DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 remain pending. Claims 1-14 have been amended. Claims 15-17 have been added.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel et al (US 20200319640 A1) in view of Orita et al (US 20080109114 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Vogel and Orita respectively)
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Vogel teaches a method of operating a robot (See at least Vogel Paragraph 0007), the method comprising:
a robot (See at least Vogel Paragraph 0025) configured to:
providing an order of a plurality of tasks (See at least Vogel Paragraphs 0007, 0080, and Figure 7a, the sequence of subtasks is interpreted as an order of a plurality of tasks), each task having one or more corresponding parameters, selected from a group consisting of: consumable, power and space (See at least Vogel Paragraph 0073, each task has an anticipated resource consumption that includes energy/power, cleaning agent/consumable, and needed capacity/space of a bin),
controlling the robot to perform a first task of the plurality of tasks, the first task being performed while exceeding a first parameter of the first task (See at least Vogel Paragraphs 0079 and 0123, the robot exceeds the parameter while carrying out the task)…
Vogel fails to explicitly disclose re-prioritizing all remaining tasks, so that as many tasks as possible may be performed within the parameters of the remaining tasks.
However, Orita teaches re-prioritizing all remaining tasks, so that as many tasks as possible may be performed within the parameters of the remaining tasks (See at least Orita Paragraphs 0031, 0036, 0063 and 0126, the tasks are rearranged based on the remaining amount of charge/power so that a plurality of tasks can be carried out efficiently, which is interpreted as performing as many tasks as possible).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Vogel with Orita to reprioritize all remaining tasks, so that as many tasks as possible may be performed within the parameters of the remaining tasks. This modification, as taught by Orita, would allow the system to rearrange tasks registered in a task schedule based on the remaining amount of charge in a battery of each robot so that a plurality of tasks as a whole can be carried out efficiently by the plurality of robots (See at least Orita Paragraph 0031).
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, modified Vogel teaches wherein at least one of the tasks is/means configured to perform at least one of: a treatment of a surface, including disinfection, painting, lacquering or sanding, a cleansing of a surface, including vacuuming or floor/surface mopping, inspection of a surface, a transport of goods from one position to another, including bringing out fast food, or hauling luggage, goods, products, mail or parcels, a guiding of a person from one position to another, monitoring/surveillance or inventory assessment, including determining positions of obstacles, dirty surfaces, maintenance, building structures, tidying up, or weeding (See at least Vogel Paragraph 0025-0026 and 0033, the task includes cleansing of a surface including vacuuming or mopping).
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, modified Vogel teaches the first parameter is a maximum or minimum amount of a consumable or consumable resource, including cleaning fluid, power, or waste space, which the robot may consume performing the task (See at least Vogel Paragraphs 0073, 0079 and 0123, the first parameter is the anticipated resource consumption of energy, which is interpreted as the maximum amount of power the robot may consume when performing the task).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Vogel teaches the providing step comprises providing a service schedule representing the plurality of tasks, comprising the first task, and, for each task, the one or more parameters (See at least Vogel Paragraphs 0007, 0050-0051, 0080, and Figures 5 and 7a, the sequence of subtasks is interpreted as a service schedule, and the schedule/sequence includes the resource consumption for each task).
Regarding Claims 5 and 12, modified Vogel fails to disclose wherein, subsequently to the re-prioritizing step, the robot performs one or more of the remaining tasks in the re-prioritized order.
However, Orita teaches wherein, subsequently to the re-prioritizing step, the robot performs one or more of the remaining tasks in the re-prioritized order (See at least Orita Paragraphs 0051-0052, 0191-0193, and 0201-0202, the robot performs the tasks in the re-prioritized order).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Vogel with Orita to perform one or more of the remaining tasks in the re-prioritized order. This modification, as taught by Orita, would allow the robots to execute the tasks in the rearranged order so that a plurality of tasks as a whole can be carried out efficiently by the robots (See at least Orita Paragraph 0031).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Vogel teaches the controlling step comprises the robot determining or identifying obstacles, including persons, luggage, furniture, walls, or stairs (See at least Vogel Paragraphs 0034, and 0038, the robot identifies obstacles like walls and furniture).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Vogel teaches a method of operating a plurality of robots (See at least Vogel Paragraphs 0064-0065), wherein a first robot is controlled in accordance with claim 1 (See at least Vogel Paragraphs 0079 and 0123, the robot is controlled according to claim 1)…
Modified Vogel fails to disclose the re-prioritizing step is performed across robots, so that not only the tasks of one robot are re-ordered but tasks are exchanged in order to finalize as many tasks within the parameters as possible or so as to obtain a combined bonus which is as high as possible.
However, Orita teaches the re-prioritizing step is performed across robots, so that not only the tasks of one robot are re-ordered but tasks are exchanged in order to finalize as many tasks within the parameters as possible or so as to obtain a combined bonus which is as high as possible (See at least Orita Paragraphs 0017, 0031, 0036, and 0063, the tasks are reassigned based on the parameters/remaining charge so that a plurality of tasks as a whole can be carried out efficiently by the plurality of robots, which is interpreted as finalizing as many tasks within the parameters as possible).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Vogel with Orita to perform the re-prioritizing step across robots. This modification, as taught by Orita, would allow the system to rearrange/reassign tasks registered in a task schedule based on the remaining amount of charge in a battery of each robot so that a plurality of tasks as a whole can be carried out efficiently by the plurality of robots (See at least Orita Paragraphs 0017, 0031, and 0063).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Vogel teaches the robot is configured to access a service schedule comprising information relating to the plurality of tasks, including the first task and, for each task, the one or more parameters (See at least Vogel Paragraphs 0007, 0050-0051, 0080, and Figures 5 and 7a, the sequence of subtasks is interpreted as a service schedule, and the schedule/sequence includes the resource consumption for each task).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Vogel teaches one or more sensors configured to determine or identify obstacles, including persons, luggage, furniture, walls, or stairs (See at least Vogel Paragraphs 0034, and 0038, the robot identifies obstacles like walls and furniture using its sensors).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Vogel teaches a plurality of robots comprising the robot according to claim 8 (See at least Vogel Paragraphs 0025 and 0064-0065)...
Modified Vogel fails to disclose the robots are configured to, perform re-prioritization of all remaining tasks across robots, so that not only the tasks of one robot are re- ordered but tasks are exchanged in order to finalize as many tasks within the parameters as possible or so as to obtain a combined bonus which is as high as possible.
However, Orita teaches the robots are configured to, perform re-prioritization of all remaining tasks across robots, so that not only the tasks of one robot are re- ordered but tasks are exchanged in order to finalize as many tasks within the parameters as possible or so as to obtain a combined bonus which is as high as possible (See at least Orita Paragraphs 0017, 0031, 0036, and 0063, the tasks are reassigned based on the parameters/remaining charge so that a plurality of tasks as a whole can be carried out efficiently by the plurality of robots, which is interpreted as finalizing as many tasks within the parameters as possible).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Vogel with Orita to perform the re-prioritization of tasks across robots. This modification, as taught by Orita, would allow the system to rearrange/reassign tasks registered in a task schedule based on the remaining amount of charge in a battery of each robot so that a plurality of tasks as a whole can be carried out efficiently by the plurality of robots (See at least Orita Paragraphs 0017, 0031, and 0063).
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, modified Vogel teaches each corresponding parameter is consumable (See at least Vogel Paragraph 0073, the parameters include energy and cleaning agent, which are consumable).
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel in view of Orita, and in further view of Davis et al (US 20190343358 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Davis)
Regarding Claim 17, modified Vogel teaches wherein at least one corresponding parameter comprises space, wherein the space comprises available waste storage capacity of the robot (See at least Vogel Paragraph 0073, the capacity of a collector bin for dirt is interpreted as available waste storage capacity).
Modified Vogel fails to disclose re-prioritizing the remaining tasks comprises delaying a remaining task predicted to require an amount of waste storage capacity exceeding the available waste storage capacity of the robot.
However, Davis teaches delaying a remaining task predicted to require an amount of waste storage capacity exceeding the available waste storage capacity of the robot (See at least Davis Paragraphs 0030-0031, the vacuum task is paused/delayed when the chamber holding debris is full).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Vogel with Davis to delay a remaining task predicted to require an amount of waste storage capacity exceeding the available waste storage capacity of the robot. This modification, as taught by Davis, would allow the robot to pause the task and dispose of the debris before resuming operation (See at least Davis Paragraphs 0030-0031), thus, creating enough waste storage capacity to continue the task.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claims have been amended to specify the parameters are selected from a group consisting of: consumable, power, and space, and re-prioritizing all remaining tasks, so that as many tasks as possible may be performed within the parameters of the remaining tasks. Newly added reference, Orita, teaches re-prioritizing all remaining tasks, so that as many tasks as possible may be performed within the power required for the remaining tasks. Each task has an amount of battery expense required for the robot to complete the task (See at least Orita Paragraph 0126), and the tasks are rearranged/re-prioritized based on the battery charge of each robot. Thus, claims 1 and 8 still remain rejected under 103.
Furthermore, new claims 15-16 are rejected as Vogel teaches the corresponding parameters are power and cleaning agent, which are consumables.
Newly added claim 17 is rejected in further view of Davis, which teaches delaying a remaining task predicted to require an amount of waste storage capacity exceeding the available waste storage capacity of the robot. When the robot is vacuuming and the bin for debris is full, the robot pauses/delays the task to empty the full bin and then resumes operation.
Thus, for these reasons, the claims still stand rejected under 103.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
