DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to claims filed 1/2/2025.
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/2/2025 and 1/2/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis of Claim 1
Claim 1. A monitoring system for monitoring a periphery of a host autonomous traveling vehicle including:
a monitoring sensor that monitors an external field; and
a battery that supplies power to a drive source, the system comprising a processor configured to:
monitor a blind spot area that is a blind spot of a facility user by using the monitoring sensor in the host autonomous traveling vehicle while the host autonomous traveling vehicle is charging in a traveling facility in which the host autonomous traveling vehicle travels; and
output monitoring data for the blind spot area.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a monitoring system (i.e. machine). The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of monitor a blind spot area that is a blind spot of a facility user by using the monitoring sensor in the host autonomous traveling vehicle while the host autonomous traveling vehicle is charging in a traveling facility in which the host autonomous traveling vehicle travels. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “blind spot area” is data representative of an area defined as a blind spot of a user. The limitation of “monitoring sensor” is interpreted as generic hardware, as sensors are well-understood, routine, and conventional. The limitation of “while the host autonomous traveling vehicle is charging in a traveling facility in which the host autonomous traveling vehicle travels” is merely an environmental condition that does not require controlled operations of the host autonomous traveling vehicle, and the “traveling facility in which the host autonomous traveling vehicle travels” merely defines the abilities of the host autonomous traveling vehicle, without any controlled operations of the host autonomous traveling vehicle.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of a “processor.” That is, other than reciting a “processor,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processor” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. blind spot area) and forming a simple observation (i.e. monitor a blind spot area while the host autonomous traveling vehicle is charging). Such observations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processor”) using generic hardware (i.e. “monitoring sensors”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of a “processor” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The recitation of the “monitoring sensor” as being used to monitor a blind spot area is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a generic hardware (i.e. monitoring sensor) as a tool to perform the processes (i.e. monitor a blind spot area) which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception 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 potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of:
a monitoring sensor that monitors an external field,
a battery that supplies power to a drive source, and
a processor configured to:
output monitoring data for the blind spot area.
The “output” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general output of monitoring data) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the “output” step, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “host autonomous traveling vehicle” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “monitoring sensor” is a generic sensor that is merely claimed as a source of the generally recited data, and therefore, the “monitoring sensor” does not impose meaningful limits on the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(III).
The “host autonomous traveling vehicle” with a “battery that supplies power to a drive source” and “monitoring sensor that monitors an external field” contribute only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a field-of-use limitation) and is merely an object on which the method operates; therefore, the host traveling vehicle that includes a battery that supplies power to a drive source and monitoring sensor that monitors an external field does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the output step was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites a monitoring sensor as commonly provided in vehicles, and the specification does not provide any indication that the output of monitored data is anything other than conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicate that receiving or transmitting data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 4-9
Dependent claims 4-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the 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.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of monitoring the blind spot area includes monitoring the blind spot area of a target autonomous traveling vehicle that is different from the autonomous traveling vehicle. The limitation of “target autonomous traveling vehicle” is merely used to describe the generally recited data (i.e. “blind spot area”) and does not include controlled operations of the target autonomous traveling vehicle.
Further limiting the “blind spot area” to be of a target autonomous traveling vehicle that is different from the autonomous traveling vehicle represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the blind spot area to be of a target autonomous traveling vehicle that is different from the autonomous traveling vehicle does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 4 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of outputting the monitoring data includes transmitting the monitoring data to a management center that manages the host autonomous traveling vehicle and the target autonomous traveling vehicle.
The “transmitting” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general transmitting of monitoring data) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “management center” contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in an insignificant extra-solution activity step or in a field-of-use limitation) and is merely an object on which the method operates (e.g., transmitting the monitoring data to a management center); therefore, the “management center” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 5 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of the processor is further configured to regulate an upper limit speed of the target autonomous traveling vehicle depending on a monitoring status of the blind spot area by the monitoring data.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “upper limit speed” is data representative of a speed. The “regulating” step may encompass a human activity that is known to have been performed by traffic officers and speed limit signs. Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP(II)(C).
The recitation of the “processor” as performing the “regulate” step is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. processor) as a tool to perform the processes (i.e. regulate an upper limit speed of a target autonomous traveling vehicle) which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 6 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of monitoring the blind spot area includes monitoring the blind spot area of a person that is the facility user.
Further limiting the “blind spot area” to be of a person that is the facility user represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the blind spot area to be of a person that is the facility user does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 7 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of outputting the monitoring data includes executing an alert to the person in the blind spot area of a target autonomous traveling vehicle that is a different facility user.
The “executing” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general executing an alert to the person in the blind spot area) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 8 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the additional elements of the processor is further configured to cause the monitoring sensor in the host autonomous traveling vehicle being charged in the traveling facility to monitor at least one of an abnormality in a height position or an attitude of the host autonomous traveling vehicle, outputting the monitoring data includes outputting the monitoring data for the abnormality.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “abnormality in height position or an attitude” is data representing an abnormality in height or attitude of the vehicle. The limitation of “the host autonomous traveling vehicle being charged in the traveling facility” is merely an environmental condition that does not require controlled operations of the host autonomous traveling vehicle.
The cause” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general causing the monitor sensor to monitor an abnormality) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The “monitoring sensor” is a generic sensor that is merely claimed as a source of the generally recited data (i.e. “abnormality”), and therefore, the “monitoring sensor” does not impose meaningful limits on the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(III).
The “outputting” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general output monitoring data for the abnormality) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 9 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
101 Analysis of Claim 10
Claim 10. A monitoring device that is mounted on a host autonomous traveling vehicle and monitors a periphery of a host autonomous traveling vehicle including:
a monitoring sensor that monitors an external field; and
a battery that supplies power to a drive source, the monitoring device comprising a processor configured to:
monitor a blind spot area that is a blind spot of a facility user by using the monitoring sensor in the host autonomous traveling vehicle while the host autonomous traveling vehicle is charging in a traveling facility in which the host autonomous traveling vehicle travels; and
output monitoring data for the blind spot area.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a monitoring device (i.e. machine). The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 10 in step 2A prong one.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 10 in step 2A prong two.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 10 in step 2B.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Claim 11
Claim 11. An autonomous traveling vehicle comprising:
a monitoring sensor that monitors an external field;
a battery that supplies power to a drive source; and
a processor configured to:
monitor a blind spot area that is a blind spot of a facility user by using the monitoring sensor while the autonomous traveling vehicle is charging in a traveling facility in which the autonomous traveling vehicle travels; and
output monitoring data for the blind spot area.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites an autonomous traveling vehicle (i.e. machine). The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 11 in step 2A prong one.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 11 in step 2A prong two.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 11 in step 2B.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Claim 12
Claim 12. A monitoring method executed by a processor for monitoring a periphery of a host autonomous traveling vehicle including:
a monitoring sensor that monitors an external field; and
a battery that supplies power to a drive source, the method comprising:
monitoring a blind spot area that is a blind spot of a facility user by using the monitoring sensor in the host autonomous traveling vehicle while the host autonomous traveling vehicle is charging in a traveling facility in which the host autonomous traveling vehicle travels; and
outputting monitoring data for the blind spot area.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a monitoring method (i.e. process). The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 12 in step 2A prong one.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 12 in step 2A prong two.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 12 in step 2B.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Claim 13
Claim 13. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a monitoring program comprising instructions executed by a processor for monitoring a periphery of a host autonomous traveling vehicle including:
a monitoring sensor that monitors an external field; and
a battery that supplies power to a drive source, the instructions causing the processor to:
monitor a blind spot area that is a blind spot of a facility user by using the monitoring sensor in the host autonomous traveling vehicle while the host autonomous traveling vehicle is charging in a traveling facility in which the host autonomous traveling vehicle travels; and
output monitoring data for the blind spot area.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e. article of manufacture). The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 13 in step 2A prong one.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 13 in step 2A prong two.
Further, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the already identified abstract exception using generic computer components (i.e. a monitoring program comprising instructions executed by a processor) when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 13 in step 2B.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claims 1 and 4-13 are thus found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea, with the additional computer-based elements, as tested above, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Key to Interpreting the Prior Art Rejections
For readability, all claim language has been underlined.
Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parentheses.
Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira et al. (US 2022/0253069 A1), hereinafter Taira, in view of Robert et al. (US 2022/0247241 A1), hereinafter Robert.
Claim 1
Taira discloses the claimed monitoring system for monitoring a periphery of a host autonomous traveling vehicle (see Figure 3, depicting mobile robot 100 including robot camera 161, described as capturing image data with respect to the location in which the robot is waiting in ¶0062-0063, ¶0065) including a monitoring sensor that monitors an external field (see ¶0061-0062, with respect to Figures 2 and 3, regarding that mobile robot 100 includes robot cameras 161).
Taira further discloses that the system comprising a processor (i.e. control unit 180) configured to:
monitor a blind spot area that is a blind spot of a facility user by using the monitoring sensor in the host autonomous traveling vehicle (see ¶0063, regarding mobile robot 100 photographs the elevator hall using robot cameras 161 when mobile robot 100 is waiting in the elevator hall for transmission to another mobile robot that is about to move from the inside of the car of the elevator to the elevator hall, where the area is referred to as “blind” to the mobile robot riding inside the car of the elevator in ¶0045) in a traveling facility in which the host autonomous traveling vehicle travels (see ¶0048, regarding a plurality of mobile robots 100 move autonomously inside facility 900, further defined in ¶0040); and
output monitoring data for the blind spot area (see ¶0056, regarding mobile robot 100 includes communication unit 130 for sending and receiving image data to and from other mobile robots 100 and server device 300, where the image data represents “blind spots,” as described in ¶0063).
While Taira further discloses that the mobile robots 100 include respective drive units 110 (see ¶0053), Taira does not explicitly define the source of power as a battery that supplies power to a drive source, such that while mobile robot 100 is waiting and acquiring image data (see ¶0063 and ¶0065), mobile robot 100 may also be charging. However, mobile robots similar to Taira are commonly known to include a battery that supplies power to a drive source that may be charged at a stationary location, in light of Robert.
Specifically, Robert teaches mobile robot 105, defined as moving around autonomously in ¶0016 (similar to the host autonomous traveling vehicle taught by Taira), includes an onboard camera 113 (similar to the monitoring sensor taught by Taira) and a battery that supplies power to a drive source (see ¶0017-0018, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that mobile robot 105 includes battery module 109 and motor system 108 for enabling the mobile robot to move around in various directions). Robert further teaches that mobile robot 105 receives a charge from a stationary wireless battery charging station 150 by aligning its wireless charge receiving pad 111 with battery charging pad 156 of a wall plate 155 (see ¶0026-0027, with respect to Figure 2), where the wall plate includes an electrical socket 157 coupled to a mains voltage (see ¶0023).
Given that mobile robot 100 of Taira waits in a hallway (see ¶0063) that is commonly known to be provided with electrical sockets, it would be reasonable to incorporate the charging system of Robert into the area monitoring system of Taira, such that Taira performs the technique of “monitoring a blind spot area that is a blind spot of a facility user by using the monitoring sensor in the host autonomous traveling vehicle in a traveling facility in which the host autonomous traveling vehicle travels,” discussed above, while the host autonomous traveling vehicle is charging.
Since the systems of Taira and Robert are directed to the same purpose, i.e. autonomously navigating a mobile robot in a facility, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the step of monitor[ing] a blind spot area that is a blind spot of a facility user by using the monitoring sensor in the host autonomous traveling vehicle in a traveling facility in which the host autonomous traveling vehicle travels taught by Taira to be performed while the host autonomous traveling vehicle is charging, in light of Robert, with the predictable result of recharging the batteries of known autonomous mobile robots (¶0002 of Robert) using a wall socket (¶0023 of Robert), applicable to the mobile robot of Taira (see ¶0038) that waits in a common hallway (¶0063 of Taira), thus combining monitoring and charging tasks resulting in improved efficiency.
Claim 2
Taira, as modified by Robert, further discloses that the processor is further configured to direct the monitoring sensor capable of detecting an object in the external field toward the blind spot area (see ¶0063, regarding robot cameras 161 photograph the elevator hall; ¶0065, regarding robot cameras 161 photograph the inside of the car of the elevator), where Robert is applied to teach the controller 106 (similar to the processor taught by Taira) causes the battery in mobile robot 105 (similar to the host autonomous traveling vehicle taught by Taira) to be charged (see ¶0017), as further discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The robot cameras of Taira may be reasonably “directed” to photograph particular areas in which the mobile robot is waiting.
Claim 3
Roberts further teaches that charging mobile robot 105 (similar to the host autonomous traveling vehicle taught by Taira) includes electrically connecting mobile robot 105 to an external charging device by causing mobile robot 105 to perform self-traveling to a charging position where the battery is charged by an external charging device (see ¶0026-0027, with respect to Figure 2, regarding mobile robot 105 travels along travel path 205 to reach a spot adjacent to wall plate 155 and performs an alignment procedure to align the wireless charge receiving pad 111 of mobile robot 105 with battery charging pad 156 of stationary wireless battery charging station 150).
Claim 4
Taira further discloses that monitoring the blind spot area includes monitoring the blind spot area of a target autonomous traveling vehicle that is different from the autonomous traveling vehicle (see ¶0063, regarding mobile robot 100 photographs the elevator hall using robot cameras 161 when mobile robot 100 is waiting in the elevator hall for transmission to another mobile robot that is about to move from the inside of the car of the elevator to the elevator hall, where the area is referred to as “blind” to the mobile robot riding inside the car of the elevator in ¶0045; ¶0065, regarding mobile robot 100 photographs the inside of the car of the elevator when mobile robot 100 is riding inside the car of the elevator for transmission to another mobile robot that is about to move from the elevator hall into the car of the elevator, where the area is referred to as “blind” to the mobile robot waiting in the elevator hall in ¶0043; ¶0048, regarding the plurality of mobile robots move autonomously inside facility 900), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 5
Taira further discloses that outputting the monitoring data includes transmitting the monitoring data to a management center that manages the host autonomous traveling vehicle and the target autonomous traveling vehicle (see ¶0063 and ¶0065, regarding the image data captured by robot cameras 161 is additionally sent to server device 300, defined as managing the mobile robots in ¶0116).
Claim 7
Taira further discloses that monitoring the blind spot area includes monitoring the blind spot area of a person that is the facility user (see Figures 6 and 8, depicting the area monitored by mobile robot 100 is “blind” to persons T). The persons T may be reasonably included in the embodiments described in ¶0063 and ¶0065, such that areas may be considered “blind” to both other mobile robots and persons T.
Claim 8
Taira further discloses that outputting the monitoring data includes executing an alert to the person in the blind spot area of a target autonomous traveling vehicle that is a different facility user (see ¶0097, regarding mobile robot 100 has a means for making it known immediately before the elevator door opens that mobile robot 100 is going to move into the car of the elevator; ¶0111, regarding mobile robot 100 has a means for making it known immediately before the elevator door opens that mobile robot 100 is going to move to the elevator hall; Figures 6-9, depicting a plurality of persons T inside the elevator and in the elevator hall).
Claim 9
Robert further teaches that controller 106 (similar to the processor taught by Taira) to cause onboard camera 113 (similar to the monitoring sensor taught by Taira) in mobile robot 105 (similar to the host autonomous traveling vehicle taught by Taira) being charged in a facility described in ¶0015 or ¶0036 (similar to the traveling facility taught by Taira) to monitor at least one of an abnormality in a height position or an attitude of mobile robot 105 (see ¶0055, regarding that mobile robot 105 determines via images captured by the onboard camera 113 that wireless charge receiving pad 111 is not aligned with battery charging pad 156), and outputting the monitoring data for the abnormality (see ¶0055, regarding mobile robot 105 is controlled to move compartment 112 upwards or downwards to execute alignment, under control of controller 106, as described in ¶0019). The “monitoring data for the abnormality” may be reasonably output by the controller 106 to execute control operations.
Claim 10
Taira, as modified by Robert, discloses the claimed monitoring device that is mounted on a host autonomous traveling vehicle and monitors a periphery of a host autonomous traveling vehicle (see Figure 3, depicting mobile robot 100 including robot camera 161, described as capturing image data with respect to the location in which the robot is waiting in ¶0062-0063, ¶0065), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 11
Taira, as modified by Robert, discloses the claimed autonomous traveling vehicle (see Figure 2, depicting mobile robot 100), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 12
Taira, as modified by Robert, discloses the claimed monitoring method executed by a processor for monitoring a periphery of a host autonomous traveling vehicle, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 13
Taira, as modified by Robert, discloses the claimed non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a monitoring program comprising instructions executed by a processor for monitoring a periphery of a host autonomous traveling vehicle (see ¶0135-0136), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira in view of Robert, and in further view of Voorhies et al. (US 2019/0310655 A1), hereinafter Voorhies.
Claim 6
While Taira further discloses that the other mobile robot (i.e. “target autonomous traveling vehicle”) moves along a moving route determined based on the received image data (i.e. “monitoring data”) to avoid obstacles in the area (i.e. “blind spot area”) (see ¶0063), Taira does not disclose that the processor is further configured to regulate an upper limit speed of the target autonomous traveling vehicle depending on a monitoring status of the blind spot area by the monitoring data. However, providing speed limitations in the presence of obstacles is well known in the art and would be obvious to incorporate into the system of Taira, in light of Voorhies.
Specifically, Voorhies teaches a similar system comprising a plurality of robots (see Figure 10, depicting robots 1010, 1020, 1030, 1040, and 1050), where a first robot (similar to the host autonomous traveling vehicle taught by Taira that includes the processor) is further configured to regulate an upper limit speed of a second robot (similar to the target autonomous traveling vehicle taught by Taira) depending on a monitoring status of information from the first robot’s sensory array, defined as including a camera in ¶0030 (similar to the blind spot area by the monitoring data taught by Taira) (see ¶0092-0094, regarding that robots are caused to slow down based on the shared robot sensory scans, by reducing its speed, as described in ¶0113, where a first robot directly receives information from a sensor of a different second robot for shared robot sensory access, as described in ¶0031).
Since the systems of Taira and Voorhies are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing a plurality of robots in a facility that perform autonomous navigation using sensors that include cameras, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor of Taira to be further configured to regulate an upper limit speed of the target autonomous traveling vehicle depending on a monitoring status of the blind spot area by the monitoring data, in light of Voorhies, with the predictable result of preserving charge and avoiding collision with another robot (¶0113 of Voorhies).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Kamimurai et al. (US 2022/0101444 A1) teaches transmitting image information acquired by cameras mounted in a vehicle to another apparatus that is controlled to prevent an accident with the pedestrian who is in a blind spot for the apparatus (see ¶0041), and Sharma Banjade et al. (US 2025/0128698 A1) teaches crowd-sourcing data from a plurality of vehicle sensors for capturing a “dead zone” in the location space (see ¶0033).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661