DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-7 and 11-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,158,763. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 3 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 1 of the U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 2 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 2 of the U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 4 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 4 of the U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 5 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 5 of the U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 6 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 6 of the U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 7 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 7 of the U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claims 11 and 13 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 8 of the U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 12 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 9 of the U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 14 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 11 of the U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 15 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 12 of the U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 16 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 13 of the U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 17 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 14 of the U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claims 18 and 20 of the present invention are rejected in view of claim 15 of the U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 19 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 16 of the U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 21 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 18 of the U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 22 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 19 of the U.S. Patent ‘763.
Claim 23 of the present invention is rejected in view of claim 20 of the U.S. Patent ‘763.
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 8 and 10 are 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 Deyle et al. (US 2021/0048829 A1), hereinafter Deyle.
Regarding claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 12,158,763 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 U.S. Patent No. 12,158,763 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 No. 12,158,763 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 U.S. Patent No. 12,158,763 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].
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 Deyle et al. (US 2021/0048829 A1), hereinafter Deyle.
Regarding claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 12,158,763 does 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, Myer 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. 12,158,763 to identify an applicable agent for mitigating the material from among a plurality of available agents, as taught by Myer. 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 Myer in [0010].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
A security system, comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
one or more processors coupled with the memory and configured to execute the instructions to:
determine a security coverage area of a facility based on data from a facility map indicating physical and functional representations of the facility and objects within the facility;
determine a surveillance area based on the security coverage area; and
transmit, to an autonomous mobile machine, instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to deploy to the surveillance area and perform a surveillance task at the surveillance area.
Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
Claim 1 recites an apparatus. Hence, claim 1 is directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites “determine a security coverage area of a facility based on data, …, the data indicating physical and functional representations of the facility and objects including physical representations of locations of security devices within the facility” and “determine a surveillance area based on the security coverage area”. These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers perform of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programmed to perform the task. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from being done in the mind. For example, an operator can mentally observe collected data of objects within a facility and perform a decision making of determining security coverage areas and surveillance areas/blind spots based on the mental observation.
Step 2A Prong Two: Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activities, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Claim 1 recites additional limitations of “a memory storing instructions;
one or more processors coupled with the memory and configured to execute the instructions”. These additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer or program to perform the abstract idea. The processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that impose meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer.
Claim 1 further recites an additional limitation of “transmit, to an autonomous mobile machine, instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to deploy to the surveillance area and perform a surveillance task at the surveillance area”. This limitation is no more than mere necessary data transmitting and gathering of commands, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept – No
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e. whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an invention concept to the claim.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that additional elements in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the limitations of “a memory storing instructions;
one or more processors coupled with the memory and configured to execute the instructions”, and “transmit, to an autonomous mobile machine, instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to deploy to the surveillance area and perform a surveillance task at the surveillance area” are considered in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification and background therein do not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a generic computer for processing data information and instructions. Further, the OIP Techs court decisions cited in PE2E 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed in a generic manner (as it is here).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 2 recites:
wherein the data from the facility map is based on a building information model (BIM).
The claim recites “wherein the data from the facility map is based on a building information model (BIM)”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers perform of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programmed to perform the task. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from being done in the mind. For example, an operator can observe a building information model to determine data associated with the facility.
No other additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claim 3 recites:
wherein the one or more processors is further configured to execute 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.
Step 2A Prong One: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
The claim recites “wherein the surveillance area is further based on a location of the security camera in the facility and a capability of the security camera”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers perform of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programmed to perform the task. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from being done in the mind. For example, an operator can mentally observe a map of a building, determine whether security cameras are located, determine blind spots based on the locations of security cameras, and observe whether the security cameras are operating normally.
Step 2A Prong Two: Practical Application – No
Claim 3 recites additional limitations of “the one or more processors”. This additional limitation is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer or program to perform the abstract idea. The processor and machine leaning are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that impose meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer.
Claim 3 further recites an additional limitation of “receive a fault indication corresponding to a security camera of the security system”. This limitation is no more than mere necessary data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: Inventive Concept – No
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that additional elements in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the limitations of “the one or more processors” and “receive a fault indication corresponding to a security camera of the security system” are considered in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification and background therein do not provide any indication that the processor and the machine learning is anything other than a generic computer for processing data information and instructions. Further, the OIP Techs court decisions cited in PE2E 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed in a generic manner (as it is here).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 4 recites:
wherein the fault indication indicates one or more a degraded signal or a lost signal from the security camera.
The mental processes are identified with respect to claim 3. No additional mental steps are recited in claim 4.
Claim 4 recites an additional limitation of “wherein the fault indication indicates one or more a degraded signal or a lost signal from the security camera”. This additional limitation is no more than mere necessary data gathering of information of security cameras, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, this additional limitation do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that additional elements in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the limitation of “wherein the fault indication indicates one or more a degraded signal or a lost signal from the security camera” is considered in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The OIP Techs court decisions cited in PE2E 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed in a generic manner (as it is here).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 5 recites:
wherein the one or more processors is configured to execute the instructions to:
determine a plurality of surveillance areas including the surveillance area; and
determine priority levels of the plurality of surveillance areas, wherein the surveillance area is determined further based on the priority levels.
Step 2A Prong One: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
The claim recites “determine a plurality of surveillance areas including the surveillance area” and “determine priority levels of the plurality of surveillance areas, wherein the surveillance area is determined further based on the priority levels”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers perform of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programmed to perform the task. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from being done in the mind. For example, an operator can mentally determine which surveillance areas require immediate attention and assign a higher priority level to those surveillance areas.
Step 2A Prong Two: Practical Application – No
Claim 5 recites additional limitations of “the one or more processors”. This additional limitation is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer or program to perform the abstract idea. The processor and machine leaning are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that impose meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept – No
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that additional elements in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the limitation of “the one or more processors” is considered in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification and background therein do not provide any indication that the processor and the machine learning is anything other than a generic computer for processing data information and instructions.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 6 recites:
wherein the one or more processors is 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.
Step 2A Prong One: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
The claim recites “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”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers perform of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programmed to perform the task. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from being done in the mind. For example, an operator can mentally determine which surveillance areas require immediate attention, assign a higher priority level to those surveillance areas, and assign an autonomous mobile machine to each surveillance areas that require immediate attention.
Step 2A Prong Two: Practical Application – No
Claim 6 recites additional limitations of “the one or more processors”. This additional limitation is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer or program to perform the abstract idea. The processor and machine leaning are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that impose meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept – No
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that additional elements in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the limitation of “the one or more processors” is considered in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification and background therein do not provide any indication that the processor and the machine learning is anything other than a generic computer for processing data information and instructions.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 7 recites:
wherein the one or more processors is configured to execute the instructions to:
determine capabilities of the autonomous mobile machine; 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 mobile machine in response to the autonomous mobile machine being selected.
Step 2A Prong One: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
The claim recites “determine capabilities of the autonomous mobile machine” and “select the autonomous mobile machine from a plurality of autonomous mobile machines based on the capabilities”. These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers perform of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programmed to perform the task. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from being done in the mind. For example, an operator can mentally observe battery levels of each autonomous mobile machine, determine whether the autonomous mobile machine can be deployed based on its remaining battery level, and select the autonomous mobile machines with high remaining battery levels to deploy.
Step 2A Prong Two: Practical Application – No
Claim 7 recites additional limitations of “the one or more processors”. This additional limitation is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer or program to perform the abstract idea. The processor and machine leaning are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that impose meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer.
Claim 7 further recites an additional limitation of “wherein the instructions are transmitted to the autonomous mobile machine in response to the autonomous mobile machine being selected”. This limitation is no more than mere necessary data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: Inventive Concept – No
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that additional elements in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the limitations of “the one or more processors” and “wherein the instructions are transmitted to the autonomous mobile machine in response to the autonomous mobile machine being selected” are considered in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification and background therein do not provide any indication that the processor and the machine learning is anything other than a generic computer for processing data information and instructions. Further, the OIP Techs court decisions cited in PE2E 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed in a generic manner (as it is here).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 8 recites:
wherein the security task comprises releasing an agent to mitigate a spill of a material.
The mental processes are identified with respect to claim 1. No additional mental steps are recited in claim 8.
Claim 8 further recites an additional limitation of “wherein the security task comprises releasing an agent to mitigate a spill of a material.” This limitation is claimed as part of the transmitting instructions to the autonomous mobile machine to perform a security task. Therefore, this limitation is no more than mere necessary data transmitting and gathering of commands, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 9 recites:
wherein the instructions include an identification of an applicable agent for mitigating the material from among a plurality of available agents.
The mental processes are identified with respect to claim 1. No additional mental steps are recited in claim 9.
Claim 9 further recites an additional limitation of “wherein the instructions include an identification of an applicable agent for mitigating the material from among a plurality of available agents.” This limitation is claimed as part of the transmitting instructions to the autonomous mobile machine. Therefore, this limitation is no more than mere necessary data transmitting and gathering of commands, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 10 recites:
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.
The mental processes are identified with respect to claim 1. No additional mental steps are recited in claim 10.
Claim 10 further recites an additional limitation of “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.” This limitation is claimed as part of the transmitting instructions to the autonomous mobile machine. Therefore, this limitation is no more than mere necessary data transmitting and gathering of commands, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 11 recites:
A method for using autonomous mobile machines for surveillance coverage by a security system, comprising
determining a security coverage area of a facility based on data from a facility map indicating physical and functional representations of the facility and objects within the facility;
determining a surveillance area based on the security coverage area; and
transmiting, to an autonomous mobile machine, instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to deploy to the surveillance area and perform a surveillance task at the surveillance area.
Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
Claim 11 recites a method. Hence, claim 11 is directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites “determining a security coverage area of a facility based on data, …, the data indicating physical and functional representations of the facility and objects within the facility” and “determining a surveillance area based on the security coverage area”. These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers perform of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programmed to perform the task. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from being done in the mind. For example, an operator can mentally observe collected data of objects within a facility and perform a decision making of determining security coverage areas and surveillance areas/blind spots based on the mental observation.
Step 2A Prong Two: Practical Application – No
Claim 11 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activities, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Claim 11 recites an additional limitation of “transmitting, to an autonomous mobile machine, instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to deploy to the surveillance area and perform a surveillance task at the surveillance area”. This limitation is no more than mere necessary data transmitting and gathering of commands, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept – No
Claim 11 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e. whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an invention concept to the claim.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that additional elements in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the limitation of “transmitting, to an autonomous mobile machine, instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to deploy to the surveillance area and perform a surveillance task at the surveillance area” are considered in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The OIP Techs court decisions cited in PE2E 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed in a generic manner (as it is here).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 12 recites:
wherein the data from the facility map is based on a building information model (BIM).
The claim recites “wherein the data from the facility map is based on a building information model (BIM)”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers perform of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programmed to perform the task. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from being done in the mind. For example, an operator can observe a building information model to determine data associated with the facility.
No other additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claim 13 recites:
receiving 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.
Step 2A Prong One: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
The claim recites “wherein the surveillance area is further based on a location of the security camera in the facility and a capability of the security camera”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers perform of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programmed to perform the task. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from being done in the mind. For example, an operator can mentally observe a map of a building, determine whether security cameras are located, determine blind spots based on the locations of security cameras, and observe whether the security cameras are operating normally.
Step 2A Prong Two: Practical Application – No
Claim 13 further recites an additional limitation of “receive a fault indication corresponding to a security camera of the security system”. This limitation is no more than mere necessary data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: Inventive Concept – No
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that additional elements in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the limitation of “receive a fault indication corresponding to a security camera of the security system” are considered in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The OIP Techs court decisions cited in PE2E 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed in a generic manner (as it is here).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 14 recites:
wherein the fault indication indicates one or more a degraded signal or a lost signal from the security camera.
The mental processes are identified with respect to claim 11. No additional mental steps are recited in claim 14.
Claim 14 recites an additional limitation of “wherein the fault indication indicates one or more a degraded signal or a lost signal from the security camera”. This additional limitation is no more than mere necessary data gathering of information of security cameras, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, this additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that additional elements in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the limitation of “wherein the fault indication indicates one or more a degraded signal or a lost signal from the security camera” is considered in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The OIP Techs court decisions cited in PE2E 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed in a generic manner (as it is here).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 15 recites:
determining a plurality of surveillance areas including the surveillance area; and
determining priority levels of the plurality of surveillance areas, wherein the surveillance area is determined further based on the priority levels.
Step 2A Prong One: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
The claim recites “determining a plurality of surveillance areas including the surveillance area” and “determining priority levels of the plurality of surveillance areas, wherein the surveillance area is determined further based on the priority levels”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers perform of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programmed to perform the task. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from being done in the mind. For example, an operator can mentally determine which surveillance areas require immediate attention and assign a higher priority level to those surveillance areas.
No other additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 16 recites:
generating 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.
Step 2A Prong One: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
The claim recites “generating 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”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers perform of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programmed to perform the task. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from being done in the mind. For example, an operator can mentally determine which surveillance areas require immediate attention, assign a higher priority level to those surveillance areas, and assign an autonomous mobile machine to each surveillance areas that require immediate attention.
No other additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 17 recites:
determining capabilities of the autonomous mobile machine; and
selecting the autonomous mobile machine from a plurality of autonomous mobile machines based on the capabilities, wherein the instructions are transmitted to the autonomous mobile machine in response to the autonomous mobile machine being selected.
Step 2A Prong One: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
The claim recites “determining capabilities of the autonomous mobile machine” and “selecting the autonomous mobile machine from a plurality of autonomous mobile machines based on the capabilities”. These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers perform of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programmed to perform the task. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from being done in the mind. For example, an operator can mentally observe battery levels of each autonomous mobile machine, determine whether the autonomous mobile machine can be deployed based on its remaining battery level, and select the autonomous mobile machines with high remaining battery levels to deploy.
Step 2A Prong Two: Practical Application – No
Claim 17 further recites an additional limitation of “wherein the instructions are transmitted to the autonomous mobile machine in response to the autonomous mobile machine being selected”. This limitation is no more than mere necessary data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: Inventive Concept – No
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that additional elements in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the limitation of “wherein the instructions are transmitted to the autonomous mobile machine in response to the autonomous mobile machine being selected” is considered in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The OIP Techs court decisions cited in PE2E 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed in a generic manner (as it is here).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 18 recites:
A computer-readable medium storing computer executable code, comprising code to:
determine a security coverage area of a facility based on data from a facility map indicating physical and functional representations of the facility and objects within the facility;
determine a surveillance area based on the security coverage area; and
transmit, to an autonomous mobile machine, instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to deploy to the surveillance area and perform a surveillance task at the surveillance area.
Step 1: Statutory category – No
Claim 18 is directed to a signal per se (computer readable medium). Hence, claim 15 is not directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites “determine a security coverage area of a facility based on data, …, the data indicating physical and functional representations of the facility and objects including physical representations of locations of security devices within the facility” and “determine a surveillance area based on the security coverage area”. These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers perform of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programmed to perform the task. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from being done in the mind. For example, an operator can mentally observe collected data of objects within a facility and perform a decision making of determining security coverage areas and surveillance areas/blind spots based on the mental observation.
Step 2A Prong Two: Practical Application – No
Claim 18 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activities, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Claim 18 recites an additional limitation of “a computer-readable medium storing computer executable code.” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer or program to perform the abstract idea. The computer is claimed generically and are operating in its ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that impose meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer.
Claim 18 further recites an additional limitation of “transmit, to an autonomous mobile machine, instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to deploy to the surveillance area and perform a surveillance task at the surveillance area”. This limitation is no more than mere necessary data transmitting and gathering of commands, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept – No
Claim 18 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e. whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an invention concept to the claim.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that additional elements in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the limitations of “a computer-readable medium storing computer executable code”, and “transmit, to an autonomous mobile machine, instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to deploy to the surveillance area and perform a surveillance task at the surveillance area” are considered in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification and background therein do not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a generic computer for processing data information and instructions. Further, the OIP Techs court decisions cited in PE2E 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed in a generic manner (as it is here).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 19 recites:
wherein the data from the facility map is based on a building information model (BIM).
The claim recites “wherein the data from the facility map is based on a building information model (BIM)”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers perform of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programmed to perform the task. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from being done in the mind. For example, an operator can observe a building information model to determine data associated with the facility.
No other additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claim 20 recites:
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.
Step 2A Prong One: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
The claim recites “wherein the surveillance area is further based on a location of the security camera in the facility and a capability of the security camera”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers perform of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programmed to perform the task. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from being done in the mind. For example, an operator can mentally observe a map of a building, determine whether security cameras are located, determine blind spots based on the locations of security cameras, and observe whether the security cameras are operating normally.
Step 2A Prong Two: Practical Application – No
Claim 20 further recites an additional limitation of “receive a fault indication corresponding to a security camera of the security system”. This limitation is no more than mere necessary data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: Inventive Concept – No
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that additional elements in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the limitation of “receive a fault indication corresponding to a security camera of the security system” is considered in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The OIP Techs court decisions cited in PE2E 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed in a generic manner (as it is here).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 21 recites:
wherein the fault indication indicates one or more a degraded signal or a lost signal from the security camera.
The mental processes are identified with respect to claim 17. No additional mental steps are recited in claim 21.
Claim 21 recites an additional limitation of “wherein the fault indication indicates one or more a degraded signal or a lost signal from the security camera”. This additional limitation is no more than mere necessary data gathering of information of security cameras, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, this additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that additional elements in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the limitation of “wherein the fault indication indicates one or more a degraded signal or a lost signal from the security camera” is considered in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The OIP Techs court decisions cited in PE2E 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed in a generic manner (as it is here).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 22 recites:
determine a plurality of surveillance areas including the surveillance area; and
determine priority levels of the plurality of surveillance areas, wherein the surveillance area is determined further based on the priority levels.
The claim recites “determine a plurality of surveillance areas including the surveillance area” and “determine priority levels of the plurality of surveillance areas, wherein the surveillance area is determined further based on the priority levels”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers perform of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programmed to perform the task. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from being done in the mind. For example, an operator can mentally determine which surveillance areas require immediate attention and assign a higher priority level to those surveillance areas.
No other additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 23 recites:
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.
The claim recites “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”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers perform of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programmed to perform the task. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from being done in the mind. For example, an operator can mentally determine which surveillance areas require immediate attention, assign a higher priority level to those surveillance areas, and assign an autonomous mobile machine to each surveillance areas that require immediate attention.
No other additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claims 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to “a computer-readable medium” which covers both statutory and non-statutory subject matter as the computer-readable medium may be construed to read on both non-transitory media and transitory signals. See MPEP 2106.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seyfi et al. (US 2021/0125369 A1), hereinafter Seyfi.
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.”; ;
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.”); 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 and perform a surveillance task at the surveillance 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.”; [0105]-[0106]).
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 2, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seyfi, in view of Herget et al. (US 2020/0338580 A1), hereinafter Herget.
Regarding claims 2 and similarly cited claims 12 and 19, Seyfi does 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 Rezvani (US 11,279,480 B1).
Regarding claim 3 and similarly cited claims 13 and 20, the teachings of Seyfi 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 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 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 does 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 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.
Claims 5-8, 10, 15-17, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seyfi, in view of Deyle et al. (US 2021/0048829 A1), hereinafter Deyle.
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].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seyfi, in view of Myer (DE 102010017211 B4).
Regarding claim 9, Seyfi does 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, Myer 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 to identify an applicable agent for mitigating the material from among a plurality of available agents, as taught by Myer. 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 Myer in [0010].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (US 2018/0329392 A1) discloses a surveillance system configured to analyze video data captured by security cameras to determine whether there is any trigger event, determine an optimal robotic surveillance device among the one or more robotic surveillance devices based on the trigger event, and provide an instruction to the optimal robotic surveillance device.
Etou et al. (US 2021/0120185 A1) discloses a monitoring method including acquiring an image captured by a monitoring camera, analyzing the image captured by the monitoring camera, specifying an area that needs information from the analysis result, transmitting, to a mobile robot, a dispatch instruction to the specified area, acquiring an image captured by a camera of the mobile robot, and analyzing the image captured by the camera of the mobile robot.
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: 8:00am-5:00pm 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/Examiner, Art Unit 3656