CTNF 19/038,775 CTNF 97518 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This is a Non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-11 are currently pending and are addressed below. Priority Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim of priority for foreign application JP2024-038594, filed 03/13/2024. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/28/2025 and 10/06/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-11 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 7 recites the limitation " the initial value in accordance with a time zone in which determination is performed " in lines 3-4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-07 AIA The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. See examples below. Claim 1 (and claims 10-11 by reciting analogous limitations) recites “…a partial area to which a first position of the mobile object existing belongs and a second partial area that is a partial area to which a second position to move next to the first position belongs are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area…”, in which the underlined portion appears to be grammatically incorrect. Claim 6 recites “…wherein the one or more hardware processors determine whether or not the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other among the plurality of partial areas corresponding to any of one or more initial values of the plurality of the partial areas ”, in which the underlined portion appears to be grammatically incorrect. Furthermore, it is unclear what element corresponds to the initial values. Claim 7 recites “…wherein the one or more hardware processors use the initial value in accordance with a time zone in which determination is performed among the one or more initial values”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect. Claim 8 recites “…wherein the one or more hardware processors determine whether or not the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other by using a first initial value from among the first initial value and a second initial value including a partial area obtained by dividing at least a part of the plurality of partial areas corresponding to the first initial value into a plurality of zones , and further determine whether or not the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other by using the second initial value when a predetermined condition is satisfied,”, in which the underlined portion appears to be grammatically incorrect. Furthermore, the relationship between the underlined portion and the rest of the claim is unclear, since it is unclear what elements includes the “partial area obtained by dividing at least a part of the plurality of partial areas corresponding to the first initial value into a plurality of zones”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to software per se, as seen in the limitation “A computer program product…”. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding Independent Claim 1: Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to an information processing apparatus (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity and/or c) mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites: An information processing apparatus comprising a processing unit comprising one or more hardware processors configured to: determine, using a route plan representing a plan of a route on which each of a plurality of mobile objects moves among a plurality of routes included in a movement area in which the plurality of mobile objects moves, for each of the plurality of mobile objects, whether or not a first partial area that is a partial area to which a first position of the mobile object existing belongs and a second partial area that is a partial area to which a second position to move next to the first position belongs are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area, change a boundary between the first partial area and the second partial area such that the first position is included in the second partial area when the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other; and generate, for each of the plurality of partial areas, a travel plan specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route such that a conflict between the plurality of mobile objects does not occur on the route included in the partial area. The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, the limitation “determine, using a route plan representing a plan of a route on which each of a plurality of mobile objects moves among a plurality of routes included in a movement area in which the plurality of mobile objects moves, for each of the plurality of mobile objects, whether or not a first partial area that is a partial area to which a first position of the mobile object existing belongs and a second partial area that is a partial area to which a second position to move next to the first position belongs are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally determining whether the first partial area and second partial area are different from each other using an available route plan. The limitation “change a boundary between the first partial area and the second partial area such that the first position is included in the second partial area when the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other” encompasses mentally changing a boundary between a first partial area and a second partial area or by using pen and paper (i.e., editing a hand-drawn map). Lastly, the limitation “generate, for each of the plurality of partial areas, a travel plan specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route such that a conflict between the plurality of mobile objects does not occur on the route included in the partial area” encompasses mentally generating a travel plan including a timing at which an object moves. Step 2A Prong 2: Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract 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, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”): An information processing apparatus comprising a processing unit comprising one or more hardware processors configured to: determine, using a route plan representing a plan of a route on which each of a plurality of mobile objects moves among a plurality of routes included in a movement area in which the plurality of mobile objects moves, for each of the plurality of mobile objects, whether or not a first partial area that is a partial area to which a first position of the mobile object existing belongs and a second partial area that is a partial area to which a second position to move next to the first position belongs are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area, change a boundary between the first partial area and the second partial area such that the first position is included in the second partial area when the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other; and generate, for each of the plurality of partial areas, a travel plan specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route such that a conflict between the plurality of mobile objects does not occur on the route included in the partial area. For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The additional limitation “a processing unit comprising one or more hardware processors” is recited at a high level of generality and merely integrates the judicial exception to a technological environment using generic computer components. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “a processing unit comprising one or more hardware processors” is recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than applying the exception to a technological environment using generic computer components. Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C §101. Regarding Independent Claim 10: Step 1: Claim 10 is directed to an information processing method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 10 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity and/or c) mental processes. Independent claim 10 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 10 recites: An information processing method executed by a computer of an information processing apparatus, the method comprising: determining, using a route plan representing a plan of a route on which each of a plurality of mobile objects moves among a plurality of routes included in a movement area in which the plurality of mobile objects moves, for each of the plurality of mobile objects, whether or not a first partial area that is a partial area to which a first position of the mobile object existing belongs and a second partial area that is a partial area to which a second position to move next to the first position belongs are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area; changing a boundary between the first partial area and the second partial area such that the first position is included in the second partial area when the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other; and generating, for each of the plurality of partial areas, a travel plan specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route such that a conflict between the plurality of mobile objects does not occur on the route included in the partial area. The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, the limitation “determine, using a route plan representing a plan of a route on which each of a plurality of mobile objects moves among a plurality of routes included in a movement area in which the plurality of mobile objects moves, for each of the plurality of mobile objects, whether or not a first partial area that is a partial area to which a first position of the mobile object existing belongs and a second partial area that is a partial area to which a second position to move next to the first position belongs are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally determining whether the first partial area and second partial area are different from each other using an available route plan. The limitation “change a boundary between the first partial area and the second partial area such that the first position is included in the second partial area when the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other” encompasses mentally changing a boundary between a first partial area and a second partial area or by using pen and paper (i.e., editing a hand-drawn map). Lastly, the limitation “generate, for each of the plurality of partial areas, a travel plan specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route such that a conflict between the plurality of mobile objects does not occur on the route included in the partial area” encompasses mentally generating a travel plan including a timing at which an object moves. Step 2A Prong 2: Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract 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, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”): An information processing method executed by a computer of an information processing apparatus, the method comprising : determining, using a route plan representing a plan of a route on which each of a plurality of mobile objects moves among a plurality of routes included in a movement area in which the plurality of mobile objects moves, for each of the plurality of mobile objects, whether or not a first partial area that is a partial area to which a first position of the mobile object existing belongs and a second partial area that is a partial area to which a second position to move next to the first position belongs are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area; changing a boundary between the first partial area and the second partial area such that the first position is included in the second partial area when the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other; and generating, for each of the plurality of partial areas, a travel plan specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route such that a conflict between the plurality of mobile objects does not occur on the route included in the partial area. For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The additional limitation “executed by a computer of an information processing apparatus” is recited at a high level of generality and merely integrates the judicial exception to a technological environment using generic computer components. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 10 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “a processing unit comprising one or more hardware processors” is recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than applying the exception to a technological environment using generic computer components. Therefore, claim 10 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C §101. Dependent Claims Dependent claim(s) 2-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim(s) are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. Dependent claim(s) 2 and 5 are further directed to the abstract idea of changing the boundary, dependent claim(s) 3-4 are further directed to the abstract idea of generating the travel plan, dependent claim(s) 6 and 8 are further directed to the abstract idea of determining whether or not the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other, dependent claim(s) 7 is further directed to the abstract idea of using the initial value in accordance with a time zone, and dependent claim(s) 9 further describes the condition. Therefore, dependent claim(s) 2-9 is/are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 10. Therefore, claim(s) 1-11 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-7 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomono of US 20210365040 A1 , published 11/25/2021, hereinafter “Tomono”, in view of Kim of US 20240345602 A1 , filed 01/30/2024, hereinafter “Kim” . Regarding claim 1, Tomono teaches: An information processing apparatus comprising a processing unit comprising one or more hardware processors configured to: (See at least [0050]: “The control unit 2 includes an arithmetic unit such as a CPU and a storage unit such as a ROM or a RAM, and controls operation of the robot body 1…”) determine, using a route plan representing a plan of a route on which each of a plurality of mobile objects moves among a plurality of routes included in a movement area in which the plurality of mobile objects moves, for each of the plurality of mobile objects, whether or not a first partial area that is a partial area to which a first position of the mobile object existing belongs and a second partial area that is a partial area to which a second position to move next to the first position belongs are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area, (See at least [0073]: “First, it is assumed that the robot body 1 is located at the start point S1 at the start of action as illustrated in FIG. 11(A) and the movement body 100 has moved from the start point S2 along the movement route R2 within the predetermined time after the start. At this point, as illustrated in FIG. 12, the coordinated movement control section 28 of the control unit 2 acquires the movement route R2 of the movement body 100 based on the movement body route information 33 stored in the storage section 30 at the above-described route information production/updating step (the step ST7) (a movement body route information acquisition step: a step ST31). Next, the region information control section 27 obtains, by arithmetic processing, the working region A2 of the movement body 100 based on the movement route R2 of the movement body 100 (a movement body working region calculation step: ST32), and takes the working region A2 as a worked region to update the working region information 34 of the storage section 30 (a region information updating step: ST33)…”) change a boundary between the first partial area and the second partial area such that the first position is included in the second partial area when the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other; and (See at least Fig. 11 & [0073]: “…Specifically, a region where the movement body 100 has moved in the occupancy grid map M is taken as the worked region as the working region A2, and other regions are taken as the working region A1 of the robot body 1. When the movement route R2 of the movement body 100 varies over time, the working region information 34 including the boundary line K and the working regions A1, A2 is further updated accordingly.”) generate, for each of the plurality of partial areas, a travel plan specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route such that a conflict between the plurality of mobile objects does not occur on the route included in the partial area. (See at least [0073-0074]: “…When the movement route R2 of the movement body 100 varies over time, the working region information 34 including the boundary line K and the working regions A1, A2 is further updated accordingly. Next, the route control section 26 updates the movement route R1 (the robot route information 32) of the robot body 1 according to the working region A1 of the robot body 1 (a robot route information updating step: ST34), and the control unit 2 starts traveling of the robot body 1 along the movement route R1…the route control section 26 determines the movement route R1 of the robot body 1 such that the movement routes R1, R2 do not overlap with each other as much as possible and no non-working region is present.”) Tomono does not explicitly teach: …plurality of mobile objects… generate, for each of the plurality of partial areas, a travel plan specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route such that a conflict between the plurality of mobile objects does not occur on the route included in the partial area. Kim teaches: …plurality of mobile objects… (See at least Fig. 3 & [0054]: “Then, patterns of the driving behaviors of the mobile robots 30 may be generated based on the plurality of generated virtual driving lines (S120). Thereafter, an initial position and a final position of each of the plurality of mobile robots 30 may be input (S130), and a driving route from the initial position to the final position of each of the plurality of mobile robots 30 may be generated on the plurality of generated virtual driving lines 50 based on the generated patterns of the driving behaviors (S140).”) generate, for each of the plurality of partial areas, a travel plan specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route such that a conflict between the plurality of mobile objects does not occur on the route included in the partial area. (See at least [0101]: “As described above with reference to FIGS. 11 and 12, the driving route generation method according to one embodiment of the present disclosure may include predicting whether a collision will occur between the moving robots based on the managed expected time data (S210), and calculating a priority of the intersection point 11 where the collision is predicted to occur (S220). Here, calculating the priority may include calculating a higher priority for an earlier time to pass through the intersection point 11 where a collision is predicted to occur based on the managed expected time data” & [0104-0105]: “After calculating the priority, the driving of the mobile robots that sequentially pass through the intersection points 11 may be controlled based on the calculated priorities (S230). Here, controlling the driving of the mobile robots may include adjusting the speed of the mobile robots. Alternatively, after calculating the priorities, the driving routes of the mobile robot sequentially passing through the intersection points 11 may be regenerated based on the calculated priorities (S240). Moreover, the driving route generation method according to one embodiment of the present disclosure may control the driving of the mobile robots such that the mobile robots travel on the regenerated driving routes.” See also [0092-0099].) One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Tomono’s apparatus with Kim’s technique of generating, for each of the plurality of partial areas, a travel plan specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route such that a conflict between the plurality of mobile objects does not occur on the route included in the partial area. Doing so would be obvious “to avoid collisions between the plurality of mobile robots driving in the driving space 10” (See [0093] of Kim) . Regarding claim 2, Tomono and Kim in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Tomono additionally teaches: wherein the one or more hardware processors change the boundary such that the first position is included in the second partial area when a number of changes for changing the boundary is equal to or less than an upper limit value and the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other. However, Tomono and Kim in combination do not explicitly teach changing the boundary such that the first position is included in the second partial area when a number of changes for changing the boundary is equal to or less than an upper limit value. Tomono teaches that when the movement route R2 of the movement body changes over time, the working regions A1 and A2 and the boundary line K are updated accordingly, and the movement route R1 of the robot body is also updated according to the working region A1 (See at least Fig. 11 & [0073-0074]) . Since the movement route R1 is updated whenever the movement route R2 changes, and, thus, whenever the boundary line K changes (i.e., the number of changes is equal to an upper limit value of 1), the teachings of Tomono render obvious generating the travel plan when a number of changes for changing the boundary exceeds a threshold value, which provides the benefit of updating the travel plan “as needed” and “according to the working region A1” (See [0070] & [0074] of Tomono) . Regarding claim 3, Tomono and Kim in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Tomono and Kim in combination do not explicitly teach: wherein the one or more hardware processors generate the travel plan when a number of changes for changing the boundary exceeds a threshold value. However, Tomono teaches that when the movement route R2 of the movement body changes over time, the working regions A1 and A2 and the boundary line K are updated accordingly, and the movement route R1 of the robot body is also updated according to the working region A1 (See at least Fig. 11 & [0073-0074]) . Since the movement route R1 is updated whenever the movement route R2 changes, and, thus, whenever the boundary line K changes (i.e., the number of changes exceeds a threshold of 1), the teachings of Tomono render obvious generating the travel plan when a number of changes for changing the boundary exceeds a threshold value, which provides the benefit of updating the travel plan “as needed” and “according to the working region A1” (See [0070] & [0074] of Tomono) . Regarding claim 4, Tomono and Kim in combination teach all the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. Tomono additionally teaches: wherein the one or more hardware processors generate the travel plan for the first partial area and the second partial area whose boundaries are changed. (See at least [0073-0074]: “…When the movement route R2 of the movement body 100 varies over time, the working region information 34 including the boundary line K and the working regions A1, A2 is further updated accordingly. Next, the route control section 26 updates the movement route R1 (the robot route information 32) of the robot body 1 according to the working region A1 of the robot body 1 (a robot route information updating step: ST34), and the control unit 2 starts traveling of the robot body 1 along the movement route R1…”) Regarding claim 5, Tomono and Kim in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Tomono additionally teaches: wherein the one or more hardware processors change the boundary when the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other and the first position is included in one or more permitted positions defined as a position where change of the boundary is permitted . (See at least Fig. 11 & [0073]: “…Specifically, a region where the movement body 100 has moved in the occupancy grid map M is taken as the worked region as the working region A2, and other regions are taken as the working region A1 of the robot body 1. When the movement route R2 of the movement body 100 varies over time, the working region information 34 including the boundary line K and the working regions A1, A2 is further updated accordingly.”) However, Tomono and Kim in combination do not explicitly teach changing the boundary when the first position is included in one or more permitted positions defined as a position where change of the boundary is permitted. Tomono teaches that the working region A includes the boundary line K and the start point S2 of the movement body, and that the boundary line K moves to a different location within working region A as the movement body travels on the movement route R2 (See at least Fig. 11 & [0073-0074]) . Since the boundary line K changes based on the movement route R2 which begins at start point S2, the teachings of Tomono render obvious changing the boundary when the first position is included in one or more permitted positions defined as a position where change of the boundary is permitted, which provides the benefit of “updat[ing] the working region information 34 of the storage section 30” (See [0073] of Tomono) . Regarding claim 6, Tomono and Kim in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Tomono additionally teaches: wherein the one or more hardware processors determine whether or not the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other among the plurality of partial areas corresponding to any of one or more initial values of the plurality of the partial areas. (See at least Fig. 11 & [0073]: “First, it is assumed that the robot body 1 is located at the start point S1 at the start of action as illustrated in FIG. 11(A) and the movement body 100 has moved from the start point S2 along the movement route R2 within the predetermined time after the start… Next, the region information control section 27 obtains, by arithmetic processing, the working region A2 of the movement body 100 based on the movement route R2 of the movement body 100 (a movement body working region calculation step: ST32), and takes the working region A2 as a worked region to update the working region information 34 of the storage section 30 (a region information updating step: ST33). Specifically, a region where the movement body 100 has moved in the occupancy grid map M is taken as the worked region as the working region A2, and other regions are taken as the working region A1 of the robot body 1…”) Regarding claim 7, Tomono and Kim in combination teach all the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. Tomono additionally teaches: wherein the one or more hardware processors use the initial value in accordance with a time zone in which determination is performed among the one or more initial values. (See at least [0058]: “The occupancy grid map M produced as described above and the node and the arc as the route information are, as the map information 31, stored in the storage section 30. The new map produced and updated in real time in association with action of the movement robot and the previously-produced and -stored old map are present as the map information 31. At proper time intervals, the old map remains in association with time. The old map includes information such as an object present in the target space (or present previously)…” & [0073]: “First, it is assumed that the robot body 1 is located at the start point S1 at the start of action as illustrated in FIG. 11(A) and the movement body 100 has moved from the start point S2 along the movement route R2 within the predetermined time after the start…”) Regarding claim 10, Tomono teaches: An information processing method executed by a computer of an information processing apparatus, the method comprising: (See at least [0050]: “The control unit 2 includes an arithmetic unit such as a CPU and a storage unit such as a ROM or a RAM, and controls operation of the robot body 1…”) determining, using a route plan representing a plan of a route on which each of a plurality of mobile objects moves among a plurality of routes included in a movement area in which the plurality of mobile objects moves, for each of the plurality of mobile objects, whether or not a first partial area that is a partial area to which a first position of the mobile object existing belongs and a second partial area that is a partial area to which a second position to move next to the first position belongs are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area; (See at least [0073]: “First, it is assumed that the robot body 1 is located at the start point S1 at the start of action as illustrated in FIG. 11(A) and the movement body 100 has moved from the start point S2 along the movement route R2 within the predetermined time after the start. At this point, as illustrated in FIG. 12, the coordinated movement control section 28 of the control unit 2 acquires the movement route R2 of the movement body 100 based on the movement body route information 33 stored in the storage section 30 at the above-described route information production/updating step (the step ST7) (a movement body route information acquisition step: a step ST31). Next, the region information control section 27 obtains, by arithmetic processing, the working region A2 of the movement body 100 based on the movement route R2 of the movement body 100 (a movement body working region calculation step: ST32), and takes the working region A2 as a worked region to update the working region information 34 of the storage section 30 (a region information updating step: ST33)…”) changing a boundary between the first partial area and the second partial area such that the first position is included in the second partial area when the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other; and (See at least Fig. 11 & [0073]: “…Specifically, a region where the movement body 100 has moved in the occupancy grid map M is taken as the worked region as the working region A2, and other regions are taken as the working region A1 of the robot body 1. When the movement route R2 of the movement body 100 varies over time, the working region information 34 including the boundary line K and the working regions A1, A2 is further updated accordingly.”) generating, for each of the plurality of partial areas, a travel plan specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route such that a conflict between the plurality of mobile objects does not occur on the route included in the partial area. (See at least [0073-0074]: “…When the movement route R2 of the movement body 100 varies over time, the working region information 34 including the boundary line K and the working regions A1, A2 is further updated accordingly. Next, the route control section 26 updates the movement route R1 (the robot route information 32) of the robot body 1 according to the working region A1 of the robot body 1 (a robot route information updating step: ST34), and the control unit 2 starts traveling of the robot body 1 along the movement route R1…the route control section 26 determines the movement route R1 of the robot body 1 such that the movement routes R1, R2 do not overlap with each other as much as possible and no non-working region is present.”) Tomono does not explicitly teach: …plurality of mobile objects… generating, for each of the plurality of partial areas, a travel plan specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route such that a conflict between the plurality of mobile objects does not occur on the route included in the partial area. Kim teaches: …plurality of mobile objects… (See at least Fig. 3 & [0054]: “Then, patterns of the driving behaviors of the mobile robots 30 may be generated based on the plurality of generated virtual driving lines (S120). Thereafter, an initial position and a final position of each of the plurality of mobile robots 30 may be input (S130), and a driving route from the initial position to the final position of each of the plurality of mobile robots 30 may be generated on the plurality of generated virtual driving lines 50 based on the generated patterns of the driving behaviors (S140).”) generating, for each of the plurality