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
2. This action is responsive to the Application filed on 10/7/2024. A filing date 10/7/2024 is acknowledged. 18908091 is a Continuation of PCT/KR2023/004432 with filing date 4/3/2023. The sought benefit of KR application 10-2022-0043570 (which was filed on 4/7/2022) is acknowledged. Claims 1-17 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 15-17 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a communication unit, a control unit in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the communication unit 310, the storage unit 320, the display unit 330, the input unit 340, and the control unit 350, and/or portions thereof according to any of the example embodiments may include, may be included in, and/or may be implemented by one or more instances of processing circuitry such as hardware including logic circuits; a hardware/software combination such as a processor executing software; or a combination thereof. For example, the processing circuitry more specifically may include, but is not limited to, a central processing unit (CPU), an arithmetic logic unit (ALU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an application processor (AP), a digital signal processor (DSP), a microcomputer, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), and programmable logic unit, a microprocessor, application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a neural network processing unit (NPU), an Electronic Control Unit (ECU), an Image Signal Processor (ISP), and the like. In some example embodiments, the processing circuitry may include a non-transitory computer readable storage device (e.g., a memory), for example a solid state drive (SSD), storing a program of instructions, and a processor (e.g., CPU) configured to execute the program of instructions to implement the functionality and/or methods performed by some or all of the communication unit 310, the storage unit 320, the display unit 330, the input unit 340, and the control unit 350, and/or portions thereof according to any of the example embodiments ([0099]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 10, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nobuhisa Otsuki et al (US Publication 20220105962 A1, hereinafter Otsuki).
As for independent claim 1, Otsuki discloses: A method of monitoring a robot operation in a building in which robots provide services ([0006], provide a technique for managing a service that is delivered in a predetermined area by utilizing an autonomous robot; [0048], The service area configuration information 200 includes a map of the service area A, a road layout, a building layout, a floor configuration in the building, a room layout in each floor, an elevator layout, and the like), the method comprising: receiving robot information from each of the robots through communication with the robots located in the building ([0057], based on the service robot information 300, the information processing device 130 displays the operating status of the service in the service area A on the display device 112. Thus, the operator is able to understand and monitor the operating status of the service in the service area A); and displaying, on a display unit, a monitoring screen configured to monitor an operational situation of the robots located in the building ([0057], based on the service robot information 300, the information processing device 130 displays the operating status of the service in the service area A on the display device 112. Thus, the operator is able to understand and monitor the operating status of the service in the service area A; [0067], The building window may indicate the position of each autonomous robot 10 that exists in the building. The building window may indicate a distribution of the operating statuses (e.g., On Duty, Off Duty, Charging) of the autonomous robots 10 existing in the building), the monitoring screen including,
a building graphic object representing the building ([0048], The service area configuration information 200 includes a map of the service area A, a road layout, a building layout, a floor configuration in the building, a room layout in each floor, an elevator layout, and the like); and a state graphic object positioned around the building graphic object, and the state graphic object representing state information on a robot located on each of a plurality of floors included in the building, the state information on the robot ([0057], based on the service robot information 300, the information processing device 130 displays the operating status of the service in the service area A on the display device 112. Thus, the operator is able to understand and monitor the operating status of the service in the service area A) and a visual appearance of the state graphic object determined based on the robot information received from each of the robots ([0059], A color and a pattern of the circle may be different for each operating status (e.g., On Duty, Off Duty, Charging) of the autonomous robot 10).
As for claim 2, Otsuki discloses: wherein the building graphic object comprises a plurality of sub-graphic objects mapped to each of the plurality of floors ([0048], a floor configuration in the building; [0067], the building window represents a configuration (floor configuration) in the building), and wherein the state graphic object comprises a plurality of state graphic objects representing state information on a robot for each specific floor mapped to each of the plurality of sub-graphic objects (Fig. 6 and [0067], The building window may indicate the position of each autonomous robot 10 that exists in the building. The building window may indicate a distribution of the operating statuses (e.g., On Duty, Off Duty, Charging) of the autonomous robots 10 existing in the building).
As for claim 3, Otsuki discloses: wherein the building graphic object comprises:
a first sub-graphic object mapped to a first floor of the plurality of floors; and
a second sub-graphic object mapped to a second floor of the plurality of floors,
wherein a first state graphic object representing state information on a robot located on the first floor mapped to the first sub-graphic object is located around the first sub-graphic object on the monitoring screen, and wherein a second state graphic object representing state information on a robot located on the second floor mapped to the second sub-graphic object is located around the second sub-graphic object on the monitoring screen (Fig. 6, Detail Floor Status, each robot is displayed at a position in the specific floor).
As for claim 4, Otsuki discloses: determining which floor of the plurality of floors the robots located in the building are located on, based on the robot information; and
determining, based on a result of the determination, a visual appearance of each of the first state graphic object and the second state graphic object such that state information on the robots is represented in conjunction with a specific floor of the plurality of floors on which each of the robots is located (Fig. 6, Detail Floor Status, each robot is displayed with an indicator with different color/shape representing different state information).
As for claim 7, Otsuki discloses: wherein each of the plurality of state graphic objects is configured to include any one of a plurality of state areas representing different states of the robots, and wherein the plurality of state areas comprises at least one of a first state area representing a first state corresponding to a state of a moving robot, a second state area representing a second state corresponding to a state of a standby robot, and a third state area representing a third state corresponding to a state of a robot in which an error exists ([0059], A color and a pattern of the circle may be different for each operating status (e.g., On Duty, Off Duty, Charging) of the autonomous robot 10).
As for claim 8, Otsuki discloses: wherein a size of each of the first state area, the second state area, and the third state area is determined depending on a state of each of robots located in a specific floor corresponding to a specific state graphic object including the first state area, the second state area, and the third state area among the plurality of floors ([0059], A color and a pattern of the circle may be different for each operating status (e.g., On Duty, Off Duty, Charging) of the autonomous robot 10; please note the different patterns represent different state, and as shown in Fig. 6, Detail Floor Status, display numbers representing how many robot in the specific state).
As for claim 10, Otsuki discloses: receiving a user input selecting any one of the first state area, the second state area, and the third state area; and
displaying, on the monitoring screen, a list of robots located on the specific floor and having a state corresponding to the state area selected by the user input, based on the user input ([0066], the operator can specify the target object by using the input device 111 to click or tap the target object being displayed, The information processing device 130 displays detailed information of the object specified by the operator; [0075], The operator can specify (select) the autonomous robot 10 that is in the error status. In response to the specification by the operator, the information processing device 130 displays, on the display device 112, the status window indicating the status of the autonomous robot 10 that is in the error status. Thus, the operator is able to easily understand the detailed status of the autonomous robot 10 that is in the error status).
As per claim 15, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 16, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 17, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 5-6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuki, and in view of Frances Heller (US Publication 20200077243 A1, hereinafter Heller).
As for claim 5, Otsuki discloses the visual appearance of the graphic object is different depending on different state, but does not clearly disclose the visual appearance of each graphic object is different depending on a number of the objects located, in an analogous art of displaying the device status information in a map view, Heller discloses: wherein the visual appearance of each of the first state graphic object and the second state graphic object is different in at least one of size and color, depending on a number and operational state of the robots located on each of the first floor and the second floor (Heller: [0036], the interface of FIG. 3A could show an indicator of the number of people queued at a location by using a number, color, a size-based indicator such as an icon that is scaled to be larger or smaller depending upon the number of people in a queue for that facility, or another symbol, text, or visual identifier).
Otsuki and Heller are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, displaying the device status information in a map view. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Otsuki using the teachings of Heller to include displaying a larger icon or smaller icon depending upon the number of object at the specific location. It would provide Otsuki’s method with enhanced capabilities of allowing user to acknowledge the object detail information in an intuitive way.
As for claim 6, Otsuki-Heller discloses: wherein the size of each of the first state graphic object and the second state graphic object is determined in proportion to the number of robots located at each of the first state graphic object and the second state graphic object, and wherein when a specific robot located on the first floor moves to the second floor, the size of the first state graphic object and the second state graphic object is configured to change in conjunction with the movement of the specific robot (Heller: [0036], the interface of FIG. 3A could show an indicator of the number of people queued at a location by using a number, color, a size-based indicator such as an icon that is scaled to be larger or smaller depending upon the number of people in a queue for that facility, or another symbol, text, or visual identifier; please note the map is dynamically updated in real-time and when the object is moving, the size-based indicator is dynamically updated).
As for claim 9, Otsuki-Heller discloses: wherein the size of each of the first state area, the second state area, and the third state area is proportional to each of a number of robots with the first state, a number of robots with the second state, and a number of robots with the third state among the robots located on the specific floor (Heller: [0036], the interface of FIG. 3A could show an indicator of the number of people queued at a location by using a number, color, a size-based indicator such as an icon that is scaled to be larger or smaller depending upon the number of people in a queue for that facility, or another symbol, text, or visual identifier.
6. Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuki, and in view of Priyanka Jain et al (US Publication 20180249298 A1, hereinafter Jain).
As for claim 11, Otsuki does not clearly disclose displaying user selected sub-graphic object, in an analogous art of managing devices in map, Jain discloses:
receiving, on the monitoring screen, a user input of selecting a specific sub-graphic object of the plurality of sub-graphic objects; and displaying, on the display unit, a map corresponding to a specific floor that corresponds to the specific sub-graphic object of the plurality of floors, based on the user input,
wherein an indicator corresponding to each of specific robots located on the specific floor is displayed on the map corresponding to the specific floor (Jain: Fig. 4 and [0037], user may select building and select floor level and the selected floor map may display with the asset information in the selected floor).
Otsuki and Jain are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, displaying the device status information in a map view. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Otsuki using the teachings of Jain to include displaying the selected floor information based on user input. It would provide Otsuki’s method with enhanced capabilities of allowing user to manage asset with more flexibility.
As for claim 12, Otsuki-Otsuki discloses: wherein a display position of the indicator corresponding to each of the specific robots located on the specific floor is determined based on where the specific robot is located on the specific floor (Otsuki: Fig. 6, Detail Floor Status).
As for claim 13, Otsuki-Otsuki discloses: wherein the display position of the indicator is updated in conjunction with movement of the specific robot on the specific floor (Otsuki: [0059], The information, processing device 130 displays the position of each autonomous robot 10 in real time based on the service robot information).
As for claim 14, Otsuki-Otsuki discloses: wherein a display color of the indicator corresponding to each of the specific robots is displayed to vary depending on a state of each of the specific robots, and wherein the state of each of the specific robots has one of a first state corresponding to a state of a standby robot, a second state representing a second state corresponding to a state of a moving robot, and a third state corresponding to a state of a robot in error (Otsuki: [0059], A color and a pattern of the circle may be different for each operating status (e.g., On Duty, Off Duty, Charging) of the autonomous robot; Jain: [0030], a red status indicator can indicate the asset 105, 110, 115, 120, 125 is not available and/or not operational. A yellow status indicator can indicate the asset 105, 110, 115, 120, 125 is available, but not operating properly).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Schriesheim (US Publication 20210076892) SCHEDULING AND CONTROL SYSTEM FOR AUTONOMOUS ROBOTS
Rai (US Publication 20180357292) SUGGESTION OF VIEWS BASED ON CORRELATION OF DATA
Scott (US Publication 20200368913) MAP-BASED FRAMEWORK FOR THE INTEGRATION OF ROBOTS AND SMART DEVICES
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 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300.
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.
/Hua Lu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights