DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 6/18/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 10-13 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claim 14 is a new claim.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
Due to the amendment filed 6/18/2026, the rejection of claims 1 and 4-13 under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, new references have been applied to the amendment filed 6/18/2026, as discussed in detail below.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites the limitation of depending on a monitoring status of the blind spot area by the monitoring data. Because the limitations of claim 1 define “monitoring data” as corresponding to the “blind spot area,” it is assumed that this limitation should simply recite “depending on a monitoring status of the blind spot area” or “depending on a monitoring status of the monitoring data.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation of wherein monitoring the blind spot area includes monitoring the blind spot area of a target autonomous traveling vehicle that is different from the host autonomous traveling vehicle. Claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, recites a blind spot area is a blind spot of a facility user in a traveling facility. Specifically, claim 1 defines the “blind spot area” as being “of a facility user.” However, claim 4 redefines the “blind spot area” as being “of a target autonomous traveling vehicle.” One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine if the “blind spot area” of claim 4 is intended to be interpreted as a distinct and separate blind spot related only to the target autonomous traveling vehicle or as the same blind spot area requiring both the facility user and target autonomous traveling vehicle to be occupying the same locations and experiencing the same line of sight.
Claim 8 recites the limitation 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. Claim 7, from which claim 8 depends, recites monitoring the blind spot area includes monitoring the blind spot area of a person that is the facility user, and claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, recites the limitation of a blind spot area that is a blind spot of a facility user. Specifically, claim 1 defines the “blind spot area” as being “of a facility user,” and claim 7 defines the “facility user” as a “person.” However, claim 8 redefines the “person” to be “in the blind spot area” and further redefines the “person” that is defined as the “facility user” in claim 7 to be a “different facility user.” One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably interpret the “person” with respect to the “blind spot area” of claim 8, in light of the preceding limitations.
Further, the overall phrasing of “executing an alert to the person in the blind spot area of a target autonomous traveling vehicle that is a different facility user” is unclear. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine whether the limitation of “that is a different facility user” is intended to modify the “person” or the “target autonomous traveling vehicle.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation 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 (emphasis added). Claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, recites the limitation of output monitoring data corresponding to the blind spot area. Specifically, claim 1 defines the “monitoring data” as “corresponding to the blind spot area.” However, claim 9 redefines the “monitoring data” to be “for the abnormality,” defined as pertaining to “a height position or an attitude of the host autonomous traveling vehicle,” which cannot reasonably correspond to the blind spot area, which is monitored by the host autonomous traveling vehicle in the “control” step of claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably interpret the “monitoring data” with respect to the “abnormality” of claim 9, in light of the preceding limitations.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of claim 4 by dependency.
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, 3, 7, 8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevdahs et al. (US 11,745,870 B1), hereinafter Nevdahs, in view of Ouellette et al. (US 2023/0100244 A1), hereinafter Ouellette, and Shoulta (“Classrooms Compromised,” October 2018, Kentucky School Boards Association), hereinafter Shoulta.
Claim 1
Nevdahs discloses the claimed monitoring system for monitoring a periphery of a host autonomous traveling vehicle (see Figure 5, depicting system 500 that includes robotic devices 590, described as including data capture and recording devices in at least col. 28, lines 25-33; col. 27, lines 34-41, regarding that robotic devices 590 include drones such as drone 110 depicted in Figures 1-2F), comprising:
a monitoring sensor that monitors an external field (see col. 5, lines 28-32, regarding that onboard camera 112 of drone 110 is a visible-light camera that captures image data, where a visitor is kept within the field of view 210a of the camera 112, as described in col. 15, lines 4-7);
a battery that supplies power to a drive source (see col. 23, lines 41-43, regarding a charging location is used by the drone to replenish its power level, e.g., the level of charge of an onboard lithium-ion battery, where flight operations are determined based on the battery charge level, as described in col. 15, line 55-col. 16, line 30, and flight is controlled by the motors of drone 110, as described in col. 12, lines 45-47); and
a processor (see col. 28, line 66-col. 29, line 3, regarding robotic devices 590 include a processor).
Nevdahs further discloses that the claimed processor is configured to determine, from among a plurality of charging devices (i.e. charging stations described in col. 29, lines 9-12, where docking station 114 is defined as a charging station in col. 22, lines 60-64), one or more candidate charging devices (i.e. docking station 114) located at a position where an area in a traveling facility (i.e. property 150) can be monitored by the monitoring sensor (see col. 22, line 23-col. 23, line 31, with respect to step 406 of Figure 4, regarding that drone 110 determines a location to land by considering one or more candidate locations, such that the proximity of the candidate locations to a current location of visitor 120, proximity of candidate locations to a boundary that visitor 120 is not permitted to breach, and vantage point of drone 110 at the candidate locations, e.g., whether drone 110 can keep visitor 120 in the field of view 210 of camera 112 at the location, are considered; col. 15, lines 55-62, regarding that the one or more candidate locations include landing site 214 and docking station 114, defined as recharging drone 110 in col. 11, lines 50-55). As described in col. 4, lines 60-65 of Nevdahs, property 150 may be a commercial property and thus may reasonably teach a “traveling facility,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification that defines a traveling facility as encompassing hospitals and warehouses in paragraph [0025] of the specification filed 1/2/2025.
Nevdahs further discloses that the claimed processor is configured to select, from among the one or more candidate charging devices, a charging device (i.e. docking station 114) to be used to monitor the area while the battery is being charged (see col. 15, lines 55-63, regarding that drone 110 identifies a landing site by taking into account its remaining battery charge level, the anticipated location of visitor 120, and a field of view of camera 112 at one or more candidate locations, e.g., landing site 214 and docking station 114; col. 22, lines 23-31, with respect to step 406 of Figure 4, regarding that drone 110 selects a location from one or more candidate locations, where drone 110 may select docking station 114, as described in col. 16, line 65-col. 17, line 8; col. 11, lines 35-38, regarding that drone 110 selects a landing site in the authorized area that would keep visitor 120 in a field of view of camera 112; col. 23, lines 39-43, regarding docking station 114 is a charging station used by the drone to replenish its power level). The “select” step does not further limit the claim, given that this limitation only requires selection from one candidate charging device without consideration of any particular conditions.
Nevdahs further discloses that the claimed processor is configured to control the host autonomous traveling vehicle to travel to the selected charging device so as to connect the host autonomous traveling vehicle to the selected charging device (see col. 23, lines 31-56, with respect to step 408 of Figure 4, regarding that drone 110 navigates to the determined landing location, such as a charging location, while orienting itself so as to keep visitor 120 in the field of view 210 of its onboard camera 112; col. 11, lines 35-38, regarding that drone 110 selects a landing site in the authorized area that would keep visitor 120 in a field of view of camera 112; col. 23, lines 39-43, regarding docking station 114 is a charging station used by the drone to replenish its power level; col. 29, lines 22-48, regarding the charging stations may be contact based, such that the robotic devices 590 have readily accessible points of contact that are capable of positioning and mating with a corresponding contact on the charging station, or wireless, such that robotic devices 590 need only locate themselves closely enough to the wireless charging stations) such that the monitoring sensor is directed toward the area while the battery is being charged (see col. 23, lines 50-54, regarding that while navigating to the determined landing location, the drone orients itself so as to keep the person providing the in-house service in its view; col. 17, lines 20-28, regarding that after landing, the position of drone 110 is such that the field of view 210c of camera 112 includes the majority of the authorized area 206). Because an anticipated view of the drone at the charging location (see col. 23, lines 31-43) and its vantage point (see col. 16, lines 54-64) are considerations in selecting a landing location, Nevdahs reasonably teaches selecting a docking station 114 (charging station) such that its onboard camera can keep the monitored area in view while drone 110 is docked and recharging (see col. 11, lines 47-56; col. 16, lines 66-col. 17, line 8).
Nevdahs further discloses that the claimed processor is configured to:
monitor the blind spot area by using the monitoring sensor while the battery is being charged (see col. 11, lines 46-56, regarding that docking station 114 is set as the landing site in order to recharge drone 110 if its battery charge level falls below a certain threshold, where drone 110 determines whether it will need to land and recharge during the service visit, as described in col. 13, lines 11-18; col. 16, lines 25-49, regarding that drone 110 selects the landing site based on the field of view 210 of camera 112 at the landing site, e.g., whether visitor 120 will be in the field of view 210 of camera 112 at the landing site); and
output monitoring data for corresponding to the area (see col. 5, lines 28-32, regarding drone 110 outputs image data captured by onboard camera 112 to control unit 102 and/or monitoring server 130; col. 12, lines 8-16, regarding image data collected by drone 110 during a surveillance session is sent to control unit 120, monitoring server 130 and/or occupant device 132, e.g. videos of each visit).
As discussed above, Nevdahs discloses monitoring an authorized area associated with kitchen 152 located in property 150 (i.e. “traveling facility”) (see Figure 1), and Nevdahs does not explicitly disclose the authorized area as a blind spot area that is a blind spot of a facility user in a traveling facility. However, the limitation of “blind spot of a facility user” is merely an unconstrained label that fails to limit the claimed steps. Because the claim provides no limitations for evaluating the user’s field of view, the term broadly encompasses any area blocked from direct sight, such as kitchen 152 occluded from a person (i.e. “facility user”) in another room or hallway of property 150 (i.e. “facility”). Therefore, the reference to a “blind spot of a facility user” is merely a characterization of the area without imparting patentable weight. Modifying the authorized area (kitchen) of Nevdahs to be considered a “blind spot of a facility user” would be obvious, in light of Ouellette and Shoulta.
Specifically, Ouellette teaches a facility (similar to the traveling facility of Nevdahs) which includes rooms (see ¶0027, with respect to Figure 2), including a room defined as a blind spot area (see ¶0028, regarding the determination of surveillance areas 212 that are blind spots; Figure 2, depicting surveillance area 212 as associated with a particular room of the facility). Shoulta teaches similar a “blind spot area” that is a blind spot of a facility user in a building (similar to the traveling facility of Nevdahs) (see second and third paragraphs under “Security cameras” section, regarding that blind spots prevent the staff from seeing through walls as they walk through the building).
Since the systems of Nevdahs, Ouellette, and Shoulta are directed to the same purpose, i.e. monitoring a room of 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 area of Nevdahs to be specifically a blind spot area that is a blind spot of a facility user in a traveling facility, in light of Ouellette and Shoulta, with the predictable result of defining the authorized area of Nevdahs with respect to the limitations it presents to staff as they walk through the facility (third paragraph under “Security cameras” section of Shoulta) in which surveillance would be beneficial (¶0028 of Ouellette).
Claim 3
Nevdahs further discloses charging the host autonomous traveling vehicle includes electrically connecting the host autonomous traveling vehicle to the selected charging device by causing the host autonomous traveling vehicle to perform self-traveling to a charging position where the battery is charged by the selected charging device (see col. 23, lines 31-56, with respect to step 408 of Figure 4, regarding that drone 110 navigates to the determined landing location, such as a charging location, while orienting itself so as to keep visitor 120 in the field of view 210 of its onboard camera 112; col. 11, lines 35-38, regarding that drone 110 selects a landing site in the authorized area that would keep visitor 120 in a field of view of camera 112; col. 23, lines 39-43, regarding docking station 114 is a charging station used by the drone to replenish its power level; col. 29, lines 22-48, regarding the charging stations may be contact based, such that the robotic devices 590 have readily accessible points of contact that are capable of positioning and mating with a corresponding contact on the charging station, or wireless, such that robotic devices 590 need only locate themselves closely enough to the wireless charging stations).
Claim 7
The combination of Nevdahs, Ouellette, and Shoulta further teaches monitoring the blind spot area includes monitoring the blind spot area of a person that is the facility user, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 8
Due to the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the scope of the limitations of claim 8 has been interpreted broadly for the purposes of the prior art rejection.
Nevdahs further discloses 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 col. 17, lines 29-41, regarding that drone 110 generates a notification 230 to trigger an alarm for property 150 or a notification to a visitor device of visitor 120 to warn the visitor to return to the authorized area 206; col. 9, lines 1-10, regarding that an audio system is deployed on property 150 when a visitor breaches an authorized area of property 150). The visitor may be considered “the person in the blind spot area,” such that upon leaving, the “blind spot area” becomes a blind spot of drone 110, where drone 110 is one of a plurality of robotic devices (see col. 27, lines 34-41).
Claim 10
The combination of Nevdahs, Ouellette, and Shoulta discloses the claimed monitoring device that is mounted on a host autonomous traveling vehicle (i.e. drone 110, defined as moving based on automated control technology in col. 27, lines 34-55 of Nevdahs) and monitors a periphery of autonomous traveling vehicle (see col. 5, lines 28-32 of Nevdahs, regarding that drone 110 is provided with onboard camera 112, defined as a visible-light camera that captures image data, where a visitor is kept within the field of view 210a of the camera 112, as described in col. 15, lines 4-7) including the elements discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 11
The combination of Nevdahs, Ouellette, and Shoulta discloses the claimed autonomous traveling vehicle (i.e. drone 110, defined as moving based on automated control technology in col. 27, lines 34-55 of Nevdahs) comprising the elements discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 12
The combination of Nevdahs, Ouellette, and Shoulta discloses the claimed monitoring method executed by a processor for monitoring a periphery of a host autonomous traveling vehicle (see Figure 4 of Nevdahs, described as being performed by drone 110 in col. 18, lines 45-64; col. 28, line 66-col. 29, line 3, regarding robotic devices 590 include a processor) including the elements discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 13
The combination of Nevdahs, Ouellette, and Shoulta 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 abstract of Nevdahs regarding that computer programs encoded on a computer storage medium are used for surveillance with security camera drone) including the elements discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 14
Nevdahs further discloses that the processor is further configured to select, from among unused external charging devices reachable by the host autonomous traveling vehicle (see col. 29, lines 9-11, regarding that robotic devices 590 are associated with one or more charging stations that may be located at reference locations, where the charging stations are not assigned to specific robotic devices 590 and the robotic devices 590 may use any suitable, unoccupied charging station when not in use, e.g. by referencing a stored table of occupancy status of each charging station, as described in col. 30, lines 3-13) based on a remaining amount of the battery (see col. 15, lines 55-63, regarding that drone 110 takes into account its remaining battery charge level in identifying a landing site, e.g. docking station 114; col. 11, lines 53-56, regarding that drone 110 can automatically navigate to docking station 114 if its battery charge level falls below a certain level), the charging device located at a position where the blind spot area can be monitored by the monitoring sensor (see col. 22, line 23-col. 23, line 31, with respect to step 406 of Figure 4, regarding that drone 110 determines a location to land by considering one or more candidate locations, such that the proximity of the candidate locations to a current location of visitor 120, proximity of candidate locations to a boundary that visitor 120 is not permitted to breach, and vantage point of drone 110 at the candidate locations, e.g., whether drone 110 can keep visitor 120 in the field of view 210 of camera 112 at the location, are considered; col. 17, lines 20-28, regarding that after landing, the position of drone 110 is such that the field of view 210c of camera 112 includes the majority of the authorized area 206).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevdahs in view of Ouellette and Shoulta, and in further view of Taira et al. (US 2022/0253069 A1), hereinafter Taira.
Claim 4
Due to the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the scope of the limitations of claim 4 has been interpreted broadly for the purposes of the prior art rejection.
The combination of Nevdahs, Ouellette, and Shoulta does not further teach that monitoring the blind spot area includes monitoring the blind spot area of a target autonomous traveling vehicle that is different from the host autonomous traveling vehicle. However, the limitation of “blind spot of a target autonomous traveling vehicle” is merely an unconstrained label that fails to limit the claimed steps. Because the claim provides no limitations for evaluating the target autonomous traveling vehicle’s field of view, the term broadly encompasses any area blocked from direct sight, such as kitchen 152 occluded from a different drone (i.e. “target autonomous traveling vehicle”), defined as part of a plurality of robotic devices in col. 27, lines 34-41 of Nevdahs, in another room or hallway of property 150 (i.e. “facility”). Therefore, the reference to a “blind spot area of a target autonomous traveling vehicle” is merely a characterization of the area without imparting patentable weight. Modifying the authorized area (kitchen) of Nevdahs to be considered a “blind spot area of a target autonomous traveling vehicle” would be obvious, in light of Taira.
Specifically, Taira teaches mobile robot 100 photographs the inside of the car of an elevator (similar to the monitoring the blind spot area of Nevdahs) of a target autonomous traveling vehicle (i.e. another mobile robot) that is different from mobile robot 100 (similar to the host autonomous traveling vehicle of Nevdahs) (see ¶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 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).
Since the systems of Nevdahs and Taira are directed to the same purpose, i.e. monitoring an area using an autonomous robotic device, 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 blind spot area of Nevdahs, as modified by Ouellette and Shoulta, to be of a target autonomous traveling vehicle that is different from the host autonomous traveling vehicle, in light of Taira, with the predictable result of defining the authorized area of Nevdahs with respect to another mobile robot located at a blind angle, in which obstacle avoidance operations would be beneficial (¶0043-0044 of Taira).
Claim 5
Nevdahs further discloses outputting the monitoring data includes transmitting the monitoring data to a management center that manages the host autonomous traveling vehicle (see col. 5, lines 28-32, regarding drone 110 outputs image data captured by onboard camera 112 to control unit 102 and/or monitoring server 130; col. 12, lines 8-16, regarding image data collected by drone 110 during a surveillance session is sent to control unit 120, monitoring server 130 and/or occupant device 132, e.g. videos of each visit), where a plurality of robotic devices 590 such as drone 110 (similar to the target autonomous traveling vehicle of Taira) may perform the communication operations to other devices (see col. 27, lines 34-41; col. 28, lines 25-66) including monitoring server 560 (see Figure 5).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevdahs in view of Ouellette, Shoulta, and Taira, 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 to avoid obstacles in the area (see ¶0063), the combination of Nevdahs and 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 combination of Nevdahs and 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 processor of Nevdahs) is configured to regulate an upper limit speed of a second robot (similar to the target autonomous traveling vehicle of 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 of Nevdahs, as modified by Ouellette and Shoulta) (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 Nevdahs, Taira, and Voorhies are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing a plurality of robots in a facility that perform autonomous navigation using 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 combination of Nevdahs and Taira, such 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, in light of Voorhies, with the predictable result of preserving charge and avoiding collision with another robot (¶0113 of Voorhies).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevdahs in view of Ouellette and Shoulta, and in further view of Robert et al. (US 2022/0247241 A1), hereinafter Robert.
Claim 9
Due to the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the scope of the limitations of claim 9 has been interpreted broadly for the purposes of the prior art rejection.
Nevdahs does not further disclose that 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. However, the technique of monitoring an abnormality in an attitude of a similar robotic device is well known in alignment operations associated with a similar charging device, in light of Robert.
Specifically, Robert teaches that controller 106 (similar to the processor of Nevdahs) to cause onboard camera 113 (similar to the monitoring sensor of Nevdahs) in mobile robot 105, defined as including airborne robots in ¶0016 (similar to the host autonomous traveling vehicle of Nevdahs), being charged in a facility described in ¶0015 or ¶0036 (similar to the traveling facility of Nevdahs) 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.
Since the systems of Nevdahs 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 processor of Nevdahs to be 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, in light of Robert, with the predictable result of identifying a condition in which a wireless charge cannot be received due to improper alignment (¶0055 of Robert).
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).
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 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
Prosecution Insights