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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Analysis of the claims in view of the 2019 PEG is provided below.
Re claim 1. A method comprising:
receiving sensor data collected by an autonomous mobile robot as the autonomous mobile robot moves about an environment, the sensor data indicative of a plurality of sensor events and a plurality of locations associated with the plurality of sensor events;
determining whether a behavior control zone containing the plurality of locations would block traversal by the autonomous mobile robot between a first region and a second region in the environment; and
based on determining that the behavior control zone would not block the traversal, and based on the plurality of sensor events, defining the behavior control zone such that the autonomous mobile robot initiates a behavior in response to encountering the behavior control zone.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a method. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of receiving sensor data. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person could observe sensor outputs. Thus, this step recites a mental process.
The limitation of determining whether a behavior control zone containing the plurality of locations would block traversal by the autonomous mobile robot between a first region and a second region in the environment encompasses mental determinations. For example, a person may determine if a zone would block traversal by observing a map, and determining the necessary paths to move between regions.
The limitation of defining the behavior control zone such that the autonomous mobile robot initiates a behavior in response to encountering the behavior control zone encompasses a person mentally creating a rule regarding a behavior to be exhibited by a robot when it enters the behavior control zone.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluation: Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas.
Besides being interpreted as directed to a judicial exception in prong one, the claim limitation of “receiving sensor data” is also directed to extra-solution activity of receiving data. This step could also amount to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is ineligible.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claim 1 is 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.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, there are no additional elements in the claim.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 17 substantially mirrors claim 1, with the addition of well-understood, routine, conventional generic computer components. For these reasons, claim 17 is also ineligible.
Claims 2-16 and 18-20 depend from ineligible claims 1 and 17, and do not recite any further limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or which amount to significantly more than the recited exception. For these reasons, claims 2-16 and 18-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Artes et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0025838).
Artes teaches:
Re claim 1. A method comprising:
receiving sensor data collected by an autonomous mobile robot as the autonomous mobile robot moves about an environment, the sensor data indicative of a plurality of sensor events and a plurality of locations associated with the plurality of sensor events (paragraph [0006]: “A method for the automatic sectoring a map of an area of robot operation of an autonomous mobile robot is described. In accordance with one example of the invention, the method comprises the following: the detection of obstacles, as well as of their size and position on the map by means of sensors arranged on the robot; the analysis of the map by means of a processor in order to detect an area in which there is a cluster of obstacles; and the definition of a first zone by means of a processor such that this first zone contains a detected cluster.”);
determining whether a behavior control zone containing the plurality of locations would block traversal by the autonomous mobile robot between a first region and a second region in the environment (paragraph [0063]: “when planning the path, the given zone will only be considered for a transition run (without cleaning) from one point to another when no other possibility exists.”); and
based on determining that the behavior control zone would not block the traversal, and based on the plurality of sensor events, defining the behavior control zone such that the autonomous mobile robot initiates a behavior in response to encountering the behavior control zone (paragraph [0063]: “As explained above, it is often not desirable for the robot to move slowly through a difficult-to-pass zone (and thereby risk collisions with obstacles). Instead of this the robot should move around the difficult-to-pass zone. Therefore, the attribute “zone-to-be-avoided” can be assigned to a zone that is identified as difficult to pass (see the above). The robot will then not enter the zone that is difficult to access except for a planned cleaning. Other areas as well, e.g. such as a valuable carpet, may be designated either by the user or independently by the robot as a “zone-to-be-avoided”. As a consequence, when planning the path, the given zone will only be considered for a transition run (without cleaning) from one point to another when no other possibility exists.” If there is a possible path which avoids the zone-to-be-avoided, the robot will avoid the zone-to-be-avoided.).
Re claim 2. Wherein determining whether the behavior control zone would block the traversal comprises determining whether a traversable path having at least a threshold width is present between the first region and the second region, the traversable path outside the behavior control zone (paragraph [0041]: “straight-line path leading through the zone that the robot could follow while observing a certain safety distance to the obstacles” and paragraph [0063]: “when planning the path, the given zone will only be considered for a transition run (without cleaning) from one point to another when no other possibility exists.”).
Re claim 3. Wherein the threshold width is at least a width of the autonomous mobile robot (paragraphs [0041 and 0063]: “straight-line path leading through the zone that the robot could follow while observing a certain safety distance to the obstacles”).
Re claim 4. Wherein the first region comprises a first room and the second region comprises a second room (Fig. 7).
Re claim 5. Wherein the plurality of locations are positioned within a pathway between the first room and the second room (paragraph [0063]: “Other areas as well, e.g. such as a valuable carpet, may be designated either by the user or independently by the robot as a “zone-to-be-avoided”. As a consequence, when planning the path, the given zone will only be considered for a transition run (without cleaning) from one point to another when no other possibility exists.” The robot transitions between rooms, and carpet hallway runners are often placed between in hallways, which transition between rooms.).
Re claim 6. Comprising:
receiving second sensor data collected by the autonomous mobile robot, the second sensor data indicative of a second plurality of sensor events and a second plurality of locations associated with the second plurality of sensor events (paragraph [0006]);
determining that a candidate behavior control zone containing the second plurality of locations would block traversal by the autonomous mobile robot between a third region and a fourth region (paragraph [0063]); and
based on determining that the candidate behavior control zone would block the traversal by the autonomous mobile robot between the third region and the fourth region, determining not to define the candidate behavior control zone (paragraph [0063]).
Re claim 7. Wherein defining the behavior control zone comprises:
based on the plurality of sensor events, providing, to a user computing device, a recommendation to define the behavior control zone (paragraph [0033]: “In order to solve the above mentioned problems and to allow for an automated sectoring of the area of robot operation into various zones (e.g. rooms), the robot generates, based on the sensor data, “hypotheses” about its environment that can be tested using various methods. ... In the simplest case, the robot can test an automatedly generated hypothesis by “asking” the user, i.e. by requesting the user's feedback. The user can then either confirm or reject the hypothesis.”; and paragraph [0063]: “Other areas as well, e.g. such as a valuable carpet, may be designated either by the user or independently by the robot as a “zone-to-be-avoided”.”); and
defining the behavior control zone based on a user selection from the user computing device (paragraphs [0033 and 0063]).
Re claim 8. Wherein the behavior comprises an avoidance behavior in which the autonomous mobile robot avoids entering the behavior control zone (paragraph [0063]: If there is a possible path which avoids the zone-to-be-avoided, the robot will avoid the zone-to-be-avoided.).
Re claim 10. wherein defining the behavior control zone is based on the plurality of sensor events satisfying at least one criteria, wherein the at least one criteria comprises at least one of:
a number of a subset of the plurality of sensor events having a common event type is at least a threshold quantity (paragraph [0043]: “(3.) The small obstacles do significantly impede, because of their number and particular distribution, a straight-line progression of the robot; as opposed to which, for example, a single chair in the middle of an otherwise empty room does not define an individual zone.”),
a first location of a first sensor event of the subset of the sensor events having the common event type is no more than a threshold distance from a second location of a second sensor event of the subset of the plurality of sensor events having the common event type (paragraph [0043]), or
the subset of the plurality of sensor events having the common event type are detected over no less than a threshold number of missions by the autonomous mobile robot, the threshold number being at least two.
Re claim 12. Wherein the behavior control zone represents only a portion of the environment and is defined with a geometrical boundary in mapping data collected by the autonomous mobile robot (paragraph [0043]: “(5.) The difficult-to-pass zone should have a geometric form that is as simple as possible such as, for example, a rectangle or a rectilinear polygon.”).
Re claim 13. Wherein the behavior control zone is defined to be conditionally active, such that the autonomous mobile robot initiates a behavior in response to encountering the behavior control zone when at least one condition is satisfied (paragraph [0063]: “The robot will then not enter the zone that is difficult to access except for a planned cleaning.” Whether or not there is planned cleaning corresponds to the claimed condition.
Re claim 14. Wherein the at least one condition comprises a time condition defining one or more time periods during which the behavior control zone is active (paragraph [0064-0066]: only cleaning the dinette area 320, Figs. 5-7 when the scheduled time for cleaning permits.).
Re claim 16. wherein the autonomous mobile robot is an autonomous cleaning robot (paragraph [0027]: “a floor cleaning robot (“robot vacuum cleaner”)”).
Re claim 17. A system comprising:
one or more processors (paragraphs [0006 and 0056]), and
one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (paragraphs [0006 and 0056]):
receiving sensor data collected by an autonomous mobile robot as the autonomous mobile robot moves about an environment, the sensor data indicative of a plurality of sensor events and a plurality of locations associated with the plurality of sensor events (paragraph [0006]: “A method for the automatic sectoring a map of an area of robot operation of an autonomous mobile robot is described. In accordance with one example of the invention, the method comprises the following: the detection of obstacles, as well as of their size and position on the map by means of sensors arranged on the robot; the analysis of the map by means of a processor in order to detect an area in which there is a cluster of obstacles; and the definition of a first zone by means of a processor such that this first zone contains a detected cluster.”);
determining whether a behavior control zone containing the plurality of locations would block traversal by the autonomous mobile robot between a first region and a second region in the environment (paragraph [0063]: “when planning the path, the given zone will only be considered for a transition run (without cleaning) from one point to another when no other possibility exists.”); and
based on determining that the behavior control zone would not block the traversal, and based on the plurality of sensor events, defining the behavior control zone such that the autonomous mobile robot initiates a behavior in response to encountering the behavior control zone (paragraph [0063]: “As explained above, it is often not desirable for the robot to move slowly through a difficult-to-pass zone (and thereby risk collisions with obstacles). Instead of this the robot should move around the difficult-to-pass zone. Therefore, the attribute “zone-to-be-avoided” can be assigned to a zone that is identified as difficult to pass (see the above). The robot will then not enter the zone that is difficult to access except for a planned cleaning. Other areas as well, e.g. such as a valuable carpet, may be designated either by the user or independently by the robot as a “zone-to-be-avoided”. As a consequence, when planning the path, the given zone will only be considered for a transition run (without cleaning) from one point to another when no other possibility exists.” If there is a possible path which avoids the zone-to-be-avoided, the robot will avoid the zone-to-be-avoided.).
Re claim 18. Wherein determining whether the behavior control zone would block the traversal comprises determining whether a traversable path having at least a threshold width is present between the first region and the second region, the traversable path outside the behavior control zone (paragraph [0041]: “straight-line path leading through the zone that the robot could follow while observing a certain safety distance to the obstacles” and paragraph [0063]: “when planning the path, the given zone will only be considered for a transition run (without cleaning) from one point to another when no other possibility exists.”).
Re claim 19. Wherein the threshold width is at least a width of the autonomous mobile robot (paragraphs [0041 and 0063]: “straight-line path leading through the zone that the robot could follow while observing a certain safety distance to the obstacles”).
Re claim 20. Wherein the first region comprises a first room and the second region comprises a second room (Fig. 7).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artes et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0025838) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (US Patent No. 12,070,847).
The teachings of Artes have been discussed above. Artes fails to specifically teach: (re claim 9) wherein the behavior is a first behavior, wherein the autonomous mobile robot is a first autonomous mobile robot, and wherein the method comprises defining a second behavior for a second autonomous mobile robot, the second behavior different from the first behavior, such that the second autonomous mobile robot initiates the second behavior in response to encountering the behavior control zone.
Artes teaches, at paragraph [0063], indicating certain surfaces are not to be cleaned by the cleaning robot.
Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches, at column 52, lines 20-55, “The areas vacuumed and mopped may be the same or may be different or may partially overlap. … The processors divide the cleaning tasks such that the robotic vacuum cleans areas with carpet and the robotic mop cleans areas with hard flooring simultaneously.” That is, robotic cleaners may operate in different ways, and thus, may be suited for cleaning areas which are the same, different, or partially overlap. These distinct robotic cleaners of Ebrahimi Afrouzi will behave differently in the indicated areas of Artes depending on whether they are suitable for cleaning the surface type of the indicated areas so that each robot cleans the type of flooring it is designed to clean.
In view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Artes, (re claim 9) wherein the behavior is a first behavior, wherein the autonomous mobile robot is a first autonomous mobile robot, and wherein the method comprises defining a second behavior for a second autonomous mobile robot, the second behavior different from the first behavior, such that the second autonomous mobile robot initiates the second behavior in response to encountering the behavior control zone, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Artes teaches, at paragraph [0063], indicating certain surfaces are not to be cleaned by the cleaning robot; and Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches robotic cleaners may operate in different ways, and thus, may be suited for cleaning areas which are the same, different, or partially overlap. These distinct robotic cleaners of Ebrahimi Afrouzi will behave differently in the indicated areas of Artes depending on whether they are suitable for cleaning the surface type of the indicated areas so that each robot cleans the type of flooring it is designed to clean.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artes et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0025838) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lindhe et al. (US Publication No. 2021/0200236).
The teachings of Artes have been discussed above. Artes fails to specifically teach: (re claim 11) wherein the plurality of sensor events have a common event type, and wherein the common event type comprises: a wheel drop event, in which a drive wheel of the autonomous mobile robot extends from the autonomous mobile robot beyond a threshold distance, a wheel slip event, in which the drive wheel of the autonomous mobile robot loses traction with a floor surface across with the autonomous mobile robot moves, or a wedge event, in which the autonomous mobile robot is wedged between an obstacle above the autonomous mobile robot and the floor surface.
Artes teaches, at paragraph [0063], a valuable carpet may be designated by a robot as a “zone-to-be-avoided” such that the valuable carpet will only be traversed, without cleaning, when no other routing possibilities exist.
Lindhe teaches, at paragraphs [0057-0060], a robotic device may determine a slippery area with distinct edges as a carpet. This allows for such robots to autonomously determine the areas associated with valuable carpets which will only be passed over, without cleaning, when no other routing possibilities exist.
In view of Lindhe’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Artes, (re claim 11) wherein the plurality of sensor events have a common event type, and wherein the common event type comprises: a wheel drop event, in which a drive wheel of the autonomous mobile robot extends from the autonomous mobile robot beyond a threshold distance, a wheel slip event, in which the drive wheel of the autonomous mobile robot loses traction with a floor surface across with the autonomous mobile robot moves, or a wedge event, in which the autonomous mobile robot is wedged between an obstacle above the autonomous mobile robot and the floor surface, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Artes teaches, at paragraph [0063], a valuable carpet may be designated by a robot as a “zone-to-be-avoided”; and Lindhe teaches, at paragraphs [0057-0060], a robotic device may determine a slippery area with distinct edges as a carpet. This allows for such robots to autonomously determine the areas associated with valuable carpets which will only be passed over, without cleaning, when no other routing possibilities exist.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights