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 . Pursuant to communications filed on 17 September 2024, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 September 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,103,190 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are coextensive in scope to the allowed claims and would be fully encompassed and/or anticipated by the issued U.S. Patent.
Specifically wherein;
Regarding claim 1, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 1 of the issued U.S. Patent, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A computer-implemented method comprising:
storing information indicative of objects in an environment of a robot;
detecting, based on sensor data that is captured by the robot and that describes a first region, a user in the environment;
determining, based on the detected user, a second region outside the first region described by the sensor data;
accessing a portion of the stored information indicating locations of one or more objects in the second region;
identifying, based at least on the accessed portion of the stored information, an object that that is located in the second region; and
causing the robot to perform an action associated with the identified object that is located in the second region.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claims 2-16, Applicant provides similar limitations as provided throughout claims 2-16 of the issued U.S. Patent. Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 14 of the issued U.S. Patent, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A system comprising:
one or more sensors;
one or more processors; and
one or more machine-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
storing information indicative of objects in an environment of a robot;
detecting, based on sensor data that is captured by a robot and that describes a first region, a user in the environment;
determining, based on the detected user, a second region outside the first region described by the sensor data;
accessing a portion of the stored information indicating locations of one or more objects in the second region;
identifying, based at least on the accessed portion of the stored information, an object that that is located in the second region; and
causing the robot to perform an action associated with the identified object that is located in the second region.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claims 18-19, Applicant provides similar limitations as provided throughout claims 18-19 of the issued U.S. Patent. Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 20 of the issued U.S. Patent, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations provided in bold):
One or more non-transitory machine-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
storing information indicative of objects in an environment of a robot;
detecting, based on sensor data that is captured by a robot and that describes a first region, a user in the environment;
determining, based on the detected user, a second region outside the first region described by the sensor data;
accessing a portion of the stored information indicating locations of one or more objects in the second region;
identifying, based at least on the accessed portion of the stored information, an object that that is located in the second region; and
causing the robot to perform an action associated with the identified object that is located in the second region.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Claims 1, 3, 10-17 and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-13 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,967,520 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are coextensive in scope to the allowed claims and would be fully encompassed and/or anticipated by the issued U.S. Patent.
Specifically wherein;
Regarding claim 1, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 13 of the issued U.S. Patent, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A computer-implemented method comprising:
storing information indicative of objects in an environment of a robot;
detecting, based on sensor data that is captured by the robot and that describes a first region, a user in the environment;
determining, based on the detected user, a second region outside the first region described by the sensor data;
accessing a portion of the stored information indicating locations of one or more objects in the second region;
identifying, based at least on the accessed portion of the stored information, an object that that is located in the second region; and
causing the robot to perform an action associated with the identified object that is located in the second region.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claims 3 and 10-16, Applicant provides similar limitations as provided throughout claims 6-12 of the issued U.S. Patent. Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 13 of the issued U.S. Patent, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A system comprising:
one or more sensors;
one or more processors; and
one or more machine-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
storing information indicative of objects in an environment of a robot;
detecting, based on sensor data that is captured by a robot and that describes a first region, a user in the environment;
determining, based on the detected user, a second region outside the first region described by the sensor data;
accessing a portion of the stored information indicating locations of one or more objects in the second region;
identifying, based at least on the accessed portion of the stored information, an object that that is located in the second region; and
causing the robot to perform an action associated with the identified object that is located in the second region.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 20 of the issued U.S. Patent, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations provided in bold):
One or more non-transitory machine-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
storing information indicative of objects in an environment of a robot;
detecting, based on sensor data that is captured by a robot and that describes a first region, a user in the environment;
determining, based on the detected user, a second region outside the first region described by the sensor data;
accessing a portion of the stored information indicating locations of one or more objects in the second region;
identifying, based at least on the accessed portion of the stored information, an object that that is located in the second region; and
causing the robot to perform an action associated with the identified object that is located in the second region.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Claims 1-17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,427,306 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are coextensive in scope to the allowed claims and would be fully encompassed and/or anticipated by the issued U.S. Patent.
Specifically wherein;
Regarding claim 1, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 1 of the issued U.S. Patent, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A computer-implemented method comprising:
storing information indicative of objects in an environment of a robot;
detecting, based on sensor data that is captured by the robot and that describes a first region, a user in the environment;
determining, based on the detected user, a second region outside the first region described by the sensor data;
accessing a portion of the stored information indicating locations of one or more objects in the second region;
identifying, based at least on the accessed portion of the stored information, an object that that is located in the second region; and
causing the robot to perform an action associated with the identified object that is located in the second region.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claims 2-16, Applicant provides similar limitations as provided throughout claims 2-13 of the issued U.S. Patent. Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 14 of the issued U.S. Patent, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A system comprising:
one or more sensors;
one or more processors; and
one or more machine-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
storing information indicative of objects in an environment of a robot;
detecting, based on sensor data that is captured by a robot and that describes a first region, a user in the environment;
determining, based on the detected user, a second region outside the first region described by the sensor data;
accessing a portion of the stored information indicating locations of one or more objects in the second region;
identifying, based at least on the accessed portion of the stored information, an object that that is located in the second region; and
causing the robot to perform an action associated with the identified object that is located in the second region.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 20 of the issued U.S. Patent, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations provided in bold):
One or more non-transitory machine-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
storing information indicative of objects in an environment of a robot;
detecting, based on sensor data that is captured by a robot and that describes a first region, a user in the environment;
determining, based on the detected user, a second region outside the first region described by the sensor data;
accessing a portion of the stored information indicating locations of one or more objects in the second region;
identifying, based at least on the accessed portion of the stored information, an object that that is located in the second region; and
causing the robot to perform an action associated with the identified object that is located in the second region.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Examiner notes wherein the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) provided herein would be overcome with a timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant provides the claim limitations, “detecting, based on sensor data that is captured by the robot and that describes a first region, a user in the environment” and “determining, based on the detected user, a second region outside the first region described by the sensor data”, however given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, it is unclear how detecting a user in the environment correlates to and/or influences determining a second region outside the first region, and therefore claim 1 is rendered indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear if the determining of a second region is based on a detected location of a user, or alternatively if the determining of the second region is based on some kind of action detected by the detected user, for instance a gesture, voice command, touch input by a user, or some alternative and/or variation thereof, and as such claim 1 is rendered indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claims 2-16, these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon independent claim 1, and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependence upon a rejected base claim. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant provides the claim limitations, “detecting, based on sensor data that is captured by a robot and that describes a first region, a user in the environment” and “determining, based on the detected user, a second region outside the first region described by the sensor data”, however given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, it is unclear how detecting a user in the environment correlates to and/or influences determining a second region outside the first region, and therefore claim 17 is rendered indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear if the determining of a second region is based on a detected location of a user, or alternatively if the determining of the second region is based on some kind of action detected by the detected user, for instance a gesture, voice command, touch input by a user, or some alternative and/or variation thereof, and as such claim 17 is rendered indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, these claims are dependent upon independent claim 17, and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependence upon a rejected base claim. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant provides the claim limitations, “detecting, based on sensor data that is captured by a robot and that describes a first region, a user in the environment” and “determining, based on the detected user, a second region outside the first region described by the sensor data”, however given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, it is unclear how detecting a user in the environment correlates to and/or influences determining a second region outside the first region, and therefore claim 20 is rendered indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear if the determining of a second region is based on a detected location of a user, or alternatively if the determining of the second region is based on some kind of action detected by the detected user, for instance a gesture, voice command, touch input by a user, or some alternative and/or variation thereof, and as such claim 20 is rendered indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 appear to contain allowable subject matter in view of the prior art, however the above Double Patenting Rejections and 35 USC § 112 rejections would need to be overcome in order to place the application in condition for allowance. Examiner additionally notes wherein pending any formal amendments to the claims, the amended claims would need to be reevaluated in view of the prior art in order to determine final allowability of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 – Notice of References Cited form. Examiner additionally notes the following references, in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention, and also teaches many of the above claim limitations;
US 2016/0311115 A1, issued to Hill et al, which discloses an enhanced configuration and control of robots that employs object recognition and classification techniques to identify one or more object(s) and further perform a task (i.e. pick-up) associated with said one or more object(s).
US 2007/0192910 A1, issued to Vu et al, which discloses a companion robot for personal interaction, wherein said robot may identify its surroundings as well as one or more humans, and specifically gestures of said one or more humans to determine a command/task to perform to assist said one or more humans.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN L SAMPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5925. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571)270-5376. 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.
/JONATHAN L SAMPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657