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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to: Application filed on September 25th, 2024
Claims 1-9 are pending claims.
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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "at the location correspond to the second position" in. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The parent claim 1 recites “a specific location correspond to the second position”. Claim 4 refers to “the location corresponding to the second position” and does not align with the “specific” location of claim 1. It is unclear whether “the location correspond to the second position” refers to the previously recited “specific location corresponding to the second position” or to some other location. It is noted that claim 5 recites the limitation correctly as “the specific location correspond to the second position”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choe, US PG PUB# 2019/0133397 A1 in view of Stachniak, US PG PUB# 2020/0226823 A1.
As for independent claim 1:
Choe discloses a method, comprising:
at a computer system that is in communication with a display component and one or more input devices: after capture of one or more images of a location, displaying, via the display component, a representation of a respective device at a first position within a representation of the location, wherein the representation of the location is generated based on the one or more images (0011, 0071, 0072, 0164, 0149, Choe discloses generating map from the received image acquisition unit as it travels from one position to another position);
receiving, via the one or more input devices, a set of one or more inputs, wherein the set of one or more inputs includes an input corresponding to a request to move the representation of the respective device from the first position to a second position within the representation of the location, and wherein the second position is different from the first position (0139-0141, Choe discloses touch and dragging input gesture that designates a new target position and area on the displayed map);
configuring the respective device in a first manner, such that the respective device is caused to be navigated to a specific location corresponding to the second position when the respective device is caused to be navigated to the location (0119, 0142, 0154, Choe discloses the travel controller configures the device by computing a moving path and causing it to navigate to the designated specific location).
Choe does not disclose in response to receiving the set of one or more inputs and in accordance with a determination that a first set of criteria are met: displaying, via the display component, the representation of the respective device at the second position. Stachniak discloses in response to receiving the set of one or more inputs and in accordance with a determination that a first set of criteria are met: displaying, via the display component, the representation of the respective device at the second position in 0055, 0057-0059, 0064. In the cited sections Stachniak discloses determining and analyzing whether the candidate placement meets the set criteria of valid and invalid location. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Choe to incorporate the teaching of Stachniak to analyze and determine valid and invalid position, thus allow the system successfully navigate from one position to another position and avoid object interference (Stachniak, 0057-0059).
As for dependent claim 2:
Choe–Stachniak discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the respective device is a different type of device than the computer system (Choe, 0071, discloses devices such as smartphone, tablet and robot).
As for dependent claim 3:
Choe–Stachniak discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: before receiving the set of one or more inputs, configuring the respective device, such that the respective device is caused to be navigated to a location corresponding to the first position in conjunction with the respective device is caused to be navigated to the location (Choe, 0119-0120, 0142, discloses selected area is set as the designated area and moving path calculated for it).
As for dependent claim 4:
Choe–Stachniak discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to receiving the set of one or more inputs, configuring the respective device in a second manner, such that the respective device transitions to a reduced power state when at the location corresponding to the second position, wherein the second manner is different from the first manner (0078, Choe discloses changing speed reducing power output).
As for dependent claim 5:
Choe–Stachniak discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: after configuring the respective device in response to receiving the set of one or more inputs and in accordance with a determination that the respective device has arrived at the specific location corresponding to the second position, displaying, via the display component, a notification that the respective device has reached the location (Choe, 0169, 0170, discloses display selected designated area and display cleaning complete area based on the received data and location).
As for dependent claim 6:
Choe–Stachniak discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to receiving the set of one or more inputs and in accordance with a determination that the first set of criteria are not met, forgoing configuring the respective device in the first manner (Stachniak, 0060, 0061, discloses analyzing criteria met by analyzing the sized of object and fitment, see excluding gaps or obstructions and automatically classifying as invalid placement locations). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Choe to incorporate the teaching of Stachniak to analyze and determine valid and invalid position, thus allow the system successfully navigate from one position to another position and avoid object interference (Stachniak, 0057-0059).
As for dependent claim 7:
Choe–Stachniak discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: before displaying the representation of the location, receiving a request to capture an image; and in response to receiving the request, causing capture, via a camera in communication with the computer system, of a first image, wherein the one or more images includes the first image (Stachniak, 0035, 0054, 0027, discloses receiving input from a camera and configure physical representation). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Choe to incorporate the teaching of Stachniak to analyze and determine valid and invalid position, thus allow the system successfully navigate from one position to another position and avoid object interference (Stachniak, 0057-0059).
As for independent claims 8 and 9:
Claims 8 and 9 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
The Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.01, that quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Further MPEP 2123, states that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PHANTANA ANGKOOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-3:30 PM.
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, can Adam Queler be reached on 571-272-4140. 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.
/David Phantana-angkool/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights