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
This action is responsive to the communications filed 12/13/2024 (claimed foreign priority date 06/20/2022):
Claims 1-18 have been examined.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
Ln = line, e.g., ln25 = line 25; ln25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Claim Objections
1. Claims 2, 9, 16 and 18 objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended to rewrite the following corresponding claim limitations/features for conformance with other claims and for correcting punctuations, as the following:
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating the specific map including:[[,]]…
9. The method of claim 8, wherein …
the performing of the node placement process includes:[[,]]…
16. A system for generating a map, comprising: …
processing circuitry configured to:[[,]]…
18. A building in which a plurality of robots provide services, the building comprising:…
wherein the cloud server is configured to perform control of the robots based on a building map generated through an editing interface, the building map being generated by:[[,]]…
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
1.1 This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step,” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processing circuitry;” “display unit;” “communication unit,” in claims 1 and 16-18.
Per fig. 12, Para [0088, 0371, 0373] of the specification, at least as published, the claimed/specified “processing circuitry;” “display unit;” “communication unit” appear to be structure elements/components of a bigger structure(s).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
1.1 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.
1.1.1 Claims 1-14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method of generating a map (i.e., a process). Claim 16 is directed to a system for generating a map (i.e., machine, manufacture). Claim 18 is directed to a building in which a plurality of robots provide services (i.e., machine, manufacture). Therefore, claims 1, 16 and 18 are within the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method of generating a map, comprising:
receiving a map editing request for a specific floor among a plurality of floors of a building;
providing an editing interface on a display unit of an electronic device in response to the map editing request, the editing interface including at least a part of a specific map corresponding to the specific floor;
specifying at least one node group allocatable on the specific map based on first node rules, the first node rules corresponding to spatial characteristics of the specific floor; and
performing a node placement process such that first nodes included among the at least one node group are placed on the specific map.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “generating;” “editing;” “specifying;” “performing placement process, placing on specific map;” “updating map (in claim 18)” in the context of this claim encompass a person (driver/operator/user/human, etc.) looking at data received/collected/gathered (from user(s)) and forming a simple judgement/decision (e.g., generating data; editing data; specifying data; placing data into different groups (e.g., organizing/selecting/distributing data)). Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. A method of generating a map, comprising:
receiving a map editing request for a specific floor among a plurality of floors of a building;
providing an editing interface on a display unit of an electronic device in response to the map editing request, the editing interface including at least a part of a specific map corresponding to the specific floor;
specifying at least one node group allocatable on the specific map based on first node rules, the first node rules corresponding to spatial characteristics of the specific floor; and
performing a node placement process such that first nodes included among the at least one node group are placed on the specific map.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving request;” ”providing editing interface on display including at least a part of a specific map (updated map, in claim 18) corresponding to the specific floor,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (an electronic device) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and providing editing interface on display for displaying at least a part of a specific map )updated map, in claim 18) corresponding to the specific floor steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of obtaining/gathering/collecting data and a general means of informing/presenting about selected/distributed data from specifying, performing data placement step(s)), and amount to mere pre solution receiving and post solution displaying (e.g., informing, presenting), which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. Lastly, the “electronic device” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose robotic vehicle control environment. The robotic vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the specifying data step, performing specified/selected/gathered data placement step, generating map step, updating map step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an electronic device to perform the specifying, placing data differently, updating data amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving request;” ”providing editing interface on display for displaying at least a part of a specific map (updated map, in claim 18) corresponding to the specific floor,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving request;” “displaying” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the electronic device is a conventional electronic device, and the specification does not provide any indication that the electronic device is anything other than a conventional computer within a robotic vehicle configured to be controlled by a cloud server. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “displaying” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It is unclear what the claimed limitations/features, in dependent claims 2-14, are directed to in order to, or what or how they contribute/improve/influence/affect/innovate vehicle control, or operation, or use, or handling, or navigation, etc. Therefore, dependent claims 2-14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 16 and 18.
Therefore, claims 1-14, 16 and 18 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
1.1.2 Dependent claims 15 and 17, however, if properly introduced, appear to recite further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The Examiner finds that the limitations of dependent claims that are directed toward to “causing/to cause at least one robot to travel on the specific floor along the first nodes based on the performing of the node placement process,” if properly introduced, appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 15 and 17 appear to be patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
1. Claims 1 and 17-18 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14 and 18 of copending Application No. US18/980,678 (Pub. No.: US2025/0109963A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, either taken individually or in combinations, because they are drawn to obvious variations.
The subject matter recited in the claims 1 and 17-18 of the instant application was fully disclosed in and covered by the claims 1, 14 and 18 of copending Application No. US18/980,678 (Pub. No.: US2025/0109963A1), which allows the claims to result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun (KR20190100118A) in view of HUM (KR20200015096A).
As per claims 1 and 16, Hyun discloses through the invention (see entire document), a method of/system for generating a map (abstract – teaching creating an indoor map), comprising:
building (fig. 7d; numerous paragraphs, i.e., Para [0076] – teaching indoor map of a building);
a communication unit (fig. 5, Para [0058-0060] – teaching communication unit (510));
processing circuitry (Para [0011, 0017, 0033, 0105];
receiving a map editing request for a specific floor among a plurality of floors of a building (Para [0035, 0047, 0070, 0084] – teaching retrieving a drawing image of a building from the database (350) based on a drawing registration request signal from a terminal user; indoor map creation device (330) that can call up floor-by-floor drawings of a building stored in a database (350) based on a drawing registration request signal input to a user terminal (110, 500) (S110));
providing an editing interface on a display unit of an electronic device in response to the map editing request, the editing interface including at least a part of a specific map corresponding to the specific floor (Para [0035, 0047, 0070, 0084] – teaching indoor map creation device (330) that can enable the called drawing image to be displayed on the user interface screen of the user terminal (110));
specifying at least one node group allocatable on the specific map based on first node rules, the first node rules corresponding to spatial characteristics of the specific floor (Para [0040] – teaching indoor map creation unit (330) that can perform the function of creating an indoor map of a specific building based on map creation command signals received from the user information collection unit (320); the indoor map creation unit (330) that can create an indoor map for each floor based on map creation command signals received from the user information collection unit (320), if the building consists of multiple floors; the indoor map creation unit (330) that can create an indoor map by using at least one of polygons, polylines, points, nodes, and links to draw major facilities (e.g., offices, restrooms, stairs, etc.) existing indoors on a map corresponding to a specific building).
Hyun does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, performing a node placement process such that first nodes included among the at least one node group are placed on the specific map.
However, HUM discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0061-0062] – teaching attribute information setting unit (123) that sets attribute information on the basic map information adjusted by the scale correction unit; the attribute information that may include information about a virtual area that the autonomous driving device (20) can refer to for driving and operation, a basic entry prevention area, a driving caution area, and information about the operation of the autonomous driving device (20); the attribute information that may include virtual walls inside the building, deceleration sections of the autonomous driving device (20), and obstacle information inside the building.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Hyun by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUM, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to create map information using indoor spatial information such as building drawings, floor guide drawings, SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Map-Building, Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) maps, and point cloud-based spatial information (see entire HUM document, particularly Para [0009]).
As per claim 2, Hyun does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, generating the specific map including: receiving sensing information from first robots traveling in the building, the sensing information indicating at least one of dynamic obstacles of the building or static obstacles of the building, generating a point cloud map of a first characteristic for first obstacles included on the specific floor using the sensing information, and generating a point cloud map of a second characteristic for the first obstacles included on the specific floor using the point cloud map of the first characteristic.
However, HUM discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 5, Para [0004, 0025, 0036, 0046, 0061-0062, 0086, 0091] – teaching, in fig. 5, furniture i.e., office desks, office chairs, which are dynamic obstacles that can be removed/moved; teaching other obstacles, wall, locations, ceilings, floors, etc., which are static obstacles that are not removable/movable; teaching, in fig. 5, Para [0036, 0046], cloud-based spatial information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Hyun by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUM, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to create map information using indoor spatial information such as building drawings, floor guide drawings, SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Map-Building, Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) maps, and point cloud-based spatial information (see entire HUM document, particularly Para [0009]).
As per claim 3, Hyun does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, point cloud map of the first characteristic configured to include three-dimensional information on the first obstacles; the point cloud map of the second characteristic that includes two-dimensional information on the first obstacles generated based on the three-dimensional information; and the point cloud map of the second characteristic flattened from the point cloud map of the first characteristic with respect to a traveling plane of second robots traveling on the specific floor.
However, HUM discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 5, Para [0036, 0046, 0061-0062, 0086, 0091] – teaching, in fig. 3-5, floor two-dimensional guide; three-dimensional furniture i.e., office desks, office chairs, which are dynamic obstacles that can be removed/moved; teaching other obstacles, wall, locations, ceilings, floors, etc., which are static obstacles that are not removable/movable; teaching, in fig. 5, Para [0036, 0046], cloud-based spatial information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Hyun by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUM, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to create map information using indoor spatial information such as building drawings, floor guide drawings, SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Map-Building, Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) maps, and point cloud-based spatial information (see entire HUM document, particularly Para [0009]).
As per claim 4, Hyun does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, generating the specific map reflecting first static obstacles included on the specific floor using a floor plan and the point cloud map of the second characteristic, the floor plan reflecting the spatial characteristics of the specific floor, the specific map including graphic objects corresponding to each of the first static obstacles.
However, HUM discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 5, Para [0004, 0025, 0036, 0046, 0061-0062, 0086, 0091] – teaching, in fig. 5, teaching obstacles, e.g., wall, ceilings, floors, etc., which are static obstacles that are not removable/movable; teaching, in fig. 5, Para [0036, 0046], cloud-based spatial information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Hyun by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUM, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to create map information using indoor spatial information such as building drawings, floor guide drawings, SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Map-Building, Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) maps, and point cloud-based spatial information (see entire HUM document, particularly Para [0009]).
As per claim 5, Hyun does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, specifying obstacle types of the first static obstacles based on the floor plan; and mapping type information of at least one of the obstacle types to each of the graphic objects.
However, HUM discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 5, Para [0004, 0025, 0036, 0046, 0061-0062, 0086, 0091] – teaching, in fig. 5, teaching graphics/images/drawings of specified obstacles, e.g., wall, ceilings, floors, etc., which are static obstacles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Hyun by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUM, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to create map information using indoor spatial information such as building drawings, floor guide drawings, SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Map-Building, Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) maps, and point cloud-based spatial information (see entire HUM document, particularly Para [0009]).
As per claim 6, Hyun does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, first static obstacles that include: at least one of walls, doors or facilities that form the specific floor; and at least one of an elevator, escalator, access control gate, robot-exclusive road, or robot-shared road which are configured to be usable by at least one of the second robots or people traveling on the specific floor.
However, HUM discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 5, Para [0004, 0025, 0036, 0046, 0061-0062, 0086, 0091] – teaching, in fig. 5, teaching static, non- removable/movable obstacles/objects; other obstacles, e.g., wall, ceilings, floors, etc., for use/travel for human/robotic vehicles, such as a robotic vacuum cleaner(s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Hyun by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUM, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to create map information using indoor spatial information such as building drawings, floor guide drawings, SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Map-Building, Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) maps, and point cloud-based spatial information (see entire HUM document, particularly Para [0009]).
As per claim 7, Hyun further discloses through the invention (see entire document), node rule information stored in a database of a server, the node rule information including the obstacle types mapped to node rules, each of the node rules being defined for a corresponding one among the obstacle types; and the specifying of the at least one node group that includes, extracting the first node rules from the database, the first node rules being mapped to the obstacle types of the first static obstacles, and specifying the at least one node group in which the first nodes are arranged according to the first node rules (fig. 3, Para [0034-0038, 0042, 0068-0069] – teaching geographic information construction server (120) that can perform the function of providing geographic information stored in a database (i.e., indoor map and outdoor map) in response to a request from a terminal user; the geographic information construction server that may have more or fewer components; map data storage unit (not shown) that stores map data provided by a GIS (geographic information system) server (not shown); storing a drawing image uploaded by the user terminal (110) or an indoor map created through the user terminal (110) in the database).
As per claim 8, Hyun does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, at least one node group configured such that at least one of a number of nodes, an arrangement form of the nodes, or a connection direction between nodes that defines a robot movement direction differs according to a type of the graphic object.
However, HUM discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 5, Para [0087, 0090] – teaching movement information of the autonomous driving device (20), such as the direction of movement, speed of movement, and displacement of movement, can be detected; driving motor that generates a driving force to rotate each wheel, and by controlling each wheel independently through this driving motor, the autonomous driving device (20) can drive in various directions and at various speeds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Hyun by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUM, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to create map information using indoor spatial information such as building drawings, floor guide drawings, SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Map-Building, Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) maps, and point cloud-based spatial information (see entire HUM document, particularly Para [0009]).
As per claim 9, Hyun does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, first obstacles that include a first type of static obstacle and a second type of static obstacle; graphic objects that include a first graphic object corresponding to the first type of static obstacle and a second graphic object corresponding to a second type of static obstacle; specific map that includes a first area and a second area, the first area including the first graphic object and the second area including the second graphic object; at least one node group that includes a first node group and a second node group; and performing of the node placement process that includes: placing nodes of the first node group in the first area according to the first node rules corresponding to the first type of static obstacle, and placing nodes of the second node group in the second area according to the first node rules corresponding to the second type of static obstacle.
However, HUM discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 5, Para [0004, 0025, 0036, 0046, 0061-0062, 0086, 0091] – teaching, in fig. 5, static, non- removable/movable obstacles/objects; other obstacles, e.g., wall, ceilings, floors, etc., for use/travel for human/robotic vehicles, such as a robotic vacuum cleaner(s); Para [0061-0062] – teaching attribute information setting unit (123) that sets attribute information on the basic map information adjusted by the scale correction unit; the attribute information that may include information about a virtual area that the autonomous driving device (20) can refer to for driving and operation, a basic entry prevention area, a driving caution area, and information about the operation of the autonomous driving device (20); the attribute information that may include virtual walls inside the building, deceleration sections of the autonomous driving device (20), and obstacle information inside the building.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Hyun by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUM, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to create map information using indoor spatial information such as building drawings, floor guide drawings, SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Map-Building, Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) maps, and point cloud-based spatial information (see entire HUM document, particularly Para [0009]).
As per claim 10, Hyun does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, performing an inspection process to inspect whether the first nodes are allowed to be placed on the specific map according to the first node rules and types of the graphic objects in response to completion of the node placement process; and updating the specific map on a server based on placement of the first nodes according to the first node rules is approved through the inspection process.
However, HUM discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0044, 0065, 0092] – teaching autonomous driving device (20) that performs autonomous driving based on map information received from the map creation device (10) and recognizes spatial information regarding the surrounding environment, compares the map information and the spatial information to determine whether they match, and generates update information based on the result of the determination and transmits it to the control server (30); autonomous driving device (20) that generates map correction information based on whether it matches the map information received from the map creation device (10) and the spatial information it generates itself; update information generation unit (25) that compares the map information received from the map creation device (10) with the spatial information generated by the spatial recognition unit (24) to determine whether they match, and generates update information according to the result of the determination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Hyun by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUM, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to create map information using indoor spatial information such as building drawings, floor guide drawings, SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Map-Building, Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) maps, and point cloud-based spatial information (see entire HUM document, particularly Para [0009]).
As per claim 11, Hyun further discloses through the invention (see entire document), visually highlighting at least one node group area including the first nodes placed according to the first node rules such that an inspection entity is able to identify and inspect the at least one node group area (Para [0101] – teaching indoor map creation device (330) that can display the color, size, or shape of the additional node (1330) differently from the color, size, or shape of the points (1340) constituting the polygon (1310).
As per claim 12, Hyun does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, providing guide information notifying that at least one node among the first nodes is able to be placed in an area where a first graphic object is positioned, the first graphic object being among the graphic objects.
However, HUM discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 3, Para [0009, 0012, 0022, 0036, 0041, 0046, 0049] – teaching creating map information using indoor spatial information such as building drawings, floor guide drawings, SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Map-Building, Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) maps, and point cloud-based spatial information, and provide it to an autonomous driving device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Hyun by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUM, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to create map information using indoor spatial information such as building drawings, floor guide drawings, SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Map-Building, Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) maps, and point cloud-based spatial information (see entire HUM document, particularly Para [0009]).
As per claim 13, Hyun further discloses through the invention (see entire document), information that includes arrangement information indicating arrangement of the at least one node and an icon for obtaining approval for placement of the first nodes; and placing the at least one node in an area where the first graphic object is positioned in response to a selection of the icon is selected through the electronic device (fig. 13, Para [0101-0104] – teaching a line middle (1320) of a polygon (1310) displayed on an indoor map selected and dragged, the indoor map creation device (330) that can change the shape of the polygon (1310) according to the drag input and automatically add a new node (1330) at the end point of the drag input; at this time, the newly added node (1330) that can be marked to be distinguished from the points (1340) that make up the polygon (1310); indoor map creation device (330) that may display a layer selection menu (1410) for selecting any one of the overlapping elements on the map creation screen (1400).
Hyun does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, providing guide information; performing of the node placement process.
However, HUM discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 3, Para [0009, 0012, 0022, 0036, 0041, 0046, 0049, 0061-0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Hyun by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUM, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to create map information using indoor spatial information such as building drawings, floor guide drawings, SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Map-Building, Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) maps, and point cloud-based spatial information (see entire HUM document, particularly Para [0009]).
As per claim 14, Hyun does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, providing of the guide information that includes outputting the guide information based on the area where the first graphic object is positioned being selected from the electronic device, the area where the first graphic object is positioned being on the specific map.
However, HUM discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 3, Para [0009, 0012, 0022, 0036, 0041, 0046, 0049] – teaching creating map information using indoor spatial information such as building drawings, floor guide drawings, SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Map-Building, Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) maps, and point cloud-based spatial information, and provide it to an autonomous driving device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Hyun by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUM, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to create map information using indoor spatial information such as building drawings, floor guide drawings, SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Map-Building, Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) maps, and point cloud-based spatial information (see entire HUM document, particularly Para [0009]).
As per claim 15, Hyun does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, causing at least one robot to travel on the specific floor along the first nodes based on the performing of the node placement process.
However, HUM discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs – teaching robot vacuum cleaner;
Para [0025, 0040] – teaching virtual wall within a building, a deceleration section of the autonomous driving device, and obstacle information within a building; autonomous driving device (20) as a robot that performs autonomous driving, installed in large buildings such as shopping malls, department stores, public facilities and industrial facilities, or in small and medium-sized buildings, and each drives along the same or different driving paths;
Para [0061-0062] – teaching attribute information setting unit (123) that sets attribute information on the basic map information adjusted by the scale correction unit; the attribute information that may include information about a virtual area that the autonomous driving device (20) can refer to for driving and operation, a basic entry prevention area, a driving caution area, and information about the operation of the autonomous driving device (20); the attribute information that may include virtual walls inside the building, deceleration sections of the autonomous driving device (20), and obstacle information inside the building;
Para [0045, 0063-0067] – teaching map creation device (10) that updates the map information according to the update information to generate optimal map information suitable for the surrounding environment that changes in real time within the building; basic map information generation unit (12) that can update the basic map information according to the update information transmitted from the autonomous driving device (20); indoor space information conversion unit (121) can update the basic map information based on the path-based map correction information recognized based on the actual driving of the autonomous driving device (20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Hyun by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUM, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to create map information using indoor spatial information such as building drawings, floor guide drawings, SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Map-Building, Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) maps, and point cloud-based spatial information (see entire HUM document, particularly Para [0009]).
As per claim 17, Hyun does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, processing circuitry further configured to cause at least one robot to travel on the specific floor along the nodes based on the performance of the node placement process.
However, HUM discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs – teaching robot vacuum cleaner;
Para [0025, 0040] – teaching virtual wall within a building, a deceleration section of the autonomous driving device, and obstacle information within a building; autonomous driving device (20) as a robot that performs autonomous driving, installed in large buildings such as shopping malls, department stores, public facilities and industrial facilities, or in small and medium-sized buildings, and each drives along the same or different driving paths;
Para [0061-0062] – teaching attribute information setting unit (123) that sets attribute information on the basic map information adjusted by the scale correction unit; the attribute information that may include information about a virtual area that the autonomous driving device (20) can refer to for driving and operation, a basic entry prevention area, a driving caution area, and information about the operation of the autonomous driving device (20); the attribute information that may include virtual walls inside the building, deceleration sections of the autonomous driving device (20), and obstacle information inside the building;
Para [0045, 0063-0067] – teaching map creation device (10) that updates the map information according to the update information to generate optimal map information suitable for the surrounding environment that changes in real time within the building; basic map information generation unit (12) that can update the basic map information according to the update information transmitted from the autonomous driving device (20); indoor space information conversion unit (121) can update the basic map information based on the path-based map correction information recognized based on the actual driving of the autonomous driving device (20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Hyun by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUM, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to create map information using indoor spatial information such as building drawings, floor guide drawings, SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Map-Building, Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) maps, and point cloud-based spatial information (see entire HUM document, particularly Para [0009]).
2. Claim 18 recites most of its limitations/features that are similar to the limitation/features of claims 1 and 14. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun (KR20190100118A) in view of HUM (KR20200015096A) as applied to claims 1 and 16.
Hyun does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, building in which a plurality of robots provide services; robots that coexist with people; cloud server configured to perform control of the robots based on a building map generated; performing a node placement process such that nodes included among the at least one node group are placed on the specific map; updating specific map on the cloud server based on completion of the node placement process such that the robots travel on the specific floor along the nodes placed on the specific map.
However, HUM discloses through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous paragraphs – teaching robot vacuum cleaner;
Para [0025, 0040] – teaching virtual wall within a building, a deceleration section of the autonomous driving device, and obstacle information within a building; autonomous driving device (20) as a robot that performs autonomous driving, installed in large buildings such as shopping malls, department stores, public facilities and industrial facilities, or in small and medium-sized buildings, and each drives along the same or different driving paths;
fig. 1, Para [0039, 0044-0045, 0093] – teaching map-making device (10) connected to a plurality of autonomous driving devices (20) and a control server (30) respectively through a wired or wireless communication network; control server (30) that receives update information from the autonomous driving device (20) and transmits it to the map creation device (10), and the map creation device (10) that updates the map information according to the update information to generate optimal map information suitable for the surrounding environment that changes in real time within the building; device control unit (26) that transmits location information or operation status information of the autonomous driving device (20) to the control server (30), thereby enabling the control server (30) to monitor the autonomous driving device (20) in real time;
Para [0061-0062] – teaching attribute information setting unit (123) that sets attribute information on the basic map information adjusted by the scale correction unit; the attribute information that may include information about a virtual area that the autonomous driving device (20) can refer to for driving and operation, a basic entry prevention area, a driving caution area, and information about the operation of the autonomous driving device (20); the attribute information that may include virtual walls inside the building, deceleration sections of the autonomous driving device (20), and obstacle information inside the building;
Para [0045, 0063-0067] – teaching map creation device (10) that updates the map information according to the update information to generate optimal map information suitable for the surrounding environment that changes in real time within the building; basic map information generation unit (12) that can update the basic map information according to the update information transmitted from the autonomous driving device (20); indoor space information conversion unit (121) can update the basic map information based on the path-based map correction information recognized based on the actual driving of the autonomous driving device (20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Hyun by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUM, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to create map information using indoor spatial information such as building drawings, floor guide drawings, SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Map-Building, Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) maps, and point cloud-based spatial information (see entire HUM document, particularly Para [0009]).
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
Rombouts (US20190249998) – (see entire Rombouts document, particularly abstract – teaching systems and methods for robotic mapping; a robot that can travel in an environment; from travelling in the environment, the robot that can create a graph comprising a plurality of nodes, wherein each node corresponds to a scan taken by a sensor of the robot at a location in the environment; the robot that can generate a map of the environment from the graph. In some cases, to facilitate map generation, the robot can constrain the graph to start and end at a substantially similar location; the robot that can also perform scan matching on extended scan groups, determined from identifying overlap between scans, to further determine the location of features in a map).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YURI KAN, P.E./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights