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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 29 and 37 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims 21, 29 and 27 fall within one of the statutory categories? Claims 21 and 29 are directed towards a system and a method, and as such fall within on of the statutory categories. However, claim 37 is directed to a computer a computer readable medium with a code. Under current office policy, if a claim is directed toward a medium, and the medium is undefined in the specification, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of that medium includes, statutory non-transitory media, and non-statutory transitory media, or signals. In the current specification, there is no explicit definition provided for computer readable media, as such the claim is directed to a form of energy and is non-statutory.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, claims 21 and 29 are directed to mental processes.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
NOTE: Claims 21 and 29 recite limitations that are similar in scope, hence examiner will assess method of claim 29.
The method of claim 29 contains a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The claim merely determines a patrol area, assigns it to an autonomous machine, sets one of more waypoints and determine surveillance task(s). A human can set patrol area to be a particular section or floor of a building, assign it to a machine (decide machines number X shall perform patrolling), determine waypoints and surveillance tasks for the machine.
Therefore, limitation of “determining the patrol area for the autonomous mobile machine to surveil;
assigning, to the autonomous mobile machine to the patrol area;
setting one or more waypoints in the patrol area;
determining one or more surveillance tasks for the autonomous mobile machine” is a mental process, hence an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 21 and 29 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
With respect to claim 1,” one or more processors coupled with the memory and configured to” perform the steps identified above are performed by a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the steps of “receiving, from the autonomous mobile machine, an indication that the autonomous mobile machine has completed one or more surveillance tasks at at least one of the one or more waypoints”, this is mere data gathering, hence an insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 21 and 29 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Limitations identified as apply it in step 2A Prong 2 qualify as apply it in step 2B as well.
With respect to “receiving, from the autonomous mobile machine, an indication that the autonomous mobile machine has completed one or more surveillance tasks at at least one of the one or more waypoints”, this is receiving or transmitting data. And as such has been recognized as well-understood routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 21, 29 and 37 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 21, 29 and 37 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to claims 22, 30 and 38, determine the patrol area for the autonomous mobile machine based on a set of waypoints of the one or more waypoints is a mental process, hence is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 23, 31 and 39, “wherein each of the one or more waypoints corresponds to a respective index value of a plurality of index values, and wherein the one or more processors sets the one or more waypoints based on a selection of the respective index value” merely limits indexing waypoints and is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 24, 32 and 40, determining one or more surveillance tasks to be performed is still a mental process. And transmit data indicating one or more surveillance tasks is sending or receiving data, hence an insignificant extra solution activity. Therefore, not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims, 25 and 33, determining one or more surveillance tasks based of an alert is still a mental process as a human can hear an audible alert and determine surveillance shall be performed. Therefore, is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 26 and 34, capturing audio, image, or video samples or initiating a sensor of the autonomous mobile machine is mere data gathering, hence an insignificant extra solution activity and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 27 and 35, transmit, to the autonomous mobile machine, an indication of a map of the facility and the one or more waypoints, wherein the one or more waypoints are selected subsequent to the indication being transmitted is sending or receiving data and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 28 and 36, transmit, to the autonomous mobile machine, a timing indication indicating a time for the autonomous mobile machine to arrive or remain at the one or more waypoints is sending or receiving data and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-27, 29-35 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deyle (US 20170225336, disclosed in IDS submitted on 04/25/2025).
For claim 21, Deyle teaches:. A security (Abstract, a mobile robot that patrols one
or more route to detect violations) system, comprising:
a memory storing instructions ([0311], disclosing the steps, operations, or processes described
herein may be performed or implemented with one or more hardware or software
modules, alone or in combination with other devices. In one embodiment, a software
module is implemented with a computer program product comprising a computer-
readable medium containing computer program code); and
one or more processors coupled with the memory ([0311], disclosing a computer
processor for performing any or all of the steps, operations, or processes described) and configured to:
determine a patrol area for an autonomous mobile machine to surveil ([0170], disclosing central system identifies 10 security operations for five robots, prioritizes 5 operations, and when those operations are complete, can instruct the robots to perform the remaining five security operations. [0175], disclosing central system then instructs 1405 the robot to perform a security operation. [0176], disclosing performing a second security operation. [0122], disclosing
patrolling an area and patrol routes can be randomly selected. [0175], disclosing central
system instructs 1405 the robot to perform a security operation. [0107], disclosing
security system can configure the robot to patrol a portion of a building. [0118],
disclosing security operations can be recording or streaming video to an operator or
external entity);
assign the autonomous mobile machine to the patrol area ([0170], disclosing central system identifies 10 security operations for five robots, prioritizes 5 operations, and when those operations are complete, can instruct the robots to perform the remaining five security operations. [0175], disclosing central system then instructs 1405 the robot to perform a security operation);
set one or more waypoints in the patrol area ([0117], disclosing a robot can perform one or more security operations, for instance in response to receiving an instruction from an operator or from the central system. Therefore, central system selects a random patrol route i.e., random waypoint within the route, and transmits the waypoint to the robot i.e., autonomous mobile machine);
determine one or more surveillance tasks for the autonomous mobile machine ([0170], disclosing central system identifies 10 security operations for five robots, prioritizes 5 operations, and when those operations are complete, can instruct the robots to perform the remaining five security operations. [0175], disclosing central system then instructs 1405 the robot to perform a security operation); and
receive, from the autonomous mobile machine, an indication that the autonomous mobile machine has completed one or more surveillance tasks at at least one of the one or more waypoints ([0170], disclosing central system identifies 10 security operations for five robots, prioritizes 5 operations, and when those operations are complete, can instruct the robots to perform the remaining five security operations. The central system can account for the capabilities and availability of each robot. As central system assigns operations to robots and accounts for availability of each robot, each robot necessarily has to report task completion and availability status.
Claims 29 and 37 recite limitations similar in scope to claim 21, hence are similarly rejected.
For claim 22, Deyle teaches: The security system of claim 21, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to: determine the patrol area for the autonomous mobile machine based on a set of waypoints of the one or more waypoints ([0121], disclosing path of a patrolling robot can also be determined for unknown or unmapped areas, for instance by determining a series of waypoints for the robot to follow, by scanning the area to identify nearby paths and obstacles. Hence patrolling area is determined by determining a series of waypoints because waypoints of patrolling route define patrolling area. Furthermore, [0122], disclosing patrol routes are randomly selected i.e., waypoints are randomly selected and as waypoints define patrol route, the area for patrol area is defined by waypoints).
Claims 30 and 38 recite limitations similar in scope to claim 22, hence are similarly rejected.
For claim 23, Deyle teaches: The security system of claim 21, wherein each of the one or more waypoints corresponds to a respective index value of a plurality of index values, and
wherein the one or more processors sets the one or more waypoints based on a selection of the respective index value ([0122], disclosing patrolling an area and patrol routes can be randomly selected, for instance to increase the unpredictability of a patrolling robot for a potential unauthorized individual. [0043], disclosing central system 210 can be a central server or other computing system configured to provide instructions to the robots, to receive information from the robots, to perform one or more other functions as described herein. Each random waypoint will have its respective index value).
Claims 31 and 39 recite limitations similar in scope to claim 23, hence are similarly rejected.
For claim 24, Deyle teaches: The security system of claim 21, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to:
determine the one or more surveillance tasks to be performed by the autonomous mobile machine at the at least one of the one or more waypoints, in response to the one or more waypoints being selected ([0122], disclosing patrolling an area and patrol routes can be randomly selected. [0175], disclosing central system instructs 1405 the robot to perform a security operation. [0107], disclosing security system can configure the robot to patrol a portion of a building); and
transmit data indicating the one or more surveillance tasks to the autonomous mobile machine ([0175], disclosing central system instructs 1405 the robot to perform a security operation.).
Claims 32 and 40 recite limitation similar in scope to claim 24, hence are similarly rejected.
For claim 25, Deyle teaches: The security system of claim 24, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to:
determine the one or more surveillance tasks based on an alert from an initiating device of the security system or an indication from a monitoring station ([0107], disclosing security system 734 configures the robot 100 to perform one or more security operations. For instance, the security system can configure the robot to investigation a suspicious sound)
Claim 33 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 25, hence is similarly rejected.
For claim 26, Deyle teaches: The security system of claim 21, wherein the one or more surveillance tasks comprise one or more of capturing audio, image, or video samples or initiating a sensor of the autonomous mobile machine ([0118], disclosing security operations can be recording or streaming video to an operator or external entity i.e., a surveillance task).
Claim 34 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 26, hence is similarly rejected.
For claim 27, Deyle teaches: The security system of claim 21, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to:
transmit, to the autonomous mobile machine, an indication of a map of the facility and the one or more waypoints, wherein the one or more waypoints are selected subsequent to the indication being transmitted ([0049] and figure 3, disclosing semantic map storage module in central system. [0050], disclosing communication interface enables the transfer of data between robots 100 and the central system. The communication interface can provide instructions or data to one or more infrastructure systems, security systems, or robots. [0093], disclosing navigation system 710 can move the robot 100 in response to receiving navigation instructions, for instance from a user of the central system. Navigation instructions can include a path, an ordered set of locations, an objective (e.g., “patrol the 4.sup.th floor”), or a map, and the navigation system can move the robot based on the navigation instructions. [0210] disclosing, maps generated by the semantic mapping system can be uploaded to the central system 210 for storage in the semantic maps storage module).
Claim 35 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 27, hence is similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 28 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deyle in view of Taite (US 20160379056, disclosed in IDS submitted on 04/25/2025).
For claim 28, Deyle teaches: The security system of claim 21,
Deyle does not teach: wherein the one or more processors is further configured to:
transmit, to the autonomous mobile machine, a timing indication indicating a time for the autonomous mobile machine to arrive or remain at the one or more waypoints.
Taite teaches transmit, to the autonomous mobile machine, a timing indication indicating a time for the autonomous mobile machine to arrive or remain at the one or more waypoints ([0029], disclosing the drone may be configured to move to a spot, search for people from the spot, and then move to another spot after a time interval)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to further modify art be Deyle to transmit, to the autonomous mobile machine, a timing indication indicating a time for the autonomous mobile machine to arrive or remain at the one or more waypoints as taught by Taite as a patrolling policy.
Claim 36 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 28, hence is similarly rejected.
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.
Claim 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,157. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because.
Claim of instant application 18946620
Claim of US patent 12162157
21. A security system, comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
one or more processors coupled with the memory and configured to:
determine a patrol area for an autonomous mobile machine to surveil;
assign the autonomous mobile machine to the patrol area;
set one or more waypoints in the patrol area;
determine one or more surveillance tasks for the autonomous mobile machine; and
receive, from the autonomous mobile machine, an indication that the autonomous mobile machine has completed one or more surveillance tasks at at least one of the one or more waypoints.
1. A security system, comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
one or more processors coupled with the memory and configured to:
select a random waypoint from a plurality of waypoints in a facility for an autonomous mobile machine to surveil;
determine, based on the random waypoint, a first surveillance task to be performed by the autonomous mobile machine at the random waypoint;
transmit, via a network, to the autonomous mobile machine in response to the random waypoint being selected, a first message indicating the random waypoint and the first surveillance task, wherein the first message is configured to control the autonomous mobile machine to move to the random waypoint and perform the first surveillance task;
receive, via the network, from the autonomous mobile machine in response to the first message being transmitted, an indication that the autonomous mobile machine has completed the first surveillance task at the random waypoint;
select a subsequent random waypoint of the plurality of waypoints for the autonomous mobile machine to surveil in response to receiving the indication that the autonomous mobile machine has completed the surveillance task at the random waypoint,
wherein the subsequent random waypoint is different from the random waypoint; and
transmit, via the network, to the autonomous mobile machine in response to the subsequent random waypoint being selected in response to receiving the indication that the autonomous mobile machine has completed the surveillance task at the random waypoint, a second message indicating the subsequent random waypoint, wherein the second message is configured to control the autonomous mobile machine to move to the subsequent random waypoints
wherein each waypoint of the plurality of waypoints corresponds to a respective index value of a plurality of index values and the plurality of waypoints corresponds to a randomly selected number.
22. The security system of claim 21, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to:
determine the patrol area for the autonomous mobile machine based on a set of waypoints of the one or more waypoints.
12162157 does not claim determine the patrol area for the autonomous mobile machine based on a set of waypoints of the one or more waypoints
Deyle teaches determine the patrol area for the autonomous mobile machine based on a set of waypoints of the one or more waypoints (disclosing path of a patrolling robot can also be determined for unknown or unmapped areas, for instance by determining a series of waypoints for the robot to follow, by scanning the area to identify nearby paths and obstacles. Hence patrolling area is determined by determining a series of waypoints because waypoints of patrolling route define patrolling area. Furthermore, [0122], disclosing patrol routes are randomly selected i.e., waypoints are randomly selected and as waypoints define patrol route, the area for patrol area is defined by waypoints)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify 12162157 to determine the patrol area for the autonomous mobile machine based on a set of waypoints of the one or more waypoints as taught by Deyle to define patrol area.
23. The security system of claim 21, wherein each of the one or more waypoints corresponds to a respective index value of a plurality of index values, and
wherein the one or more processors sets the one or more waypoints based on a selection of the respective index value.
1… wherein each waypoint of the plurality of waypoints corresponds to a respective index value of a plurality of index values and the plurality of waypoints corresponds to a randomly selected number
24. The security system of claim 21, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to:
determine the one or more surveillance tasks to be performed by the autonomous mobile machine at the at least one of the one or more waypoints, in response to the one or more waypoints being selected; and
transmit data indicating the one or more surveillance tasks to the autonomous mobile machine.
1… determine, based on the random waypoint, a first surveillance task to be performed by the autonomous mobile machine at the random waypoint;
transmit, via a network, to the autonomous mobile machine in response to the random waypoint being selected, a first message indicating the random waypoint and the first surveillance task, wherein the first message is configured to control the autonomous mobile machine to move to the random waypoint and perform the first surveillance task
25. The security system of claim 24, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to:
determine the one or more surveillance tasks based on an alert from an initiating device of the security system or an indication from a monitoring station.
4. The security system of claim 1, wherein to determine the first surveillance task, the one or more processors is further configured to:
determine the first surveillance task based on one or more of a default surveillance task corresponding to the random waypoint, an alert from an initiating device of the security system, or an indication from a monitoring station
26. The security system of claim 21, wherein the one or more surveillance tasks comprise one or more of capturing audio, image, or video samples or initiating a sensor of the autonomous mobile machine.
5. The security system of claim 1, wherein the first surveillance task comprises one or more of capturing audio, image, or video samples at the random waypoint, or initiating a sensor of the autonomous mobile machine
27. The security system of claim 21, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to:
transmit, to the autonomous mobile machine, an indication of a map of the facility and the one or more waypoints, wherein the one or more waypoints are selected subsequent to the indication being transmitted.
6. The security system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to:
transmit, to the autonomous mobile machine, an indication of a map of the facility and the plurality of waypoints, wherein the random waypoint and the subsequent random waypoint are selected subsequent to the indication being transmitted
28. The security system of claim 21, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to:
transmit, to the autonomous mobile machine, a timing indication indicating a time for the autonomous mobile machine to arrive or remain at the one or more waypoints.
7. The security system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to:
transmit, to the autonomous mobile machine, a respective timing indication indicating a time for the autonomous mobile machine to arrive or remain at the random waypoint and/or the subsequent random waypoint
Claims 29-36 and 37-38 recite limitations similar in scope to claims 21-28, hence are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARSLAN AZHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARSLAN AZHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3656