DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on November 8, 2024. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 7, 9 – 15, 17 – 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over cited U.S. Patent No. 6,764,373 B1 to Osawa et al. (herein after “Osawa et al. publication") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0100693 A1 to Fong et al. (herein after “Fong et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1 and 12,
the Osawa et al. publication discloses a robot (1) comprising:
a body (2)(see FIG. 1 and Col. 9, lns 47 – 48, where “[t]he mobile robot 1 includes a torso unit 2, a head unit 3, a tail 4, and four limbs, namely, foot units 6A-6D”);
a battery (61) configured to power the robot (1)(see FIG. 2 and Col. 9, lns 25 – 26; see also Col. 10, lns 49 – 55);
one or more legs (6A – 6D) coupled to the body (2)(see FIG. 1);
data processing hardware (20 – 26, 40, 50)(see FIGS. 2 – 3); and
memory hardware (22 – 24) in communication with the data processing hardware (20 – 26, 40, 50)(see FIG. 3), the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving sensor data corresponding to an area of an environment of the robot, the area including at least a portion of a docking station for charging a battery of the robot (see Col. 9, lns 50 – 53, where “[t]he head unit 3 includes a CCD (Charge-Coupled Device) camera 15 corresponding to the "eye" of the dog, a microphone 16 corresponding to the "ear" of the dog, a loudspeaker 17 corresponding to the "mouth" of the dog, and a touch sensor 18 corresponding to the touch of the dog. Optionally, more sensors for the five senses may be included”; see also Col. 10, lns 16 – 21, where “[t]he input/output unit 40 includes, as input devices, a variety of sensors for the five senses, such as the CCD camera 15 serving as the eye of the mobile robot 1, the microphone 16 serving as the ear, and the touch sensor 18 serving as the touch”)(Emphasis added).
The Osawa et al. publication does not specifically disclose
determining a pose of the docking station based on the sensor data;
identifying a docking station feature of the docking station from the sensor data;
comparing the identified docking station feature to stored docking station features associated with two or more docking stations stored in a memory accessible to the robot;
identifying one of the two or more docking stations as corresponding to the docking station based on the comparison;
adjusting the pose of the docking station to an adjusted pose of the docking station based on the identified one of the two or more docking stations; and
controlling docking of the robot at the docking station based on the adjusted pose.
The Fong et al. publication, however, discloses
determining a pose of the docking station (600) based on the sensor data (see FIG. 4E and ¶3, where “[the] mobile robot in the system has a chassis, a motorized drive connected to the chassis for moving the mobile robot to a docked position, and a pose sensor assembly having a sensor that is configured to output a signal in response to the at least two pose-defining fiducial marks in a pose sensor field of view”; see also ¶19, where “a ‘fiducial marker’ includes any feature that may be identified by a sensor. At least two fiducial markers may be used to provide spatial information about an object, such as a docking station, and may include features at different positions that are connected to one another or separated from one another. A ‘pose’ may be an X-Y coordinate pair in a frame of reference combined with a single angle of orientation. Non-limiting examples of fiducial markers include visual patterns, IR transmitting and IR blocking patterns, lights such as LEDs, photogrammetry targets or other patterns such as bar codes”; see also ¶20, where “a pose sensor assembly [270A-270B] having a sensor that is configured to output a signal in response to the at least two pose-defining fiducial marks in a pose sensor field of view. A controller is located on the chassis and is configured to analyze the output signal from the pose sensor assembly. The controller has the predetermined spatial relationship of the pose-defining fiducial marker stored in a controller memory. The controller is configured to determine a docking station pose that is based on the spatial relationship of the pose-defining fiducial markers and the signals from the pose sensor assembly. The controller is further configured to locate the docking station pose on a map of a surface traversed by the mobile robot and to path plan a docking trajectory including a curve or pathway having a terminal portion aligned with a docking lane of the docking station, based on a current robot position on the map of the surface and the docking station pose and to provide instructions to the motorized drive to move the mobile robot along the curve of the docking trajectory and into a docking lane aligned with the docking station”; see also ¶25, where “the fiducial markers 640A, 640B may be used by the pose sensor assembly 270A-270B of the mobile robot 200 in order to determine a pose of the docking station 600 . . .”)(Emphasis added);
identifying a docking station feature of the docking station from the sensor data (see FIGS. 4D – 5 and ¶19, where “fiducial markers [640A, 640B] may be used to provide spatial information about an object, such as a docking station . . . Non-limiting examples of fiducial markers include visual patterns, IR transmitting and IR blocking patterns, lights such as LEDs, photogrammetry targets or other patterns such as bar codes”);
comparing the identified docking station feature to stored docking station features associated with two or more docking stations stored in a memory accessible to the robot (see ¶50, where “a database stores uniquely identifiable entries representing views of the fiducial markers 640A, 640B . . . 640n, where ‘n’ is an integer indicating a maximum number of distinct fiducial markers . . . FIG. 7 may be used to identify a pose of the dock 600. For example, a computer model may be used to provide model images at various spatial positions from the dock 600. A sensor output, such as actual images of the dock 600, may then be compared to the model images to estimate a spatial relationship between the dock 600 and the robot 200 to determine the dock pose”; The Fong et al. publication discloses that several fiducial markers 640A, 640B . . . 640n can be used to identify one docking stations; however, it would only require routine skill in the art to make the necessary modification for those same uniquely identifiable fiducial markers 640A, 640B . . . 640n to be associated with two or more different docking stations stored in a memory accessible to the robot);
identifying one of the two or more docking stations as corresponding to the docking station based on the comparison (see ¶50 et seq.);
adjusting the pose of the docking station to an adjusted pose of the docking station based on the identified one of the two or more docking stations (see ¶50 et seq.); and
controlling docking of the robot at the docking station based on the adjusted pose (see ¶20, where “[a] controller is located on the chassis and is configured to analyze the output signal from the pose sensor assembly. The controller has the predetermined spatial relationship of the pose-defining fiducial marker stored in a controller memory. The controller is configured to determine a docking station pose that is based on the spatial relationship of the pose-defining fiducial markers and the signals from the pose sensor assembly. The controller is further configured to locate the docking station pose on a map of a surface traversed by the mobile robot and to path plan a docking trajectory including a curve or pathway having a terminal portion aligned with a docking lane of the docking station, based on a current robot position on the map of the surface and the docking station pose and to provide instructions to the motorized drive to move the mobile robot along the curve of the docking trajectory and into a docking lane aligned with the docking station”; see ¶60 for “when the robot 200 builds a map of the space . . . and stores a pose of the dock pose (X, Y position and orientation) on the map and knows the dock pose relative to the robot 200, a docking path 180 of the robot 200 to the dock 600 may be mapped along a curve fit to the docking lane without any realignment steps”; see also ¶61, where “by path planning to the dock 600 having a pose already known to the robot 200 . . [a]ligning with the docking lane 650 enables the robot 200 to mate successfully with the aforementioned evacuation collar 610, detents 620A, 620B and/or electrical contacts 622A, 622B, or simply to align with the docking port 660. Path planning to the dock 600 (FIG. 4C) therefore is a faster and more successful approach than docking without path planning (FIG. 4B)”)(Emphasis added).
Such disclosures teach and/or suggest determining a pose of the docking station based on the sensor data; identifying a docking station feature of the docking station from the sensor data; comparing the identified docking station feature to stored docking station features associated with two or more docking stations stored in a memory accessible to the robot; identifying one of the two or more docking stations as corresponding to the docking station based on the comparison; adjusting the pose of the docking station to an adjusted pose of the docking station based on the identified one of the two or more docking stations; and controlling docking of the robot at the docking station based on the adjusted pose.
According to the Fong et al. publication, “the robot 200 can maneuver to reach the docking lane 650 quickly and with increased chance of success as compared to a segmented docking route 180a, 180b, 180c in which the pose of the dock 600 is not stored but rather determined in real time while the robot 200 is returning to the dock 600 (FIG. 4B).” (See ¶60.)
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Osawa et al. publication to determine a pose of the docking station based on the sensor data, identify a docking station feature of the docking station from the sensor data compare the identified docking station feature to stored docking station features associated with two or more docking stations stored in a memory accessible to the robot, identify one of the two or more docking stations as corresponding to the docking station based on the comparison, adjust the pose of the docking station to an adjusted pose of the docking station based on the identified one of the two or more docking stations, and control docking of the robot at the docking station based on the adjusted pose, as suggested by the Fong et al. publication, in order to maneuver the robot to reach the docking lane of the identified docking station quickly and with increased chance of success.
As to claims 2 and 13,
the Osawa et al. publication, as modified by the Fong et al. publication, is considered to disclose detecting a fiducial associated with the docking station, wherein determining the pose of the docking station is further based on the detected fiducial. (See ¶25 of the Fong et al. publication, where “the fiducial markers 640A, 640B may be used by the pose sensor assembly 270A-270B of the mobile robot 200 in order to determine a pose of the docking station 600 . . . .”)
As to claims 4 and 15,
the Osawa et al. publication, as modified by the Fong et al. publication, is considered to disclose generating a docking station map comprising terrain information about the docking station using the adjusted pose. (See ¶20 of the Fong et al. publication, where “[a] controller is located on the chassis and is configured . . . to locate the docking station pose on a map of a surface traversed by the mobile robot and to path plan a docking trajectory including a curve or pathway having a terminal portion aligned with a docking lane of the docking station, based on a current robot position on the map of the surface and the docking station pose and to provide instructions to the motorized drive to move the mobile robot along the curve of the docking trajectory and into a docking lane aligned with the docking station”.)
As to claims 6 and 17,
the Osawa et al. publication, as modified by the Fong et al. publication, is considered to disclose the docking station map comprising one or more regions including a region where the robot should avoid moving the body of the robot, the one or more regions located in the area including the at least the portion of the docking station. (See ¶63 – ¶64 of the Fong et al. publication.)
As to claims 7 and 18,
the Osawa et al. publication, as modified by the Fong et al. publication, is considered to disclose the docking station map comprising one or more regions indicating a height of the identified docking station feature, the one or more regions located in the area including the at least the portion of the docking station. (See ¶41 of the Fong et al. publication, where “the spatial relationship of the fiducial markers 640A, 640B may include a height and distance from one another as well as the geometric configuration of the dock 600.”)
As to claims 9 and 20,
the Osawa et al. publication, as modified by the Fong et al. publication, discloses the docking station feature is associated with a contact terminal for charging the battery of the robot. (See ¶24, where “[t]he robot dock 600 may include or be connected to a power supply 680 and include a docking port 660 having charging contacts 622A, 622B thereon that are operative to charge a battery of the mobile robot 200 when the robot 200 is docked at the robot dock 600.”)(Emphasis added.)
As to claim 10,
the Osawa et al. publication is considered to disclose the docking station feature corresponding to an alignment tower configured to support at least a portion of the legged robot when the legged robot is in a charging pose charging the battery of the legged robot at the docking station. (See FIGS. 13 – 16 and Col. 20, lns 6 – 63, where the tapered inner walls of the charging station 80-3 are equivalent to an alignment tower configured to support at least a portion of the legged robot when the legged robot is in a charging pose charging the battery of the legged robot at the docking station.)
As to claim 11,
the Osawa et al. publication disclose that the legged robot (1) is a quadruped. (See FIGS. 1, 5, 13 and 21, and Col. 9, lns 63 – 67, where “[f]oot units 6A and 6B are front feet, and foot units 6C and 6D are hind feet. The foot units 6A-6D are respectively composed of thighs 9A-9D and heels 10A-10D, and are respectively connected to the torso unit 2 on the side walls at the front and the back thereof.”)
As to claim 14,
the Osawa et al. publication, as modified by the Fong et al. publication, is considered to disclose determining a region where the robot should avoid moving a body of the robot based on the identified one of the two or more docking stations. (See ¶63 – ¶64 of the Fong et al. publication, where “[t]he robot 200 may favor a path that avoids known obstacles”.)
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited Osawa et al. publication in view of the Fong et al. publication, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,328,614 B1 to Bart et al. (herein after “Bart et al. publication") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0137454 A1 to Kulkarni et al. (herein after “Kulkarni et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 8 and 19,
the modified Osawa et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the docking station map comprises a status indicator for the docking station, the status indicator based on the comparing of the identified docking station feature to the features associated with the two or more docking stations, and the status indicator identifying availability of the docking station.
Employing a status indicator to identify the availability of a docking station is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Bart et al. patent who discloses “[a] monitoring system control unit 610 that references a stored table of the occupancy status of each docking station and instructs the robotic device to navigate to the nearest docking station that is unoccupied” (see Col. 15, lns 54 – 58), and the Kulkarni et al. publication who discloses “a communication device, which may communicate localized information, such as . . . docking station 204 status (e.g., availability data)”. (See ¶65.)
Such disclosures teach and/or suggest the docking station map comprises a status indicator for the docking station, the status indicator based on the comparing of the identified docking station feature to the features associated with the two or more docking stations, and the status indicator identifying availability of the docking station.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify and/or provide the docking station map of the Osawa et al. publication with a status indicator for the docking station, the status indicator being based on comparing the identified docking station feature to the features associated with the two or more docking stations, and the status indicator identifying availability of the docking station, as suggested by the Bart et al. patent or the Kulkarni et al. publication, in order to maneuver the robot to the identified docking station quickly and with increased chance of success.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 13, 15 – 16 and 18 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 – 12 and 14 – 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,172,537 (Patent No. ‘537). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For instance,
instant claim(s) 1 and 12 correspond to claim(s) 1 and 12 of Patent No. ‘537;
instant claim(s) 2 and 13 correspond to claim(s) 10 and 21 of Patent No. ‘537;
instant claim(s) 3 correspond to claim(s) 5 of Patent No. ‘537;
instant claim(s) 4 and 15 correspond to claim(s) 3 and 14 of Patent No. ‘537;
instant claim(s) 5 and 16 correspond to claim(s) 4 and 15 of Patent No. ‘537;
instant claim(s) 6 correspond to claim(s) 16 of Patent No. ‘537;
instant claim(s) 7 and 18 correspond to claim(s) 6 and 17 of Patent No. ‘537;
instant claim(s) 8 and 19 correspond to claim(s) 7 and 18 of Patent No. ‘537;
instant claim(s) 9 and 20 correspond to claim(s) 8 and 19 of Patent No. ‘537.
instant claim(s) 10 correspond to claim(s) 9 and 20 of Patent No. ‘537; and
instant claim(s) 11 correspond to claim(s) 11 and 22 of Patent No. ‘537.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666