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 Amendment
The amendment filed 7/9/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-25 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/22/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Lu does not teach or suggest 1) a combination of recorded tasks to generate composite data, 2) the combination in response to a determination that the recorded tasks are associated with a same portion of the environment, 3) the generated composite data comprises recorded tasks from different missions, or 4) navigation according to the generated composite data.
Only point 2) of this argument is persuasive in view of the amendment limitation. Lu does not explicitly combine tasks to generate composite data combination in response to a determination that the recorded tasks are associated with a same portion of the environment. Lu does, however, combine recorded tasks from different missions to generate composite data and provide disclosure for navigation of a robot according to the generated composite data.
Ultimately, Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 20, and 23, as well as the dependent claims, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references and/or rationale being used in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the amended limitation recites "in response comparing the one or more characteristics" and is missing the word "to" after "response". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-10, and 19-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (Document ID: US 20240189997 A1) in view of Artes et al., hereinafter Artes (Document ID: US2021096579A1).
Regarding claims 1, 20, and 23, Lu teaches a computer-implemented method, a system, and a robot comprising:
obtaining, by data processing hardware, first mission data associated with a first robot mission (see at least P [0113]: “In association with a first mission, the system 100 may electronically receive a first set of commands associated with operating a first robot device (e.g., device 105-c) to perform a first set of tasks.”);
obtaining, by the data processing hardware, second mission data associated with a second robot mission (see at least P [0113]: “In association with a second mission (e.g., a subsequent mission), the system 100 may electronically receive a second set of commands associated with operating a second robot device (e.g., device 105-d) to perform a second set of tasks”);
Lu further teaches combining, by the data processing hardware, at least a portion of the first mission data and at least a portion of the second mission data to generate composite mission data… wherein the composite mission data comprises the least a portion of the first mission data and the at least a portion of the second mission data in at least P [0114]: “The system 100 may identify a third set of tasks common to the first set of tasks and the second set of tasks… The system 100 may generate a mission file 117-c including the third set of tasks, for example, based on a mapping between the third set of tasks, the mission file 117-a (e.g., and the first set of tasks), and the mission file 117-b (e.g., and the second set of tasks”. Lu teaches exemplary tasks in P [0051] and clearly associates “matching waypoints (e.g., navigation points)” within robot missions.
But Lu does not explicitly teach doing the combination in response to determining that the at least a portion of the first mission data and the at least a portion of the second mission data are associated with a same portion of an environment.
Instead, Artes, whose invention pertains to a robotic repositioning procedure, teaches a map-based grouping of tasks for an autonomous mobile robot to perform. In P [0016], once the robot has “determined its position in the similar area, the robot begins to carry out an assigned task.” Note, P [0034] establishes that existing maps “may have been compiled by the robot itself during an earlier deployment, for example, during an exploratory run or it may be provided by another robot and/or a person and can be permanently stored, for example, in a memory module 120”. Finally, P [0058] clearly links the tasks with map areas and environments, providing
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composite mission construction for executing robot tasks of Lu with the robot task execution based on a mapping area during a deployment scenario of Artes in order to directly link tasks to map-based information and navigational processing as in P [0059] of Artes. Note, as shown above, Lu already establishes a connection to waypoint navigation and task execution, but one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Lu with Artes in order to further develop the robotic mapping procedures that enable composite missions to be built, especially since Artes uses the map-based information as a task planning trigger.
Therefore, although Lu and Artes do not explicitly generate composite mission data in response to determining that the at least a portion of the first mission data and the at least a portion of the second mission data are associated with a same portion of an environment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composite mission planning based on associated tasks which necessarily store environment data and the tasks embedded map-based information of Lu and Artes with a composite mission generation in response to association with a same portion of the environment in order to build upon the mission generation confidence value of Lu in P [0236] to ensure that a composite mission can accomplish a target set of tasks.
In view of the modification, Lu further teaches
instructing, by the data processing hardware, navigation of at least one robot according to the composite mission data, wherein the navigation according to the composite mission data comprises navigation to the same portion of the environment according to the at least a portion of the first mission data and navigation from the same portion of the environment according to the at least a portion of the second mission data (see at least P [0115] wherein the mission file is used to instruct a robot to “perform the target task(s)”. See also P [0148] which establishes that “coordination functions 540 may determine a robot mission including detailed steps such as navigating from the robot's current location to the location of the gauge”, wherein the goal of the robot in this specific case involves a gauge, but that is just an example of a mission type. As seen in this exemplary mission, as well as claim 8: “identifying a set of waypoints common to the first mission file and the second mission file, wherein providing the first mission file and the second mission file is based on identifying the set of waypoints”, modified Lu provides teaches navigation within the corresponding portions of the environment to complete tasks).
Regarding claims 20 and 23 specifically, Lu additionally teaches
at least two legs (see at least FIG. 1 for device 105-f with four legs, as well as P [0035] that indicates a walking type of mobility);
data processing hardware (processor 130); and
memory in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform the steps above (memory 140, see also P [0079]: “The memory 140 may be configured to store instruction sets, neural networks, and other data structures (e.g., depicted herein) in addition to temporarily storing data for the processor 130 to execute various types of routines or functions”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Lu further teaches
the first robot mission is associated with a first robot, and wherein the second robot mission is associated with a second robot (see at least P [0113]: “a first set of commands associated with operating a first robot device (e.g., device 105-c) to perform a first set of tasks” and “a second set of commands associated with operating a second robot device (e.g., device 105-d) to perform a second set of tasks.”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Lu further teaches in P [0036] a given mission includes “matching waypoints (e.g., navigation points), captured gauges (e.g., using machine learning applied to captured images of the gauges), and the like to recorded robot missions”, indicating that the first mission data is indicative of one or more waypoints, one or more edges, and one or more actions. In P [0160] the “Navigation control and data services 626” necessarily link waypoints, or navigation points together alongside any tasks. But Lu and Artes do not explicitly teach the first mission data links a first waypoint of the one or more waypoints to a second waypoint of the one or more waypoints via a first edge of the one or more edges, and wherein the first mission data indicates a first action is associated with the second waypoint.
Instead, Lu teaches in P [0155] granular examples of robot mission activities, including “multi-step mission instructions” or “individual operation instructions” such as “navigat[ing] to a destination” and a large variety of listed tasks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mission planning and ability to define waypoints for navigation of Lu and Artes with a specific linking of waypoints through "edges" which are simply navigation paths, and to associate a second waypoint with a first action of the many actions described by Lu in order to enable a fleet of robots to perform all required missions and communicate their status and data collection in a centralized manner, as in P [0155]-[0156] of Lu.
Regarding claim 8, modified Lu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Lu further teaches
obtaining, via a user computing device, input indicative of the at least a portion of the first mission data and the at least a portion of the second mission data, wherein the at least a portion of the first mission data comprises one or more first waypoints and one or more first actions, and wherein the at least a portion of the second mission data comprises one or more second waypoints and one or more second actions (see at least P [0113]: “building a robot mission based on the user interface 145” which includes input indicative of “a first set of commands associated with operating a first robot device (e.g., device 105-c) to perform a first set of tasks” and “a second set of commands associated with operating a second robot device (e.g., device 105-d) to perform a second set of tasks.” See also P [0036] wherein a given mission includes “waypoints (e.g., navigation points)”, which applies for the first and second missions).
Regarding claim 9, Lu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Lu further teaches obtaining, via a user computing device, input indicative of the at least a portion of the first mission data and the at least a portion of the second mission data, wherein the at least a portion of the first mission data comprises one or more first waypoints and one or more first actions, wherein the at least a portion of the second mission data comprises one or more second waypoints and one or more second actions, in P [0113]: “building a robot mission based on the user interface 145” which includes input indicative of “a first set of commands associated with operating a first robot device (e.g., device 105-c) to perform a first set of tasks” and “a second set of commands associated with operating a second robot device (e.g., device 105-d) to perform a second set of tasks.” See also P [0036] wherein a given mission includes “waypoints (e.g., navigation points)”, which applies for the first and second missions.)
But Lu and Artes do not explicitly teach that the composite mission data comprises the one or more first waypoints, the one or more second waypoints, the one or more first actions, and the one or more second actions.
However, Lu does teach in P [0237] “generating a third mission file including the third set of tasks in response to mapping the third set of tasks to the first mission file and the second mission file”, and in P [0036] that a given mission includes “waypoints (e.g., navigation points)”, which applies for any given mission. P [0114] specifically describes “The system 100 may generate a mission file 117-c including the third set of tasks, for example, based on a mapping between the third set of tasks, the mission file 117-a (e.g., and the first set of tasks), and the mission file 117-b (e.g., and the second set of tasks).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mission planning and ability to define waypoints for navigation when generating a third mission file of Lu and Artes with the specific waypoints and actions of the first and second missions mapped into the third mission in order to enable a fleet of robots to perform all user desired missions and communicate their status and data collection in a centralized manner, as in P [0155]-[0156] of Lu.
Regarding claim 10, modified Lu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Lu further teaches
obtaining, via a user computing device, input indicative of the at least a portion of the first mission data and the at least a portion of the second mission data and an order of performance, wherein the at least a portion of the first mission data comprises one or more first waypoints and one or more first actions, wherein the at least a portion of the second mission data comprises one or more second waypoints and one or more second actions, and wherein the composite mission data comprises the one or more first waypoints, the one or more second waypoints, the one or more first actions, and the one or more second actions based on the order of performance (see at least P [0111] wherein before building a mission “the system 100 may generate ranking information for the identified mission files and provide the mission files based on a ranked order”, which is based on a target task of the user input. From here, in P [0113] the order of performance is considered when “building a robot mission based on the user interface 145” which includes input indicative of “a first set of commands associated with operating a first robot device (e.g., device 105-c) to perform a first set of tasks” and “a second set of commands associated with operating a second robot device (e.g., device 105-d) to perform a second set of tasks.” See also P [0036] wherein a given mission includes “waypoints (e.g., navigation points)”, which applies for the first and second missions.).
Regarding claim 19, modified Lu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and in view of the modification Lu further teaches
instructing display of a user interface, wherein the user interface reflects a representation of the composite mission data overlaid on an environment model, and wherein the user interface indicates the composite mission data comprises the at least a portion of the first mission data and the at least a portion of the second mission data (see at least P [0190]-[0191] wherein mission graphics can be toggled for the display as well as P [0192] wherein a user interface receives display of “tasks that the user wishes to be performed with respect to a facility or environment”, including the composite mission data, or third mission data. For example, in P [0204] a field patrol mission would include a robot path throughout a facility or other robot environment, and in view of the modification, the display would necessarily include the at least a portion of the first mission data and the at least a portion of the second mission data).
Regarding claim 21, modified Lu teaches the system of claim 20, and Lu further teaches
the first robot mission is associated with a first robot, wherein the second robot mission is associated with a second robot, wherein the first robot has one or more first characteristics, and wherein the second robot has one or more second characteristics (see at least P [0113]: “a first set of commands associated with operating a first robot device (e.g., device 105-c) to perform a first set of tasks” and “a second set of commands associated with operating a second robot device (e.g., device 105-d) to perform a second set of tasks.” See also P [0053]-[0054] wherein characteristics of at least one robot are stored in a database include mobility types, payload types, sensors, and more, and the characteristics are stored for each robot).
Regarding claim 22, Lu teaches the system of claim 20, and Lu further teaches in P [0036] a given mission includes “matching waypoints (e.g., navigation points), captured gauges (e.g., using machine learning applied to captured images of the gauges), and the like to recorded robot missions”, indicating that the first mission data comprises navigation edges between a given set of waypoints, and the second mission data comprises navigation edges between a given set of waypoints. In P [0160] the “Navigation control and data services 626” necessarily link waypoints, or navigation points together alongside any tasks. Artes teaches in at least P [0020] the ability to link tasks to map-based information.
But Lu and Artes do not explicitly teach at least one of the first mission data and the second mission data indicate a first edge between a first waypoint and a second waypoint and a second edge between the second waypoint and a third waypoint, wherein execution of the instructions on the data processing hardware further causes the data processing hardware to: obtain, via a user computing device, input indicative of a third edge between the first waypoint and the third waypoint, wherein generating the composite mission data is further based on the input.
Instead, Lu teaches in claim 8 the ability to identify “a set of waypoints common to the first mission file and the second mission file, wherein providing the first mission file and the second mission file is based on identifying the set of waypoints.” Therefore generation of the third mission data would combine common waypoints and connect the waypoints to create a loop. Noe that in P [0037] of Lu the acceptance of a mission generation is based on user input.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second mission mapping into a third mission of Lu with a final path connection to close the loop of a mission in order to condense a mission based on commonalities for optimal mission planning to reduce overlapping tasks, as in P [0037] of Lu.
Regarding claim 24, modified Lu teaches the robot of claim 23, and Lu further teaches that execution of the instructions on the data processing hardware further causes the data processing hardware to:
obtain, via a user computing device, input indicative of the at least a portion of the first mission data and the at least a portion of the second mission data (see at least P [0113]: “building a robot mission based on the user interface 145” which includes input indicative of “a first set of commands associated with operating a first robot device (e.g., device 105-c) to perform a first set of tasks” and “a second set of commands associated with operating a second robot device (e.g., device 105-d) to perform a second set of tasks.”).
Regarding claim 25, Lu teaches the robot of claim 23, wherein the first robot mission is associated with a first robot, wherein the second robot mission is associated with a second robot, in at least P [0113]: “a first set of commands associated with operating a first robot device (e.g., device 105-c) to perform a first set of tasks” and “a second set of commands associated with operating a second robot device (e.g., device 105-d) to perform a second set of tasks.”
But Lu and Artes do not explicitly teach the robot comprises a third robot.
Instead Lu teaches in P [0161] examples of a plurality of robots used in the ecosystem, as well as the generation of a “third mission file including the third set of tasks in response to mapping the third set of tasks to the first mission file and the second mission file.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the third mission generated from the missions of two other robots of Lu and Artes with a third robot to execute the third mission in order to support the goal of Lu to build new missions based on previous robotic missions and assign the mission to the most optimal robot.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Artes, and further in view of Chen et al., hereinafter Chen (Document ID: US 20220300011 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Lu further teaches
identifying one or more characteristics of the at least one robot, wherein the one or more characteristics are indicative of one or more of a sensor, an arm, a gripper, a processing unit, a processing capability, or a sensing capability of the at least one robot (see at least P [0053]-[0054] wherein characteristics of at least one robot are stored in a database include mobility types, payload types, sensors, and more); and
Lu teaches in at least P [0116] that the composite mission is generated from human input or autonomously by the system 100 “based on an analysis of respective conditions of the equipment 123, based on an analysis of a condition of the facility 113, etc.).” In P [0117] then the system can evaluate whether a task would “fully achieve the target goal” as a verification step before provided commands to a robot device. Lu does perform steps such as identifying robot capability in step 1535 of FIG. 15 or in P [0146] through analysis of capability requirements, ensuring that no robots are given incompatible tasks or missions. But Lu and Artes do not explicitly teach verifying that the at least one robot can operate according to the composite mission data based on the one or more characteristics, wherein instructing the navigation according to the composite mission data is in response to verifying that the at least one robot can operate according to the composite mission data based on the one or more characteristics.
Instead, Chen, whose invention pertains to defining missions for robots, teaches in at least P [0242] a comparison between robot capability and mission data to ensure that the robot can perform the mission, and P [0218] shows that the robot capabilities include one or more robot characteristics or abilities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robot capability check and composite mission generation of Lu and Artes with the check that a robot's capabilities can operate according to mission data based on the robot characteristics of Chen in order to effectively schedule a number of missions between multiple robots in an environment or a fleet as in P [0242] of Chen. Chen aims to efficiently create and assign missions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized before the effective filing date of the invention that modifying the composite mission generation abilities of Lu and Artes would necessarily involve ensuring that a particular robot is capable of performing the composite mission assigned to it.
Regarding claim 3, Lu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Lu further teaches
identifying one or more characteristics of the at least one robot (see at least P [0132]-[0133] wherein characteristics of at least one robot involving robot capability, “such as the depletion of the robot's battery, damage or malfunction of one or more tools or sensors attached to the robot, removal or replacement of one or more tools or sensors attached to the robot, or other changes to a robot's capabilities.” are identified);
comparing the one or more characteristics with at least a portion of the composite mission data (see at least P [0134] wherein the capability is compared to the mission data, which includes composite missions that have been mapped as in the procedure of FIG. 13);
Lu teaches in P [0194] a user interface that can display “any alerts or other feedback from the missions”. But Lu and Artes do not explicitly teach that the interface comprises an alert indicating that the at least one robot can or cannot operate according to at least a portion of the composite mission data in response comparing the one or more characteristics with the at least a portion of the composite mission data.
Instead, Chen teaches in at least P [0311] “a confirmation message or alert may be transmitted to all robots in the mission schedule, a supervisor's display, or the like to confirm that the mission schedule has not been revised.” Essentially, a status of a robot is monitored and compared to the mission data, and specifically in P [0313] the “robot may determine that it is incapable of performing the mission”, and provide that feedback as an alert. Chen also teaches in P [0242] a comparison between robot capability and mission data to ensure that the robot can perform the mission, and P [0218] shows that the robot capabilities include one or more robot characteristics or abilities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robot monitoring and mission generation of Lu and Artes with the user interface and mission feedback and alerting system of Chen in order to modify schedules as needed in P [0311] and optionally include status checks as needed, especially in the context of a robot’s ability to perform a mission. Chen aims to efficiently create and assign missions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized before the effective filing date of the invention that modifying the composite mission generation abilities of Lu and Artes would necessarily involve ensuring that a particular robot is capable of performing the composite mission assigned to it.
Regarding claim 18, Lu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Lu teaches “a comparison result of a confidence value associated with the mapping to a threshold” in order to verify that the first mission data and the second mission data are associated. But Lu and Artes do not explicitly teach determining that the at least a portion of the first mission data and the at least a portion of the second mission data are associated with the same portion of the environment comprises using a common fiducial for the verification.
Instead, Chen teaches in P [0207] that a mission file may contain “fiducials (e.g., barcodes, QR codes, markers)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mapping of a mission to verify that a third mission is properly generated of Lu and Artes with the fiducial of Chen in order to properly identify a robot and its mission.
Lu, Artes, and Chen do not thus explicitly teach that the fiducial is used to determine that the at least a portion of the first mission data and the at least a portion of the second mission data are associated with the same portion of the environment.
Instead Artes teaches in P [0123] the ability to use partial maps with marked locations such as a door as a fiducial to determine what portions of an environment are associated together. In P [0112] the use of segmented and modified maps relies on marks in the environment to convey localization and boundary information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of an environmental fiducial or other environmental markers of Lu, Artes, and Chen with verification that two different missions are associated with a same portion of the environment based on a fiducial or other marker in order to distinguish and verify areas of a robot environment before performing tasks that coincide with that location as in P [0016] of Artes.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Artes, and further in view of Shi (Document ID: US 20230400860 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Lu further teaches in at least P [0109] “a user input 146 including an indication of a target task (or tasks) to be performed with respect to the facility 113 and/or environment 11”, which can also include waypoints in P [0036]. In P [0113]-[0114] it is clear that generating the composite mission data is further based on the input. But Lu and Artes do not explicitly teach obtaining, via a user computing device, input indicative of an edge between one or more waypoints, wherein the one or more waypoints are based on at least one of the first mission data or the second mission data.
Instead, Shi, whose invention pertains to enabling mobile robotic autonomous missions, teaches in P [0016] that a map consists of “waypoints, edges connecting two neighboring waypoints, and point clouds of the environment”. In P [0040] the functionality is seen to allow a user to input an edge between one or more waypoints for a mission.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mission planning and generation of Lu and Artes with the granular user intervention for mission definition of Shi in order to allow a user to fine tune the parameters for an autonomous mission as needed, as in P [0016] of Shi.
Regarding claim 7, modified Lu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Lu further teaches at least one of the first mission data or the second mission data indicates one or more first edges between a first waypoint and a second waypoint (see at least P [0109] “a user input 146 including an indication of a target task (or tasks) to be performed with respect to the facility 113 and/or environment 11”, which can also include waypoints in P [0036]),
In P [0113]-[0114] of Lu it is clear that generating the composite mission data is further based on the input, but Lu and Artes do not explicitly teach
obtaining, via a user computing device, input indicative of a second edge between the first waypoint and the second waypoint, wherein generating the composite mission data is further based on the input.
Instead, Shi teaches in P [0040] the ability to “modify existing edges” which would allow a user to define a second edge between the first waypoint and the second waypoint for a future mission.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mission planning and generation of Lu and Artes with the granular user intervention for mission definition of Shi in order to allow a user to fine tune the parameters for an autonomous mission as needed, as in P [0016] of Shi.
Regarding claim 11, modified Lu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Lu further teaches in P [0036] a given mission includes “matching waypoints (e.g., navigation points), captured gauges (e.g., using machine learning applied to captured images of the gauges), and the like to recorded robot missions”, indicating that the first mission data comprises navigation edges between a given set of waypoints, and the second mission data comprises navigation edges between a given set of waypoints. In P [0160] the “Navigation control and data services 626” necessarily link waypoints, or navigation points together alongside any tasks. But Lu and Artes do not explicitly teach
the first mission data comprises a first edge between a first waypoint and a second waypoint and a second edge between the second waypoint and a third waypoint, wherein the second mission data comprises a third edge between the third waypoint and a fourth waypoint and a fourth edge between the fourth waypoint and a fifth waypoint, wherein the composite mission data comprises a fifth edge between the first waypoint and the fifth waypoint, and wherein the first waypoint and the fifth waypoint were not directly connected in the first mission data and the second mission data.
Instead, Lu teaches in claim 8 the ability to identify “a set of waypoints common to the first mission file and the second mission file, wherein providing the first mission file and the second mission file is based on identifying the set of waypoints.” Therefore generation of the third mission data would combine common waypoints and connect the waypoints to create a loop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second mission mapping into a third mission of Lu and Artes with a final path connection to close the loop of a mission in order to condense a mission based on commonalities for optimal mission planning to reduce overlapping tasks, as in P [0037] of Lu.
Lu and Artes do not explicitly teach wherein the first waypoint and the fifth waypoint were not directly connected in the first mission data and the second mission data.
Instead, Shi teaches in P [0040] the ability to connect waypoints with edges based on the POIs in the environment, and specifically “If there is no direct connection between two POIs (such as, between 2 and 5), then the robot can find a path (such as, 2-3-5 or 2-4-5).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second mission mapping into a third mission of Lu and Artes with the ability to connect waypoints as desired even when there was no previous connection in the established mission of Shi in order to provide convenience to a mission generation system, especially when there are user interaction editing tools for navigation, as in P P [0040] of Shi.
Regarding claim 12, modified Lu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Lu further teaches in P [0036] a given mission includes “matching waypoints (e.g., navigation points), captured gauges (e.g., using machine learning applied to captured images of the gauges), and the like to recorded robot missions”, indicating that the first mission data comprises navigation edges between a given set of waypoints, and the second mission data comprises navigation edges between a given set of waypoints. In P [0160] the “Navigation control and data services 626” necessarily link waypoints, or navigation points together alongside any tasks. But Lu and Artes do not explicitly teach
the first robot mission comprises a mission to navigate from a first waypoint to a second waypoint, wherein the second robot mission comprises a mission to navigate from the second waypoint to a third waypoint, wherein the composite mission data is associated with a third robot mission comprising a mission to navigate from the first waypoint to the second waypoint and from the second waypoint to the third waypoint, wherein the first robot mission excludes the third waypoint, and wherein the second robot mission excludes the first waypoint.
Instead, Lu teaches in claim 8 the ability to identify “a set of waypoints common to the first mission file and the second mission file, wherein providing the first mission file and the second mission file is based on identifying the set of waypoints.” Therefore generation of the third mission data would combine common waypoints and connect the waypoints to create a loop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second mission mapping into a third mission of Lu and Artes with connection between the first and second missions with overlapping second waypoint in order to condense a mission based on commonalities for optimal mission planning to reduce overlapping tasks, as in P [0037] of Lu.
Lu and Artes do not explicitly teach wherein the first robot mission excludes the third waypoint, and wherein the second robot mission excludes the first waypoint.
Instead, Shi teaches in P [0040] the ability to connect waypoints with edges based on the POIs in the environment, and specifically “If there is no direct connection between two POIs (such as, between 2 and 5), then the robot can find a path (such as, 2-3-5 or 2-4-5).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second mission mapping into a third mission of Lu and Artes with the ability to connect waypoints as desired even when there was no previous connection in the established mission of Shi in order to provide convenience to a mission generation system, especially when there are user interaction editing tools for navigation, as in P [0040] of Shi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the ability to toggle a path of Shi could be used to modify Lu to combine waypoints in any order, especially to “stitch” them together as needed for a mission.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-1 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
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.
Additional art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document ID: US 20220035372 A1
Invention pertains to a task graph for creating and executing a mission.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dairon Estevez whose telephone number is (703)756-4552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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.
/D.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights