DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 07/24/2026. Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 have been amended. Claim(s) 1-20 are pending examination. Objections to the drawings and specification have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1, 11, and 20 is improper. Applicant asserts that the cited prior art does not teach the claims as amended, in particular the prior art fails to teach, “control the communication interface to transmit the updated location information to the target robot to configure the target robot to set a moving route based on the updated location information, or perform a simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) operation based on the updated location information,” Of claim 1. Similar language is used for claims 11 and 20. Accordingly the claims are allowable as are their dependents.
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 5 and 15 is improper, applicant asserts that the prior art does not teach the claim limitations.
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 6 and 16 is improper, applicant asserts that the prior art does not teach the claim limitations.
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 7 and 17 is improper, applicant asserts that the prior art does not teach the claim limitations.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 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.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner finds it moot. Applicant’s arguments are directed towards new claim limitations. After further search and consideration the examiner would rely on the newly cited art Honma (US PG Pub 2025/0020813) to teach these limitations. Looking at Fig. 5 and [0090]-[0094] Honma teaches a drone, i.e. robot, that can receive an updated location from a different device. Upon receiving the updated location the drone will use the updated location, in conjunction with sensors, to perform a SLAM procedure to further determine where it is. As Honma teaches in [0008]-[0014] sometimes a robot will be unable to determine its location. By using a secondary device to determine the second devices location, the system can then transmit it to the drone. Using the newly determined location the drone can determine, in conjunction with SLAM, an updated location before moving. This allows for the drone to have the best location data possible before moving and prevent collisions. Accordingly the claims 1, 11, and 20 would be rejected under 35 USC 103. Please see the section below titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103,” for further detailed mapping and explanation.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument B, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant’s broad allegation is not persuasive and the mere repetition of the cited language does not show how it is different from the claims. Accordingly claims 5 and 15 will remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
Regarding applicant’s argument C, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant’s broad allegation is not persuasive and the mere repetition of the cited language does not show how it is different from the claims. Accordingly claims 6 and 16 will remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
Regarding applicant’s argument D, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant’s broad allegation is not persuasive and the mere repetition of the cited language does not show how it is different from the claims. Accordingly claims 7 and 17 will remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN115063479) in view of Honma (US PG Pub 2025/0020813).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches an electronic device comprising: a communication interface; ([n0021]-[n0022] teaches a server device in communication with the robots. [n0034] teaches an electronic device with a communication interface)
a memory configured to store one or more instructions; ([n0082] teaches a memory that can be used to store computer instructions) and
at least one processor operatively connected with the communication interface and the memory, the at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: ([n0008] and [n0071] teaches a processor that can communicate with the communication interface and the memory in order to execute a stored program) based on one or more signals received from one or more of a plurality of robots, identify a first robot, among the plurality of robots, as a target robot that requires location information to be updated, ([n0026]-[n0027] teaches a system determining based on a received signal, that a first robot is not functioning properly and needs its location to be updated)
transmit a control signal for sensing the target robot to at least one second robot among the plurality of robots, ([n0029] teaches sending a signal to control a second robot to sense the first robot [n0039]-[0040] teach controlling the second robot to move to become closer to or obtain a better view of the first robot)
based on receiving sensing data from the at least one second robot, update the location information of the target robot within a space in which the plurality of robots are located, ([n0030]-[n0033] teaches receiving data from the second robot. Performing some form of data processing. Finally the system updates the location information received from the second robot) and
Wang does not teach control the communication interface to transmit the updated location information to the target robot to configure the target robot to set a moving route based on the updated location information, or perform a simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) operation based on the updated location information.
However, Honma teaches “control the communication interface to transmit the updated location information to the target robot to configure the target robot to set a moving route based on the updated location information, or perform a simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) operation based on the updated location information.” (Fig. 5 and [0090]-[0094] teach a drone, i.e. robot, that can receive an updated location from a different device. This first device is configured to transmit the updated location when it determines it for the drone, [0079]. Upon receiving the updated location data the drone will use the updated location, in conjunction with sensors, to perform a SLAM procedure to further determine where it is in the space)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Wang with Honma; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of a robot in a space, including determining it is in need of its location to be updated. Wang teaches having a central map that stores all this information in, [n0046]-[n0047], however Wang does not explicitly update the first robot of its own location. As Honma teaches in [0008]-[0014] sometimes a robot will be unable to determine its location. By using a secondary device to determine the second devices location, the system can then transmit it to the drone. Using the newly determined location the drone can determine, in conjunction with SLAM, an updated location before moving. This allows for the drone to have the best location data possible before moving and prevent collisions.
Claims 11 and 20 are substantially similar in scope and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: obtain location information of the at least one second robot, ([n0032] and [n0043] teach the system obtaining the “position” of the second robot which is analogous to the location as the second robot is selected based on its relative location to the first robot so by knowing its position, the system knows its location) and
update the location information of the target robot based on the location information of the at least one second robot and the sensing data. ([n0032] and [n0043] teach the system determining the location of the target robot based on knowing the position of the second robot and its sensing data)
Claims 12 is substantially similar in scope and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the sensing data comprises: at least one of distance data between the at least one second robot and the target robot, pose data of the target robot, or sensing direction data of the target robot. ([n0032]-[n0033] and [n0042]-[n0043] the system knows the distance between robots, angles relative to sensing, the shape of the first robot, and other relative data can be obtained in the sensed information)
Claims 13 is substantially similar in scope and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: based on failing to obtain location information of the first robot, or time that passed after obtaining the location information of the first robot exceeding a threshold time based on a signal received from the first robot, identify that update of the location information of the first robot is required. ([n0026]-[n0027] teaches the system determining that a time has exceeded since the last time the robot’s position was updated therefore a new update is needed)
Claims 14 is substantially similar in scope and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one second robot is located within a threshold distance from the target robot. ([n0028]-[n0029] teaches selecting the second robot based on a threshold distance from the first robot)
Claims 18 is substantially similar in scope and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches the electronic device of claim 8, wherein the control signal for sensing the target robot comprises: first location information of the first robot obtained based on a first signal received from the first robot, ([n0026]-[n0027] teach the system obtaining a first location for the first robot based on a received signal) and
the at least one processor is configured to: transmit, to the at least one second robot, the control signal that controls the at least one second robot to sense the first robot based on the first location information of the first robot. ([n0032] and [n0038]-[n0041] teach the system sending a control signal to the second robot in order to move it to sense the first robot based on the first location information)
Claims 19 is substantially similar in scope and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: control each of the plurality of robots to sense one or more another robot, among the plurality of robots, ([n0035]-[n0036] teach the system as controlling a plurality of robots, of this plurality any number ca be controlled to sense any of the other robots)
based on receiving a plurality of sensing data from each of the plurality of robots, obtain location information of each of the plurality of robots located within a space based on the plurality of sensing data, ([n0036] teaches the robots positioning is known by the central control device [n0047] further teaches that the central device can map the location information of all robots) and
transmit map information corresponding to the space and corresponding location information to each of the plurality of robots. ([n0036] teaches that the system can use a plurality of robots, but only one is necessary. The system can send location information of other robots to this one, i.e. “last location” to this one robot, [n0039]. The system sending location information of the other robots to the plurality of robots ensures they know the location of each other)
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Honma in view of Kwon (KR20220113910).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the memory is further configured to store map information corresponding to a space wherein the plurality of robots are located, ([n0051] teaches the system having an updatable map that stores location information of where the robots are at all times) wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
Wang does not teach based on identifying that a location of the first robot is included in an area in which moving is impossible in the map information, identify that update of the location information of the first robot is required.
However, Kwon teaches “based on identifying that a location of the first robot is included in an area in which moving is impossible in the map information, identify that update of the location information of the first robot is required.” ([0045] teaches the system receiving an update from the robot based on location and/or other information that it is in a location that it cannot move from)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Wang and Honma with Kwon; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of robots and ensuring proper operation of said robots. As Kwon teaches in [0005] and [0007] the failure of a robot causes a cascading effect where the remaining robots in a system may not know to avoid a malfunctioning robot. This can lead to a traffic jam scenario. By ensuring that the system always knows the locations of all robots in a plurality of robots it ensures that the remaining robots operate safely around the malfunctioning robot.
Claims 15 is substantially similar in scope and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wang and Honma teaches the electronic device of claim 2.
The combination of Wang an Honma does not teach based on identifying that a location of the first robot is changed abnormally according to a signal received from the first robot within time interval, identify that update of the location information of the first robot is required
However, Kwon teaches “based on identifying that a location of the first robot is changed abnormally according to a signal received from the first robot within time interval, identify that update of the location information of the first robot is required.” ([0043] teaches the system determining that the robot has output an abnormal signal, in relation to this determination the robot is deemed to be malfunctioning and needs its data updated)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Wang and Honma with Kwon; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of robots and ensuring proper operation of said robots. As Kwon teaches in [0005] and [0007] the failure of a robot causes a cascading effect where the remaining robots in a system may not know to avoid a malfunctioning robot. This can lead to a traffic jam scenario. By ensuring that the system always knows the locations of all robots in a plurality of robots it ensures that the remaining robots operate safely around the malfunctioning robot.
Claims 16 is substantially similar in scope and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Honma in view of Chen (US PG Pub 2022/0206511).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wang and Honma teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
The combination of Wang an Honma does not teach based on an order that each of the plurality of robots is connected with the electronic device through the communication interface, identify the first robot as most recently connected with the electronic device among the plurality of robots as the target robot, or identify the first robot that is newly connected with the electronic device among the plurality of robots as the target robot.
However, Chen teaches “order that each of the plurality of robots is connected with the electronic device through the communication interface, identify the first robot as most recently connected with the electronic device among the plurality of robots as the target robot, or identify the first robot that is newly connected with the electronic device among the plurality of robots as the target robot.” ([0081] teaches the system creating a group of mobile robots. The group is created by the order of request to join, with the first robot being identified as the first robot that requests to join the group. This would be analogous to the current claim as the robot’s order is maintained as the order they joined the group so identifying a ”first robot” would be the same as they both use communication order)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Wang and Honma with Chen; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of a plurality of robots. As Chen teaches in [0081] adding robots to a “group” allows the system to determine an order, or queue, of said robots. This queue maintains the order of the robots as they joined. This order selects a first robot to lead the group. The first robot is the first robot to join the group. This type of queue designation ensures the system can keep the order of robots in relation to task assignment and completion. This system allows for an easy way to track robots in order of joining.
Claims 17 is substantially similar in scope and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Conclusion
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 NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
