DETAILED ACTION
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 Remarks
General Note
In the interest of compact prosecution and timely examination, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant point out the support for any claim amendments which are considered to have changed the scope of a claim, or new claims in general, in accordance with the guidance of MPEP 2163. Lack thereof may be considered as an indication that Applicant does not find the claim scope to have changed or may establish a prima facie case for a rejection under 35 USC § 112(a). MPEP 2163 relates.
Examiner notes that the new limitations and dependent claims provided in Applicant’s amendments appear replete with 112(a) issues, as well as 112(b) issues that further obscure the related 112(a) issues. Examiner has made a best effort to identify support for all amendments and provide rejections where support was considered unclear, insufficient, or non-existent.
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of their cancellation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant does not provide any clarifying statements, arguments, explanations, or similar as to why the amendments to the claims overcome the rejection. Applicant has claimed “providing, to the robot, an indication of the area navigable for the robot to cause the robot to navigate the property according to the indication”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “to” is an indication of the intended result or outcome, the purpose of, etc. the preceding. This is especially true in light of the claim construction used throughout the claims wherein actively and positively recited steps and functions are claimed using the form “[verb]ing”. In other words, Applicant has not claimed “causing the robot to navigate the property according to the indication”, and the limitation is not interpreted as meaning as such.
Consequently, the rejections are maintained except for those claims which were cancelled and the rejection updated with respect to the new claim amendments and new claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant appears to have amended in limitations of prior Claim 8 into the independent claims, in addition to other new but related limitations.
Consequently, the rejections under 35 USC § 102 are withdrawn and new rejections in light of those made with respect to prior Claim 8 under 35 USC § 103 are provided. With respect to the related arguments, Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on Page 10 of Applicant’s Remarks that [0101] of Szatmary “does not disclose or suggest generating any likelihood, much less generating such a likelihood “using the detected movement pattern of the object” as recited in claim 1. This is considered unpersuasive for the following reasons:
(1) The claim recites “generating a permanence value indicating a likelihood that the object will remain in place”. The claim does not recite “generating” any likelihood as argued. The permanence value as claimed merely need to indicate a likelihood. Mere indication is significantly broader than argued. A narrower verb than “indicating” or similar should be used if a narrow scope is desired.
(2) Applicant fails to demonstrate how association of an object with “a permanent or fixed object” or a “dynamic object” as later recited in [0101] are not indication of a likelihood that an object will remain in place. For example, it is unclear how a static or permanent object may be interpreted as disclosing anything other than objects which are extremely or wholly unlikely to move.
(3) Applicant fails to adequately demonstrate how adverbs describing the frequency of something such as “always” fail to associate with likelihood. The definition of “likelihood” is “the chance that something will happen : probability” and the definition of “always” is “at all times : invariably” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary accessed 6/23/2026).
(4) Applicant fails to demonstrate that making such a determination based on a pattern of detected location as disclosed is not a movement pattern.
(5) Applicant does not claim with any specificity effectively any of the terms or phrases used in the claim limitations. This lack of particular claiming of claim terms not having a special definition extends to effectively all claims and is not particular to just the independent claims. The nature of a “permanence value”, “generating”, “a movement pattern”, “indicating”, “likelihood”, etc. are all left to their plain and ordinary meaning, which are effectively the dictionary definitions of the terms making up a given noun phrase as no special definitions appear provided. MPEP 2111.01 relates.
With respect to Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the other new limitations, Applicant does not demonstrate how these limitations are not disclosed and merely makes a conclusory statement that they are not. Similar issues as identified above exist, such as that the terms and phrases used remain especially broad. For example, an “object permanence database” is not defined or described in any manner. Any computer memory or storage related to “object permanence”, which itself is undefined and undescribed, may read on the limitation, which may itself merely be a map. Additionally, there are issues of clarity and the interpretation correcting these issues does not require actual implementation of an object permanence database, merely the capacity to do so. Furthermore, the nature of static and dynamic objects is clearly held in memory/storage and utilized in navigation in the disclosures. See the updated rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 26 recites the limitation “based on based on”. It should read “based on” (no repetition of the phrase).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “detecting the object entering a second region after a period of time” in combination with the limitation of “determining that a path connects the first region and the second region through an area not directly represented by sensor data captured by the one or more sensors” (see use of “the first region and the second region” requiring them to be the same”.
[0044] of Applicant’s specification discloses the first limitation by the following passage under the interpretation that “after a period of time” simply means “after detecting the object exiting a first region”:
“The map generation system 102 can detect the occupant 108, within a time threshold range of the first detection and using second sensor data, walking in through the doorway into room D”
[0044] does not support any particular interval of after, and instead requires “within a time threshold range of the first detection”.
However, Applicant also recites limitations which are of features found in [0045] which are distinct and separate.
Here, [0046] recites:
“For example, if the occupant 108 exits a first room through a different doorway, then is detecting in another room a period of time later, the map generation system 102 can determine a path exists between the two rooms”
[0046] does not state “the object entering a second region” but simply “is detecting in another room” with no specific relation to time other than it not be simultaneous. IN other words, there is no detection of “entering” but simply of detecting in general.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “estimating a distance of the path using a detected pace of the object”. [0046] recites “the map generation system 102 can determine a predicted distance of the path between the two rooms using a detected pace of the occupant” (emphasis added). Per [0024] Applicant considers an “occupant” as “Moving objects, such as animals or persons at the property, can be referred to generally as occupants which may include residents” and not as objects in general, which may or may not move. This distinction of moving or not moving is particularly emphasized in the present construction of the independent claims which recite “generating, using the detected movement pattern of the object, a permanence value indicating a likelihood that the object will remain in place”.
In other words, Applicant appears to only disclose using a detected pace of a moving object, and not any object.
Regarding Claim 21, Applicant recites the limitation “determining the area navigable for the robot using the distance of the path”. However, this does not appear disclosed in any manner. [0046] of Applicant’s specification appears to only disclose:
“The map generation system 102 can determine if one or more determinations related to a connection between regions-e.g., a distance between rooms, whether the rooms are connected, among others-satisfy a confidence threshold. If so, the map generation system 102 can store that data for use in navigation”
In other words, the disclosure appears to indicate that the distance may be used for navigation in general without specifically stating in what manner. It does not disclose use for navigation as specifically determining if a particular area is navigable or not.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim recites the limitation “generating a heatmap … by comparing a number of moving objects detected within the portion of the property to a traffic threshold. While [0063] and [0064] discuss determination of high-traffic areas with respect to heatmaps, there does not appear to be any disclosure of generating the heatmap(s) itself “by comparing a number of moving objects detected within the portion of the property to a traffic threshold”. Examiner additionally notes that the phrase “traffic threshold” does not appear anywhere within the disclosure. The closest disclosure appears to be found in [0063] which reads:
“In some implementations, heatmaps of the property 105 include time ranges. For example, high traveled areas can be avoided during specific times but used for robot navigation during other times. In one example case, a particular area can be determined to have high-traffic between 6 AM and 8 AM-e.g., determined using a measure of detected objects moving in that particular area compared to one or more thresholds for moving objects, such as a threshold indicating a number of objects moving in an area within a period of time-but less traffic between 8 AM and 3 PM”
In other words, [0063] appears to be disclosing that heatmaps can be for a particular time range. Then while it says “for example”, the disclosure appears to indicate how these might be used. Then an actual example of how particular time ranges for heatmaps might be utilized is provided, wherein a high traffic level for a particular time range may be “determined using a measure of detected objects moving in that particular area compared to one or more thresholds for moving objects”.
[0064] then discloses the generation of, or updating of, heatmaps or the inclusion of temporal data. There is no actual discussion of generating a heatmap based on a traffic threshold. Instead, as indicated above in [0063], this is a manner of evaluating an existing heatmap.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim recites the limitation “and determining the area navigable for the robot using the first navigation path, the method comprising: …”. As best interpreted by the Examiner, under most or all interpretation, these limitations are not disclosed by Applicant’s disclosure. See the 112(b) rejection below for more detail.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim recites the limitation “assigning a confidence value to one or more portions of the property”. The phrase “confidence value” only appears in the Specification three times, in [0009] and [0058] which recite:
[0009] “In some implementations, generated floorplans include confidence values. A given robot can use confidence values in one or more locations to determine, based on a current location, a velocity of travel-e.g., speeding up when confidence of surrounding elements is comparatively high and slowing down when confidence of surrounding elements is comparatively low”
[0058] “The map generation system 102 can use confidence values or repeated observations to determine which parts of the system are likely less accurate than others”
Neither [0009] nor [0058] discloses assignment of confidence values, only that floorplans may include confidence values.
Regarding Claim 24, the claim recites the limitation “the robot to adjust an opening mechanism of the robot based on the determined door type to navigate through the doorway”. The closest disclosure related to this limitation is found in [0045]. However, this disclosure is wholly unintelligible.
See related portion of [0045] which reads “For instance, the navigation aid can include adjusting an opening mechanism to with a robot or connected system to open a first door along a path which adjustment can be determined given the determined door type of the first door specified in the generated mapping”. Everything underlined appears replete with grammatical and other errors such that even the intended meaning is unclear. Furthermore, the term “navigation aid” does not appear anywhere else in the disclosure such that what is referred thereby may be understood.
Regarding Claim 25, the claim recites the limitation “determining that a number of the detections or an amount of time the object is detected across the plurality of locations satisfies a threshold”. Applicant does note appear to disclose comparing these items to a same threshold. Instead, Applicant explicitly discloses two different thresholds, a “threshold amount of time” and “a threshold number of detections” in [0035].
Regarding Claim 25, the claim recites the limitation “generating a three-dimensional object representation bounding the plurality of locations”. This does not appear taught in Applicant’s disclosure. The word “bound” or “bounding” or similar does not appear within the disclosure. The closest section appears to be [0035] which recites:
“If a position of an object is detected in two or more locations for a threshold amount of time or a number of detections that satisfies a threshold number of detections, the locations can be combined to form a three dimensional shape describing the area where the object might be located, e.g., the object representation”
In other words, what is a combination of locations, not a bounding of locations, let alone what that might mean.
Regarding Claim 25, the claim recites the limitation “indicating a navigation restriction for the robot within the three-dimensional object representation”. There does not appear to be any disclosure of this feature. The word “restrict” only appears in [0007] which reads “For example, floorplans can be generated for alarm set conditions and alarm not set conditions-e.g., restricting robot movement outside the house when an alarm condition is set or not set” and is thus unrelated. The closest related disclosure is found in [0035] which reads:
“The map generation system 102 can store the object representation, or data for a region in which the object might be located, in a floorplan for the robot to use navigating around the movable object”
The exact nature of “for the robot to use navigating around the movable object” is not provided for, and thus does not amount to specifically “indicating a navigation restriction for the robot within the three-dimensional object representation”.
Regarding Claim 26, the claim recites the limitation “determining an exclusion area based on based on the hazard and the one or more physical capabilities of the robot”. The phrase “exclusion area” is absent from Applicant’s disclosure. The closest disclosure appears to be [0049] which reads:
“Data indicating hazards can be transmitted to the robot 120 to prevent traversal of one or more areas of the property 105-e.g., areas that include one or more of the hazards. Hazards can apply to one or more robots, robot types, or a combination of both. For example, a hazard, such as a room with the cat, can apply to all robots. Another hazard, such as (i) a low ceiling basement or (ii) when a person is there, can apply to a subset or a single robot-e.g., an aerial robot or aerial robot of a particular size or with a particular set of capabilities”
It does not appear to be disclosed that any area that might be considered an exclusion area is determined based on both the hazard and the one or more physical capabilities of the robot. Instead, what appears disclosed are the specification of particular robots or subsets of robots categorically for which something may or may not be considered a hazard (see “can apply”) in the first place. In other words, it cannot be based on both, as classification or consideration of being a hazard appears dependent thereon. Additionally, furthermore, and separately, “capabilities” is not discussed in this section of the disclosure but in [0038] and does not appear disclosed or explicitly related to the disclosure of [0049]. Furthermore, the phrase “physical capabilities” is absent from the disclosure.
In summary, what appears disclosed is determination based on one or the other, or of just the hazard wherein the hazard is first determined as a hazard in relation to the subset of robot or robot itself.
Regarding Claim 26, the claim recites the limitation “the area navigable for the robot that does not include the exclusion area”. Applicant does not appear to disclose such an area. More specifically, the nature of “to prevent traversal” of [0049] which is the only apparent disclosure related to this feature as indicated above, is not specific as to how this is accomplished, whether this be by excluding the area as part of the area navigable for the robot, or other navigation related restrictions, processes, etc.
Therefore, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 21 – 26 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 9 and 17, the claims recite the limitation “computer memory that implements an object permanence database”. It is unclear if the method includes a step of implementing an object permanence database or if this an attempt to claim a functional limitation of the computer memory or some other kind of structural limitation as the form of “that [verbs]” is vague and improper for clear claiming of any of these kinds of limitations.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as reading “computer memory configured to implement an object permanence database”. Examiner notes that as the “object permanence database” does not have a special definition disclosed requiring specialized structure beyond any generic computer memory, any computer memory appears to read on this limitation.
Regarding Claims 1, 9 and 17, the claims recite the limitation “the permanence value retrieved from the object permanence database”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such limitation of retrieving the permanence value from the object permanence database is previously recited. Applicant appears to have omitted such a step.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation has instead been interpreted as reading “the permanence value” which corrects the issue without narrowing the claim beyond what Applicant may have intended by adding one or more entire new step, structure, and/or function.
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, the claims recite “determining the area navigable for the robot comprises: … determining the area navigable for the robot using …”. It is unclear what limitation is provided by repeating the phrase “determining the area navigable for the robot” within the same limitation. In the interest of compact prosecution, the second recitation of “determining the area navigable for the robot” is interpreted as not existing such that the claim reads “determining the area navigable for the robot comprises: … using …”.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim recites “determining the area navigable for the robot using the first navigation path, the method comprising:”. It is wholly unclear what this recitation means.
For example, if we consider “determining the area navigable for the robot using the first navigation path” and “the method comprising:” separately, it is unclear, and furthermore does not appear disclosed, how “determining the area navigable for the robot” is accomplished “using the first navigation path”. The “first navigation path” is previously recited as being a path “for the robot that avoids the portion of the property using the heatmap”. Thus, it is already literally a path used in navigation. However, the area navigable for the robot is as the phrase suggests, for determining where is navigable for the robot. In other words, the area navigable for the robot precedes any navigation path generation and appears disclosed in generation thereof, not the other way around. Examiner notes that the phrase “navigation path” only appears three times throughout the disclosure and appear in [0036] and [0038] which do not clarify or disclose this limitation.
Under the above presumption of separation between “determining …” and “the method comprising:”, “the method comprising:” is interpreted as referring to the method of claim 1.
As another example, if we consider the two statements as being one and together, and that “the method” means “the method of determining…:”, then there is further issues of clarity and support as to how the first path is used when never recited as being used and instead only a second path is recited, etc.
In other words, there is insufficient or at least highly unclear antecedent basis for “the method” such that it is not understood what specifically is referred back to.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation of “and determining the area navigable for the robot using the first navigation path, the method comprising:” and the following limitations of “the method …” are interpreted as not existing, as the relationships therebetween are unclear, and as support cannot be established there is no clear basis for proper interpretation.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim recites “assigning a confidence value to one or more portions of the property and that indicates” (emphasis added). It is unclear what is meant by “and that”. It is Examiner’s best guess that the intent of this phrasing was instead such that the limitation read:
“assigning a confidence value to one or more portions of the property indicating” based on other claim construction in other claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, the recitation has been interpreted as reading as such. Examiner notes, however, that this interpretation does not appear supported by Applicant’s disclosure and would be rejected under 35 USC 112(a) above.
Regarding Claim 23, and related to the above the claim recites the phrase “likely navigable”. The claim then later recites the phrases “comparatively low” and “comparatively high”. The terms are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “likely”, “low”, “high”, “comparatively”, and combinations thereof are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree or an objective standard for measuring the scope of the terms, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
More specifically, Applicant does not disclose any means by which one of ordinary skill in the art might distinguish between likely and not likely navigable portions of the property or comparatively high and comparatively low confidence of surrounding elements or variations thereof, especially wherein what is being compared for the comparatively portion of the phrasing is neither claimed nor clearly disclosed. At present, these appear to wholly arbitrary and to depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention.
MPEP 2173.05(b) relates.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim recites the limitation “providing the indication to the robot causes the robot to”. It is unclear what Applicant is attempting to claim. The claim is directed towards a method, however this appears to merely recite what the expected or desired effect of performing a particular action is, rather than be a recitation of a step of the method, a structure involved in the method, or a functional limitation of a structure involved in the method. Furthermore, it is unclear, nor does it appear disclosed, how mere provision of the indication causes the described items as again, it is mere provision of information, not any form of execution of a process or similar. In other words, Applicant does not appear to disclose how mere generation or provisioning of data alone causes these physical phenomena, rather than some operation triggered by, utilizing, etc. the data.
In light of the above, the limitation is instead interpreted as not existing, the claim ending at “likely navigable”.
Regarding Claim 24, the claim recites a similar limitation as in Claim 23 of “providing the indication to the robot causes the robot to” and is rejected generally under the same logic as above, and furthermore as there is no clear meaning to be interpreted from the disclosure (see 112(a) rejection above).
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as ending at “the object” (before “wherein providing”).
Regarding Claim 25, the claim recites the limitation “the detections” there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear even what it refers back to.
Additionally, and separately, but also interrelated to the above, the claim recites “satisfies a threshold”. It is unclear (and also does not appear disclosed, see 112(a) rejection above), how a quantity or number of detections, and a quantity or amount of time may be compared to a same threshold.
Regarding Claim 25, the claim recites the limitation “in response to determining that the threshold is satisfied”. It is unclear how this limitation, which would normally be a contingent limitation, further narrows the claim as previously the claim states:
“The method of claim 1, wherein:
…
determining the area navigable for the robot comprises:
determining that [X] or [Y] satisfies a threshold”.
In other words, the claim does not recite that the method comprises determining if a threshold is satisfied, but that the method comprises determining that a threshold is satisfied. Consequently, the threshold is always satisfied and there is no apparent need to create a limitation contingent on if the threshold is satisfied.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is instead interpreted as not existing in the claim, the claim instead beginning in this clause with “generating”.
Regarding Claim 25, the claim recites the limitation “generating …” as well as later “and indicating …” with no comma, semicolon, or similar grammatical instrument separating the two. It is unclear if “indicating” is its own step the method, or if instead it further limits and defines the term “a three-dimensional object representation bounding the plurality of locations”.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as instead not reading “and” between the phrases such that it reads “a three-dimensional object representation bounding the plurality of locations indicating …”.
Regarding Claim 26, the claim recites the limitation “the area navigable for the robot that does not include the exclusion area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such area is previously recited. The limitation is instead interpreted as reading “a” rather than “the”.
Regarding Claims 2 – 7, 12 – 15, and 20, the claims depend from claim(s) rejected above and inherit the deficiencies of said claim(s) as described above. Therefore, Claims 2 – 7, 12 – 15, and 20 are rejected under the same logic presented above.
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 – 7, 9, 12 – 15, 17, 20 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent Claim 17 is rejected below and is considered representative of independent Claims 1 and 9.
Claim 17 recites:
A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
obtaining sensor data captured by one or more sensors located at a property over a time period;
generating, using the detected movement pattern of the object, a permanence value indicating a likelihood that the object will remain in place;
storing, in computer memory that implements an object permanence database, data that indicates the permanence value and a representation of the object;
detecting an object represented in the sensor data;
detecting, using the detected object and multiple subsets of the sensor data, a movement pattern of the object over the time period and the permanence value retrieved from the object permanence database;
determining an area navigable for a robot at the property using the detected movement pattern of the object over the time period; and
providing, to the robot, an indication of the area navigable for the robot to cause the robot to navigate the property according to the indication.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03 relates.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a 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 limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) relates.
The claim recites limitations of “detecting” and “determining” information, with no particular limitations provided which render them unable to be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The “detecting” and “determining” are furthermore claimed at such a high level of generality that they encompass an extremely broad set of possibilities. For example, if the sensor data is a video, a person might readily recognize an object, and may determine a particular pattern to the path they take in a room or other location across multiple video frames. Then a person might decide that the region the person traversed in said pattern is navigable, or not navigable. Furthermore, the act of “storing” information, except for the recitation of “in computer memory”, may be performed using the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
These limitations, as drafted, are a basic process or processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of “a system comprising one or more computers …”, “computer memory”, “obtaining …”, or “providing …” or similar. That is, other than reciting the bolded limitations nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of being performed by a generic computer or components thereof does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Furthermore, and alternatively, the limitations of “obtaining” and “providing” are recited at such a high level of generality that they could potentially be considered as performed in the human mind.
Thus, the claim recites mental processes.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements of “obtaining …” and “providing …”.
These operations are no more than mere data gathering and outputting which are judicially recognized insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “system comprising one or more computers” and related structures, as well as “computer memory”, appears to merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computer or components thereof. It is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating certain activities.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to 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. MPEP 2106.05 relates.
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.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim, if any, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. 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. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the data-processing hardware is anything other than a conventional computer or components thereof.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to independent Claims 1 and 9, the claims recite effectively the same limitations and subject matter as Claim 17, except for the absence of some limitations which simplifies the analysis. Additionally, as presently constructed claim 9 does not appear to claim a non-transitory Claims 1 and 9 are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claim 17 above.
Claim 9 is furthermore rejected as it does not pass Step 1. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “one or more computer storage media encoded with instructions” is not exclusive of transitory forms or versions of computer storage media. Applicant’s Specification recites in [0137] “One or more computer storage media can include a machine-readable storage device, a machine- readable storage substrate, a random or serial access memory device, or a combination of one or more of them” and in [00143] “Computer-readable media suitable for storing computer program instructions and data include all forms of non-volatile memory, media and memory devices, including by way of example semiconductor memory devices, e.g., EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory devices; magnetic disks, e.g., internal hard disks or removable disks; magneto-optical disks; and CD-ROM and DVD-ROM disks. The processor and the memory can be supplemented by, or incorporated in, special purpose logic circuitry”. These descriptions do not amount to an explicit definition of the term excluding transitory forms and versions of computer storage media encoded with instructions.
MPEP 2106.02(II) relates and recites the following:
“A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Such claims fail the first step (Step 1: NO) and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, for at least this reason.
…
For example, the BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate”
Applicant is advised to explicitly claim the storage media as having a non-transitory nature.
With respect to the dependent claims of independent Claims 1, 9, and 17, the claims merely recite additional details to the mental processes recited in the independent claims and/or additional generic computing components or other extra-solution activities which do not meaningfully alter the rejections made above with respect to Claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 5, 7, 9, 12 – 13, 15, 17, 20 – 21, 23, 25 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alempijevic et al. (Alempijevic, Alen, Robert Fitch, and Nathan Kirchner. "Bootstrapping navigation and path planning using human positional traces." 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 2013.) in view of Szatmary et al. (US 20230168689 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Alempijevic teaches:
A method comprising:
obtaining sensor data captured by one or more sensors located at a property over a time period (See at least Section IV, “The experiments were conducted with our person recognition system configured to operate using the Microsoft Kinect and LRF sensor on the RobotAssist platform [21]” and Section IV, A, “The first experiment was conducted with the RobotAssist platform stationary, observing human motion over 140 minutes during normal work hours. A total of 512 raw positional traces were collected over this time, all the positional traces are denoted in Fig. 3”);
detecting an object represented in the sensor data (See at least Section II, “As can be appreciated from the aforementioned, the ability to construct human positional traces is an essential prerequisite of our proposed system. This prerequisite comprises of two primary components of Person Detection and Person Tracking, both of which are detailed in the following subsections” and in particular as necessary Section II, A, which details as indicated the process of Person Detection);
detecting, using the detected object and multiple subsets of the sensor data (The nature of “multiple subsets” is not claimed with any particularity, and furthermore does not appear to even be disclosed within Applicant’s specification with any particularity. One interpretation is that multiple frames, positions, etc. are used. See at least Section II, B, “To estimate each positional trace a set of samples Xt=⟨xit|i=1…N⟩ and its associated weights ωit represent the beleif at time t of the persons location”), a movement pattern of the object over the time period (See at least Section II, B, “Having detected people a particle filter is used in order to perform global tracking and produce positional traces”);
determining an area navigable for a robot at the property using the detected movement pattern of the object over the time period (See at least Section III, B, “The resulting predictive mean and variance distributions resulting from queries on the GP can be used to distinguish areas in the robot's surroundings where people commonly traverse” and Section IV, A, “The resulting GP learning phase has produced a navigational map Fig. 4 where p=1.0 (indicated in red) relates to areas determined to be obstacle free”); and
providing, to the robot, an indication of the area navigable for the robot (See at least Section IV, B, “the robot can continuously query and update a Navigational Map”) to cause the robot to navigate the property according to the indication (Mere statement of intended purpose or result of the preceding. In the interest of compact prosecution, see the above recitations wherein actual execution of navigation according to collected data and determinations therefrom is clear).
While the values p may be interpreted as a form of “permanence value”, in the interest of compact prosecution see Szatmary which discloses distinguishing dynamic and permanent objects. Therefore, the combination of Alempijevic and Szatmary discloses the following limitations even if Alempijevic alone does not (Szatmary recited below):
…
generating, using the detected movement of the first object, a permanence value (This term is not presently claimed with any particularity and per [0079] of Applicant’s specification appears to merely indicate an amount of change over a period of time for an object) indicating a likelihood that the object will remain in place (See at least [0101] “Sensor 602 may detect a presence of an object 604 between the robot 102 and the object 502. Using one or more computer-readable maps produced, e.g., during prior navigation near the object 502, a controller 118 of the robot 102 may identify that object 502 is always present in substantially the same location and may associate the object 502 with a permanent or fixed object of the environment … The controller 118 may utilize computer-readable maps produced during prior navigation nearby the object 502, referred to hereinafter as reference map(s), to determine that an object represented by point 604 has not been previously sensed at the illustrated location, wherein the controller 118 may determine the object is a “dynamic object” (i.e., not a permanent static object of the environment)”),
storing, in computer memory (See at least memory 120) that implements an object permanence database (See at least [0102] “According to at least one non-limiting exemplary embodiment, the robot 102 may be provided with a computer-readable map of its environment depicting all fixed or permanent objects and their respective locations, wherein dynamic objects may comprise any object not localized on the provided reference map and later localized during navigation”), data that indicates the permanence value and a representation of the object (See again [0101] and [0102] above. The nature of “indicates”, “permanence value”, “representation” is not claimed. The permanence value may be identification as a static or permanent object. The representation may be the same, its existence in a given map, or other data structures related thereto such as points 604);
[determining an area navigable for a robot at the property using …] the permanence value retrieved from the object permanence database (The limitation is not particular as to how the “permanence value” is used or even the nature of the determination. Both Alempijevic and Szatmary disclose navigating around obstacles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify permanent and dynamic objects/obstacles such that the robot might properly navigate around and/or near them as taught by Szatmary in the system and methods of Alempijevic with a reasonable expectation of success. Obstacle avoidance and collision avoidance in general are critical features to robot navigation, and identification of objects which might move, may be moved, can’t be moved, are moving, etc. are all pertinent to complex and contextually aware robot navigation. Storage of data is universal to computer as well as robotics and inherent at the high-level claimed to system of Alempijevic and Szatmary. More specifically, if it generates and uses said data, then it clearly stores said data even if not explicit thereto, such fundamental operations being understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as unnecessary to describe.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Alempijevic and Szatmary teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Alempijevic further teaches:
wherein detecting the movement pattern of the object comprises:
detecting an object moving at the property (See at least again at least Section IV, A, “The first experiment was conducted with the RobotAssist platform stationary, observing human motion”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Alempijevic and Szatmary teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Alempijevic further teaches:
wherein determining the area navigable for the robot using the detected movement pattern of the object over the time period comprises:
identifying an area traversed by the object as the area navigable for the robot (See again at least Section III, B, “The resulting predictive mean and variance distributions resulting from queries on the GP can be used to distinguish areas in the robot's surroundings where people commonly traverse” and Section IV, A, “The resulting GP learning phase has produced a navigational map Fig. 4 where p=1.0 (indicated in red) relates to areas determined to be obstacle free”).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Alempijevic and Szatmary teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Alempijevic further teaches:
comprising:
generating a first map using the area navigable for the robot (See again at least Section IV, A, “The resulting GP learning phase has produced a navigational map Fig. 4 where p=1.0 (indicated in red) relates to areas determined to be obstacle free”),
wherein providing the indication comprises providing the first map to the robot as the indication of the area navigable for the robot (See again at least Section IV, B, “the robot can continuously query and update a Navigational Map”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Alempijevic and Szatmary teaches:
The method of claim 4,
Alempijevic further teaches:
comprising:
obtaining second sensor data captured by the one or more sensors located at the property over a second, different time period;
determining, using the second sensor data, a change in property condition (The nature of a “change” or the “determining” itself is not claimed with any particularity. Anything different than expected to the robots prior knowledge would is considered a change to the system. See at least Section IV, B, “To demonstrate that the robot can continuously query and update a Navigational Map we conduct an experiment where the mobile platform is simultaneously performing detection, tracking, producing and updating the navigational map, path planning and executing a trajectory. The probability of occupancy for each cell has been updated during the execution of the planned trajectory resulting and the final resulting navigational map is denoted in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7”); and
in response to determining the change in property condition, generating a second map using the second sensor data, wherein the second map is different from the first map and associated with the second, different time period (See again above. Updating an existing map is one way to generate a new map, particularly inasmuch as what makes them “different” is not claimed with any particularity).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Alempijevic and Szatmary teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Alempijevic further teaches:
wherein the detecting the movement pattern of the object comprises:
detecting the object did not move (The nature of how this is performed is not claimed with any particularity, and furthermore upon initial review does not appear to be disclosed within Applicant’s specification with any particularity.
As most things not human such as walls are not expected to move in an indoor setting, filtering down to only humans is one way of detecting that an object does not move, inasmuch as the means of doing so are not claimed with any particularity. See at least Section II, A, “Along with humans, common items identified as potentially human include: walls, doors, and tall items of furniture. Many of these false positives are eliminated by liberal object-of-interest size constraints based on the expected minimum and maximum size of a person. However, as shown in [14], for the sake of robustness, false positives passing this stage of the detection process are preferable to false negatives as further discrimination is performed using a more discriminative, but more computationally expensive, method. Specifically, a scale and viewing angle robust feature vector (Head-to-shoulder signature - HSS) [15] is constructed. Person detection is then subsequently achieved via a single class support vector machine (SVM) trained (supervised) with HSS signatures guaranteed to represent a range of people of diverse sizes and shapes”.
Furthermore, and alternatively, if still tracked as a false positive, the object will still appear in the dataset but have no changing positional trace.
Furthermore, and alternatively, humans may remain stationary and are still tracked
Furthermore, and alternatively, the claim uses the verb “detect” in the context of sensors rather than the verb “determine” or similar and specifically contrasts the terms by using both within the claims. Detection in the sense that the information is collected and present within the data appears inherent to the data capture disclosed),
wherein determining the area navigable for the robot at the property comprises determining an area that does not include an area that includes the object (Again, the nature of the determination is not claimed with any particularity. See at least Section IV, A, “The resulting GP learning phase has produced a navigational map Fig. 4 where p=1.0 (indicated in red) relates to areas determined to be obstacle free”
Furthermore, and alternatively, in light of some of the alternatives above, humans do not walk through stationary humans or stationary objects, and stationary humans and stationary objects will not contribute a positional trace, their position not changing).
Regarding Claims 9, 12 – 13, 15, 17, and 20, the claims are directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claims 1 – 5 and 7 with respect to the application of prior art. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 1 – 5 and 7 above. The only distinction appears to be the recitation of common computer components which are both understood to be inherent to such systems at the level of generality claimed, and still disclosed by prior art reference Alempijevic in Section IV (see discussion of hardware, software, OS, etc. within).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Alempijevic and Szatmary teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Alempijevic further teaches:
wherein detecting the movement pattern of the object comprises detecting the object exiting a first region and detecting the object entering a second region after a period of time (All human positional traces read on this limitation as first region, second region, and period of time are undefined. See at least Figure 3 positional traces), and
wherein determining the area navigable for the robot comprises:
determining that a path connects the first region and the second region through an area not directly represented by sensor data captured by the one or more sensors (The nature of this limitation is not claimed with any particularity. See at least Abstract “Our
method bootstraps navigation with indirectly observed sensor data” and Figure 2 compared to Figure 3, wherein most of the map is occluded from the sensor (camera));
estimating a distance of the path using a detected pace of the object (See at least Section II(B) Person Tracking “Having detected people a particle filter is used in order
to perform global tracking and produce positional traces. To estimate each positional trace a set of samples Xt = hxi t j i = 1:::N i and its associated weights !i t represent the beleif at time t of the persons location. The computation of the posterior for each t-th particle set Xt is then calculated recursively from Xt1 in three steps as detailed in Alg.1. A constant velocity model driven by zero mean gaussian noise ut is used in the prediction step”); and
determining the area navigable for the robot using the distance of the path (The nature of “using the distance of the path is not claimed”. A distance is inherent to a path and it is unclear how using a path does not inherently use the distance in some manner, except where only a single point thereof is used which is not the case. See at least Section III “The positional traces are used to produce a navigational map encoded with a GP).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Alempijevic and Szatmary teaches:
The method of claim 1,
…
Alempijevic further teaches:
…
wherein:
determining the area navigable for the robot comprises assigning a confidence value to one or more portions of the property and that indicates whether a given portion of the property is likely navigable (See variously the probability of free space, the occupancy of a cell, etc. as illustrated in the figures such as Figure 4 – 7 and provided under variable p which varies from 0 to 1.0. Examiner notes that Applicant does not define or describe “confidence value” within their disclosure as reflected in the 112 rejections above), and
(The following is not considered under the 112(b) rejections above)
providing the indication to the robot causes the robot to dynamically adjust a velocity of travel through at least one portion of the one or more portions of the property based on the assigned confidence value by speeding up when confidence of surrounding elements is comparatively high or slowing down when confidence of surrounding elements is comparatively low.
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Alempijevic and Szatmary teaches:
The method of claim 1,
…
Alempijevic further teaches:
…
wherein:
detecting the movement pattern of the object comprises detecting the object in a plurality of locations over the time period (See again positional traces), and
determining the area navigable for the robot comprises:
determining that a number of the detections or an amount of time the object is detected across the plurality of locations satisfies a threshold (The threshold is not defined in the claim. See Algorithm 2, lines 9 wherein at least one training sample is necessary to satisfy which is at least one “detection”); and
in response to determining that the threshold is satisfied, generating a three- dimensional object representation bounding the plurality of locations and indicating a navigation restriction for the robot within the three-dimensional object representation (The nature of “bounding” or “representation” or “indicating” or “navigation restriction”, etc. are all undefined in the claim. See again Figures 3 – 5 which bound the navigational map to the positional traces and which while cells represent a 3D space and bound the locations and the motion of the robot such that it is restricted therein in navigation).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Alempijevic and Szatmary teaches:
The method of claim 1,
…
Alempijevic further teaches:
…
comprising:
detecting a hazard represented in the sensor data (The nature of “hazard” is not defined. A wall or area that is perceived as where the robot should not traverse, for example due to being socially-unacceptable, is considered a hazard, for example a social convention hazard or damage hazard. See at least Section IV(A), “The more frequently traversed corridors have a lower level of uncertainty on the predicted value of occupancy. The sociocontextual information, such as recommending to avoid
cubicles where the flow of pedestrian traffic can not be detected is embedded in the navigational map.”); and
determining one or more physical capabilities of the robot (The nature of “physical capabilities” is not defined in the claim. Creating a navigational map as disclosed is a form of determining where the robot is physically capable of going in addition to other factors. See at least Figure 4 illustration a navigational map), wherein determining the area navigable for the robot comprises:
determining an exclusion area based on based on the hazard and the one or more physical capabilities of the robot (The nature of the term “exclusion area” is not defined in the claim. See the occupancy maps of e.g. Figure 7 which is discovered through both observations of humans which teaches to avoid the social hazards of entering areas the robot should not, and which also finally determines through updated, active traversal the locations of obstacles that it cannot physically traverse such as walls); and
determining the area navigable for the robot that does not include the exclusion area (See again at least above).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alempijevic in view of Szatmary and Seyfi et al. (US 11480431 B1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Alempijevic and Szatmary teaches:
The method of claim 5,
…
Alempijevic or the combination of Alempijevic and Szatmary does not disclose, but in combination with Seyfi discloses (Seyfi recited below):
…
wherein the change in property condition includes a change in lighting condition, and wherein generating the second map using the second sensor data comprises:
updating one or more objects represented in the first map to represent the change in lighting condition (The claims are generally broad, and Seyfi teaches these limitations at least two different ways:
(1) See at least Column 7, Lines 47 – 51, “The drone 102 may request, store, and/or refer to a different environment map based on the detected lighting conditions such as the detected luminosity of the monitored property 120, or the detected brightness of the monitored property 120” and Column 9, Lines 28 – 32, “While navigating through the monitored property 120, the observations of the drone 102 may be used, e.g. by the drone 102 or by the control unit 110, to update one or more of the environment maps as will be discussed in more detail below with respect to FIGS. 3A-3B”
(2) See at least Column 8, Line 66 through Column 9, Line 9, “In some implementations, the drone 102 may refer to a single environment map for the monitored property 120. In these implementations, the drone 102 may make adjustments to the environment map based on, for example, the detected lighting conditions, based on the location of the drone 102, based on the time of day, based on the time of year, and/or based on the current weather conditions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to update a first or otherwise generate or use a second map based on and in response to detected lighting conditions as taught by Seyfi in Alempijevic with a reasonable expectation of success. Per the Background of Seyfi, “Typical vision-based guidance systems will attempt to create a map based on visual features in the environment, however these features are highly dependent on lighting. Not only is sufficient lighting necessary to reveal certain trackable features, but angle of lighting, surface texture and specularity, and so on can drastically affect the two-dimensional (2D) appearance of features. Furthermore, changes in lighting can both confuse localization algorithms and degrade image quality of devices using vision to navigate. Standard auto-exposure techniques can react quite quickly to changing light to maintain acceptable image quality, but making rapid changes to auto-exposure settings can cause visual features used by odometry and localization algorithms to change or disappear, resulting in errors in pose estimation or even loss of device control”. Thus, Seyfi provides measures to counter these issues (see as needed the Summary of Seyfi).
Regarding Claims 14, the claim is directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claims 6 respect to the application of prior art. The claim is therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 6 above. The only distinction appears to be the recitation of common computer components which are both understood to be inherent to such systems at the level of generality claimed, and still disclosed by prior art reference Alempijevic in Section IV (see discussion of hardware, software, OS, etc. within).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alempijevic in view of Szatmary, further in view of Wang et al. (US 20190375102 A1) and Munir (US 20200343982 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Alempijevic and Szatmary teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Alempijevic or the combination of Alempijevic and Szatmary does not disclose, but in combination with Munir discloses:
wherein:
detecting the movement pattern of the object comprises generating a heatmap representing an amount of traffic within a portion of the property over the time period by comparing a number of moving objects detected within the portion of the property to a traffic threshold (See at least [0020] “The heat map 300 may include different color regions that are laid out over an image of a store front or path. The regions may have different colors or shadings to indicate traffic of an area. For example, a medium-density 301 (medium-traffic) area may be laid out based on the traffic data collected by camera and/or the mobile device of various people within a retail store or any other type of space. The system may have a defined density for each level or shade of color on the heat map”
[0021] “a low-traffic area 303 may be designated as such because it has a specific volume of customers visiting that area per specified time frame. For example, less than 10 customers per hour may qualify as a low-traffic area 303 … The system may include various levels and shades of color to develop a heat-map to associate with various traffic density”
[0023] “a high-traffic area 305 may be designated as such because it has a specific volume of customers visiting that area per specified time frame. For example, 100 customers per hour. A low-traffic area 303 may be designated as such because it has a very low volume of customers visiting that area per a specified time frame. The system may include various levels and shades of color to develop a heat-map to associate with various traffic density”); and
Alempijevic or the combination of Alempijevic and Szatmary does not disclose, but in combination with Munir and Wang discloses (Wang recited below):
determining the area navigable for the robot comprises:
during a first specified time range, configuring a first navigation path for the robot that avoids the portion of the property using the heatmap (See at least [0255] “A low traffic tag 662c denotes an area having relatively low traffic (person and/or robot). The robot 100 may select a travel path though an area having a relatively low traffic volume, rather than through an area having a relatively high traffic volume”, [0305] “The tag may be created by a user, automatically by a terminal, automatically by a robot, and/or in response to historical data collected by the terminal and/or robot”); and
(The following is not considered under the 112(b) rejections above)
determining the area navigable for the robot using the first navigation path, the method comprising:
for a second specified time range, different than the first specified time range:
configuring, using the heatmap, a second, different navigation path for the robot that navigates through the portion of the property; and
providing, to the robot, a second indication of a second area navigable for the robot that includes the second, different navigation path to cause the robot to navigate the property according to the second indication.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avoid high traffic areas as they exist as taught by Wang in the system of Alempijevic or Alempijevic in combination with Szatmary, and to determine those high traffic areas for tagging through the means of traffic heatmap generation of Munir with a reasonable expectation of success. It is well understood in the art of navigation in general to avoid high traffic and/or congested areas. It is furthermore well understood and routine to determine traffic based on the number of objects (people, vehicles, etc.) in an area over a given time or similar. It is finally and again well understood and routine to illustrate or otherwise present or catalog such information into heatmaps for ease of interpretation and use among other reasons.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alempijevic in view of Szatmary, further in view of Wang et al. (US 20190375102 A1).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Alempijevic and Szatmary teaches:
The method of claim 1,
…
Alempijevic or the combination of Alempijevic and Szatmary does not disclose, but in combination with Wang discloses (Wang recited below):
…
comprising:
determining a door type of a doorway associated with the detected movement pattern of the object (See at least [0257] “Some tags 662 may be used to indicate obstacles or special traversal areas. For example, a glass tag 662e indicates the location of a glass wall, window, or door”. The nature of the association is not claimed in any manner. A tag related to a door in the map is associated with any activity around the map, including any detected movement patterns), wherein providing the indication causes the robot to adjust an opening mechanism of the robot based on the determined door type to navigate through the doorway.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify glass doors as disclosed in Wang in the system of Alempijevic or Alempijevic in combination with Szatmary with a reasonable expectation of success. As disclosed by Wang, such identification may be used “to avoid the tagged glass structures, since infrared proximity sensors may not detect them”.
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.
While there are various similar research papers to Alempijevic, only Molina et al. (Molina, Sergi, Grzegorz Cielniak, and Tom Duckett. "Robotic exploration for learning human motion patterns." IEEE Transactions on Robotics 38.2 (2021): 1304-1318.) will be cited here as it makes explicitly clear that the general concept of utilizing movement patterns, particularly of people, is well understood and routine for the purposes of robotic navigation in human environments, for example following social conventions “where the robot should move with the direction of pedestrian flows in order to minimize the possibility of head-on collisions” (Section VIII).
Webster et al. (US 11422565 B1) which discloses a robot which moves based on cultural conventions.
Rezvani et al. (US 10810890 B2) which discloses states of permanent yet also dynamic features such as doors and other similar objects and their relevancy to navigation.
Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (US 12099357 B1) which discloses “the processor may mark an object as a permanent object if the object repeatedly appears over time” and discloses parameters through which this might be controlled.
Deyle et al. (US 20210046650 A1) which discloses “a robot can query a building system to determine the floors in a building most frequently visited by an elevator, can access a scheduling system of a building to determine historical usage patterns for conference rooms, or can monitor a kitchen area to determine the times of a day when the kitchen is the most crowded”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights