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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is a second office action, final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-19 as
previously filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s representative puts forth in the arguments that the cited art of Inoue discloses preliminary actions which only correspond to an object avoidance strategy in which the person, not the robot, is performing the actual avoidance of a collision or accident. Furthermore, the applicant’s representative appears to argue the preliminary actions of Inoue only relate to the interaction operations between a robot and a person or object, and not navigational. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Inoue clearly and extensively discloses the preliminary actions include a plurality of operations depending on the object type within the environment. Preliminary actions are clearly disclosed as including moving a distance with the mobilizing mechanism, Inoue Para. [0112], which is even agreed to by the applicant’s representative. Furthermore Inoue discloses a variety of examples of such preliminary actions, which include determining the object type and moving around the object type, when the object is determined to be a child or physically impaired person, see at least Para. [0189]. Therefore Inoue clearly discloses preliminary actions as actual object avoidance, and not limited to interaction operations, which is the same object avoidance as disclosed in the argued claims.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inoue et al. (US 2025/0348081; hereinafter Inoue).
Regarding Claim 1:
Inoue discloses an autonomous mobile robot, capable to move in a building by using a preset map, and comprising: a movement module, configured to enable the autonomous mobile robot to move (Inoue, Para. [0105], Inoue discloses a mobilizing mechanisms controlled by the controller configured to move the autonomous mobile robot);
a detection module, configured to continuously detect environment information around the autonomous mobile robot (Inoue, Para. [0090], Inoue discloses a detector for detection of the environment surrounding the autonomous mobile robot);
a control module, electrically connected to the movement module and the detection module, and configured to control the movement module and the detection module, wherein the movement module enables the autonomous mobile robot to move to a destination according to an instruction from the control module (Inoue, Para. [0095], Inoue discloses a controller configured to move the autonomous mobile robot), and the control module comprises:
a determination unit, configured to determine whether there is an obstacle near the autonomous mobile robot or on a predetermined path of the autonomous mobile robot according to the environment information detected by the detection module (Inoue, Para. [0100-0103], Inoue discloses a camera which detects the presence or absence of persons nearby the robot); and
a navigation unit, electrically connected to the determination unit, wherein when the determination unit determines that there is the obstacle on the predetermined path of the autonomous mobile robot, the navigation unit decides an obstacle avoidance strategy according to the environment information and a type of the obstacle, and the obstacle avoidance strategy at least comprises moving along a side path, stopping aside to yield, moving backward and stopping at a yielding point to yield, and detouring (Inoue, Para. [0108-0113], Inoue discloses controlling the autonomous mobile robot to navigate the environment based the environment detection results with the robot performing preliminary actions when a person is near or within the path of the robot, such preliminary actions include at least stopping, yielding, reversing, and the like); and
an interaction module, electrically connected to and controlled by the control module, wherein when the determination unit determines that there is the obstacle near the autonomous mobile robot or on the predetermined path, the interaction module performs an interaction action according to the obstacle avoidance strategy and the type of the obstacle, and the interaction action at least comprises a voice prompt (Inoue, Para. [0114], Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot provides a voice prompt as a preliminary action when the person is near or within the autonomous mobile robot’s path).
Regarding Claim 2:
Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot according to claim 1.
Inoue further discloses wherein when the determination unit determines that there exists the obstacle on the predetermined path and the obstacle is a dynamic obstacle, and a moving direction of the dynamic obstacle is the same as a moving direction of the autonomous mobile robot, the navigation unit obtains information of a speed of the dynamic obstacle according to the environment information, and the navigation unit adjusts a speed and a moving path of the autonomous mobile robot according to the speed of the dynamic obstacle, wherein the dynamic obstacle comprises a person and/or a dynamic object (Inoue, Para. [0200-0201], Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot determines a person is within the path of the robot and is moving towards the robot and determines the speed relative to the robot and performs a preliminary action accordingly).
Regarding Claim 3:
Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot according to claim 2.
Inoue further discloses wherein when the moving direction of the dynamic obstacle is the same as the moving direction of the autonomous mobile robot and the dynamic obstacle comprises the person, the control module controls the interaction module to perform the interaction action to inform the person of the moving direction of the autonomous mobile robot if a distance between the autonomous mobile robot and the person is less than a predetermined distance (Inoue, Para. [0200-0201], Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot determines a person is within the path of the robot and is moving towards the robot and determines a preliminary action of verbally interacting/warning the person when the person is within a predetermined distance, Para. [0114]).
Regarding Claim 4:
Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot according to claim 2.
Inoue further discloses wherein when the moving direction of the dynamic obstacle is the same as the moving direction of the autonomous mobile robot, the navigation unit controls the movement module to maintain a distance between the autonomous mobile robot and the dynamic obstacle to be greater than or equal to a safe distance (Inoue, Para. [0200-0201], Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot determines a person is within the path of the robot and is moving towards the robot and the robot and performs a preliminary action accordingly).
Regarding Claim 5:
Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot according to claim 2.
Inoue further discloses wherein when the moving direction of the dynamic obstacle is the same as the moving direction of the autonomous mobile robot and the speed of the dynamic obstacle is lower than a preset speed, the navigation unit controls the movement module to make the autonomous mobile robot proceed to the destination through another pathway (Inoue, Para. [0200-0201], Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot determines a person is within the path of the robot and is moving towards the robot and determines the speed relative to the robot and performs a preliminary action accordingly).
Regarding Claim 6:
Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot according to claim 1.
Inoue further discloses wherein when the determination unit determines that there exists the obstacle on the predetermined path and the obstacle is a dynamic obstacle, and a moving direction of the dynamic obstacle is opposite to a moving direction of the autonomous mobile robot, the navigation unit obtains information of a width of a pathway on which the autonomous mobile robot is located and a width of the dynamic obstacle according to the environment information, and the navigation unit decides the obstacle avoidance strategy according to distances between the dynamic obstacle and two sides of the pathway and a width of the autonomous mobile robot (Inoue, Para. [0200-0201], Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot determines a person is within the path of the robot and is moving towards the robot and determines the speed relative to the robot and performs a preliminary action accordingly, see also Para. [0167-0169]).
Regarding Claim 7:
Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot according to claim 6.
Inoue further discloses wherein when the moving direction of the dynamic obstacle is opposite to the moving direction of the autonomous mobile robot and a distance between the dynamic obstacle and a first side of the two sides of the pathway is greater than a preset value, the navigation unit controls the movement module to make the autonomous mobile robot move to the first side of the two sides and continue toward the destination, wherein the preset value is greater than the width of the autonomous mobile robot (Inoue, Para. [0200-0201], Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot determines a person is within the path of the robot and is moving towards the robot and determines the speed relative to the robot and performs a preliminary action accordingly, see also Para. [0167-0169]).
Regarding Claim 8:
Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot according to claim 6.
Inoue further discloses wherein in a situation that the moving direction of the dynamic obstacle is opposite to the moving direction of the autonomous mobile robot, the distances between the dynamic obstacle and the two sides of the pathway are both less than a preset value, and a sum of the distances between the dynamic obstacle and the two sides of the pathway is greater than the preset value, the navigation unit controls the movement module to make the autonomous mobile robot move to a first side of the two sides, stop to wait for the dynamic obstacle to pass, and continue toward the destination after the dynamic obstacle passes, wherein the preset value is greater than the width of the autonomous mobile robot (Inoue, Para. [0200-0201], Fig. 10 Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot determines a person is within the path of the robot and is moving towards the robot and determines the speed relative to the robot and performs a preliminary action (Para. [0113-0127]) accordingly which may include increasing the predetermined distance, see also Para. [0167-0169]).
Regarding Claim 9:
Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot according to claim 6.
Inoue further discloses wherein when the moving direction of the dynamic obstacle is opposite to the moving direction of the autonomous mobile robot and a sum of the distances between the dynamic obstacle and the two sides of the pathway is less than the preset value, the navigation unit controls the movement module to make the autonomous mobile robot move backward until the width of the pathway is greater than a sum of the width of the dynamic obstacle and the preset value, move to a first side of the two sides of the pathway, stop to wait for the dynamic obstacle to pass, and continue toward the destination after the dynamic obstacle passes, wherein the preset value is greater than the width of the autonomous mobile robot (Inoue, Para. [0200-0201], Fig. 10 Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot determines a person is within the path of the robot and is moving towards the robot and determines the speed relative to the robot and performs a preliminary action accordingly (Para. [0113-0127]) which may include increasing the predetermined distance, see also Para. [0167-0169]).
Regarding Claim 10:
Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot according to claim 6.
Inoue further discloses wherein a plurality of said yielding points are predefined on the preset map; when the moving direction of the dynamic obstacle is opposite to the moving direction of the autonomous mobile robot and a sum of the distances between the dynamic obstacle and the two sides of the pathway is less than the preset value, the navigation unit controls the movement module to make the autonomous mobile robot move backward to the yielding point which meets a predetermined condition, stop to wait for the dynamic obstacle to pass, and continue toward the destination after the dynamic obstacle passes, wherein the predetermined condition comprises that the yielding point is nearest to the autonomous mobile robot and/or the yielding point is located at a previous moving path of the autonomous mobile robot (Inoue, Para. [0200-0201], Fig. 10, Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot determines a person is within the path of the robot and is moving towards the robot and determines the speed relative to the robot and performs a preliminary action (Para. [0113-0127]) accordingly which may include increasing the predetermined distance, see also Para. [0167-0169], by moving backward, Para. [0112]).
Regarding Claim 11:
Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot according to claim 1.
Inoue further discloses wherein when the determination unit determines that there exists the obstacle on the predetermined path and the obstacle is a person using a mobility aid, and a moving direction of the person is opposite to a moving direction of the autonomous mobile robot, the navigation unit controls the movement module to make the autonomous mobile robot move backward until an increase in a distance between the autonomous mobile robot and a side of the pathway exceeds the preset value, move to the side of the pathway, stop to wait for the person to pass, and continue toward the destination after the person passes, wherein the preset value is greater than a width of the autonomous mobile robot (Inoue, Para. [0200-0201], Fig. 10, Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot determines a person is within the path of the robot and is moving towards the robot and determines the speed relative to the robot and performs a preliminary action accordingly (Para. [0113-0127]) which may include stopping the robot or abnormal yielding when the person is elderly, wheelchair, crutch, cane, or stroller user, see at least Para. [0198], [0342]).
Regarding Claim 12:
Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot according to claim 1.
Inoue further discloses wherein a plurality of said yielding points are predefined on the preset map; when the determination unit determines that there exists the obstacle on the predetermined path and the obstacle is a person using a mobility aid, and a moving direction of the person is opposite to a moving direction of the autonomous mobile robot, the navigation unit controls the movement module to make the autonomous mobile robot move backward to the yielding point which meets a predetermined condition, stop to wait for the person to pass, and continue toward the destination after the person passes, wherein the predetermined condition comprises that the yielding point is nearest to the autonomous mobile robot and/or the yielding point is located at a previous moving path of the autonomous mobile robot (Inoue, Para. [0200-0201], Fig. 10, Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot determines a person is within the path of the robot and is moving towards the robot and determines the speed relative to the robot and performs a preliminary action accordingly (Para. [0113-0127]) which may include stopping the robot or abnormal yielding when the person is elderly, wheelchair, crutch, cane, or stroller user, see at least Para. [0198], [0342]), with the yielding points being a doorway, Para. [0162]).
Regarding Claim 13:
Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot according to claim 1.
Inoue further discloses wherein when the determination unit determines that there exists the obstacle on the predetermined path and the obstacle is a static object, the navigation unit obtains information of a width of a pathway on which the autonomous mobile robot is located, a position of the static object and a width of the static object from the environment information, and the navigation unit decides the obstacle avoidance strategy according to the width of the pathway, a width of the autonomous mobile robot and the position and the width of the static object (Inoue, Para. [0200-0201], Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot determines a person is within the path of the robot and is moving towards the robot and determines the speed relative to the robot and performs a preliminary action accordingly, see also Para. [0167-0169], with the preliminary action also being based on the determined width of the moving route of the robot).
Regarding Claim 14:
Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot according to claim 1.
Inoue further discloses wherein when the determination unit determines that there exists the obstacle near the autonomous mobile robot or on the predetermined path and the obstacle is a person, the control module controls the interaction module to perform the interaction action to inform the person of a moving path of the autonomous mobile robot (Inoue, Para. [0200-0201], Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot determines a person is within the path of the robot and is moving towards the robot and the robot and performs a preliminary action accordingly).
Regarding Claim 15:
Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot according to claim 1.
Inoue further discloses wherein the building comprises a plurality of floors; when the determination unit determines that there exists the obstacle on the predetermined path and determines that no feasible obstacle avoidance strategy can be executed on a current floor of the plurality of floors according to the preset map, the environment information and a type of the obstacle, the navigation unit controls the movement module to make the autonomous mobile robot proceed to the destination via another floor of the plurality of floors (Inoue, Para. [0200-0201], Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot determines a person is within the path of the robot and is moving towards the robot and the robot and performs a preliminary action accordingly which includes navigating within the mobile body (i.e. elevator) to another floor of the plurality of floors based on the number of persons and robots on or within a floor, Para. [0321]).
Regarding Claim 16:
Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot according to claim 1.
Inoue further discloses wherein the interaction action further comprises having conversation; when the determination unit determines that there exists the obstacle on the predetermined path and the obstacle is a static object, and distances between the static object and two sides of a pathway are both less than a preset value, and a sum of the distances between the static object and the two sides of the pathway is greater than the preset value, the interaction module engages in the conversation with a person to request the person to assist in moving away the static object for allowing the autonomous mobile robot to pass if the determination unit determines that the static object is movable and the person is present near the autonomous mobile robot, wherein the preset value is greater than a width of the autonomous mobile robot (Inoue, Para. [0114], Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot provides a voice prompt as a preliminary action when the person is near or within the autonomous mobile robot’s path or predetermined distance, and the robot voice prompts to move the stationary person).
Regarding Claim 18:
Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot according to claim 1.
Inoue further discloses wherein the detection module comprises an image capture element configured to obtain the environment information around the autonomous mobile robot by capturing images (Inoue, Para. [0090], Inoue discloses a camera for detection of the environment surrounding the autonomous mobile robot).
Regarding Claim 19:
Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot according to claim 18.
Inoue further discloses wherein the detection module further comprises a light detection and ranging element, when a confidence level of the images captured by the image capture element is lower than a threshold, the detection module utilizes the light detection and ranging element to obtain the environment information around the autonomous mobile robot (Inoue, Para. [0115], [0152], [0177], Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot may increase the amount of light surround the robot as a preliminary action based on the amount of light within the mobile body with a light detector (i.e. camera) being used with the environment light being present or not).
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Hu et al. (USP 12,353,211; hereinafter Hu).
Regarding Claim 17:
Inoue discloses the autonomous mobile robot according to claim 17.
Inoue further discloses an audio pickup element, configured to capture sound made by the person and generate a sound signal accordingly (Inoue, Para. [0098], Inoue discloses a microphone for capturing audio data);
an audio processing unit, connected to the audio pickup element and configured to process the sound signal generated by the audio pickup element (Inoue, Para. [0098], [0104], Inoue discloses the captured audio is processed by the detector and communicated to the controller);
a response generation unit, connected to the speech recognition unit and configured to generate a response text, based on a language model, for responding to the text content generated by the speech recognition unit (Inoue, Para. [0114-0115], Inoue discloses responding to the person depending on the preliminary action which may request the person to move, may request if the person needs help, and the like, see at least Para. [0313-0315]);
a speech synthesis unit, connected to the response generation unit and configured to convert the response text generated by the response generation unit into a sound signal (Inoue, Para. [0140], 0281], Inoue discloses an acoustic output unit which determines the contextual text to respond to the person with); and
an audio output element, connected to the speech synthesis unit and configured to play speech according to the sound signal generated by the speech synthesis unit (Inoue, Para. [0014], Inoue discloses a loudspeaker for communicating verbally to the person based on the preliminary action).
Inoue fails to explicitly disclose a speech recognition unit, connected to the audio processing unit and configured to convert the sound signal processed by the audio processing unit into a text content.
However Hu, in the same field of robotic controls, discloses a speech recognition unit, connected to the audio processing unit and configured to convert the sound signal processed by the audio processing unit into a text content (Hu, Column 16 Lines 42-53, Hu discloses a speech processing module configured to convert audio data from the person into text content).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inoue so as to include a speech recognition unit as disclosed by Hu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to improve voice communications between the persons and the autonomous mobile robot, Hu Column 16 Lines 25-54.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZACHARY JOSEPH WALLACE whose telephone number is (469)295-9087. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/Z.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights