DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Trademarks in the Specification
The use of the terms Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, each of which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. Each of these terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore each of these terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
A copy of the publication, “Who We Are: Our Brands,” by the Wi-Fi Alliance is provided with this office action as evidence that Wi-Fi is a trademark.
Objection to the Drawings
The text of 37 CFR 1.84(o) is as follows:
“(o) Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible.” (Bold added).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(o) because certain drawing elements lack “suitable descriptive legends” that are “necessary for understanding of the drawing,” which “suitable descriptive legends” are hereby “required by the examiner for the listed drawing elements: in Figure 1A, elements 112, 116, 108, 102B, 114, 118, 140, 110, 120, 176, 174, 102A, and 106; in Figure 1B, elements 112, 176, 114, 118, 140, 110, 120, and 102A; in Figure 2A, elements 176, 220A, 114, 206, 204, 202, 102A, 220B, and 120; in Figure 2B, elements 254, 220A, 252, 176, 114, 220B, 120, 250, and 102A; in Figure 2C, elements 264, 220A, 262, 176, 114, 220B, 120, 260, and 102A; in Figure 2D, elements 268, 220A, 266, 176, 114, 220B, 120, 260, and 102A; and, in Figure 2E, elements 220A, 176, 114, 206, 292, 294, 296, 298, 102A, 220B, and 120.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Observations on the Claim Listing
On line 1 of dependent claim 3, it is noted that “vehicleof” is a typographical error. Correction is hereby required within the period for response to this office action.
On line 10 of independent claim 13, it is noted that “contasnier” is a typographical error. Correction is hereby required within the period for response to this office action.
Claim Interpretation
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.
On lines 9-11 of independent claim 1, the claim language, “wherein the graphical representation is a representation of a facial expression associated with the autonomous food transport vehicle and the person” is unclear in context on what is meant by a facial expression being “associated with the autonomous food transport vehicle” and “associated with” a “person.” This phrase is interpreted in context to mean that the “graphical representation” of the “facial expression” in the usual and ordinary sense of the term somehow conveys information about the “autonomous food transport vehicle” and about the “person.” It is entirely unclear in context how any “facial expression” could be associated with both of these.
Similarly, on lines 10-11 of independent claim 13, the claim language, “wherein the graphical representation is a hand gesture associated with the autonomous food transport vehicle” and with the “person.” This phrase is interpreted in context to mean that the “graphical representation” of the “hand gesture” in the usual and ordinary sense of the term somehow conveys information about the “autonomous food transport vehicle” and about the “person.” It is entirely unclear in context how any “hand gesture” could be associated with both of these.
Each of dependent claims 2-12 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 1.
Each of dependent claims 14-20 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 13.
Prior Art Rejections
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 1-6, 8-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al (‘676) in view of High et al (‘169).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of autonomous vehicles.
Looking, first, to independent claim 1, “An autonomous food transport vehicle” (line 1) is plainly disclosed by Peterson et al (‘676), noting, for example, paragraph [0002] (noting, “robotics”); paragraph [0019] at lines 1-5 (noting, especially, “grocery”); paragraph [0023} at line 9 (noting, especially, “autonomous”); and, page 3, left column at line 6 (noting, “food”).
The claim 1 limitations, “food transport container on the autonomous food transport vehicle” (line 2) is met in Peterson et al (‘676) by the disclosed “compartment,” noting, for example, paragraph [0026] at lines 1-3.
The claim 1 limitations, “location sensor configured to determine a current location of the vehicle and output location data and autonomously transport the food transport container from a source to a destination” (lines 3-5) is met in Peterson et al (‘676), at least, by the disclosed GPS, noting, for example, paragraph [0023] at lines 8-9 (“navigate to a new location utilizing a GPS”); S100 in Figure 1; paragraph [0035] (“Operation of the delivery robot can include: navigating”); and, paragraph [0019] at lines 1-5.
The claim 1 limitations, “surroundings sensor configured to identify environmental data and detect that a person is proximate to the food transport container” (lines 6-7) are met in Peterson et al (‘676) by the sensors to sense around the robot vehicle, noting, for example, paragraph [0033] at lines 1-11 (“interact with a user”; “authenticate the user”); paragraph [0045] at lines 1-3 and 8-11 (“voice recognition”; “visual recognition”); and, paragraph [0065] at lines 1-4 and 13(robot recognizes the user as shown in the uppermost image of Figure 9; “Upon verifying the identity of the user”).
The claim 1 limitations, “controller configured to generate a graphical representation for the person proximate to the food transport container, wherein the graphical representation is a representation of a facial expression associated with the autonomous food transport vehicle and the person” (lines 8-11) is substantially-met in Peterson et al (‘676) by paragraph [0020] at lines 4-7 (“displaying a light pattern”; “similar light pattern” to that displayed “on a mobile device of the user”); paragraph [0021] at lines 1-8 and 18-19 (“expressive actions”; “expressive displays; “graphics”); paragraph [0034] at lines 1-5 (“visual outputs”; “displays”); and, paragraph [0059] at lines 5-9 (“light pattern indicative of a restful state”). In Peterson et al (‘676), the claimed “controller” can be the “machine” on lines 6-7 of paragraph [0066]; the “computer-executable component” on lines 13-14 of paragraph [0066]; “a general or application specific processing subsystem,” “any suitable dedicated hardware device or hardware/firmware combination” on lines 14-17 of paragraph [0066]; “special purpose hardware-based systems” on lines 18-19 of paragraph [0066]; or, “special purpose hardware” on line 20 of paragraph [0066].
High et al (‘169), in the same field of endeavor as Peterson et al (‘676), High et al (‘169) teaches the use of “indicator devices” as described in paragraph [0014] to “convey expressions”; further teaching/describing such devices in conveying “a plurality of expressions” in paragraph [0023]; teaching/describing that such expressions can be based on “personality” and/or “language” and/or “personality profiles” in paragraph [0024]; teaching/describing that the such expressions as conveying “greetings” on page 4, in the right column at line 12; and, selecting expressions based on the “task profile for a delivery trip” on page 5, right column at lines 7-12, for the advantages of reducing the likelihood that people will interfere with the robot, to help people feel more comfortable with the robot, and, to provide security and simulate a personality based on the activity/task (paragraph [0041].
Keeping these teachings and advantages in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try facial expressions from among the myriad of different “expressions” as taught by High et al (‘169) in order to obtain the advantages taught by High et al (‘169), with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The claim 1, “display configured to show the graphical representation to the person” (line 12) is met in the applied combination of Peterson et al (‘676) in view of High et al (‘169) as set forth above by the display in Peterson et al (‘676), such as in the display on the side of the robot illustrated in Figure 9.
PNG
media_image1.png
147
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In that each and every claimed feature recited in independent claim 1 is plainly disclosed in the applied combination of Peterson et al (‘676) in view of High et al (‘169) as set forth above, claim 1 is obvious over Peterson et al (‘676) in view of High et al (‘169) as set forth above.
As for the further limitations of dependent claims 2-4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try each of “a moving eye,” “a moving mouth,” or a “happy or sad face” expressions from among the myriad of different “expressions” as taught by High et al (‘169) in order to obtain the advantages taught by High et al (‘169), with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The further limitations of dependent claim 5 are substantially-met by the applied combination as set forth above in that there is disclosure for authorizing a user who is detected in proximity to the robot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a “delivery associate” would be among authorized users. In Peterson et al (‘676), paragraph [0019] seems to suggest that a “user” can include the “provider of the goods” or “any other suitable entity that can interact with the robot.”
Regarding the further limitations of dependent claim 6, in that “any other suitable entity that can interact with the robot” in Peterson et al (‘676) might be a “user” that is not familiar with the procedure to access the container, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the “teleoperation instructions” in view in paragraph [0064] of Peterson et al (‘676) at lines 4-9 could alternatively be displayed on the display of the applied combination for use by the on-site authorized user for the advantage of a supervised opening of the container as opposed to the remotely-controlled, unsupervised opening of the container in view in paragraph [0064], with a reasonable likelihood of success.
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 8, in that Peterson et al (‘676) discloses that the robot can display a light pattern to, “communicate to the user that it contains the user’s goods” so as to distinguish the robot from other delivery robots (paragraph [0020]), and, in that the robot may have subcompartments (page 2, right column at lines 1-3), and, in that the item being delivered may require being kept hot or cold (paragraph [0030]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that “light pattern” communicating to the user could identify information about the delivered goods such as which subcompartment contains the goods and whether the goods are being kept hot or cold as categories to assist the user in knowing which delivery is arriving, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Similarly, with respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 9, in that Peterson et al (‘676) discloses that the robot can display a light pattern to, “communicate to the user that it contains the user’s goods” so as to distinguish the robot from other delivery robots (paragraph [0020]), and, in that the robot may have subcompartments (page 2, right column at lines 1-3), and, in that the robot makes multiple stops (paragraph [0025]), and, in that the item being delivered may require being kept hot or cold (paragraph [0030]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that “light pattern” communicating to the user could identify information about the delivered goods such as which subcompartment contains the goods and whether the goods are being kept hot or cold so that delivery is urgent before the perishable goods suffer in quality as categories to assist the user in knowing which delivery is arriving, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Now, concerning the further limitations of dependent claim 10, in that Peterson et al (‘676) discloses that the robot potentially interacts with a variety of people in a variety of functions (paragraph [0019]), and, in that a user must be authenticated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to track persons in proximity to the robot so as to distinguish users needing to be authenticated from pedestrians who are merely passing by the robot, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The further limitations of dependent claim 11 are met by the applied combination of Peterson et al (‘676) in view of High et al (‘169), noting, for example, the display illustrated in the portion of Figure 9 of Peterson et al (‘676) reproduced above in the rejection of claim 1. Alternatively, assuming that the display illustrated in the portion of Figure 9 of Peterson et al (‘676) reproduced above in the rejection of claim 1 is not across a “width,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the Peterson et al (‘676) could equally well be placed along a width of the robot so as to optimize visibility of the robot display as the robot approaches a user, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Regarding the further limitations of dependent claim 12, in that Peterson et al (‘676) discloses a fleet of delivery robots (paragraph [0023] at lines 1-3), and, in that each delivery robot makes multiple delivery to multiple locations (paragraph [0025]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art to have the delivery robots display “the delivery route of the vehicle” so as to aid the user in distinguishing the delivery vehicle/robot with the expected goods from other delivery vehicles/robots, with a reasonable likelihood of success. It is suggested that this is similar to passenger buses displaying the route of the bus.
The remarks with respect to independent claim 13 are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 1. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try hand gestures from among the myriad of different “expressions” as taught by High et al (‘169) in order to obtain the advantages taught by High et al (‘169), with a reasonable likelihood of success.
As for the further limitations of dependent claims 14-16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try each of “a hand wave,” “a thumbs up,” or “a thumbs down” expressions from among the myriad of different “expressions” as taught by High et al (‘169) in order to obtain the advantages taught by High et al (‘169), with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 17 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 5, in that claim 17 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 5.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 18 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 6, in that claim 18 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 6.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 20 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 8, in that claim 20 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 8.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 19 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.
None of the prior art of record discloses the claimed subject matter in either claim 7 or in claim 19. Further, no possible combination of the prior art of record would provide the claimed subject matter in either claim 7 or in claim 19, or, would tend to render that claimed subject matter obvious.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jiang et al (CN 108973836 A) is of general interest for the disclosure of an unmanned vehicle for delivery of food that uses facial identification for unlocking. This reference is not used for a prior art rejection in that it discloses fewer claimed features than Peterson et al (‘676).
Each of Xiao (‘280), Koselka et al (‘126), and Reiley et al (‘482) is of general interest for the disclosure of a vehicle for autonomous delivery. These references are not used for a prior art rejection in that each of these references disclose fewer claimed features than Peterson et al (‘676).
Among Jiang et al (CN 108973836 A), Xiao (‘280), Koselka et al (‘126), and Reiley et al (‘482), there is no combination that would render obvious the claimed subject matter in this application.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights