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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-25 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non Final Office Action on the on merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 2/5/2025, 4/3/2025, 4/16/2025. and 2/13/2026 have been acknowledged by the Office.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0236] refers to "a first portion of a second mission 906A" as well as "a second portion of the second mission 906A". Looking at FIG. 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 19, 19-21, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lu (Document ID: US 20240189997 A1).
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”);
generating, by the data processing hardware, composite mission data based on the first mission data and the second mission data, wherein the composite mission data comprises at least a portion of the first mission data and at least a portion of the second mission data (see 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”); and
instructing, by the data processing hardware, navigation of at least one robot according to the composite 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).
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, 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 8, 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 10, 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, Lu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and 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 (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).
Regarding claim 21, 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 24. 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.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 9, 11-12, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu.
Regarding claim 2, 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. This is not explicitly verifying the composite mission data based on the one or more characteristics.
However, Lu does perform steps such as identifying robot capability in step 1535 of FIG. 15 or in P [0146] through analysis of capability requirements. Therefore 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 capability requirements evaluation used for assigning tasks of Lu with a step for verifying the composite mission generated based on the robot characteristics in order to properly segregate and assign tasks requests as in P [0146] of Lu, which insures no incompatible tasks or missions are given to a particular robot.
Regarding claim 5, 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 does 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 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 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 does 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 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 11, 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 does 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, and wherein the composite mission data comprises a fifth edge between the first waypoint and the fifth 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 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 12, 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 does 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, and 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.
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 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.
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. But Lu does 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 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 does 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 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) 3 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Chen et al., hereinafter Chen (Document ID: US 20220300011 A1).
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 does not explicitly teach
instructing display of a user interface based on comparing the one or more characteristics with at least a portion of the composite mission data, wherein the user interface comprises an alert.
Instead, Chen, whose invention pertains to defining missions for robots, 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.
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 with the user interface and mission confirmation system of Chen in order to modify schedules as needed in P [0311] and optionally include status checks as needed.
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 does not explicitly teach using a common fiducial.
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 with the fiducial of Chen in order to properly identify a robot and its mission.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Shi (Document ID: US 20230400860 A1).
Regarding claim 6, 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 does 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 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, 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] it is clear that generating the composite mission data is further based on the input, but Lu does 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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document ID: US 20250044108 A1
Invention pertains to a path finding and path planning method for a vehicle.
Document ID: US 20170160393 A1
Invention pertains to waypoint receiving and modifying method for a mobile structure.
Document ID: US 12367438 B2
Invention pertains to controlling multiple actors in a warehouse for performing a shared goal.
Document ID: US 20210373558 A1
Invention pertains to a robotic device capable of creating and maintaining a personalized mission routine.
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