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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-075723, filed on 05/08/2024.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5 are pending in the instant patent application.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a system which is a statutory class of invention, however the body of the claims do not disclose any structural limitations necessary to properly claim a system. Rather the claims are directed to managing an autonomous mobile robot. Accordingly, the claims are interpreted to be directed to data or software per se which is not statutory subject matter. The claims are rejected because they are all not in one of the four statutory categories.
Regardless of this failure to pass Step 1 of the analysis, the Examiner proceeds to the next steps of the analysis.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 1, claim 1 recites acquire unit information about a plurality of accessory units to execute a plurality of different services when used in combination with the autonomous mobile robot; acquire service information about a plurality of types of services; set an operation schedule and the accessory units with reference to the unit information such that the types of services are executed based on the service information; and output output information that indicates the operation schedule.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. Furthermore, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 2-4 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of an autonomous mobile robot. The autonomous mobile robot is merely a generic computing device and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1-4 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a user terminal, a management system, a plurality of autonomous mobile robots and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0028-0029. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claims 1-4 alone or in combination, are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 5, it is directed to a method, however the claim is not directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claim 5 is directed to the abstract idea of managing an autonomous mobile robot.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 5, claim 5 recites acquiring unit information that is information about a plurality of accessory units to execute a plurality of different services when used in combination; acquiring service information about a plurality of types of services to be executed; setting an operation schedule and the accessory units with reference to the unit information such that the types of services are executed based on the service information; and outputting output information that indicates the operation schedule.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. Furthermore, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of an autonomous mobile robot. The autonomous mobile robot is merely a generic computing device and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 5 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include an autonomous mobile robot and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0028-0029. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claim 5 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisiler et al. (US 2021/0188430 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2020/0050198 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kisiler teaches the limitations of Claim 1 which state
acquire unit information about a plurality of accessory units that enables the autonomous mobile robot to execute a plurality of different services when used in combination with the autonomous mobile robot (Kisiler: Para 0056, 0089 via The task tools 128 include tools, attachments, appendages, and accessories used to execute a variety of tasks. Exemplary task tools are indicated by numeral 130, for example, a rake head attachment, a cleaning brush attachment, a vacuum attachment, and a lawn maintenance blade. In some embodiments, the task robots 124 may include one or more of the task tools 128 (e.g., as an appendage or attachment) and/or may be able to utilize one or more of the task tools 128 for completing a task… the task robots 124 may also include task attachments 716. In some embodiments, the task attachments 716 include one or more of the task tools 126, for example, as shown in FIG. 1 by numeral 130, a rake head attachment, a cleaning brush attachment, a vacuum attachment, and a lawn maintenance blade. In some embodiments, the task attachments 716 are integrated with the task robots 124. In other embodiments, the task attachments 716 are detachable from the task robots 124 and may be exchanged with other task attachments 716. It is appreciated that some task attachments 716 may perform multiple functions. For example, a vacuum attachment may also include a cleaning brush function. In some embodiments, the task attachments 716 may have computer functionality (e.g., a smart task tool that is internet-enabled) while other task attachments 716 may not have computer functionality (e.g., dumb or non-internet-enabled physical devices and everyday objects);
acquire service information about a plurality of types of services to be executed by the autonomous mobile robot (Kisiler: Para 0076, 0103, 0118 via The task database 512 may store information about tasks that may be used to determine tasks and execute tasks… The task execution and scheduling manager 1010 is configured to facilitate performance and completion of one or more tasks in conjunction with the base station pod 132, the task robots 124, and the task tools 128. For example based on the task, one or more task robots 124 and/or one or more task tools 128 are deployed to the task area 102. As the task is being performed, real-time data from the task robots 124, the task tools 128, and/or the devices 116 is transmitted to the task server system 122. Using the real-time data, the task server system 122 confirms when tasks are completed and may control the task robots 124 and/or the task tools 128 to switch to another task and/or return to the base station pod 132… the method 1300 includes determining a task to be performed based on the service request, the task area 102, and the evaluation data. In one embodiment, the task processor 502 executes block 1306 using, for example, the task determination manager 1006. As mentioned above, the task server system 122 may also use data from the devices 116 and/or external data 134 to determine one or more tasks to be performed).
However, Kisiler does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 1 which state set an operation schedule of the autonomous mobile robot and the accessory units with reference to the unit information such that the types of services are executed based on the service information; and output output information that indicates the operation schedule.
Huang though, with the teachings of Kisiler, teaches of
set an operation schedule of the autonomous mobile robot and the accessory units with reference to the unit information such that the types of services are executed based on the service information; and output output information that indicates the operation schedule (Huang: Para 0043-0044 via A mobile application 208, executed by a processor 206 on the mobile device 204, presents (222) an interface including a prompt to create a cleaning schedule for the autonomous cleaning robot 214. The user 202, through at least one input (e.g., a button, a touch screen display, etc.) of the mobile device 204, selects (224) cleaning schedule parameters. Cleaning schedule parameters include scheduling parameters (time, day, frequency, etc.) and cleaning parameters (spot cleaning, edge cleaning, etc.), to define the schedule. The cloud computing system 210, checks (226), by a processor 212, whether parameters of the selected cleaning schedule conflict with previously stored cleaning schedules. In some implementations, cleaning schedules may not overlap, may not be within a certain amount of time (e.g., 3 hours) after another cleaning schedule (e.g., to allow time for completion of the cleaning schedule and charging time), etc. If the selected cleaning schedule conflicts with another cleaning schedule, an error message is presented (228) on the mobile device 204 and the user 202 is prompted (222) to create a new cleaning schedule. If the selected cleaning schedule does not conflict with another cleaning schedule, the selected cleaning schedule is presented (230) on a list of cleaning schedules. At a time corresponding to a scheduled time of the cleaning schedule, the mobile device 204 transmits (232) data to the autonomous cleaning robot 214 to cause the autonomous cleaning robot 214 to initiate a cleaning mission according to the cleaning schedule. A processor 216 of the autonomous cleaning robot 214 causes the autonomous cleaning robot to execute (234) the cleaning mission according to the schedule).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kisiler with the teachings of Huang in order to have set an operation schedule of the autonomous mobile robot and the accessory units with reference to the unit information such that the types of services are executed based on the service information; and output output information that indicates the operation schedule. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of scheduling and controlling autonomous cleaning robots as taught by Huang. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Kisiler/Huang teaches the limitations of Claim 2 which states
wherein the output information is output as a signal that is used to check the operation schedule on a user terminal (Huang: Para 0043 via The cloud computing system 210, checks (226), by a processor 212, whether parameters of the selected cleaning schedule conflict with previously stored cleaning schedules. In some implementations, cleaning schedules may not overlap, may not be within a certain amount of time (e.g., 3 hours) after another cleaning schedule (e.g., to allow time for completion of the cleaning schedule and charging time), etc. If the selected cleaning schedule conflicts with another cleaning schedule, an error message is presented (228) on the mobile device 204 and the user 202 is prompted (222) to create a new cleaning schedule. If the selected cleaning schedule does not conflict with another cleaning schedule, the selected cleaning schedule is presented (230) on a list of cleaning schedules).
Regarding Claim 3, Kisiler/Huang teaches the limitations of Claim 3 which states
wherein the management system generates a control signal for at least one of the autonomous mobile robot and the accessory units based on the output information (Huang: Para 0044 via At a time corresponding to a scheduled time of the cleaning schedule, the mobile device 204 transmits (232) data to the autonomous cleaning robot 214 to cause the autonomous cleaning robot 214 to initiate a cleaning mission according to the cleaning schedule. A processor 216 of the autonomous cleaning robot 214 causes the autonomous cleaning robot to execute (234) the cleaning mission according to the schedule. The cleaning schedule may instruct the autonomous cleaning robot 214 to perform specific cleaning tasks, clean specific areas).
Regarding Claim 4, Kisiler/Huang teaches the limitations of Claim 4 which states
wherein: the management system manages a plurality of autonomous mobile robots; and the management system sets the operation schedule so as to cause the autonomous mobile robots to execute the types of services in a distributed manner (Huang: Para 0055, 0057 via multiple autonomous cleaning robots may be configured to navigate a space and communicate with the mobile device 204. As shown in an interface 1100 in FIG. 11, a second autonomous cleaning robot may be configured to follow a first autonomous cleaning robot and perform a different cleaning task. For example, interface 1100 shows an option 1102 for the second autonomous cleaning robot to perform a mopping function after the first autonomous cleaning robot performs a vacuuming function. This option 1102 may be activated and deactivated by toggle 1110. The user 202 may select a choose rooms button 1104 or a clean all button 1106 and may select cleaning parameters through cleaning presets option 1108. The interface 1100 allows for coordinated cleaning between the first autonomous cleaning robot and the second autonomous cleaning robot. The mobile application 208 and the first and second autonomous cleaning robots communicate to send the second autonomous cleaning robot to perform the mopping function after the first autonomous cleaning robot has completed vacuuming in the area of interest… The robots and techniques described herein, or portions thereof, can be controlled by a computer program product that includes instructions that are stored on one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media, and that are executable on one or more processing devices to control (e.g., to coordinate) the operations described herein. The robots described herein, or portions thereof, can be implemented as all or part of an apparatus or electronic system that can include one or more processing devices and memory to store executable instructions to implement various operations).
Regarding Claim 5, it is analogous to Claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sohn (US 2021/0373576 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE E SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1684. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5:30.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/T.E.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625