DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Final Office Action is in response to Application Serial 18/990,212. In response to Examiner’s action that is mail dated February 20, 2026, Applicant submitted arguments and amendments that are mail dated May 18, 2026. Applicant amended claim 1, 2, 4, and 5. Applicant added new claims 6 and claim 7. Claim(s) 1-7 are examined below.
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 . 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant did not submit an information disclosure statement (IDS) for consideration.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-7 are pending in this application. Claim 1, 2, 4, and 5 are amended. Claim 6 and claim 7 are new.
Regarding the pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, see below.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103, rejection, Applicant’s amendments are not persuasive, the claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on May 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the revised rejections. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below.
Response to Claim Rejection 35.U.S.C. 101
On pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s arguments, the Applicant traverses the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection. Applicant submits that under Step 2A, prong two, amended claim 1 is directed to eligible subject matter. Applicant traverses:
The claimed invention improves robot availability in the facility.
Amended claim 1 integrates the claimed invention into a practical application and contains eligible subject matter.
Independent claim 4 and claim 5 contain eligible subject matter for at least the same reasons as discussed with regard to claim 1.
Claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1, and thus, incorporate all the features of amended claim 1. Therefore, claims 2 and 3 contain subject matter eligibility for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
Applicant submits, in view of the amendments, the pending rejection is overcome. And respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments. The amended claims, considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites an abstract idea, are not integrated into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the claims are directed to a judicial exception. The amended claims recite the abstract idea of managing conveyance of equipment in a medical facility. This abstract idea, is grouped as an abstract concept, is a commercial activity, and therefore, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Claims that recite abstract concept(s) are directed to a judicial exception at Step 2A, prong one.
Here, the server generates a control signal to drive the first and second autonomous mobile robot, the claims still set forth the commercial interactions or fundamental economic practices which is certain methods of organizing human activities in a manner not meaningfully different than using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 485, 203 USPQ 812, 816 (CCPA 1979) as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Under Step 2A, prong two, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are evaluated for integration into the judicial exception. The claims are evaluated for an improvement in technology or technical field. The claims recite additional elements (a server, a plurality of autonomous mobile robots, and autonomous mobile robot among the plurality of autonomous mobile robots, a first autonomous mobile robot among the plurality of autonomous mobile robots, a second autonomous mobile robot among the plurality of autonomous mobile robots) are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on the computer or merely uses a computer as a toll to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims do not recite an improvement that that is rooted in technology. The claims recite an improvement to the abstract concept. The Applicant submits the claims are an improvement to robot availability in the facility. Examiner submits availability is abstract and could be evaluated using mental concepts – evaluation and observation along with tracking resources (couriers, people, and equipment) using pen and paper. Examiner submits the using a computer to track resources is “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, when more granularly tested at Step 2A, prong two, such additional element, here robots, would represent, under MPEP 2106.05(h), a technological environment or field of use upon which the abstract task dispatching is being performed.
The claims do not integrate the abstract concept into a practical application at Step 2A, prong two.
At Step 2B, the claims when considered as a whole do not amount to significantly more. As discussed above, it is “apply it”( MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and a technological environment or field of use upon which the abstract idea is being performed (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Additionally, at Step 2B, it is MPEP 2106.05 (d) – Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
The claims do not amount significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Claim Rejection 35.U.S.C. 103
On pages 8-12 of the Applicant’s arguments, the Applicant traverses the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.
Applicant submits that the subject matter of amended claim 1(and similarly claim 4 and claim 5) would not have been obvious over the teachings of the cited prior art. Applicant traverses:
Moriguchi does not provide any teaching of the amended limitations.
Coulter does not teaches the amended limitations.
Because at least one claim element is not present in the asserted combination of Moriguchi and Coulter the subject matter would not have been obvious over the cited references in claim 1 (and similarly in claim 4 and claim 5).
Claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1, and thus incorporate all the features of amended claim 1. Therefore, the subject matter of claims 2 and 3 would not have been obvious over the combined teachings of the cited art for at least the same reasons.
Applicant respectfully request the rejection for the pending claims is overcome, and respectfully, requests the reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection.
Claims 6 and 7 are new.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s prior arty arguments. Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate grounds for a new rejection. See prior art rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1, 4 and 5 recites the limitation "performed by the same autonomous mobile robot the same autonomous mobile robot". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 7 are machine.
Claims 4 is process.
Clam 5 is manufacture.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim 1 [and similarly claim 4 and claim 5] recites, “…manages schedules including a first conveying task and a second conveying task, the first conveying task and the second conveying task being performed … wherein … acquires arrival schedule information of the first conveying task and the second conveying task, each indicating an arrival schedule time and an arrival schedule location of a conveying target to the facility, … specifies … that is able to perform conveyance of the conveying targets to be arrived based on the arrival schedule information, … updates a schedule … among … and a schedule of … among … generates …the first ….arrives and is able to execute reception at the arrival schedule location of the first conveying task in accordance with the arrival schedule time of the conveying target of the first conveying task, … generates … to drive … such that the second … arrives and is able to execute reception at the arrival schedule location of the second conveying task in accordance with the arrival schedule time of the conveying target of the second conveying task, and the first conveying task and the second conveying task have the arrival schedule times that, when performed …, the same … is not able to execute reception at the arrival schedule locations of the first conveying task and the second conveying task in accordance with the arrival schedule times of the conveying targets of the first conveying task and the second conveying task.…” Claims 1-7 in view of the claim limitations, are an abstract idea of managing conveyance of equipment in a medical facility, the claims are commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior, so the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity, and the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of, “A management system comprising a plurality of autonomous mobile robots in a facility and a server,” “by the plurality of autonomous mobile robots, wherein the server,” “an autonomous mobile robot among the plurality of autonomous mobile robots of a kind,” “a first autonomous mobile robot,” “a second autonomous mobile robot among the plurality of the autonomous mobile robots, the server generates a control signal,” “by the same autonomous mobile robot, the same autonomous mobile robot,” in claim 1; “a plurality of autonomous mobile robots in a facility,” “a second autonomous mobile robot among the plurality of the autonomous mobile robots”; “a control signal to drive the first autonomous mobile robot,” “a control signal to drive the second autonomous mobile robot,” in claim 4; “A non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a management method,” “a plurality of autonomous mobile robots on a facility,” “an autonomous mobile robot among the plurality of autonomous mobile robots of a kind,” “a first autonomous mobile robot among the plurality of the autonomous mobile robots,” “a second autonomous mobile robot among the plurality of the autonomous mobile robots,” “by the same autonomous mobile robot, the same autonomous mobile robot,” in claim 5; however, when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05 (f).
The dependent claims recite the additional elements:
Claim 2: “a medical welfare facility”, “one or more of a stretcher conveying robot, a stretcher conveying assistance robot, a wheelchair robot, and a walking assistance robot”.
Claim 3: “The management system according to claim 1, wherein at least one autonomous mobile robot of the autonomous mobile robots includes a main subject robot that operates autonomously”, “an accessory unit”.
Claim 4: “A management method that manages a schedule including a conveying task using a plurality of autonomous mobile robots in a facility by using a computer, the management method comprising”, “of the specified autonomous mobile robot”, “of another autonomous mobile robot such that the specified autonomous mobile robot”.
Claim 7: “a machine learning model”.
Furthermore, when more granularly tested at Step 2A, prong two, such additional element, here robots, would represent, under MPEP 2106.05(h), a technological environment or field of use upon which the abstract task dispatching is being performed.
The claims do not recite an improvement that that is rooted in technology. The claims recite an improvement to the abstract concept. The Applicant submits the claims are an improvement to robot availability in the facility. Examiner submits availability is abstract and could be evaluated using mental concepts – evaluation and observation along with tracking resources (couriers, people, and equipment) using pen and paper. Examiner submits the using a computer to track resources is “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding the accessory unit, as illustrated in the Figure 1, it is a structure. The accessory unit does not invoke 112(f). This is supported by claim 2, also.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fail to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
At Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements are applied to conduct the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The system sends a signal to schedule the robot to deliver supplies. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims when considered as a whole do provide an improvement that is rooted in technology.
At step 2B, it is MPEP 2106.05 (d) – Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Dependent claims 2-3 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1. The claims 1-7 are not patent eligible.
Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-3 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of MORIGUCHI (JP 2020193077A) in view of Vestal (US 10089586 B2) and Coulter (US 2010/0,305,966 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, [and similarly claim 4 and claim 5] (Currently Amended)
A management system comprising … a server that manages schedules including … a conveying task … plurality of autonomous mobile robots, wherein the server acquires arrival schedule information … an arrival schedule time and an arrival schedule location of a conveying target to the facility, the server specifies an autonomous mobile robot … of a kind that is able to perform conveyance of the conveying targets to be arrived based on the arrival schedule information,
MORIGUCHI Teaches an in-hospital transport system. … discloses Hospital H, to which the in-hospital transport system 100 is introduced, is a large-scale hospital in which, for example, many hospital staff (doctors, nurses, etc.) and patients exist, and an unspecified number of these people come and go, and thus, MORIGUCHI teaches a facility. ; MORIGUCHI teaches the traveling carriage can be appropriately autonomously driven (a plurality of autonomous mobile robots in a facility)., MORIGUCHI [p.3]
MORIGUCHI discloses the storage unit 171a is a part of a storage area of a storage device of a computer system constituting the control unit 17, and stores settings and the like necessary for controlling the traveling carriage 1 (an autonomous mobile robot). Specifically, the storage unit 171a stores the environmental map data M1, the local map data M2, and the transport schedule SC, and thus, MORIGUCHI teaches a management system. … The transport schedule SC is data relating to transport from the transport start point to the transport end point of the traveling carriage 1. In the present embodiment, the transport schedule SC is data representing a transport route as a set of a plurality of target points set at predetermined intervals from a transport start point to a transport end point. … The transfer schedule SC may be transmitted from the host controller 3 together with the transfer command, or may be instructed at the time of planning the transfer route and stored in the storage unit 171a in advance. MORIGUCHI [p. 12 -13].
MORIGUCHI teaches the transport command transmitted by the host controller 3 includes information on the transport route (transport schedule SC or information on the transport start point and transport end point), an identification number of a specific cart 2 to be held, and the like. MORIGUCHI [p. 17].
MORIGUCHI discloses the in-hospital transport system 100, each of the … articles (e.g., prescription drugs, specimens, medical materials, or medical equipment) is transported by, for example, the transport route. MORIGUCHI [p.6]
the server updates a schedule of … autonomous mobile robot … and a schedule of …autonomous mobile robot …. such that the … autonomous mobile robot … is able to execute reception at the arrival schedule location … in accordance with the arrival schedule time of the conveying target …..
MORIGUCHI discloses the transport schedule SC is data relating to transport from the transport start point to the transport end point of the traveling carriage 1. In the present embodiment, the transport schedule SC is data representing a transport route as a set of a plurality of target points set at predetermined intervals (schedule) from a transport start point to a transport end point. MORIGUCHI [p. 12]
MORIGUCHI discloses the host controller 3 further includes the identification number of the cart 2 (a specified autonomous robot) to be transported included in the transport request and the position of the cart 2 in the station ST (identification number of the station ST) in the transport command. … It is possible to generate a transport command for holding the stored cart 2 (specified autonomous mobile robot) and then instructing the traveling carriage 1 (another autonomous mobile robot) to transport the cart 2 to a specific place (the packing station SR on the 5th floor FL5). MORIGUCHI [p.20].
Applicant amend the claim to recite:
a plurality of autonomous mobile robots in a facility and … schedules including a first conveying task and a second conveying task, the first conveying task and the second conveying task being performed by the plurality of autonomous mobile robots in a facility, wherein the server acquires arrival schedule information of the first conveying task and the second conveying task, … of the first conveying task and the second conveying task, each indicating … an arrival schedule location … the server specifies an autonomous mobile robot among the plurality of autonomous mobile robots of a kind that is able to perform conveyance … the server updates a schedule of a first autonomous mobile robot among the plurality of the autonomous mobile robots and a schedule of a second autonomous mobile robot among the plurality of the autonomous mobile robots, the server generates a control signal to drive the first autonomous mobile robot such that the first autonomous mobile robot arrives … at the arrival schedule location of the first conveying task in accordance with the arrival schedule time of the conveying target[[.]] of the first conveying task, the server generates a control signal to drive the second autonomous mobile robot such that the second autonomous mobile robot arrives and is able to execute reception at the arrival schedule location of the second conveying task in accordance with the arrival schedule time of the conveying target of the second conveying task, and the first conveying task and the second conveying task have the arrival schedule times that, when performed by the same autonomous mobile robot, the same autonomous mobile robot is not able to execute reception at the arrival schedule locations of the first conveying task and the second conveying task in accordance with the arrival schedule times of the conveying targets of the first conveying task and the second conveying task.
Examiner relies on the Vestal to teach the amendments to the claim limitations of:
A management system comprising a plurality of autonomous mobile robots in a facility and a server that manages schedules including a first conveying task and a second conveying task, the first conveying task and the second conveying task being performed by the plurality of autonomous mobile robots in a facility, wherein the server acquires arrival schedule information of the first conveying task and the second conveying task, … of the first conveying task and the second conveying task, each indicating … an arrival schedule location … the server specifies an autonomous mobile robot among the plurality of autonomous mobile robots of a kind that is able to perform conveyance … the server updates a schedule of a first autonomous mobile robot among the plurality of the autonomous mobile robots and a schedule of a second autonomous mobile robot among the plurality of the autonomous mobile robots, the server generates a control signal to drive the first autonomous mobile robot such that the first autonomous mobile robot arrives … at the arrival schedule location of the first conveying task in accordance with the arrival schedule time of the conveying target[[.]] of the first conveying task, the server generates a control signal to drive the second autonomous mobile robot such that the second autonomous mobile robot arrives and is able to execute reception at the arrival schedule location of the second conveying task in accordance with the arrival schedule time of the conveying target of the second conveying task, and the first conveying task and the second conveying task have the arrival schedule times that, when performed by the same autonomous mobile robot, the same autonomous mobile robot is not able to execute reception at the arrival schedule locations of the first conveying task and the second conveying task in accordance with the arrival schedule times of the conveying targets of the first conveying task and the second conveying task.
Vestal teaches a system of computers 104,106, 108,110 and route planning system 130 that are used for route planning and workflow of robots 102. Vestal [column 4 lines 4-24]. [Figure 1 item 130, 102]. The facilities computer 108 is programmed with supervisory functions for robots 102 provides an interface to communicate with robots. The facilities computer 108 may control deployment of robot 102 on pick-ups, deliveries, or other transport tasks. Vestal [column 4 lines 48-60].
Vestal discloses the disclosed technologies can enable a single robot to perform a variety of different tasks at different times using different routes, and/or enable individual robots in a fleet of robots to perform different tasks using different routes, concurrently or at different times. The increased mobile robot route planning flexibility afforded by the disclosed technologies can allow the robot's operations to be customized at a high degree of granularity. Vestal [column 2 lines 61-67], [column 13 lines 19-28].
Vestal discloses transmitting robot configuration data. This configuration data identifies or describes a specific task, and/or robot behavior. For example, robot configuration data may specify that robot 123 is to execute a delivery task carrying a payload of linens from a pick up location of closet B7 to a destination. Vestal [column 11 lines 40-50], [column 1 line 10-12], [column 3 lines 4-7]. In Vestal adjustments to robot operating parameters such as travel speed, and/or adjustments to robot scheduling parameters such as the time of day at which to execute the task. Vestal [column 12 lines 3-5].
Vestal Example describes a use case 11 describes an instance of the route data indicative of a robot-navigable path from a location to another location. Vestal [column 20 lines 13-35]. Vestal use case 20 describe any of the use case examples 11-19 generates maps usable by a plurality of robots, and the parameter modification are applicable to different robots in the plurality of robots. [Vestal column 21 lines 20-27].
MORIGUCHI teaches a traveling carriage autonomously driven through a hospital. Vestal teaches configuration-based mapping and technologies for robots. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective date, scheduling travel carriages within a hospital, as taught by MORIGUCHI, with a fleet of autonomous robots navigating a building such as a hospital at particular times, as taught by Vestal, to improve route planning of robotic tasks. Vestal [column 2 lines 52-56].
Coulter further teaches:
and the server updates a schedule … at the arrival schedule location … in accordance with the arrival schedule time of the conveying target ….
Coulter [0123 ] teaches Dynamic Patient Scheduling--The system automates the creation of logistically realistic patient schedules, dynamically updating such schedules as disturbances force changes to those schedules., Coulter [0123]
MORIGUCHI teaches a traveling carriage autonomously driven through a hospital. Coulter determines logistics of patients, medications, and other healthcare objects. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective date, scheduling travel carriages within a hospital, as taught by MORIGUCHI , with coordinating the physical movement of patients, charts, medications, lab samples, and other healthcare "objects" through the physical structure of a hospital, as taught by Coulter, to improve by the efficiency of the hospital's logistics system. Coulter [013].
Regarding Claim 2, (Currently Amended)
The management system according to claim 1, wherein when the facility is a medical welfare facility and the conveying target indicated by the arrival schedule information is a person, the autonomous mobile robot of the kind that is able to perform conveyance of the conveying target to be arrived is one or more of a stretcher conveying robot, a stretcher conveying assistance robot, a wheelchair robot, or a walking assistance robot.
In MORIGUCHI , the traveling carriage 1(at least one autonomous mobile robot). MORIGUCHI [p.20].
MORIGUCHI discloses the in-hospital transport system 100, each of the … articles (e.g., prescription drugs, specimens, medical materials, or medical equipment) is transported by, for example, the transport route. MORIGUCHI [p.6] and MORIGUCHI teaches the transport schedule SC is data representing a transport route as a set of a plurality of target points set at predetermined intervals (schedule) from a transport start point to a transport end point. MORIGUCHI [p.6]
Although highly suggested, MORIGUCHI does not explicitly teach:
… is one or more of a stretcher conveying robot, a stretcher conveying assistance robot, a wheelchair robot, and a walking assistance robot. …
Coulter teaches:
by the arrival schedule information is a person, …is one or more of a stretcher conveying robot, a stretcher conveying assistance robot, a wheelchair robot, or a walking assistance robot.
Coulter [0122] discloses Dynamic Resource Scheduling--The system automates the process of scheduling resources, including but not limited to rooms, (e.g. OR's, gastro labs, cardiac catheterization labs, in-patient bed space etc.), equipment (e.g. MRI machines, CAT scanners, respirators, wheelchairs & gurneys, etc.) and other physical objects required to deliver patient care.; Coulter [018] discloses coordinating the physical movement of patients, charts, medications, lab samples, and other healthcare "objects" through the physical structure of a hospital. Coulter [018].
MORIGUCHI teaches a traveling carriage autonomously driven through a hospital. Coulter determines logistics of patients, medications, and other healthcare objects. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective date, scheduling travel carriages within a hospital, as taught by MORIGUCHI , with coordinating the physical movement of patients, charts, medications, lab samples, and other healthcare "objects" through the physical structure of a hospital, as taught by Coulter, to improve by the efficiency of the hospital's logistics system. Coulter [013].
Within claim 2, Coulter discloses physical movement of patients, charts, medications, lab samples, and other healthcare "objects", and thus, Coulter discloses one or more of a stretcher conveying robot, a stretcher conveying assistance robot, a wheelchair robot, and a walking assistance robot. Claim 2, a "Markush" claim recites a list of alternatively useable members. In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 719-20, 206 USPQ 300, 303 (CCPA 1980); Ex parte Markush, 1925 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 126, 127 (1924). The listing of specified alternatives within a Markush claim is referred to as a Markush group or a Markush grouping. Abbott Labs v. Baxter Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1280-81, 67 USPQ2d 1191, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing to several sources that describe Markush groups)- See MPEP 706.03.
Regarding Claim 3, (Original)
The management system according to claim 1, wherein at least one autonomous mobile robot of the autonomous mobile robots includes a main subject robot that operates autonomously as a main subject, and an accessory unit used in combination with the main subject robot such that the main subject robot executes conveyance of the conveying target of a predetermined kind.
In MORIGUCHI , the traveling carriage 1(at least one autonomous mobile robot) that has received the transport command can determine which cart 2 (a main subject robot) placed in the station ST should be transported. MORIGUCHI [p.20].
Regarding Claim 6, (New)
The management system according to claim 1, wherein the server updates the schedule of the second autonomous mobile robot such that the second autonomous mobile robot performs the second conveying task when the second conveying task is allocated to the first autonomous mobile robot.
See Claim 1 – Use case 11 and Use 21 teaches planning conveyance for a plurality of robots. Vestal [column 20 lines 13-35], [Vestal column 21 lines 20-27].
Regarding Claim 7, (New)
The management system according to claim 1, wherein the server or the autonomous mobile robot uses … model for route planning and drive control.
Examiner relies on the system of claim 1. See above. Vestal teaches mathematical algorithms. Vestal discloses ) FIG. 14 contains a high-level flow diagram that shows an algorithm and illustrates the steps that might be performed by the processor in an job management system, according to one embodiment of the invention, in order to assign job requests to a particular mobile robot in the fleet, taking into account factors such as remaining battery power, robot capabilities (i.e., configuration) and the distance between the mobile robot's current position and the pickup location. Vestal [Figure 14], [column 29 lines 55-60].
Coulter teaches:
… a machine learning ....
Coulter teaches integration of machine learning methods, described later, can be used to observe the types of corrections that the manager makes to patient assignments to: (i) learn better rules, as well as (ii) the constraints that the supervisor typically places on individual nurses. Coulter [0173].
MORIGUCHI teaches a traveling carriage autonomously driven through a hospital. Coulter determines logistics of patients, medications, and other healthcare objects. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective date, scheduling travel carriages within a hospital, as taught by MORIGUCHI , with using machine learning to observe correction, as taught by Coulter, to learn better and constraints. Coulter [0173].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amthor (WO 2020/244,946 A1) discloses hospital asset logistics optimization method includes: identifying and/or receive, from a plurality of RTLS devices dispersed throughout a medical facility, identification of items of medical equipment to be transported and destinations for the respective items of medical equipment to be transported.
Wang (CN111687852B) teaches a medical emergency robot device that responds to emergency assistance needs in a timely manner.
Canoso (US 10012996 B1) discloses robot configuration-based mapping and planning technologies for a mobile robot.
Moxi Delivery Robot at MacNeal Hospital dated January 10,2023 demonstrates robots used in a hospital environment.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEA LABOGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270- 5396. 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.
/THEA LABOGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights