DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the Republic of Korea on 12/15/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0182702 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 were originally filed on 12/13/2024 and claimed priority on KR10-2023-0182702, which was filed on 12/15/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 01/28/2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “A robot control method for controlling at least one robot providing a robot service in a building where a plurality of elevators installed in a robot control apparatus operated by a processor,”. This limitation is not written in grammatically correct English. Applicant should amend the claim so that it is written in grammatically correct English (e.g. A robot control method for controlling at least one robot providing a robot service in a building where a plurality of elevators are installed, wherein the robot control method is executed by a robot control apparatus operated by a processor,)
“an elevator boarding request” in line 8 of claim 1 should be “the elevator boarding request”
For claim 11, “among at least one of the robots” in lines 6-7 should be “among the at least one robot”
For claim 13, “an elevator call” in line 3 should be “the elevator call”
For claim 14, “the predicting an elevator to be allocated by a group management controller includes” in line 2 should be “the predicting the elevator to be allocated by the group management controller includes”.
For claim 14, “predicting an elevator to be allocated” in line 3 should be “predicting the elevator to be allocated”.
For claim 14, Applicant should remove the “d” after allocated in the last line so that the claim reads “elevator allocated by the group management controller”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 lacks antecedent basis for “the elevator call” in line 2. It is unclear what elevator call Applicant is referring to.
Regarding Claims 11-18, Claim 11 lacks antecedent basis for “the plurality of control panels” in lines 8-9. It is unclear what control panels Applicant is referring to.
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 1-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more.
Claim 1 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 1 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “predicting an elevator to be allocated by a group management controller when an elevator is called according to an elevator boarding request, based on the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators and elevator allocation history information of the group management controller”. This can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally predict the elevator that a group management controller is going to allocate for the robot based on the operation status information of each elevator and the allocation history information of the group management controller. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are a robot control apparatus operated by a processor, receiving an elevator boarding request from a first robot among the at least one robot, receiving operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators from each of a plurality of control panels, and transmitting allocation prediction information including information of the predicted elevator to the first robot. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a robot control apparatus operated by a processor is merely using a tool to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)), receiving an elevator boarding request and operation status information is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)), and transmitting allocation prediction information is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are a robot control apparatus operated by a processor, receiving an elevator boarding request from a first robot among the at least one robot, receiving operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators from each of a plurality of control panels, and transmitting allocation prediction information including information of the predicted elevator to the first robot. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a robot control apparatus operated by a processor is merely using a tool to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)), receiving an elevator boarding request and operation status information is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)), and transmitting allocation prediction information is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
(Note: Applicant can overcome the 101 rejection by controlling the robot to do something e.g. move to a location of the predicted elevator, board the predicted elevator, etc.)
Claim 2 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 2 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are transmitting an elevator call according to the elevator boarding request to the group management controller through at least one of the plurality of control panels, after the transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because transmitting an elevator call is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are transmitting an elevator call according to the elevator boarding request to the group management controller through at least one of the plurality of control panels, after the transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because transmitting an elevator call is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 3 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 3 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “the predicting is performed each time the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators is received until the elevator allocated by the group management controller arrives according to the elevator call”. This can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally predict the elevator that a group management controller is going to allocate each time the operation status information of each elevator is received until the allocated elevator arrives. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are the receiving operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators includes periodically and non-periodically receiving operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators from each of the plurality of control panels. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because periodically and non-periodically receiving operation status information is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are the receiving operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators includes periodically and non-periodically receiving operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators from each of the plurality of control panels. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because periodically and non-periodically receiving operation status information is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 4 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 4 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “checking arrival information of the elevator allocated by the group management controller according to the elevator call”. This can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally check arrival information of the elevator according to the elevator call. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are transmitting the arrival information to the first robot. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because transmitting the arrival information is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are transmitting the arrival information to the first robot. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because transmitting the arrival information is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 5 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 5 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “determining whether the first robot is able to board the predicted elevator, before transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot.”. This can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally determine whether the first robot is able to board the predicted elevator, before transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements.
Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements.
Claim 6 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 6 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are transmitting the elevator call according to the elevator boarding request to the group management controller through at least one of the plurality of control panels, after transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot, and delaying, until it is determined that the first robot can board the predicted elevator, a transmission of the elevator call when it is determined that the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because transmitting the elevator call is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are transmitting the elevator call according to the elevator boarding request to the group management controller through at least one of the plurality of control panels, after transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot, and delaying, until it is determined that the first robot can board the predicted elevator, a transmission of the elevator call when it is determined that the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because transmitting the elevator call is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 7 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 7 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are transmitting a call signal including information of another elevator to the group management controller through at least one of the plurality of control panels when it is determined that the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because transmitting a call signal is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are transmitting a call signal including information of another elevator to the group management controller through at least one of the plurality of control panels when it is determined that the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because transmitting a call signal is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 8 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 8 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “determining whether the first robot is able to board the predicted elevator includes determining whether the first robot is able to board the predicted elevator by considering the number of robots that can board the elevator and a loading capacity of the elevator.”. This can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally determine whether the first robot is able to board the predicted elevator by considering the number of robots that can board the elevator and a loading capacity of the elevator. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements.
Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements.
Claim 9 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 9 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “identifying an elevator allocation result of the group management controller by analyzing the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators”. This can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally identify an elevator allocation result by analyzing the operation status of each elevator. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are periodically and non-periodically receiving operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators from each of the plurality of control panels, storing operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators, and managing the elevator allocation history information by storing the identified elevator allocation result. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because periodically and non-periodically receiving operation status information is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)), and storing operation status information and storing the identified elevator allocation result is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are periodically and non-periodically receiving operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators from each of the plurality of control panels, storing operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators, and managing the elevator allocation history information by storing the identified elevator allocation result. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because periodically and non-periodically receiving operation status information is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)), and storing operation status information and storing the identified elevator allocation result is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 10 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 10 is a method/process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “the predicting an elevator to be allocated includes estimating elevator allocation rules used by the group management controller for elevator allocation based on the elevator allocation history information of the group management controller stored during a predetermined period of time; and predicting the elevator to be allocated by the group management controller using the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators and the elevator allocation rules.”. This can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally estimate the elevator allocation rules by using the stored elevator allocation history information. The person can then mentally predict the elevator to be allocated using the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators and the elevator allocation rules. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements.
Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements.
Claim 11 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 11 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “predicting an elevator to be allocated by a group management controller using elevator allocation rules and operation status information of the plurality of elevators, before transmitting an elevator call according to the elevator boarding request to the group management controller”. This can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally predict the elevator that a group management controller is going to allocate for the robot based on the operation status information of each elevator and allocation rules before an elevator call is transmitted. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are a processor, a memory, receiving an elevator boarding request from a first robot among at least one of the robots, receiving operation status information of the plurality of elevators from the plurality of control panels that respectively control the plurality of elevators, and transmitting allocation prediction information for the elevator to be allocated by the group management controller to the first robot. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a processor and memory are merely tools used to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)), receiving an elevator boarding request and operation status information is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)), and transmitting allocation prediction information is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are a processor, a memory, receiving an elevator boarding request from a first robot among at least one of the robots, receiving operation status information of the plurality of elevators from the plurality of control panels that respectively control the plurality of elevators, and transmitting allocation prediction information for the elevator to be allocated by the group management controller to the first robot. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a processor and memory are merely tools used to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)), receiving an elevator boarding request and operation status information is merely data gathering (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)), and transmitting allocation prediction information is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
(Note: Applicant can overcome the 101 rejection by controlling the robot to do something e.g. move to a location of the predicted elevator, board the predicted elevator, etc.)
Claim 12 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 12 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “estimating the elevator allocation rules of the group management controller based on elevator allocation history information of the group management controller according to operation status information of the plurality of elevators received during a predetermined period of time, before receiving the elevator boarding request.”. This can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally estimate the elevator allocation rules by using the elevator allocation history information according to operation status information of the plurality of elevators before receiving the elevator boarding request. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements.
Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements.
Claim 13 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 13 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are transmitting an elevator call according to the elevator boarding request to the plurality of control panels, after transmitting allocation prediction information to the first robot. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because transmitting an elevator call is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are transmitting an elevator call according to the elevator boarding request to the plurality of control panels, after transmitting allocation prediction information to the first robot. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because transmitting an elevator call is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 14 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 14 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “predicting an elevator to be allocated by a group management controller includes predicting an elevator to be allocated by the group management controller by using the elevator allocation rules and the operation status information of the plurality of elevators, each time the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators is received, until the elevator allocated d by the group management controller arrives according to the elevator call.”. This can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally predict an elevator to be allocated by using the elevator allocation rules and the operation status information of the plurality of elevators, each time the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators is received, until the elevator allocated by the group management controller arrives. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements.
Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements.
Claim 15 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 15 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “determining whether the first robot is able to board the predicted elevator.”. This can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally determine whether the first robot can board the predicted elevator using dimensions of the robot and occupancy of the predicted elevator. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot when the first robot can board the predicted elevator. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because transmitting allocation prediction information is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot when the first robot can board the predicted elevator. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because transmitting allocation prediction information is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 16 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 16 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “generating a call signal including information about another elevator when it is determined that the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator.”. This can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally generate a call signal including information about another elevator when the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements.
Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements.
Claim 17 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 17 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are delaying, until it is determined that the first robot can board the predicted elevator, a transmission of the elevator call when it is determined that the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because delaying a transmission of the elevator call is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are delaying, until it is determined that the first robot can board the predicted elevator, a transmission of the elevator call when it is determined that the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because delaying a transmission of the elevator call is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 18 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 18 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are updating the elevator allocation rules at a predetermined cycle while the plurality of elevators are in operation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because updating elevator allocation rules is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are updating the elevator allocation rules at a predetermined cycle while the plurality of elevators are in operation. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because updating elevator allocation rules is considered insignificant post-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belov et al (US 20230271806 A1) in view of Min et al (US 20210387829 A1), Emacha et al (US 20230017144 A1), and Kim et al (US 20240083710 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Belov, Min, Emacha, and Kim 710 respectively)
Regarding Claim 1, Belov teaches a robot control method for controlling at least one robot providing a robot service in a building where a plurality of elevators installed in a robot control apparatus operated by a processor (See at least Belov Paragraphs 0003, 0053, and Figure 1, the AGV is interpreted as the robot, and the method is executed by a processor), the robot control method comprising:
receiving an elevator boarding request from a first robot among the at least one robot (See at least Belov Paragraphs 0042, 0046, and Figure 2a, the robot indicating a destination floor is interpreted as the elevator boarding request);
receiving operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators (See at least Belov Paragraphs 0034, 0043, and Figure 2b, the status of the elevators are received and used to determine which elevator is to be allocated)…
Belov fails to explicitly disclose the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators is received… from each of a plurality of control panels.
However, Min teaches the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators is received… from each of a plurality of control panels (See at least Min Paragraphs 0065-0066, there are a plurality of elevator control devices/panels, which provide the operation information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Belov with Min to receive the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators from each of a plurality of control panels. This modification, as taught by Min, would allow the plurality of elevator control panels/devices that control each respective elevator to communicate the state information, identification information, current floor information, door information, and moving direction of each elevator to the system (See at least Min Paragraphs 0007 and 0065-0066), thus, increasing the awareness of the system in Belov.
Modified Belov fails to disclose predicting an elevator to be allocated by a group management controller when an elevator is called according to an elevator boarding request, based on the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators…and
transmitting allocation prediction information including information of the predicted elevator to the first robot.
However, Emacha teaches predicting an elevator to be allocated by a group management controller when an elevator is called according to an elevator boarding request, based on the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators (See at least Emacha Paragraphs 0026 and 0046, the robot control subsystem calculates/predicts the elevator to be allocated by the elevator control subsystem/group management controller by using the usage and destinations, which is interpreted as operation status information)…and
transmitting allocation prediction information including information of the predicted elevator to the first robot (See at least Emacha Paragraphs 0044, 0046, 0049, 0057, and 0077, the robot control subsystem calculates/predicts an elevator to be allocated, and transmits the route regarding the allocated elevator to the robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Emacha to predict an elevator to be allocated by a group management controller based on the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators and transmit allocation prediction information including information of the predicted elevator to the first robot. This modification, as taught by Emacha, would allow the system to calculate and transmit a suitable route for the robot to use when moving within a building (See at least Emacha Paragraphs 0044, 0046, 0049, 0057, and 0077), thus, improving the navigation of the robot.
Modified Belov fails to disclose predict an elevator to be allocated based on…elevator allocation history information of the group management controller.
However, Kim 710 teaches predict an elevator to be allocated based on…elevator allocation history information of the group management controller (See at least Kim 710 Paragraphs 0056-0057, and 0085-0086, the past data regarding which elevator line was allocated by the group management unit is used to calculate an elevator to be allocated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Kim 710 to predict an elevator to be allocated based on elevator allocation history information of the group management controller. This modification, as taught by Kim 710, would allow a machine learning system to plan and establish elevator allocation using past data (See at least Kim 710 Paragraphs 0056-0057, and 0085-0086), thus, improving the allocation and scheduling of the elevators.
Claims 2, 4, 11-12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belov in view of Min, Emacha, and Kim 710, and in further view of Deyle et al (US 20220234194 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Deyle)
Regarding Claim 2, modified Belov fails to disclose transmitting an elevator call according to the elevator boarding request to the group management controller through at least one of the plurality of control panels, after the transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot.
However, Deyle teaches transmitting an elevator call according to the elevator boarding request …through at least one of the plurality of control panels, after the transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot (See at least Deyle Paragraphs 0007, 0052, 0222-0223, and Figure 13, the robot controller identifies and transmits the allocated elevator to the robot, and then the robot moves to the elevator and uses the control panel/button to transmit an elevator call) and Kim 710 teaches transmitting an elevator call to the group management controller (See at least Kim 710 Paragraph 0057, the call button/control panel is used to transmit an elevator call to the group management controller/unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Kim 710 and Deyle to transmit an elevator call according to the elevator boarding request to the group management controller through at least one of the plurality of control panels, after the transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot. By transmitting the elevator call through at least one of the plurality of control panels, after the transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot, as taught by Deyle, the robot can first navigate to the location of the allocated elevator using the allocation prediction information, and then call the elevator using the control panel once the robot has arrived (See at least Deyle Paragraphs, 0222-0223, and Figure 13), thus, allowing the robot to board the elevator as soon as it arrives. By transmitting the elevator call to the group management controller, as taught by Kim 710, the group management controller can assign the optimal elevator in response to the call input through the control panel/call button (See at least Kim 710 Paragraph 0057).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Belov teaches checking arrival information of the elevator allocated by the group management controller according to the elevator call (See at least Belov Paragraphs 0034-0035, 0043, and 0045, determining the identifier of the allocated elevator is interpreted as checking arrival information), and transmitting the arrival information to the first robot (See at least Belov Paragraphs 0035 and 0045, the information identifying the allocated elevator car, which is interpreted as the arrival information, is transmitted to the robot).
Regarding Claim 11, Belov teaches a robot control apparatus that controls at least one robot providing robot service in a building where a plurality of elevators are installed (See at least Belov Paragraphs 0010, 0053, and Figure 2a, the AGV is interpreted as the robot), the robot control apparatus comprising:
a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores instructions configured to cause the processor to perform a process (See at least Belov Paragraph 0053, and Figure 3), and the process includes:
receiving an elevator boarding request from a first robot among at least one of the robots (See at least Belov Paragraphs 0042, 0046, and Figure 2a, the robot indicating a destination floor is interpreted as the elevator boarding request);
receiving operation status information of the plurality of elevators (See at least Belov Paragraphs 0034, 0043, and Figure 2b, the status of the elevators are received and used to determine which elevator is to be allocated)…
Belov fails to explicitly disclose the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators is received… from the plurality of control panels that respectively control the plurality of elevators.
However, Min teaches the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators is received… from the plurality of control panels that respectively control the plurality of elevators (See at least Min Paragraphs 0065-0066, there are a plurality of elevator control devices/panels, which provide the operation information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Belov with Min to receive the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators from the plurality of control panels that respectively control the plurality of elevators. This modification, as taught by Min, would allow the plurality of elevator control panels/devices that control each respective elevator to communicate the state information, identification information, current floor information, door information, and moving direction of each elevator to the system (See at least Min Paragraphs 0007 and 0065-0066), thus, increasing the awareness of the system in Belov.
Modified Belov fails to disclose predicting an elevator to be allocated by a group management controller using elevator allocation rules and operation status information of the plurality of elevators …and
transmitting allocation prediction information for the elevator to be allocated by the group management controller to the first robot.
However, Emacha teaches predicting an elevator to be allocated by a group management controller using elevator allocation rules and operation status information of the plurality of elevators (See at least Emacha Paragraphs 0026, and 0046-0047, the robot control subsystem calculates/predicts the elevator to be allocated by the elevator control subsystem/group management controller by using the usage and destinations, which is interpreted as operation status information, and rules regarding occupancy and available space)…and
transmitting allocation prediction information for the elevator to be allocated by the group management controller to the first robot (See at least Emacha Paragraphs 0044, 0046, 0049, 0057, and 0077, the robot control subsystem calculates/predicts an elevator to be allocated, and transmits the route regarding the allocated elevator to the robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Emacha to predict an elevator to be allocated by a group management controller using elevator allocation rules and operation status information and transmit allocation prediction information to the first robot. This modification, as taught by Emacha, would allow the system to calculate and transmit a suitable route for the robot to use when moving within a building (See at least Emacha Paragraphs 0044, 0046, 0049, 0057, and 0077), thus, improving the navigation of the robot.
Modified Belov fails to disclose predict an elevator to be allocated… before transmitting an elevator call according to the elevator boarding request to the group management controller.
However, Deyle teaches predict an elevator to be allocated… before transmitting an elevator call according to the elevator boarding request (See at least Deyle Paragraphs 0007, 0052, 0222-0223, and Figure 13, the robot controller identifies/predicts an elevator before transmitting an elevator call using the button), and Kim 710 teaches transmitting an elevator call to the group management controller (See at least Kim 710 Paragraph 0057, the call button/control panel is used to transmit an elevator call to the group management controller/unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Kim 710 and Deyle to predict an elevator to be allocated before transmitting an elevator call according to the elevator boarding request to the group management controller. By predicting the elevator to be allocated before transmitting the elevator call, as taught by Deyle, the robot can first navigate to the location of the allocated elevator using the allocation prediction information, and then call the elevator using the control panel once the robot has arrived (See at least Deyle Paragraphs, 0222-0223, and Figure 13), thus, allowing the robot to board the elevator as soon as it arrives. By transmitting the elevator call to the group management controller, as taught by Kim 710, the group management controller can assign the optimal elevator in response to the call input through the control panel/call button (See at least Kim 710 Paragraph 0057).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Belov fails to disclose estimating the elevator allocation rules of the group management controller based on elevator allocation history information of the group management controller according to operation status information of the plurality of elevators received during a predetermined period of time, before receiving the elevator boarding request.
However, Kim 710 teaches estimating the elevator allocation rules of the group management controller based on elevator allocation history information of the group management controller according to operation status information of the plurality of elevators received during a predetermined period of time (See at least Kim 710 Paragraphs 0074-0078, and 0083-0086, a learning model is used to determine the allocation rules based on past data/allocation history information and operation status information stored during certain hours or certain days), before receiving the elevator boarding request (See at least Kim 710 Paragraphs 0164-0171, and Figure 3, the rules are determined before receiving the boarding request/call from the robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Kim 710 to estimate the elevator allocation rules based on elevator allocation history information of the group management controller according to operation status information of the plurality of elevators received during a predetermined period of time before receiving the elevator boarding request. This modification, as taught by Kim 710, would allow the system to establish a learning model that estimates the allocation rules for allocating elevator lines for robots during certain hours or certain days based on past accumulated data (See at least Kim 710 Paragraphs 0074-0078, and 0083-0086), which would improve the system’s ability to predict which elevator will be allocated.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Belov fails to disclose generating a call signal including information about another elevator when it is determined that the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator.
However, Deyle teaches generating a call signal including information about another elevator when it is determined that the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator (See at least Deyle Paragraphs 0210 and 0222, when the robot cannot board the identified elevator, the robot calls another elevator through a control panel/button outside the elevator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Deyle to generate a call signal including information about another elevator when it is determined that the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator. This modification, as taught by Deyle, would allow the robot to call another elevator when the robot cannot board the identified/predicted elevator (See at least Deyle Paragraphs 0210 and 0222).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Belov fails to disclose updating the elevator allocation rules at a predetermined cycle while the plurality of elevators are in operation.
However, Kim 710 teaches updating the elevator allocation rules at a predetermined cycle while the plurality of elevators are in operation (See at least Kim 710 Paragraphs 0065-0070, and 0091, the modes/allocation rules for the elevators are updated/switched according to a preset time schedule).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Kim 710 to update the elevator allocation rules at a predetermined cycle while the plurality of elevators are in operation. This modification, as taught by Kim 710, would allow the system to adapt the elevator allocation based on traffic characteristics by time of day in the building (See at least Kim 710 Paragraphs 0065-0070, and 0091), thus, improving the elevation allocation process.
Claims 3, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belov in view of Min, Emacha, Kim 710, and Deyle, and in further view of Kim et al (US 20220005303 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Kim 303)
Regarding Claim 3, modified Belov teaches the receiving operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators includes…non-periodically receiving operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators (See at least Belov Paragraphs 0034, 0043, and Figure 2b, the status of the elevators are received non-periodically when the robot requires an elevator).
Modified Belov fails to disclose non-periodically receiving operation status information…from each of the plurality of control panels.
However, Min teaches the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators is received… from each of a plurality of control panels (See at least Min Paragraphs 0065-0066, there are a plurality of elevator control devices/panels, which provide the operation information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Min to non-periodically receive the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators from each of a plurality of control panels. This modification, as taught by Min, would allow the plurality of elevator control panels/devices that control each respective elevator to communicate the state information, identification information, current floor information, door information, and moving direction of each elevator to the system (See at least Min Paragraphs 0007 and 0065-0066), thus, increasing the awareness of the system in Belov.
Modified Belov fails to disclose the predicting is performed each time the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators is received until the elevator allocated by the group management controller arrives according to the elevator call.
However, Emacha teaches the predicting is performed each time the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators is received until the elevator allocated by the group management controller arrives according to the elevator call (See at least Emacha Paragraphs 0046-0047, and 0049-0050, the robot control subsystem calculates/predicts the elevator to be allocated in response to the information provided until the robot boards the elevator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Emacha to perform the predicting each time the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators is received until the elevator allocated by the group management controller arrives. This modification, as taught by Emacha, would allow the system to update its prediction for the elevator based on the received operation status information (See at least Emacha Paragraphs 0046-0047, and 0049-0050), thus, improving the prediction performed by the system.
Modified Belov fails to disclose periodically receiving operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators.
However, Kim 303 teaches periodically receiving operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators (See at least Kim 303 Paragraph 0241, the status information/image data is received periodically).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Kim 303 to periodically receive operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators. Periodically receiving operations status information, as taught by Kim 303, is routine and well-understood in the art, and allows the system to periodically update the status information of each elevator, thus, improving the awareness of the system.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Belov fails to disclose delaying, until it is determined that the first robot can board the predicted elevator, a transmission of the elevator call when it is determined that the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator.
However, Kim 303 teaches delaying, until it is determined that the first robot can board the predicted elevator, a transmission of the elevator call when it is determined that the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator (See at least Kim 303 Paragraphs 0240, 0243-0245, and 0249-0250, the elevator call is delayed until the robot can board the elevator when it is determined that the robot cannot board the elevator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Kim 303 to delay a transmission of the elevator call when it is determined that the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator. This modification, as taught by Kim 303, would minimize disturbance or discomfort of other users of the elevator (See at least Kim 303 Paragraphs 0243-0250)
Claims 5, and 8, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belov in view of Min, Emacha, and Kim 710, and in further view of Kang et al (US 20230416053 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Kang)
Regarding Claim 5, modified Belov fails to disclose determining whether the first robot is able to board the predicted elevator, before transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot.
However, Kang teaches determining whether the first robot is able to board the predicted elevator, before transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot (See at least Kang Paragraphs 0052-0054, 0056-0057, and Figure 1, the boarding/alighting controller determines whether the robot can board the predicted/allocated elevator, before transmitting the signal instructing the robot to board the allocated elevator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Kang to determine whether the first robot is able to board the predicted elevator, before transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot. This modification, as taught by Kang, would ensure that the robot is only instructed to board the predicted elevator once it is determined that the robot is able to board the predicted elevator (See at least Kang Paragraphs 0056-0057).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Belov fails to disclose determining whether the first robot is able to board the predicted elevator includes determining whether the first robot is able to board the predicted elevator by considering the number of robots that can board the elevator and a loading capacity of the elevator.
However, Kim 710 teaches determining whether the first robot is able to board the predicted elevator includes determining whether the first robot is able to board the predicted elevator by considering the number of robots that can board the elevator and a loading capacity of the elevator (See at least Kim 710 Paragraphs 0036, 0150, 0154-0155, 0163, 0166-0167, and 0171, determining whether a robot can board an elevator includes considering the number of robots that can board the elevator and a loading capacity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Kim 710 to determine whether the first robot is able to board the predicted elevator by considering the number of robots that can board the elevator and a loading capacity of the elevator. This modification, as taught by Kim 710, would ensure that the number of robots on the elevator and load capacity of the elevator do not exceed maximum values (See at least Kim 710 Paragraphs 0166-0167, and 0171), which would improve the safety and comfort of the elevator.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belov in view of Min, Emacha, Kim 710, and Kang, and in further view of Deyle and Kim 303
Regarding Claim 6, modified Belov fails to disclose transmitting the elevator call according to the elevator boarding request to the group management controller through at least one of the plurality of control panels, after transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot.
However, Deyle teaches transmitting the elevator call according to the elevator boarding request …through at least one of the plurality of control panels, after transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot (See at least Deyle Paragraphs 0007, 0052, 0222-0223, and Figure 13, the robot controller identifies and transmits the allocated elevator to the robot, and then the robot moves to the elevator and uses the control panel/button to transmit an elevator call) and Kim 710 teaches transmitting the elevator call to the group management controller (See at least Kim 710 Paragraph 0057, the call button/control panel is used to transmit an elevator call to the group management controller/unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Kim 710 and Deyle to transmit the elevator call according to the elevator boarding request to the group management controller through at least one of the plurality of control panels, after transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot. By transmitting the elevator call through at least one of the plurality of control panels, after the transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot, as taught by Deyle, the robot can first navigate to the location of the allocated elevator using the allocation prediction information, and then call the elevator using the control panel once the robot has arrived (See at least Deyle Paragraphs, 0222-0223, and Figure 13), thus, allowing the robot to board the elevator as soon as it arrives. By transmitting the elevator call to the group management controller, as taught by Kim 710, the group management controller can assign the optimal elevator in response to the call input through the control panel/call button (See at least Kim 710 Paragraph 0057).
Modified Belov fails to disclose delaying, until it is determined that the first robot can board the predicted elevator, a transmission of the elevator call when it is determined that the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator.
However, Kim 303 teaches delaying, until it is determined that the first robot can board the predicted elevator, a transmission of the elevator call when it is determined that the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator (See at least Kim 303 Paragraphs 0240, 0243-0245, and 0249-0250, the elevator call is delayed until the robot can board the elevator when it is determined that the robot cannot board the elevator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Kim 303 to delay a transmission of the elevator call when it is determined that the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator. This modification, as taught by Kim 303, would minimize disturbance or discomfort of other users of the elevator (See at least Kim 303 Paragraphs 0243-0250)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belov in view of Min, Emacha, Kim 710, and Kang, and in further view of Deyle
Regarding Claim 7, modified Belov fails to disclose transmitting a call signal including information of another elevator to the group management controller through at least one of the plurality of control panels when it is determined that the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator.
However, Deyle teaches transmitting a call signal including information of another elevator …through at least one of the plurality of control panels when it is determined that the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator (See at least Deyle Paragraphs 0210 and 0222, when the robot cannot board the identified elevator, the robot calls another elevator through a control panel/button outside the elevator) and Kim 710 teaches transmitting a call signal to the group management controller (See at least Kim 710 Paragraph 0057, the call button/control panel is used to transmit an elevator call to the group management controller/unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Kim 710 and Deyle to transmit a call signal including information of another elevator to the group management controller through at least one of the plurality of control panels when it is determined that the first robot cannot board the predicted elevator. This modification, as taught by Deyle, would allow the robot to call another elevator when the robot cannot board the identified/predicted elevator (See at least Deyle Paragraphs 0210 and 0222). By transmitting the call signal to the group management controller, as taught by Kim 710, the group management controller can assign the optimal elevator in response to the call input through the control panel/call button (See at least Kim 710 Paragraph 0057).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belov in view of Min, Emacha, and Kim 710, and in further view of Kim 303
Regarding Claim 9, modified Belov teaches the receiving operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators includes…non-periodically receiving operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators (See at least Belov Paragraphs 0034, 0043, and Figure 2b, the status of the elevators are received non-periodically when the robot requires an elevator).
Modified Belov fails to disclose non-periodically receiving operation status information…from each of the plurality of control panels, and
storing operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators.
However, Min teaches the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators is received… from each of a plurality of control panels (See at least Min Paragraphs 0065-0066, there are a plurality of elevator control devices/panels, which provide the operation information), and
storing operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators (See at least Min Paragraphs 0065-0066 and 0106, the operation information of the elevators is stored and updated in real time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Min to non-periodically receive the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators from each of a plurality of control panels and to store the operation status information. This modification, as taught by Min, would allow the plurality of elevator control panels/devices that control each respective elevator to communicate the state information, identification information, current floor information, door information, and moving direction of each elevator to the system (See at least Min Paragraphs 0007 and 0065-0066), thus, increasing the awareness of the system in Belov. By storing the operation status information, as taught by Min, the system can utilize the operation status information at a later time.
Modified Belov fails to disclose identifying an elevator allocation result of the group management controller by analyzing the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators.
However, Emacha teaches identifying an elevator allocation result of the group management controller by analyzing the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators (See at least Emacha Paragraphs 0026 and 0046, the robot control subsystem calculates/identifies the elevator to be allocated by the elevator control subsystem/group management controller by using the usage and destinations, which is interpreted as operation status information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Emacha to identify an elevator allocation result of the group management controller by analyzing the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators. This modification, as taught by Emacha, would allow the system to navigate the robot to the identified allocated elevator (See at least Emacha Paragraphs 0044, 0046-0047, and 0049-0050), thus, improving the control over the robot.
Modified Belov fails to disclose managing the elevator allocation history information by storing the identified elevator allocation result.
However, Kim 710 teaches managing the elevator allocation history information by storing the identified elevator allocation result (See at least Kim 710 Paragraphs 0084-0086, accumulating past data regarding the robots using a certain elevator is interpreted as storing the elevator allocation result).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Kim 710 to store the identified elevator allocation result. This modification, as taught by Kim 710, would allow the system to plan and establish elevator allocation using past elevator allocation results (See at least Kim 710 Paragraphs 0084-0086), thus, improving the elevator allocation process.
Modified Belov fails to disclose periodically receiving operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators.
However, Kim 303 teaches periodically receiving operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators (See at least Kim 303 Paragraph 0241, the status information/image data is received periodically).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Kim 303 to periodically receive operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators. Periodically receiving operations status information, as taught by Kim 303, is routine and well-understood in the art, and allows the system to periodically update the status information of each elevator, thus, improving the awareness of the system.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Belov fails to disclose predicting the elevator to be allocated by the group management controller using the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators.
However, Emacha teaches predicting the elevator to be allocated by the group management controller using the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators (See at least Emacha Paragraphs 0026 and 0046, the robot control subsystem calculates/predicts the elevator to be allocated by the elevator control subsystem/group management controller by using the usage and destinations, which is interpreted as operation status information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Emacha to predict an elevator to be allocated by a group management controller based on the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators. This modification, as taught by Emacha, would allow the system to calculate and transmit a suitable route for the robot to use when moving within a building (See at least Emacha Paragraphs 0044, 0046, 0049, 0057, and 0077), thus, improving the navigation of the robot.
Modified Belov fails to disclose estimating elevator allocation rules used by the group management controller for elevator allocation based on the elevator allocation history information of the group management controller stored during a predetermined period of time; and
predicting the elevator to be allocated using the elevator allocation rules.
However, Kim 710 teaches estimating elevator allocation rules used by the group management controller for elevator allocation based on the elevator allocation history information of the group management controller stored during a predetermined period of time (See at least Kim 710 Paragraphs 0074-0078, and 0083-0086, a learning model is used to determine the allocation rules based on past data/allocation history information stored during certain hours or certain days); and
predicting the elevator to be allocated using the elevator allocation rules (See at least Kim 710 Paragraphs 0074-0078, and 0083-0086, the elevator to be allocated is determined using the rules).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Kim 710 to predict the elevator to be allocated using the elevator allocation rules. This modification, as taught by Kim 710, would allow the system to plan and establish elevator allocation using the allocation rules that are based on the elevator allocation history information stored during certain hours or certain days (See at least Kim 710 Paragraphs 0084-0086), thus, improving the elevator allocation process.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belov in view of Min, Emacha, Kim 710, and Deyle, and in further view of Noguchi et al (US 20220033216 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Noguchi)
Regarding Claim 13, modified Belov fails to disclose transmitting an elevator call according to the elevator boarding request…, after transmitting allocation prediction information to the first robot.
However, Deyle teaches transmitting an elevator call according to the elevator boarding request…, after transmitting allocation prediction information to the first robot (See at least Deyle Paragraphs 0007, 0052, 0222-0223, and Figure 13, the robot controller identifies and transmits the allocated elevator to the robot, and then the robot moves to the elevator and uses the button to transmit an elevator call).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Deyle to transmit the elevator call after transmitting allocation prediction information to the first robot. By transmitting the elevator call after transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot, as taught by Deyle, the robot can first navigate to the location of the allocated elevator using the allocation prediction information, and then call the elevator using the control panel once the robot has arrived (See at least Deyle Paragraphs, 0222-0223, and Figure 13), thus, allowing the robot to board the elevator as soon as it arrives.
Modified Belov fails to disclose transmitting an elevator call…to the plurality of control panels.
However, Noguchi teaches transmitting an elevator call…to the plurality of control panels (See at least Noguchi Paragraphs 0026-0027, 0035-0036, and Figure 2, the elevator call is transmitted to the plurality of control panels via the car communication units).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Noguchi to transmit an elevator call to the plurality of control panels. This modification, as taught by Noguchi, would allow the robot to communicate with the elevator control system (See at least Noguchi Paragraphs 0035-0036, and Figure 2), thus, allowing an elevator to be allocated for the robot.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Belov fails to disclose the predicting an elevator to be allocated by a group management controller includes predicting an elevator to be allocated by the group management controller by using the elevator allocation rules and the operation status information of the plurality of elevators, each time the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators is received, until the elevator allocated d by the group management controller arrives according to the elevator call.
However, Emacha teaches the predicting an elevator to be allocated by a group management controller includes predicting an elevator to be allocated by the group management controller by using the elevator allocation rules and the operation status information of the plurality of elevators, each time the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators is received, until the elevator allocated d by the group management controller arrives according to the elevator call (See at least Emacha Paragraphs 0026, 0046-0047, and 0049-0050, the robot control subsystem calculates/predicts the elevator to be allocated in response to the information provided and the rules/occupancy and available space, until the robot boards the elevator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Emacha to perform the predicting each time the operation status information of each of the plurality of elevators is received until the elevator allocated by the group management controller arrives. This modification, as taught by Emacha, would allow the system to update its prediction for the elevator based on the received operation status information and elevator allocation rules (See at least Emacha Paragraphs 0046-0047, and 0049-0050), thus, improving the prediction performed by the system.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belov in view of Min, Emacha, Kim 710, and Deyle, and in further view of Kang
Regarding Claim 15, modified Belov fails to disclose determining whether the first robot is able to board the predicted elevator; and transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot when the first robot can board the predicted elevator.
However, Kang teaches determining whether the first robot is able to board the predicted elevator (See at least Kang Paragraphs 0052-0054, 0056-0057, and Figure 1, the boarding/alighting controller determines whether the robot can board the predicted/allocated elevator); and transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot when the first robot can board the predicted elevator (See at least Kang Paragraphs 0052-0054, 0056-0057, and Figure 1, the signal instructing the robot to board the allocated elevator is transmitted when the robot can board the elevator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Belov with Kang to determine whether the first robot is able to board the predicted elevator, and transmitting the allocation prediction information to the first robot when the first robot can board the predicted elevator. This modification, as taught by Kang, would ensure that the robot is only instructed to board the predicted elevator once it is determined that the robot is able to board the predicted elevator (See at least Kang Paragraphs 0056-0057).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hagstrom et al (US 20220363511 A1) teaches a control system that generates signals for an elevator and mobile robot to accomplish a service
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights