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 .
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed on February 17, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 8, and 9 have been
amended. The remaining claims are in original or previously presented form. Therefore, claims 1-9 are
pending in the application. Claims 1, 8, and 9 are the independent claims.
Applicant's arguments, see applicant’s Remarks for U.S.C. § 103, filed on 02/17/2026 regarding U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiuchi (US 20230185317 A1) in view of Izumi (US 20170307385 A1) in further view of Hu(CN-115191887-A).
Regarding claim 1, Horiuchi teaches a mobile object control device(Horiuchi, paragraph 28,control sequence of the mobile device (robot))comprising:
a storage medium which stores computer-readable instructions(Horiuchi, paragraph 372, The storage unit (memory) 508 is used as a storage area for programs); and
a processor which is connected to the storage medium(Horiuchi, paragraph 372, The storage unit (memory) 508 is used as a storage area for programs that are executed by the data processing unit 503),
wherein the processor executes the computer-readable instructions to(Horiuchi, paragraph 23, processing device or a computer system that can execute various program codes):
recognize a surrounding situation of a mobile object on the basis of at least a captured image of a surrounding situation of the mobile object(Horiuchi, paragraph 94, The environment recognition unit 110 analyzes the environment around the route of the mobile device (robot) 100 by referring to detection information from these cameras and sensors. Horiuchi, paragraph 93, The mobile device (robot) 100 includes a camera that captures an image in a traveling direction or an image of a tracking target );
generate a route from the mobile object to a destination on the basis of the recognized surrounding situation and the set destination(Horiuchi, paragraph 60, a camera of the robot, confirming the tracking target, setting a movement goal position at a position of the tracking target or immediately in front of the position, generating a movement route to the set goal position, and moving);
control the mobile object such that the mobile object moves to the destination along the generated route(Horiuchi, paragraph 255, the robot 10 is moved according to the robot control parameters (goal position, goal posture, and goal route) generated by the tracking target and fork correspondence robot control parameter determination unit 122),
While Horiuchi teaches generating a route for moving object(robot) to a destination based on captured images, it specifically fails to disclose a system that judge whether or not an angle formed by a proceeding direction of the mobile object along the generated route and a straight line from the mobile object to the destination satisfies a predetermined condition;
and wherein when it is judged that the angle satisfies the predetermined condition, the processor causes the mobile object to rotate on the spot without translational movement, and regenerates a route from the mobile object which has rotated on the spot without translational movement to the destination.
However, Izumi, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about an autonomous mobility apparatus that moves along a predetermined route, discloses an apparatus that judge whether or not an angle formed by a proceeding direction of the mobile object along the generated route and a straight line from the mobile object to the destination satisfies a predetermined condition(The specification disclose that a predetermined condition is that the angle between the mobile object’s proceeding direction and the straight line from the mobile object to the destination is equal to or larger than a first threshold. Similarly, Izumi discloses measuring the angle formed by straight line to destination and the moving direction of the robot, and determining if it is more than a predetermined threshold. Figure 2 and 5 of Izumi further demonstrate an angle measurement between the straight line and the robot’s direction. Izumi, paragraph 68, the autonomous mobility apparatus determines whether θ> the first threshold value holds (Step S10). Here, θ denotes the angle of the moving direction of the autonomous mobility apparatus, which is displaced from the straight line connecting the start point with the destination, in the straight portion on the moving route. Izumi, paragraph 49, the autonomous mobility apparatus 10 calculates an angle θ formed by a line d1 interconnecting the current position A1 and the point B and a moving direction d2 of the autonomous mobility apparatus 10 and compares the angle θ with a predetermined threshold value (the first threshold value) );
PNG
media_image1.png
357
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig.2 the autonomous mobility apparatus 10 calculates an angle θ formed by a line d1 interconnecting the current position A1 and the point B and a moving direction d2.
and wherein when it is judged that the angle satisfies the predetermined condition, the processor causes the mobile object to adjust wheels towards direction of destination, and regenerates a route from the mobile object which has adjusted wheels to the destination(As discussed above, the specification defines a predetermined condition as the angle between the straight line to destination and moving direction being greater than a first threshold. Correspondingly, Izumi teaches determining the angle between the robot moving direction and the straight line to destination(B), and then adjusting the moving direction towards the destination(B) when the angle is greater than first threshold. Izumi, paragraph 49, If the angle θ is greater than the first threshold value, the autonomous mobility apparatus 10 adjusts the revolution of the left and right wheels 7a and 7b to set the moving direction toward the point B).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Horiuchi with Izumi to change route direction of a moving object(robot) based on an angle measurement formed a straight line to a destination and a robot ‘s moving direction. By changing the route direction of a robot based on the angle, it is possible to reduce travel distance to a target destination. The reduction of distance helps conserve time and energy that could be lost due to a robot travelling in a wrong route.
While the combination of Horiuchi with Izumi teaches the control of a robot to adjusting towards destination, it fails to disclose a system wherein when it is judged that the angle between the destination and movement direction satisfies the predetermined condition, the processor causes the mobile object to rotate on the spot without translational movement, and regenerates a route from the mobile object which has rotated on the spot without translational movement to the destination.
However, Hu, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about a control method system of a cleaning robot, discloses a system wherein when it is judged that the angle satisfies the predetermined condition, the processor causes the mobile object to rotate on the spot without translational movement, and regenerates a route from the mobile object which has rotated on the spot without translational movement to the destination(Hu teaches determining whether the angle between the cleaning robot’s moving direction and the direction to an inlet/outlet is greater than preset angle threshold. When the angle is greater than the preset threshold, the robot rotates to the direction of the inlet/outlet by rotating around its center which indicates on the spot rotation without forward movement. Hu, paragraph 38, when the actual angle is greater than or equal to a preset angle threshold, the cleaning robot can be controlled to rotate to the direction of the inlet/outlet. When the cleaning robot rotates, it can be achieved by differential motion to rotate around its center, thereby avoiding collisions with other components of the cleaning base station).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Horiuchi and Izumi with Hu to adjusting the robot by rotating the robot around its center. By rotating the robot around its center without translation movement, it is possible to reduce the risk of collision caused by forward movement in the wrong direction. (Hu, paragraph 38, When the cleaning robot rotates, it can be achieved by differential motion to rotate around its center, thereby avoiding collisions with other components of the cleaning base station).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Horiuchi, Izumi, and Hu teaches the mobile object control device according to claim 1(Horiuchi, paragraph 28,control sequence of the mobile device (robot); Izumi, paragraph 68, the autonomous mobility apparatus determines whether θ> the first threshold value holds (Step S10); Hu, paragraph 38, when the actual angle is greater than or equal to a preset angle threshold….the cleaning robot rotates, [this] can be achieved by differential motion to rotate around its center),
wherein the predetermined condition is that the angle is equal to or larger than a first threshold(As discussed above, Izumi discloses measuring the angle formed by a straight line to destination and the moving direction of the robot, and determining if it is more than a first threshold. Izumi, paragraph 49, If the angle θ is greater than the first threshold value, the autonomous mobility apparatus 10 adjusts the revolution of the left and right wheels 7a and 7b to set the moving direction toward the point B ).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Horiuchi, Izumi, and Hu teaches the mobile object control device according to claim 2(Horiuchi, paragraph 28,control sequence of the mobile device (robot); Izumi, paragraph 68, the autonomous mobility apparatus determines whether θ> the first threshold value holds (Step S10); Hu, paragraph 38, when the actual angle is greater than or equal to a preset angle threshold….the cleaning robot rotates, [this] can be achieved by differential motion to rotate around its center),
wherein the processor judges whether or not an angle formed by the proceeding
direction of the mobile object along the regenerated route and the straight line from the
mobile object to the destination(As discussed above, Izumi discloses determining the angle formed by a straight line to the destination and the moving direction. Furthermore, Izumi teaches determining whether the angle formed is smaller than a second threshold after comparing it to the first threshold. Izumi, paragraph 87, the autonomous mobility apparatus 10 calculates the angle θ formed by the line d1 interconnecting the current position Al and the point B and the moving direction d2 of the autonomous mobility apparatus 10 and compares the angle θ with a predetermined threshold value ) is smaller than a second threshold(Izumi’s determination of whether an angle is smaller than a second threshold indicates a comparison capability. Izumi, paragraph 72, If the displaced angle θ of the autonomous mobility apparatus is smaller than the second threshold value set to an angle smaller than the first threshold value),
when it is judged that the angle is smaller than the second threshold(Izumi, paragraph 72, If the displaced angle θ of the autonomous mobility apparatus is smaller than the second threshold value set to an angle smaller than the first threshold value), the
processor controls the mobile object such that the mobile object moves to the destination along the regenerated route(Izumi discloses after determining the angle is smaller than the second threshold, it operates two wheels of the robot to rotate equally, contrary to the first threshold where it adjusts the rotation of each wheel to change direction. Izumi, paragraph 51, the second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value is set in advance, and if the angle θ is smaller than the second threshold value, the left and right wheels are caused to rotate equally (the revolution speeds of the left and right wheels are made equal) and the autonomous mobility apparatus 10 continues the movement ), and
the second threshold is a value smaller than the first threshold( Izumi, paragraph 70, the second threshold value is set so as to be smaller than the first threshold value).
Regarding claim 8, Horiuchi teaches a mobile object control method in which a computer(Horiuchi, paragraph 1, an information processing device, an information processing system, a method, and a program for generating a movement route when a mobile device such as a robot tracks a person, a vehicle, or the like)
recognizes a surrounding situation of a mobile object on the basis of at least a captured image of a surrounding situation of the mobile object(Horiuchi, paragraph 94, The environment recognition unit 110 analyzes the environment around the route of the mobile device (robot) 100 by referring to detection information from these cameras and sensors. Horiuchi, paragraph 93, The mobile device (robot) 100 includes a camera that captures an image in a traveling direction or an image of a tracking target),
generates a route from the mobile object to a destination on the basis of the recognized surrounding situation and the set destination(Horiuchi, paragraph 60, a camera of the robot, confirming the tracking target, setting a movement goal position at a position of the tracking target or immediately in front of the position, generating a movement route to the set goal position, and moving),
controls the mobile object such that the mobile object moves to the destination along the generated route(Horiuchi, paragraph 255, the robot 10 is moved according to the robot control parameters (goal position, goal posture, and goal route) generated by the tracking target and fork correspondence robot control parameter determination unit 122),
While Horiuchi teaches generating a route for moving object(robot) to a destination based on captured images, it specifically fails to disclose a system that judges whether or not an angle formed by a proceeding direction of the mobile object along the generated route and a straight line from the mobile object to the destination satisfies a predetermined condition,
and wherein when it is judged that the angle satisfies the predetermined condition, the computer causes the mobile object to rotate on the spot without translational movement, and regenerates a route from the mobile object which has rotated on the spot without translational movement to the destination.
However, Izumi, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about an autonomous mobility apparatus that moves along a predetermined route, discloses an apparatus that judges whether or not an angle formed by a proceeding direction of the mobile object along the generated route and a straight line from the mobile object to the destination satisfies a predetermined condition(The specification disclose that a predetermined condition is that the angle between the mobile object’s proceeding direction and the straight line from the mobile object to the destination is equal to or larger than a first threshold. Similarly, Izumi discloses measuring the angle formed by straight line to destination and the moving direction of the robot, and determining if it is more than a predetermined threshold. Figure 2 and 5 of Izumi further demonstrate an angle measurement between the straight line and the robot’s direction. Izumi, paragraph 68, the autonomous mobility apparatus determines whether θ> the first threshold value holds (Step S10). Here, θ denotes the angle of the moving direction of the autonomous mobility apparatus, which is displaced from the straight line connecting the start point with the destination, in the straight portion on the moving route. Izumi, paragraph 49, the autonomous mobility apparatus 10 calculates an angle θ formed by a line d1 interconnecting the current position A1 and the point B and a moving direction d2 of the autonomous mobility apparatus 10 and compares the angle θ with a predetermined threshold value (the first threshold value)),
PNG
media_image1.png
357
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig.2 the autonomous mobility apparatus 10 calculates an angle θ formed by a line d1 interconnecting the current position A1 and the point B and a moving direction d2.
and wherein when it is judged that the angle satisfies the predetermined condition, the computer causes the mobile object to adjust wheels towards direction of destination, and regenerates a route from the mobile object which has adjusted wheels to the destination(As discussed above, the specification defines a predetermined condition as the angle between the straight line to destination and moving direction being greater than a first threshold. Correspondingly, Izumi teaches determining the angle between the robot moving direction and the straight line to destination(B), and then adjusting the moving direction towards the destination(B) when the angle is greater than first threshold. Izumi, paragraph 49, If the angle θ is greater than the first threshold value, the autonomous mobility apparatus 10 adjusts the revolution of the left and right wheels 7a and 7b to set the moving direction toward the point B).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Horiuchi with Izumi to change route direction of a moving object(robot) based on an angle measurement formed a straight line to a destination and a robot ‘s moving direction. By changing the route direction of a robot based on the angle, it is possible to reduce travel distance to a target destination. The reduction of distance helps conserve time and energy that could be lost due to a robot travelling in a wrong route.
While the combination of Horiuchi with Izumi teaches the control of a robot to adjusting towards destination, it fails to disclose a system wherein when it is judged that the angle between the destination and movement direction satisfies the predetermined condition, the processor causes the mobile object to rotate on the spot without translational movement, and regenerates a route from the mobile object which has rotated on the spot without translational movement to the destination.
However, Hu, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about a control method system of a cleaning robot, discloses a system wherein when it is judged that the angle satisfies the predetermined condition, the processor causes the mobile object to rotate on the spot without translational movement, and regenerates a route from the mobile object which has rotated on the spot without translational movement to the destination(Hu teaches determining whether the angle between the cleaning robot’s moving direction and the direction to an inlet/outlet is greater than preset angle threshold. When the angle is greater than the preset threshold, the robot rotates to the direction of the inlet/outlet by rotating around its center which indicates on the spot rotation without forward movement. Hu, paragraph 38, when the actual angle is greater than or equal to a preset angle threshold, the cleaning robot can be controlled to rotate to the direction of the inlet/outlet. When the cleaning robot rotates, it can be achieved by differential motion to rotate around its center, thereby avoiding collisions with other components of the cleaning base station).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Horiuchi and Izumi with Hu to adjusting the robot by rotating the robot around its center. By rotating the robot around its center without translation movement, it is possible to reduce the risk of collision caused by forward movement in the wrong direction. (Hu, paragraph 38, When the cleaning robot rotates, it can be achieved by differential motion to rotate around its center, thereby avoiding collisions with other components of the cleaning base station).
Regarding claim 9, Horiuchi teaches a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium which stores a program causing a computer(Horiuchi, paragraph 372, The storage unit (memory) 508 is used as a storage area for programs that are executed by the data processing unit 503; Horiuchi, paragraph 23, processing device or a computer system that can execute various program codes )
to recognize a surrounding situation of a mobile object on the basis of at least a captured image of a surrounding situation of the mobile object(Horiuchi, paragraph 94, The environment recognition unit 110 analyzes the environment around the route of the mobile device (robot) 100 by referring to detection information from these cameras and sensors. Horiuchi, paragraph 93, The mobile device (robot) 100 includes a camera that captures an image in a traveling direction or an image of a tracking target),
to generate a route from the mobile object to a destination on the basis of the recognized surrounding situation and the set destination(Horiuchi, paragraph 60, a camera of the robot, confirming the tracking target, setting a movement goal position at a position of the tracking target or immediately in front of the position, generating a movement route to the set goal position, and moving),
to control the mobile object such that the mobile object moves to the destination along the generated route(Horiuchi, paragraph 255, the robot 10 is moved according to the robot control parameters (goal position, goal posture, and goal route) generated by the tracking target and fork correspondence robot control parameter determination unit 122),
While Horiuchi teaches generating a route for moving object(robot) to a destination based on captured images, it specifically fails to disclose a computer to judge whether or not an angle formed by a proceeding direction of the mobile object along the generated route and a straight line from the mobile object to the destination satisfies a predetermined condition,
and wherein when it is judged that the angle satisfies the predetermined condition, the computer causes the mobile object to rotate on the spot without translational movement, and regenerates a route from the mobile object which has rotated on the spot without translational movement to the destination.
However, Izumi, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about an autonomous mobility apparatus that moves along a predetermined route, discloses an apparatus to judge whether or not an angle formed by a proceeding direction of the mobile object along the generated route and a straight line from the mobile object to the destination satisfies a predetermined condition(The specification disclose that a predetermined condition is that the angle between the mobile object’s proceeding direction and the straight line from the mobile object to the destination is equal to or larger than a first threshold. Similarly, Izumi discloses measuring the angle formed by straight line to destination and the moving direction of the robot, and determining if it is more than a predetermined threshold. Figure 2 and 5 of Izumi further demonstrate an angle measurement between the straight line and the robot’s direction. Izumi, paragraph 68, the autonomous mobility apparatus determines whether θ> the first threshold value holds (Step S10). Here, θ denotes the angle of the moving direction of the autonomous mobility apparatus, which is displaced from the straight line connecting the start point with the destination, in the straight portion on the moving route. Izumi, paragraph 49, the autonomous mobility apparatus 10 calculates an angle θ formed by a line d1 interconnecting the current position A1 and the point B and a moving direction d2 of the autonomous mobility apparatus 10 and compares the angle θ with a predetermined threshold value (the first threshold value)),
PNG
media_image1.png
357
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig.2 the autonomous mobility apparatus 10 calculates an angle θ formed by a line d1 interconnecting the current position A1 and the point B and a moving direction d2.
and wherein when it is judged that the angle satisfies the predetermined condition, the computer causes the mobile object to adjust wheels towards direction of destination, and regenerates a route from the mobile object which has adjusted wheels to the destination(As discussed above, the specification defines a predetermined condition as the angle between the straight line to destination and moving direction being greater than a first threshold. Correspondingly, Izumi teaches determining the angle between the robot moving direction and the straight line to destination(B), and then adjusting the moving direction towards the destination(B) when the angle is greater than first threshold. Izumi, paragraph 49, If the angle θ is greater than the first threshold value, the autonomous mobility apparatus 10 adjusts the revolution of the left and right wheels 7a and 7b to set the moving direction toward the point B).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Horiuchi with Izumi to change route direction of a moving object(robot) based on an angle measurement formed a straight line to a destination and a robot ‘s moving direction. By changing the route direction of a robot based on the angle, it is possible to reduce travel distance to a target destination. The reduction of distance helps conserve time and energy that could be lost due to a robot travelling in a wrong route.
While the combination of Horiuchi with Izumi teaches the control of a robot to adjusting towards destination, it fails to disclose a system wherein when it is judged that the angle between the destination and movement direction satisfies the predetermined condition, the processor causes the mobile object to rotate on the spot without translational movement, and regenerates a route from the mobile object which has rotated on the spot without translational movement to the destination.
However, Hu, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about a control method system of a cleaning robot, discloses a system wherein when it is judged that the angle satisfies the predetermined condition, the processor causes the mobile object to rotate on the spot without translational movement, and regenerates a route from the mobile object which has rotated on the spot without translational movement to the destination(Hu teaches determining whether the angle between the cleaning robot’s moving direction and the direction to an inlet/outlet is greater than preset angle threshold. When the angle is greater than the preset threshold, the robot rotates to the direction of the inlet/outlet by rotating around its center which indicates on the spot rotation without forward movement. Hu, paragraph 38, when the actual angle is greater than or equal to a preset angle threshold, the cleaning robot can be controlled to rotate to the direction of the inlet/outlet. When the cleaning robot rotates, it can be achieved by differential motion to rotate around its center, thereby avoiding collisions with other components of the cleaning base station).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Horiuchi and Izumi with Hu to adjusting the robot by rotating the robot around its center. By rotating the robot around its center without translation movement, it is possible to reduce the risk of collision caused by forward movement in the wrong direction. (Hu, paragraph 38, When the cleaning robot rotates, it can be achieved by differential motion to rotate around its center, thereby avoiding collisions with other components of the cleaning base station).
Claims 4, 5, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiuchi (US 20230185317 A1) in view of Izumi (US 20170307385 A1) in further view of Hu(CN-115191887-A) in further view of Shiomi (JP 2011000656 A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Horiuchi, Izumi, and Hu teaches the mobile object control device according to claim 1(Horiuchi, paragraph 28,control sequence of the mobile device (robot); Izumi, paragraph 68, the autonomous mobility apparatus determines whether θ> the first threshold value holds (Step S10); Hu, paragraph 38, when the actual angle is greater than or equal to a preset angle threshold….the cleaning robot rotates, [this] can be achieved by differential motion to rotate around its center),
wherein the mobile object operates in any mode of a following mode of moving in a manner of following a user and(According to the specification, a following mode refers to a robot moving in a manner of following a user. Similarly, Horiuchi teaches the movement of a robot in accordance with a user by tracking a user/person. Horiuchi, paragraph 3, an automated mobile object configured to set another mobile object, a person, or the like in front of the automated mobile object as a “tracking target” and move while tracking the tracking target ), a guidance mode of moving ahead of the user (According to the specification, in guidance mode the destination is a location set by the user. Similarly, Horiuchi discloses a mobile device that moves to a goal position or in front of a goal position controlled by a user terminal. Horiuchi, paragraph 60, the mobile device performs processing for bringing the tracking target within a field of view of, for example, a camera of the robot, confirming the tracking target, setting a movement goal position at a position of the tracking target or immediately in front of the position, generating a movement route to the set goal position, and moving. Horiuchi, paragraph 49, user terminal that can communicate with the mobile device performs calculation of robot control parameters (goal position, goal posture, and goal route) or mobile device control.)
While the combination Horiuchi, Izumi, and Hu teaches the setting a destination of a robot (guidance mode) based on user input, it specifically fails to disclose a guidance mode of moving ahead of the user in accordance with a movement speed of the user.
However, Shiomi, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about a guide robot discloses a guidance mode of moving ahead of the user in accordance with a movement speed of the user(While Horiuchi discloses setting a destination of a robot (guidance mode) based on user input, it specifically fails to disclose moving the robot in accordance with the speed of the user. Shiomi, page 2 line 21, the own traveling speed vector and the guided person's walking speed vector are monitored, and when the distance from the guided person is more than a predetermined distance, speed control is performed to reduce the own speed. Thereby, the guidance robot can guide to the destination without leaving the guided person.)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Horiuchi, Izumi, and Hu with Shiomi to move the robot based on the speed of a user. By tracking the walking speed of a user to determine the movement of a robot, it is possible to guide the user based on their walking preference without leaving them behind or by being in unsafe proximity.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Horiuchi, Izumi, Hu, and Shiomi teaches the mobile object control device according to claim 4(Horiuchi, paragraph 28,control sequence of the mobile device (robot); Izumi, paragraph 68, the autonomous mobility apparatus determines whether θ> the first threshold value holds (Step S10); Hu, paragraph 38, when the actual angle is greater than or equal to a preset angle threshold….the cleaning robot rotates, [this] can be achieved by differential motion to rotate around its center; Shiomi, page 2 line 21, the own traveling speed vector and the guided person's walking speed vector are monitored), wherein when the mobile object operates in the following mode, the destination is the user (Horiuchi’s goal position is similar to the destination, and sets the goal position at a position of the tracking target, which can be a person. Tracking of Horiuchi is similar to the following mode as it tracks a person. Furthermore, Horiuchi discloses through a user terminal, it is able to operate and determine the goal position of the robot that corresponds to the setting of the destination of the mobile object. Horiuchi, paragraph 3, an automated mobile object configured to set another mobile object, a person, or the like in front of the automated mobile object as a “tracking target” and move while tracking the tracking target. Horiuchi, paragraph 60, the mobile device performs processing for bringing the tracking target within a field of view of, for example, a camera of the robot, confirming the tracking target, setting a movement goal position at a position of the tracking target. Horiuchi, paragraph 359, FIG. 24 is a diagram illustrating a configuration example of the mobile device 500 and a user terminal 700 when a user terminal capable of communicating with a mobile device, such as a controller, a PC, or a smartphone performs calculation of the robot control parameters (goal position, goal posture, and goal route) ) or a location within a predetermined range from the user.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Horiuchi, Izumi, Hu, and Shiomi teaches the mobile object control device according to claim 4(Horiuchi, paragraph 28,control sequence of the mobile device (robot); Izumi, paragraph 68, the autonomous mobility apparatus determines whether θ> the first threshold value holds (Step S10); Hu, paragraph 38, when the actual angle is greater than or equal to a preset angle threshold….the cleaning robot rotates, [this] can be achieved by differential motion to rotate around its center; Shiomi, page 2 line 21, the own traveling speed vector and the guided person's walking speed vector are monitored), wherein when the mobile object operates in the guidance mode, the destination is a location set by the user(The goal position of Horiuchi is similar to destination set by a user. Furthermore, Horiuchi discloses through the user terminal, it is able to operate and determine the goal position of the robot that corresponds to setting the destination of the mobile object. Horiuchi, paragraph 359, FIG. 24 is a diagram illustrating a configuration example of the mobile device 500 and a user terminal 700 when a user terminal capable of communicating with a mobile device, such as a controller, a PC, or a smartphone performs calculation of the robot control parameters (goal position, goal posture, and goal route). Horiuchi, paragraph 60, the mobile device performs processing for bringing the tracking target within a field of view of, for example, a camera of the robot, confirming the tracking target, setting a movement goal position at a position of the tracking target ) or a location within a predetermined range ahead of the user.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Horiuchi, Izumi, Hu, and Shiomi teaches the mobile object control device according to claim 4(Horiuchi, paragraph 28,control sequence of the mobile device (robot); Izumi, paragraph 68, the autonomous mobility apparatus determines whether θ> the first threshold value holds (Step S10); Hu, paragraph 38, when the actual angle is greater than or equal to a preset angle threshold….the cleaning robot rotates, [this] can be achieved by differential motion to rotate around its center; Shiomi, page 2 line 21, the own traveling speed vector and the guided person's walking speed vector are monitored), wherein when the mobile object operates in the guidance mode, the destination is a provisional location provisionally set so as to reach a final location set by the user(Shiomi, page 11 line 48, it is determined whether or not the destination has been reached. That is, it is determined whether the temporary destination determined to have arrived at step S13 or step S23 is the final destination. If “NO” in the step S25, that is, if the destination has not been reached, the process returns to the step S7 to set the next temporary destination and continue the movement. On the other hand, if “YES” in the step S25, that is, if the vehicle arrives at the destination, the entire process is ended).
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 BESUFEKAD LEMMA TESSEMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6850. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 5712727298. 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.
/BESUFEKAD LEMMA TESSEMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights