DETAILED ACTION
This is a final office action on the merits in response to communications on 6/19/2026. Claims 21-40 are pending and addressed below.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 and 32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In addition, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
First, starting on page 10 of REMARKS, applicant is arguing against 101 rejections with arguments:
Step 2A, Prong One - The Claims Do Not Recite a Mental Process
October 2019 Update reaffirms that a claim does not recite a mental process where its limitations "could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind," even with the aid of pen and paper
However, the Office has already provided detailed analysis and gave example of how the human mind can perform the processes. See 101 rejections below. In addition, as present application drawing figs. 6. 8A-8C shown, the claim features are well within human mental capabilities. It is noted there is no controlling movement of the physical robot being recited in the claims. Note that what is actually being recited in claim 21 is “generating a map of an environment comprising locations of known objects and a route to be navigated by a robot … each footprint representing an area within the environment planned to be occupied by the robot”. Thus the robot is not currently being controlled or currently being navigated in the claims. Similar with claim 32
Second, starting on page 12 of REMARKS, applicant is arguing against 101 rejections with arguments:
Step 2A, Prong Two - The Claims Integrate Any Exception Into a Practical Application
This is a meaningful limitation that does far more than "apply" an idea on a computer: it controls the movement of a physical, autonomous robot to achieve a concrete real-world result
However, there is no controlling movement of the physical robot being recited in the claims. Note that what is actually being recited in claim 21 is “generating a map of an environment comprising locations of known objects and a route to be navigated by a robot … each footprint representing an area within the environment planned to be occupied by the robot”. Thus the robot is not currently being controlled or currently being navigated in the claims. Similar with claim 32.
Third, starting on page 14 of REMARKS, applicant is arguing against 101 rejections with arguments:
Step 2B - The Claims Recite an Inventive Concept
The ordered combination here - projecting pose-dependent footprints across a plurality of route positions, using those footprints as a spatial filter to identify an obstacle, and then elastic banding the route segment to widen the turn radius around that obstacle so the physical robot avoids collision - is a specific, non-generic sequence of operations that solves the identified navigation problem
However, this argument does not reflect the claim language. There is no controlling of the physical robot being recited in the claims. Note that what is actually being recited in claim 21 is “generating a map of an environment comprising locations of known objects and a route to be navigated by a robot … each footprint representing an area within the environment planned to be occupied by the robot”. Thus the robot is not currently being controlled or currently being navigated in the claims. Similar with claim 32.
Fourth, starting on page 15, applicant is arguing against 102 rejections with arguments:
The Examiner did not reject dependent claims 26 and 37
It is noted that the current claim amendment is of different scope than previous claim combinations. Previous claim 26 is a claim combination of claims 21, 24-25, then 26. Similar with claim 37. See below for prior art rejections to current claims as amended.
Fifth, starting on page 16, applicant is arguing against double patenting rejections with arguments:
The Examiner has not established why a person of ordinary skill would have modified the '299 claimed method using Taylor's trim-and- stop obstacle handling, nor identified a reasoned basis, beyond the bare assertion of obviousness, for that combination with a reasonable expectation of success
Independently, the combination does not reach the amended claims
However, previous double patenting rejection did provide motivation for combining Taylor, the motivation being for avoidance of obstacles ([0034]-[0080] [0085]-[0104] [0105]-[0137]) . As for how the combination does reach the amended claims, see rejection below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/18/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Non-English documents have been considered in as much as the drawings and translated portions provided therein (See MPEP 609).
Documents listed but not found with provided identification information are not considered and lined through.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes and/or mathematical concepts without significantly more.
With respect to claim 32,
Claim 32 recites:
A system for optimizing robotic route planning, comprising:
a memory comprising computer readable instructions stored thereon, and
a processor configured to execute the computer readable instructions to:
generate a map of an environment comprising locations of known objects and a route to be navigated by a robot, the robot being autonomous;
determine a plurality of positions along the route;
project a plurality of footprints at the plurality of positions, each footprint representing an area within the environment planned to be occupied by the robot when the robot reaches a respective position of the plurality of positions;
determine, based on the plurality of footprints, that any of the known objects constitute an obstacle along the route with which the robot is expected to collide; and
modify the route to prevent the robot from colliding with the obstacle, wherein modifying the route comprises elastic banding a segment of the route to encompass a wider turn radius around the obstacle such that the robot avoids colliding with the obstacle.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claim 32 recites A system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim limitations in claim 32:
generate a map of an environment comprising locations of known objects and a route to be navigated by a robot, the robot being autonomous;
determine a plurality of positions along the route;
project a plurality of footprints at the plurality of positions, each footprint representing an area within the environment planned to be occupied by the robot when the robot reaches a respective position of the plurality of positions;
determine, based on the plurality of footprints, that any of the known objects constitute an obstacle along the route with which the robot is expected to collide; and
modify the route to prevent the robot from colliding with the obstacle, wherein modifying the route comprises elastic banding a segment of the route to encompass a wider turn radius around the obstacle such that the robot avoids colliding with the obstacle;
are judicial exception of mental processes that can be performed by human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example, a human can observe an area, recognize obstacles, visualize a path of robot footprints, recognize collision with obstacle, and modify the path of footprints. In addition, figs. 6 8A-8C of present application showed how the claim processes can be performed by human mind.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations – Practical Application – No
Claims 32 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 imposes 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 activity, 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 32 recites additional elements “A system for optimizing robotic route planning, comprising: a memory comprising computer readable instructions stored thereon, and a processor configured to execute the computer readable instructions to”. A system for optimizing robotic route planning, comprising: a memory comprising computer readable instructions stored thereon, and a processor configured to execute the computer readable instructions to is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the generate, determine, project and modify steps. The generically recited A system for optimizing robotic route planning, comprising: a memory comprising computer readable instructions stored thereon, and a processor configured to execute the computer readable instructions to merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental processes and/or math concepts using a generic or general-purpose processor and to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claim 32 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 inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements “A system for optimizing robotic route planning, comprising: a memory comprising computer readable instructions stored thereon, and a processor configured to execute the computer readable instructions to” in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. There is no additional element.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
With respect to claims 21-31, 33-40,
Similar to the analysis of claim 32. Step 1: These claims are either method claims or system claims. Step 2A, Prong One: the recited limitations of these claims are mental processes that can be performed by human mind and/or with pen and paper, and/or math concepts. Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B: there are no additional elements that are integrated into a practical application and sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21-22, 31, 32-33, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 20190196480) in view of NAGASE et al. (US 20170351926).
Regarding claims 21 and 32, Taylor teaches:
A system for optimizing robotic route planning, comprising:
a memory comprising computer readable instructions stored thereon, and
a processor configured to execute the computer readable instructions to:
generate a map of an environment comprising locations of known objects and a route to be navigated by a robot, the robot being autonomous;
determine a plurality of positions along the route;
project a plurality of footprints at the plurality of positions, each footprint representing an area within the environment planned to be occupied by the robot when the robot reaches a respective position of the plurality of positions;
determine, based on the plurality of footprints, that any of the known objects constitute an obstacle along the route with which the robot is expected to collide; and
modify the route to prevent the robot from colliding with the obstacle;
(at least figs. 1-4, 6A-6B, [0034]-[0080] [0085]-[0104] discussed robotic device/vehicle, planning system 110, robotic devices 120, warehouse management system 210, computing device 600, computing clusters 609a-c, and their computerized components/processors/data storage/ computer-readable storage media/memory; figs. 7-8E [0105]-[0137] discussed paths 801, 830, 832, trimmed path, footprints, obstacles/objects 808a-d);
Taylor does not explicitly teach:
wherein modifying the route comprises elastic banding a segment of the route to encompass a wider turn radius around the obstacle such that the robot avoids colliding with the obstacle;
However, NAGASE et al. teaches:
wherein modifying the route comprises elastic banding a segment of the route to encompass a wider turn radius around the obstacle such that the robot avoids colliding with the obstacle;
(at least figs. 1-3, 7-9, [0005]-[0058] discussed a self-driving vehicle with travel controller 10, discussed planning travel path and turn of fig. 7, then change to travel path and turn of fig.8, and travel path and turn of fig.9; [0037] discussed “a self-driving control program executed by the travel controller 10 will be described with reference to flowcharts in FIGS. 2 to 5”; in particular at least figs. 2-3, 7-9 [0037]-[0058] discussed and showed details about planning travel path and turn of fig. 7, then change to travel path and turn of fig.8 and travel path and turn of fig.9; discussed the travel path and turn of fig.8 and travel path and turn of fig.9 is according to S115 with a large turning path set in advance to be corrected to increase the turning radius of the traveling path; [0053] discussed “the program proceeds to S115, and as illustrated in FIG. 8, a large turning path set in advance to be corrected to increase the turning radius of the traveling path; [)0056]-[0058] discussed how travel path and turn of fig.9 is according to step S115; the corner of the turn read on the obstacle) to correct and to advance ([0005]-[0058]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of Taylor with wherein modifying the route comprises elastic banding a segment of the route to encompass a wider turn radius around the obstacle such that the robot avoids colliding with the obstacle; as taught by NAGASE et al. to correct and to advance
Regarding claim 22, Taylor teaches:
wherein projecting the plurality of footprints comprises: determining a pose of each footprint based on at least one of a physical size of the robot, a steering angle planned to be commanded to the robot, and a velocity planned to be commanded to the robot
(at least figs. 1-4, 6A-6B, [0034]-[0080] [0085]-[0104] discussed robotic device/vehicle, planning system 110, robotic devices 120, warehouse management system 210, computing device 600, computing clusters 609a-c, and their computerized components/processors/data storage/ computer-readable storage media/memory; figs. 7-8E [0105]-[0137] discussed paths 801, 830, 832, trimmed path, footprints, obstacles/objects 808a-d; at least [0114]-[0116]);
Regarding claim 31, Taylor teaches:
wherein the robot is configured to turn with a non-zero turning radius (at least figs. 1-4, 6A-6B, [0034]-[0080] [0085]-[0104] discussed robotic device/vehicle, planning system 110, robotic devices 120, warehouse management system 210, computing device 600, computing clusters 609a-c, and their computerized components/processors/data storage/ computer-readable storage media/memory; figs. 7-8E [0105]-[0137] discussed paths 801, 830, 832, trimmed path, footprints, obstacles/objects 808a-d);
In addition and in the alternative, NAGASE et al. teaches:
wherein the robot is configured to turn with a non-zero turning radius (at least figs. 1-3, 7-9, [0005]-[0058] discussed a self-driving vehicle with travel controller 10, discussed planning travel path and turn of fig. 7, then change to travel path and turn of fig.8, and travel path and turn of fig.9; [0037] discussed “a self-driving control program executed by the travel controller 10 will be described with reference to flowcharts in FIGS. 2 to 5”; in particular at least figs. 2-3, 7-9 [0037]-[0058] discussed and showed details about planning travel path and turn of fig. 7, then change to travel path and turn of fig.8 and travel path and turn of fig.9; discussed the travel path and turn of fig.8 and travel path and turn of fig.9 is according to S115 with a large turning path set in advance to be corrected to increase the turning radius of the traveling path; [0053] discussed “the program proceeds to S115, and as illustrated in FIG. 8, a large turning path set in advance to be corrected to increase the turning radius of the traveling path; [)0056]-[0058] discussed how travel path and turn of fig.9 is according to step S115; the corner of the turn read on the obstacle) to correct and to advance ([0005]-[0058]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of Taylor with wherein the robot is configured to turn with a non-zero turning radius; as taught by NAGASE et al. to correct and to advance
Regarding claim 33, the cited portions and rationale of rejection to claim 22 read on this claim.
Regarding claim 40, the cited portions and rationale of rejection to claim 31 read on this claim.
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 21-22, 31, 32-33, 40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12164299 in view of Taylor (US 20190196480) and NAGASE et al. (US 20170351926).
Regarding claims 21, 32, claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12164299 teach all limitations except:
modify the route to prevent the robot from colliding with the obstacle;
However, Taylor teaches:
modify the route to prevent the robot from colliding with the obstacle;
(at least figs. 1-4, 6A-6B, [0034]-[0080] [0085]-[0104] discussed robotic device/vehicle, planning system 110, robotic devices 120, warehouse management system 210, computing device 600, computing clusters 609a-c, and their computerized components/processors/data storage/ computer-readable storage media/memory; figs. 7-8E [0105]-[0137] discussed paths 801, 830, 832, trimmed path, footprints, obstacles/objects 808a-d) for avoidance of obstacles ([0034]-[0080] [0085]-[0104] [0105]-[0137]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12164299 with modify the route to prevent the robot from colliding with the obstacle as taught by Taylor for avoidance of obstacles.
claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12164299 do not explicitly teach:
wherein modifying the route comprises elastic banding a segment of the route to encompass a wider turn radius around the obstacle such that the robot avoids colliding with the obstacle;
However, NAGASE et al. teaches:
wherein modifying the route comprises elastic banding a segment of the route to encompass a wider turn radius around the obstacle such that the robot avoids colliding with the obstacle;
(at least figs. 1-3, 7-9, [0005]-[0058] discussed a self-driving vehicle with travel controller 10, discussed planning travel path and turn of fig. 7, then change to travel path and turn of fig.8, and travel path and turn of fig.9; [0037] discussed “a self-driving control program executed by the travel controller 10 will be described with reference to flowcharts in FIGS. 2 to 5”; in particular at least figs. 2-3, 7-9 [0037]-[0058] discussed and showed details about planning travel path and turn of fig. 7, then change to travel path and turn of fig.8 and travel path and turn of fig.9; discussed the travel path and turn of fig.8 and travel path and turn of fig.9 is according to S115 with a large turning path set in advance to be corrected to increase the turning radius of the traveling path; [0053] discussed “the program proceeds to S115, and as illustrated in FIG. 8, a large turning path set in advance to be corrected to increase the turning radius of the traveling path; [)0056]-[0058] discussed how travel path and turn of fig.9 is according to step S115; the corner of the turn read on the obstacle) to correct and to advance ([0005]-[0058]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12164299 with wherein modifying the route comprises elastic banding a segment of the route to encompass a wider turn radius around the obstacle such that the robot avoids colliding with the obstacle; as taught by NAGASE et al. to correct and to advance
Regarding claims 22, 31, 33, 40, claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12164299 do not explicitly teach these claims.
However, Taylor and/or NAGASE et al. teaches these claims as applied to prior art rejections above, for avoidance of obstacles, and to correct and to advance.
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 BAO LONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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.
BAO LONG T. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3656
/BAO LONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights