DETAILED ACTION
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
Amendment filed 05/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-23 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of Remarks, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims 1-7 and 11-23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The statutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-7 and 11-23 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, claims 1-23 are now rejected under nonstatutory double patenting rejection in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,158,763, Seyfi et al. (US 2021/0125369 A1), Deyle et al. (US 2021/0048829 A1), and Meyer (DE 102010017211 B4).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to claim rejections of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejections of claims 1-23 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in view of Seyfi et al. (US 2021/0125369) have been considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Seyfi does not disclose or suggest a facility map indicating “physical representations of locations of security devices within and functional representations of security coverage areas of the security devices” (page 13 of Remarks), Seyfi discloses, in at least paragraph [0055], collecting images from the drone to map the physical locations and fields of view (functional representation) of the security cameras on the 3D map. Therefore, the 3D map of Seyfi does include “physical representations of locations of security devices within and functional representations of security coverage areas of the security devices.”
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Seyfi does not disclose or suggest “receiving sensor data from a deployed autonomous mobile machine and then, based on that sensor data, transmitting instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to perform a physical remediation action” (page 13 of Remarks), Seyfi discloses deploying the autonomous mobile machine to collect sensor data at the surveillance area, and continuing performing a security task, including tracking and monitoring a detected person ([0106]-[0107]). Seyfi does not disclose performing a physical remediation action based on collected sensor data. However, this claimed feature is disclosed in paragraphs [0110], [0178], and [0179] of Deyle et al. (US 2021/0048829 A1).
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Deyle does not disclose or suggest a specific combination required by the amended claims (i) deploying an autonomous mobile machine to a surveillance area identified by analyzing security device coverage gaps on a facility map; (ii) receiving sensor data from the deployed machine at the surveillance area; and (iii) transmitting, based on that sensor data, instructions for the machine to perform a physical remediation action (page 14 of Remarks), paragraphs [0178] and [0179] of Deyle disclose (i) deploying the robot to collect sensor data of a security operation, (ii) transmitting, by the robot, the collected sensor data to a central system, and (iii) instructing, by the central system, the robot to perform an additional security operation based on the received collected sensor data. The feature of a surveillance area identified by analyzing security device coverage gaps on a facility map has been taught in Seyfi (see rejection of claim 1 below). Hence, Deyle does teach the robot can receive commands to perform a security task based on data received from the robot.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that Herget, Rezvani, and Meyer do not disclose or suggest the autonomous mobile machine receiving sensor data at the surveillance area and then performing a physical remediation action based on that data, these features are taught by Seyfi in view of Deyle (see rejections of claims 1, 11, and 18 fully laid out below).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and similarly cited claims 11 and 18 recite “transmit, to an autonomous mobile machine, transmit, based on the sensor data, to the autonomous mobile machine, instructions ...” This should be changed to read “
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-23 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.
Claim 1 and similarly cited claims 11 and 18 recite the limitation “transmit, based on the sensor data, to the autonomous mobile machine, instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to deploy to the surveillance area ...” However, the claims have already recited the autonomous mobile machine being deployed to the surveillance area to capture sensor data at the surveillance area in a previous limitation. Therefore, it is unclear whether the instructions being transmitted are for deploying another autonomous mobile machine or the same autonomous mobile machine. If this is referring to the same autonomous machine, does this mean that the autonomous mobile machine receives instructions for deploying again at the same time or for deploying at a different time? This limitation renders the claims indefinite.
Claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-23 are rejected for being dependent upon previously rejected base claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, and 10-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,158,763 in view of Seyfi et al. (US 2021/0125369 A1), and further in view of Deyle et al. (US 2021/0048829 A1).
Regarding claim 1, U.S. Patent ‘763 teaches every claimed limitation except wherein the surveillance area corresponds to an area of the facility not covered or not sufficiently covered by the security devices; and receive, from an autonomous mobile machine deployed to the surveillance area, sensor data captured at the surveillance area, the security task comprising a physical remediation action by the autonomous mobile machine.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seyfi teaches:
wherein the surveillance area corresponds to an area of the facility not covered or not sufficiently covered by the security devices ([0056] “areas of the property 102 that are not within a field of view 108 of a sensor 104”; [0105]-[0106] “blind spot”); and
receive, from an autonomous mobile machine deployed to the surveillance area, sensor data captured at the surveillance area ([0056] “ For example, the monitoring server 130 can plan drone missions 132 to conduct surveillance in areas of the property 102 that are not within a field of view 108 of a sensor 104.”; [0106] “ For example, the system can transmit an instruction to the drone that causes the drone to move to the destination. The system can deploy the drone to the destination, e.g., to a blind spot, in order to collect sensor data that is not detected by other sensors installed at the property.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of U.S. Patent ‘763 to include the surveillance area as an area of the facility not covered or not sufficiently covered by the security devices, and receive, from an autonomous mobile machine deployed to the surveillance area, sensor data captured at the surveillance area, as taught by Seyfi, in order to instruct the autonomous mobile machine to collect sensor data that is not detected by other sensors installed at the facility.
Seyfi does not specifically teach transmitting, based on the sensor data, to the autonomous mobile machine, instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to perform a security task, the security task comprising a physical remediation action by the autonomous mobile machine.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Deyle teaches:
transmit, based on the sensor data ([0178] “The central system receives 1410 data associated with the security operation from the robot.”), to the autonomous mobile machine, instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to perform a security task ([0179] “The central system 210 can select 1415 a second security operation based on the data received from the robot while performing the security operation. For instance, if the data received from the robot is video, and the video indicates an unauthorized individual is located in a portion of the building, the second security operation can be an authentication operation (to authenticate the identity of the individual), a video recording operation (to record video of the individual), and the like. The central system can instruct 1420 a security system to perform the second security operation. In some embodiments, the security system is the robot, and the robot can immediately begin performing the second security operation”), the security task comprising a physical remediation action by the autonomous mobile machine ([0110] discloses a plurality of security operations by the robot, with some operations involve physical remediation actions “a robot 100 can perform one or more of the following operations: warning one or more individuals, obstructing the movement of one or more individuals, reporting individuals or suspicious activity to an operator or security personnel 250, reporting security violations or object/infrastructure status to an operator or security personnel, recording or streaming video to an operator or external entity, locking doors or windows, sounding or triggering an alarm, calling the police or fire department, using non-lethal force to incapacitate an individual, querying one or more database to identify an individual or object, disabling a network or power to a portion of a building, summoning additional robots to assist with the performance of security operations, tracking or following an object or individual, displaying a status or information associated with security or detected activity, requesting information or credentials from individuals, and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the security task of Seyfi to include a physical remediation action by the autonomous mobile machine, as taught by Deyle. Such modification allows the autonomous mobile machine to perform appropriate actions in response to security violations detected by the autonomous mobile machine.
Claim 2 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 2 of U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 3 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 1 of U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 4 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 4 of U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 5 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 5 of U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 6 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 6 of U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 7 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 7 of U.S. Patent ‘763.
Regarding claim 8, U.S. Patent ‘763 and Seyfi do not specifically teach wherein the security task comprises releasing an agent to mitigate a spill of a material.
However, Deyle teaches:
wherein the security task comprises releasing an agent to mitigate a spill of a material ([0388] “For example, there may be a spill on the floor, and the mobile robot may detect a difference in color where the spill is and determine that cleaning is required. If the mobile robot is capable of performing a required cleaning function, the mobile robot performs the cleaning function.”; [0389] “In some embodiments, the mobile robot may be equipped with the cleaning supplies and move to the location directly from the current location.”; [0390] “The mobile robot can have one or more arms on the robot body perform a variety of functions such as sweeping, dusting, mopping, washing surfaces, ..., disinfecting, ...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of U.S. Patent No. ‘763, in view of Seyfi and Deyle, to release an agent to mitigate a spill of a material, as taught by Deyle, in order to clean the spill.
Regarding claim 10, U.S. Patent ‘763 and Seyfi do not specifically teach wherein the instructions include an instruction for the autonomous mobile machine to close a door expected to be closed but detected as open or open another door expected to be open but detected as closed.
However, Deyle teaches:
wherein the instructions include an instruction for the autonomous mobile machine to close a door expected to be closed but detected as open ([0151] “For example, if the robot determines that a door being unlocked violates a security policy, the robot can communicatively couple to the door in order to lock the door (for instance, in embodiments in which the door is connected to the network 200 is capable of directly coupling 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 to modify the teachings of U.S. Patent No. 12,158,763, in view of Seyfi and Deyle, to instruct the autonomous mobile machine to close a door expected to be closed but detected as open, as taught by Deyle. Such modification allows the autonomous mobile machine to inform a user of the central system or an operator of the autonomous mobile machine of the security violation in order to allow the user or operator to take an action in response to the detected security violation, as stated by Deyle in [0151].
Regarding claim 11, U.S. Patent ‘763 teaches every claimed limitation except wherein the surveillance area corresponds to an area of the facility not covered or not sufficiently covered by the security devices; and receiving, from an autonomous mobile machine deployed to the surveillance area, sensor data captured at the surveillance area, the security task comprising a physical remediation action by the autonomous mobile machine.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seyfi teaches:
wherein the surveillance area corresponds to an area of the facility not covered or not sufficiently covered by the security devices ([0056] “areas of the property 102 that are not within a field of view 108 of a sensor 104”; [0105]-[0106] “blind spot”); and
receiving, from an autonomous mobile machine deployed to the surveillance area, sensor data captured at the surveillance area ([0056] “ For example, the monitoring server 130 can plan drone missions 132 to conduct surveillance in areas of the property 102 that are not within a field of view 108 of a sensor 104.”; [0106] “ For example, the system can transmit an instruction to the drone that causes the drone to move to the destination. The system can deploy the drone to the destination, e.g., to a blind spot, in order to collect sensor data that is not detected by other sensors installed at the property.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of U.S. Patent ‘763 to include the surveillance area as an area of the facility not covered or not sufficiently covered by the security devices, and receive, from an autonomous mobile machine deployed to the surveillance area, sensor data captured at the surveillance area, as taught by Seyfi, in order to instruct the autonomous mobile machine to collect sensor data that is not detected by other sensors installed at the facility.
Seyfi does not specifically teach transmitting, based on the sensor data, to the autonomous mobile machine, instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to perform a security task, the security task comprising a physical remediation action by the autonomous mobile machine.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Deyle teaches:
transmit, based on the sensor data ([0178] “The central system receives 1410 data associated with the security operation from the robot.”), to the autonomous mobile machine, instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to perform a security task ([0179] “The central system 210 can select 1415 a second security operation based on the data received from the robot while performing the security operation. For instance, if the data received from the robot is video, and the video indicates an unauthorized individual is located in a portion of the building, the second security operation can be an authentication operation (to authenticate the identity of the individual), a video recording operation (to record video of the individual), and the like. The central system can instruct 1420 a security system to perform the second security operation. In some embodiments, the security system is the robot, and the robot can immediately begin performing the second security operation”), the security task comprising a physical remediation action by the autonomous mobile machine ([0110] discloses a plurality of security operations by the robot, with some operations involve physical remediation actions “a robot 100 can perform one or more of the following operations: warning one or more individuals, obstructing the movement of one or more individuals, reporting individuals or suspicious activity to an operator or security personnel 250, reporting security violations or object/infrastructure status to an operator or security personnel, recording or streaming video to an operator or external entity, locking doors or windows, sounding or triggering an alarm, calling the police or fire department, using non-lethal force to incapacitate an individual, querying one or more database to identify an individual or object, disabling a network or power to a portion of a building, summoning additional robots to assist with the performance of security operations, tracking or following an object or individual, displaying a status or information associated with security or detected activity, requesting information or credentials from individuals, and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the security task of Seyfi to include a physical remediation action by the autonomous mobile machine, as taught by Deyle. Such modification allows the autonomous mobile machine to perform appropriate actions in response to security violations detected by the autonomous mobile machine.
Claim 12 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 13 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 8 of U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 14 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 11 of U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 15 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 12 of U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 16 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 13 of U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 17 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘763.
Regarding claim 18, U.S. Patent ‘763 teaches every claimed limitation except wherein the surveillance area corresponds to an area of the facility not covered or not sufficiently covered by the security devices; and receiving, from an autonomous mobile machine deployed to the surveillance area, sensor data captured at the surveillance area, the security task comprising a physical remediation action by the autonomous mobile machine.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seyfi teaches:
wherein the surveillance area corresponds to an area of the facility not covered or not sufficiently covered by the security devices ([0056] “areas of the property 102 that are not within a field of view 108 of a sensor 104”; [0105]-[0106] “blind spot”); and
receive, from an autonomous mobile machine deployed to the surveillance area, sensor data captured at the surveillance area ([0056] “ For example, the monitoring server 130 can plan drone missions 132 to conduct surveillance in areas of the property 102 that are not within a field of view 108 of a sensor 104.”; [0106] “ For example, the system can transmit an instruction to the drone that causes the drone to move to the destination. The system can deploy the drone to the destination, e.g., to a blind spot, in order to collect sensor data that is not detected by other sensors installed at the property.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of U.S. Patent ‘763 to include the surveillance area as an area of the facility not covered or not sufficiently covered by the security devices, and receive, from an autonomous mobile machine deployed to the surveillance area, sensor data captured at the surveillance area, as taught by Seyfi, in order to instruct the autonomous mobile machine to collect sensor data that is not detected by other sensors installed at the facility.
Seyfi does not specifically teach transmitting, based on the sensor data, to the autonomous mobile machine, instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to perform a security task, the security task comprising a physical remediation action by the autonomous mobile machine.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Deyle teaches:
transmit, based on the sensor data ([0178] “The central system receives 1410 data associated with the security operation from the robot.”), to the autonomous mobile machine, instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to perform a security task ([0179] “The central system 210 can select 1415 a second security operation based on the data received from the robot while performing the security operation. For instance, if the data received from the robot is video, and the video indicates an unauthorized individual is located in a portion of the building, the second security operation can be an authentication operation (to authenticate the identity of the individual), a video recording operation (to record video of the individual), and the like. The central system can instruct 1420 a security system to perform the second security operation. In some embodiments, the security system is the robot, and the robot can immediately begin performing the second security operation”), the security task comprising a physical remediation action by the autonomous mobile machine ([0110] discloses a plurality of security operations by the robot, with some operations involve physical remediation actions “a robot 100 can perform one or more of the following operations: warning one or more individuals, obstructing the movement of one or more individuals, reporting individuals or suspicious activity to an operator or security personnel 250, reporting security violations or object/infrastructure status to an operator or security personnel, recording or streaming video to an operator or external entity, locking doors or windows, sounding or triggering an alarm, calling the police or fire department, using non-lethal force to incapacitate an individual, querying one or more database to identify an individual or object, disabling a network or power to a portion of a building, summoning additional robots to assist with the performance of security operations, tracking or following an object or individual, displaying a status or information associated with security or detected activity, requesting information or credentials from individuals, and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the security task of Seyfi to include a physical remediation action by the autonomous mobile machine, as taught by Deyle. Such modification allows the autonomous mobile machine to perform appropriate actions in response to security violations detected by the autonomous mobile machine.
Claim 19 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 16 of U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 20 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 15 of U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 21 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 18 of U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 22 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 19 of U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 23 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 20 of U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,158,763 in view of Seyfi and Deyle, and further in view of Meyer (DE 102010017211 B4).
Regarding claim 9, U.S. Patent No. ‘763, Seyfi, and Deyle do not specifically teach wherein the instructions include an identification of an applicable agent for mitigating the material from among a plurality of available agents.
However, Meyer teaches:
wherein the instructions include an identification of an applicable agent for mitigating the material from among a plurality of available agents ([0010] “ In a preferred embodiment, the cleaning tool and/or cleaning agent suitable for stain removal is selected according to the analysis of the nature of the floor covering surrounding the stain (for example. Hard floor or soft floor, such as, for example. Carpeting) and/or depending on the color and/or gloss level of the stain, wherein further preferably comparative values are stored on the device side and/or on the base station side, on the basis of which a specific selection of the cleaning tool and/or the cleaning agent takes place.”; [0015] “A plurality of different cleaning tools and/or cleaning agents are stored.”; [0017] “The cleaning tools and/or cleaning agents are held, for example, in the manner of magazines for individual presentation for transfer to the cleaning device, further, for example, with the magazine being formed in the form of a carousel.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of U.S. Patent No. ‘763, in view of Seyfi and Deyle, to identify an applicable agent for mitigating the material from among a plurality of available agents, as taught by Meyer. Such modification allows the system to select a suitable type of cleaning agent according to the analysis of the nature of the floor covering surrounding the stain, as stated by Meyer in [0010].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-11, 15-18, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seyfi et al. (US 2021/0125369 A1), hereinafter Seyfi, in view of Deyle et al. (US 2021/0048829 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and similarly cited claims 11 and 18, Seyfi discloses:
A security system (Fig. 1, [0013] “system 100”), comprising:
a memory storing instructions ([0163]-[0164]); and
one or more processors coupled with the memory and configured to execute the instructions ([0163]-[0164]) to:
determine a security coverage area (Fig. 1 shows field of view 108 of sensor 104 which corresponds with security coverage area) of a facility based on data from a facility map ([0024], [0033], [0036], [0040]-[0041] “3D map 104”) indicating physical and functional representations of the facility and objects within the facility ([0055] “Based on known parameters of the drone's attached camera, the monitoring server 130 can project each feature of the sensor 104 to the 3D map 140. For example, the monitoring server 130 can map the sensor's position, six degree-of-freedom pose, and field of view 108 to the 3D surfaces of the 3D map 140.”) including physical representations of locations of security devices ([0055] “sensor's position”) within the facility and functional representations ([0055] “field of view 108”) of security coverage areas of the security devices ([0055] “the monitoring server 130 can map the sensor's position, six degree-of-freedom pose, and field of view 108 to the 3D surfaces of the 3D map 140.”);
determine a surveillance area ([0056] “areas of the property 102 that are not within a field of view 108 of a sensor 104”; [0105]-[0106] “blind spot”) based on the security coverage area ([0056] “In stage (F) of FIG. 1, the monitoring server 130 determines drone missions 132 based on the 3D map 140. Specifically, the monitoring server 130 can plan drone paths based on mapped sensor 104 fields of view 108. For example, the monitoring server 130 can plan drone missions 132 to conduct surveillance in areas of the property 102 that are not within a field of view 108 of a sensor 104.”), wherein the surveillance area corresponds to an area of the facility not covered or not sufficiently covered by the security devices ([0056] “areas of the property 102 that are not within a field of view 108 of a sensor 104”; [0105]-[0106] “blind spot”); and
receive, from an autonomous mobile machine deployed to the surveillance area, sensor data captured at the surveillance area ([0056] “ For example, the monitoring server 130 can plan drone missions 132 to conduct surveillance in areas of the property 102 that are not within a field of view 108 of a sensor 104.”; [0106] “ For example, the system can transmit an instruction to the drone that causes the drone to move to the destination. The system can deploy the drone to the destination, e.g., to a blind spot, in order to collect sensor data that is not detected by other sensors installed at the property.”); and
transmit, ...., to an autonomous mobile machine (Fig. 1, [0013] “one or more robotic devices, e.g., drones 110”), instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to deploy to the surveillance area ([0056] “For example, the monitoring server 130 can plan drone missions 132 to conduct surveillance in areas of the property 102 that are not within a field of view 108 of a sensor 104.”; [0105]-[0106]) and perform a security task at the surveillance area ([0105] “ in order to detect or track objects that are not located within the detection area of the sensor.”; [0107] “The system can determine a destination for the drone that includes the predicted location of the person. The drone can then collect data representing locations and movements of the person.”).
Seyfi does not specifically teach transmitting, based on the sensor data, to the autonomous mobile machine, instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to perform a security task, the security task comprising a physical remediation action by the autonomous mobile machine.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Deyle teaches:
transmit, based on the sensor data ([0178] “The central system receives 1410 data associated with the security operation from the robot.”), to the autonomous mobile machine, instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to perform a security task ([0179] “The central system 210 can select 1415 a second security operation based on the data received from the robot while performing the security operation. For instance, if the data received from the robot is video, and the video indicates an unauthorized individual is located in a portion of the building, the second security operation can be an authentication operation (to authenticate the identity of the individual), a video recording operation (to record video of the individual), and the like. The central system can instruct 1420 a security system to perform the second security operation. In some embodiments, the security system is the robot, and the robot can immediately begin performing the second security operation”), the security task comprising a physical remediation action by the autonomous mobile machine ([0110] discloses a plurality of security operations by the robot, with some operations involve physical remediation actions “a robot 100 can perform one or more of the following operations: warning one or more individuals, obstructing the movement of one or more individuals, reporting individuals or suspicious activity to an operator or security personnel 250, reporting security violations or object/infrastructure status to an operator or security personnel, recording or streaming video to an operator or external entity, locking doors or windows, sounding or triggering an alarm, calling the police or fire department, using non-lethal force to incapacitate an individual, querying one or more database to identify an individual or object, disabling a network or power to a portion of a building, summoning additional robots to assist with the performance of security operations, tracking or following an object or individual, displaying a status or information associated with security or detected activity, requesting information or credentials from individuals, and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the security task of Seyfi to include a physical remediation action by the autonomous mobile machine, as taught by Deyle. Such modification allows the autonomous mobile machine to perform appropriate actions in response to security violations detected by the autonomous mobile machine.
Regarding claim 5 and similarly cited claims 15 and 22, Seyfi further discloses wherein the one or more processors is further configured to execute the instructions to: determine a plurality of surveillance areas including the surveillance area ([0019] “The system 100 can include multiple sensors 104” – Multiple sensors 104 indicate multiple fields of view 108; [0025]; [0056] “In stage (F) of FIG. 1, the monitoring server 130 determines drone missions 132 based on the 3D map 140. Specifically, the monitoring server 130 can plan drone paths based on mapped sensor 104 fields of view 108. For example, the monitoring server 130 can plan drone missions 132 to conduct surveillance in areas of the property 102 that are not within a field of view 108 of a sensor 104.”).
Seyfi does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more processors is further configured to execute the instructions to determine priority levels of the plurality of surveillance areas, wherein the surveillance area is determined further based on the priority levels.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Deyle discloses wherein the one or more processors is further configured to execute the instructions to determine priority levels of the plurality of surveillance areas, wherein the surveillance area is determined further based on the priority levels ([0373] “For example, the mobile robot 3105 can divide the environment 3100 into multiple zones and can determine a likelihood for each of the zones that one or more surveillance devices are located in the zone. The mobile robot 3105 prioritizes the different zones for scanning based on the likelihood values and based on a proximity of the mobile robot 3105 to the zones… The mobile robot 3105 prioritizes location A over location B (based on the proximity of the mobile robot 3105 to location A) and prioritizes location B over location C (based on the greater likelihood that a surveillance device is within a threshold distance of location B relative to location C). Thus, the mobile robot 3105 can scan a proximity around location A first, can move to location B for scanning, and then can move to location C.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seyfi to determine priority levels of the plurality of surveillance areas, wherein the surveillance area is determined further based on the priority levels, as taught by Deyle. Such modification allows the security system to prioritize surveillance areas that are in proximity with the autonomous mobile machine, as suggested by Deyle in paragraph [0373].
Regarding claim 6 and similarly cited claims 16 and 23, the teachings of Seyfi and Deyle have been discussed above with respect to claim 5. Seyfi does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more processors is further configured to execute the instructions to generate a queue to send the autonomous mobile machine to the plurality of surveillance areas based on the priority levels, wherein the surveillance area is determined further based on the queue.
However, Deyle discloses wherein the one or more processors is further configured to execute the instructions to generate a queue to send the autonomous mobile machine to the plurality of surveillance areas based on the priority levels, wherein the surveillance area is determined further based on the queue ([0373] “For example, the mobile robot 3105 can divide the environment 3100 into multiple zones and can determine a likelihood for each of the zones that one or more surveillance devices are located in the zone. The mobile robot 3105 prioritizes the different zones for scanning based on the likelihood values and based on a proximity of the mobile robot 3105 to the zones… The mobile robot 3105 prioritizes location A over location B (based on the proximity of the mobile robot 3105 to location A) and prioritizes location B over location C (based on the greater likelihood that a surveillance device is within a threshold distance of location B relative to location C). Thus, the mobile robot 3105 can scan a proximity around location A first, can move to location B for scanning, and then can move to location C.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seyfi to generate a queue to send the autonomous mobile machine to the plurality of surveillance areas based on the priority levels, wherein the surveillance area is determined further based on the queue, as taught by Deyle. Such modification allows the security system to prioritize surveillance areas that are in proximity with the autonomous mobile machine, as suggested by Deyle in paragraph [0373].
Regarding claim 7 and similarly cited claim 17, Seyfi further discloses wherein the one or more processors is further configured to execute the instructions to determine capabilities of the autonomous mobile machine ([0056] “In stage (F) of FIG. 1, the monitoring server 130 determines drone missions 132 based on the 3D map 140.”).
Seyfi does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more processors is further configured to execute the instructions to select the autonomous machine from a plurality of autonomous mobile machines based on the capabilities, wherein the instructions are transmitted to the autonomous in response to the autonomous mobile machine being selected.
However, Deyle discloses wherein the one or more processors is further configured to execute the instructions to determine capabilities of the autonomous mobile machine ([0169] “Finally, the central system can receive information describing a state of one or more objects in a location, for instance the power levels, capabilities, or locations of each robot within a building.”), and select the autonomous mobile machine from a plurality of autonomous mobile machines based on the capabilities, wherein the instructions are transmitted to the autonomous in response to the autonomous mobile machine being selected ([0173] “The central system can account for the capabilities and availability of each robot, infrastructure system, and security system before instructing these robots and systems to perform security operations. For instance, the central system can determine that of two robots, a first is able to perform a particular operation (such as an IR scan) and a second isn't, and can instruct the first robot to perform the operation (and not the second, even if the first robot is currently occupied).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seyfi to select the autonomous mobile machines from a plurality of autonomous mobile machines based on the capabilities, wherein instructions are transmitted to the autonomous in response to the autonomous mobile machine being selected, as taught by Deyle. Such modification results in the security system for instructing an autonomous mobile machine capable of performing required tasks.
Regarding claim 8, Seyfi does not specifically teach wherein the security task comprises releasing an agent to mitigate a spill of a material.
However, Deyle teaches:
wherein the security task comprises releasing an agent to mitigate a spill of a material ([0388] “For example, there may be a spill on the floor, and the mobile robot may detect a difference in color where the spill is and determine that cleaning is required. If the mobile robot is capable of performing a required cleaning function, the mobile robot performs the cleaning function.”; [0389] “In some embodiments, the mobile robot may be equipped with the cleaning supplies and move to the location directly from the current location.”; [0390] “The mobile robot can have one or more arms on the robot body perform a variety of functions such as sweeping, dusting, mopping, washing surfaces, ..., disinfecting, ...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seyfi to release an agent to mitigate a spill of a material, as taught by Deyle, in order to clean the spill.
Regarding claim 10, Seyfi does not specifically teach wherein the instructions include an instruction for the autonomous mobile machine to close a door expected to be closed but detected as open or open another door expected to be open but detected as closed.
However, Deyle teaches:
wherein the instructions include an instruction for the autonomous mobile machine to close a door expected to be closed but detected as open ([0151] “For example, if the robot determines that a door being unlocked violates a security policy, the robot can communicatively couple to the door in order to lock the door (for instance, in embodiments in which the door is connected to the network 200 is capable of directly coupling 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 to modify the teachings of Seyfi to instruct the autonomous mobile machine to close a door expected to be closed but detected as open, as taught by Deyle. Such modification allows the autonomous mobile machine to inform a user of the central system or an operator of the autonomous mobile machine of the security violation in order to allow the user or operator to take an action in response to the detected security violation, as stated by Deyle in [0151].
Claims 2, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seyfi, in view of Deyle, and further in view of Herget et al. (US 2020/0338580 A1), hereinafter Herget.
Regarding claims 2 and similarly cited claims 12 and 19, Seyfi and Deyle do not specifically disclose wherein the data from the facility map is based on a building information model (BIM).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Herget discloses wherein the data from the facility map is based on a building information model (BIM) ([0039] “The BIM or CAD model generally contains all information about the building including the line segments providing the outline of the walls to be built and the walls that are already existing in the site. This BIM or CAD can be used to generate a map on which the robot navigates and may contain a set of obstacles that the robot expects to encounter when drawing the wall outlines onto the floor.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seyfi to obtain data of the facility map based on a building information model (BIM), as taught by Herget. Such modification allows the autonomous mobile machine to navigate using a map generated from the BIM.
Claims 3-4, 13-14, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seyfi, in view of Deyle, and further in view of Rezvani (US 11,279,480 B1).
Regarding claim 3 and similarly cited claims 13 and 20, the teachings of Seyfi and Deyle have been discussed with respect to claim 1. Seyfi further discloses wherein the surveillance area is further based on a location of the security camera in the facility and a capability (field of view of sensor 104) of the security camera ([0056] “In stage (F) of FIG. 1, the monitoring server 130 determines drone missions 132 based on the 3D map 140. Specifically, the monitoring server 130 can plan drone paths based on mapped sensor 104 fields of view 108. For example, the monitoring server 130 can plan drone missions 132 to conduct surveillance in areas of the property 102 that are not within a field of view 108 of a sensor 104.”; [0105]-[0106]).
Seyfi does not specifically teach wherein the one or more processors is further configured to execute the instructions to: receive a fault indication corresponding to a security camera of the security system, wherein the surveillance area is further based on a location of the security camera in the facility and a capability of the security camera.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rezvani discloses wherein the one or more processors is further configured to execute the instructions to: receive a fault indication corresponding to a security camera of the security system (Col. 9 line 32 – Col. 10 line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seyfi, in view of Deyle, to receive a fault indication corresponding to a security camera of the security system, as taught by Rezvani. Such modification allows the autonomous mobile machine to be deployed to the location of the security camera with a faulty indication in order to perform appropriate correction.
Regarding claim 4 and similarly cited claims 14 and 21, the teachings of Seyfi and Rezvani have been discussed above with respect to claim 3. Seyfi and Deyle do not specifically disclose wherein the fault indication indicates one or more of a degraded signal or a lost signal from the security camera.
However, Rezvani discloses wherein the fault indication indicates one or more of a degraded signal or a lost signal from the security camera (Col. 9 line 32 – Col. 10 line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seyfi, in view of Deyle, to receive a fault indication corresponding to a security camera of the security system, as taught by Rezvani. Such modification allows the autonomous mobile machine to be deployed to the location of the security camera with a faulty indication in order to perform appropriate correction.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seyfi, in view of Deyle, and further in view of Meyer (DE 102010017211 B4).
Regarding claim 9, Seyfi and Deyle do not specifically teach wherein the instructions include an identification of an applicable agent for mitigating the material from among a plurality of available agents.
However, Meyer teaches:
wherein the instructions include an identification of an applicable agent for mitigating the material from among a plurality of available agents ([0010] “ In a preferred embodiment, the cleaning tool and/or cleaning agent suitable for stain removal is selected according to the analysis of the nature of the floor covering surrounding the stain (for example. Hard floor or soft floor, such as, for example. Carpeting) and/or depending on the color and/or gloss level of the stain, wherein further preferably comparative values are stored on the device side and/or on the base station side, on the basis of which a specific selection of the cleaning tool and/or the cleaning agent takes place.”; [0015] “A plurality of different cleaning tools and/or cleaning agents are stored.”; [0017] “The cleaning tools and/or cleaning agents are held, for example, in the manner of magazines for individual presentation for transfer to the cleaning device, further, for example, with the magazine being formed in the form of a carousel.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Seyfi, in view of Deyle, to identify an applicable agent for mitigating the material from among a plurality of available agents, as taught by Meyer. Such modification allows the system to select a suitable type of cleaning agent according to the analysis of the nature of the floor covering surrounding the stain, as stated by Meyer in [0010].
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 NHI Q BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-3962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 AM - 6:00PM EST.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/NHI Q BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights