanaka et al Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0419189 A1.
Regarding claim 20 Kuffner Jr. et al and Bell teach the claimed system of claim 1 (see above). Kuffner Jr et al and Bell do not teach the claimed mobile body stores a robot account that is identification information uniquely specifying the mobile body and the resource management server identifies the mobile body by the robot account, but the identification and verification of vehicles is common and well known in the art. Tanaka et al teach, “the drone 100 is equipped with a remote identification (RID) device that transmits transmission information including a registration number, a manufacturing number, position information, time, and authentication information” P[0059]. 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 and the decision making, task/MDU prioritization and scheduling of Bell with the storing of historical information of Loda et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide a management device capable of forming a transport path used by a drone to transport a package indoors (Tanaka et al P[0010]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 13, 16 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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