of partial areas, a travel plan specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route such that a conflict between the plurality of mobile objects does not occur on the route included in the partial area. (See at least [0101]: “As described above with reference to FIGS. 11 and 12, the driving route generation method according to one embodiment of the present disclosure may include predicting whether a collision will occur between the moving robots based on the managed expected time data (S210), and calculating a priority of the intersection point 11 where the collision is predicted to occur (S220). Here, calculating the priority may include calculating a higher priority for an earlier time to pass through the intersection point 11 where a collision is predicted to occur based on the managed expected time data” & [0104-0105]: “After calculating the priority, the driving of the mobile robots that sequentially pass through the intersection points 11 may be controlled based on the calculated priorities (S230). Here, controlling the driving of the mobile robots may include adjusting the speed of the mobile robots. Alternatively, after calculating the priorities, the driving routes of the mobile robot sequentially passing through the intersection points 11 may be regenerated based on the calculated priorities (S240). Moreover, the driving route generation method according to one embodiment of the present disclosure may control the driving of the mobile robots such that the mobile robots travel on the regenerated driving routes.” See also [0092-0099].) One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Tomono’s apparatus with Kim’s technique of generating, for each of the plurality of partial areas, a travel plan specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route such that a conflict between the plurality of mobile objects does not occur on the route included in the partial area. Doing so would be obvious “to avoid collisions between the plurality of mobile robots driving in the driving space 10” (See [0093] of Kim) . Regarding claim 11, Tomono teaches: A computer program product having a non-transitory computer readable medium including programmed instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute: (See at least [0050]: “The control unit 2 includes an arithmetic unit such as a CPU and a storage unit such as a ROM or a RAM, and controls operation of the robot body 1…”) determining, using a route plan representing a plan of a route on which each o f a plurality of mobile objects moves among a plurality of routes included in a movement area in which the plurality of mobile objects moves, for each of the plurality of mobile objects, whether or not a first partial area that is a partial area to which a first position of the mobile object existing belongs and a second partial area that is a partial area to which a second position to move next to the first position belongs are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area; (See at least [0073]: “First, it is assumed that the robot body 1 is located at the start point S1 at the start of action as illustrated in FIG. 11(A) and the movement body 100 has moved from the start point S2 along the movement route R2 within the predetermined time after the start. At this point, as illustrated in FIG. 12, the coordinated movement control section 28 of the control unit 2 acquires the movement route R2 of the movement body 100 based on the movement body route information 33 stored in the storage section 30 at the above-described route information production/updating step (the step ST7) (a movement body route information acquisition step: a step ST31). Next, the region information control section 27 obtains, by arithmetic processing, the working region A2 of the movement body 100 based on the movement route R2 of the movement body 100 (a movement body working region calculation step: ST32), and takes the working region A2 as a worked region to update the working region information 34 of the storage section 30 (a region information updating step: ST33)…”) changing a boundary between the first partial area and the second partial area such that the first position is included in the second partial area when the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other; and (See at least Fig. 11 & [0073]: “…Specifically, a region where the movement body 100 has moved in the occupancy grid map M is taken as the worked region as the working region A2, and other regions are taken as the working region A1 of the robot body 1. When the movement route R2 of the movement body 100 varies over time, the working region information 34 including the boundary line K and the working regions A1, A2 is further updated accordingly.”) generating, for each of the plurality of partial areas, a travel plan specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route such that a conflict between the plurality of mobile objects does not occur on the route included in the partial area. (See at least [0073-0074]: “…When the movement route R2 of the movement body 100 varies over time, the working region information 34 including the boundary line K and the working regions A1, A2 is further updated accordingly. Next, the route control section 26 updates the movement route R1 (the robot route information 32) of the robot body 1 according to the working region A1 of the robot body 1 (a robot route information updating step: ST34), and the control unit 2 starts traveling of the robot body 1 along the movement route R1…the route control section 26 determines the movement route R1 of the robot body 1 such that the movement routes R1, R2 do not overlap with each other as much as possible and no non-working region is present.”) Tomono does not explicitly teach: …plurality of mobile objects… generating, for each of the plurality of partial areas, a travel plan specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route such that a conflict between the plurality of mobile objects does not occur on the route included in the partial area. Kim teaches: …plurality of mobile objects… (See at least Fig. 3 & [0054]: “Then, patterns of the driving behaviors of the mobile robots 30 may be generated based on the plurality of generated virtual driving lines (S120). Thereafter, an initial position and a final position of each of the plurality of mobile robots 30 may be input (S130), and a driving route from the initial position to the final position of each of the plurality of mobile robots 30 may be generated on the plurality of generated virtual driving lines 50 based on the generated patterns of the driving behaviors (S140).”) generating, for each of the plurality of partial areas, a travel plan specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route such that a conflict between the plurality of mobile objects does not occur on the route included in the partial area. (See at least [0101]: “As described above with reference to FIGS. 11 and 12, the driving route generation method according to one embodiment of the present disclosure may include predicting whether a collision will occur between the moving robots based on the managed expected time data (S210), and calculating a priority of the intersection point 11 where the collision is predicted to occur (S220). Here, calculating the priority may include calculating a higher priority for an earlier time to pass through the intersection point 11 where a collision is predicted to occur based on the managed expected time data” & [0104-0105]: “After calculating the priority, the driving of the mobile robots that sequentially pass through the intersection points 11 may be controlled based on the calculated priorities (S230). Here, controlling the driving of the mobile robots may include adjusting the speed of the mobile robots. Alternatively, after calculating the priorities, the driving routes of the mobile robot sequentially passing through the intersection points 11 may be regenerated based on the calculated priorities (S240). Moreover, the driving route generation method according to one embodiment of the present disclosure may control the driving of the mobile robots such that the mobile robots travel on the regenerated driving routes.” See also [0092-0099].) One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Tomono’s apparatus with Kim’s technique of generating, for each of the plurality of partial areas, a travel plan specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route such that a conflict between the plurality of mobile objects does not occur on the route included in the partial area. Doing so would be obvious “to avoid collisions between the plurality of mobile robots driving in the driving space 10” (See [0093] of Kim) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomono in view of Kim and further in view of Ding of CN 112631299 A , published 04/09/2021, hereinafter “Ding” . Regarding claim 8, Tomono and Kim in combination teach all the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. Tomono additionally teaches: wherein the one or more hardware processors determine whether or not the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other by using a first initial value from among the first initial value and a second initial value including a partial area obtained by dividing at least a part of the plurality of partial areas corresponding to the first initial value into a plurality of zones, and (See at least [0072-0073]: “…As indicated by a boundary line K as a chain line in FIG. 11, the working region A is divided into a working region A1 where the robot body 1 executes the work and a working region A2 where the movement body 100 has executed the work. That is, the movement route R2 of the movement body 100 detected by the movement body detection section 291 is, as the movement body route information 33, associated with the occupancy grid map M, a region where the movement body 100 has already executed the work along the movement route R2 is the working region A2, and the movement route R1 of the robot body 1 calculated for executing the work such that the work is divided between the robot body 1 and the movement body 100 is, as the robot route information 32, associated with the occupancy grid map M. First, it is assumed that the robot body 1 is located at the start point S1 at the start of action as illustrated in FIG. 11(A) and the movement body 100 has moved from the start point S2 along the movement route R2 within the predetermined time after the start. At this point, as illustrated in FIG. 12, the coordinated movement control section 28 of the control unit 2 acquires the movement route R2 of the movement body 100 based on the movement body route information 33 stored in the storage section 30 at the above-described route information production/updating step (the step ST7) (a movement body route information acquisition step: a step ST31)…”) Tomono and Kim in combination do not explicitly teach: further determine whether or not the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other by using the second initial value when a predetermined condition is satisfied. However, Ding teaches constructing a virtual map by controlling a self-propelled device to move around a work area and gather information on the boundary line which divides the working area into areas of different sizes (See at least Fig. 1, [0034] & 0055-0056]) . Since Ding teaches constructing a map representing the divided work areas based on information gathered about the boundary line and work area, the teachings of Ding render obvious determining whether the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other by using the second initial value when a predetermined condition is satisfied, which provides the benefit of “Multiple lawn mowing robots work in their respective sub-zone maps without interfering with each other. The overlapping boundary areas between adjacent pre-divided zones can be worked by the self-propelled devices of the two zones working together, and there are no blind spots at the boundary lines” (See [0034] of Ding). One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Tomono and Kim’s apparatus with Ding’s technique of determining whether the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other by using the second initial value when a predetermined condition is satisfied. Doing so would be obvious so “multiple lawn mowing robots work in their respective sub-zone maps without interfering with each other. The overlapping boundary areas between adjacent pre-divided zones can be worked by the self-propelled devices of the two zones working together, and there are no blind spots at the boundary lines” (See [0034] of Ding) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomono in view of Kim and Ding and further in view of Cesic of US 20240160223 A1 , filed 11/15/2023, hereinafter “Cesic” . Regarding claim 9, Tomono, Kim, and Ding in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above. Tomono, Kim, and Ding in combination do not explicitly teach: wherein the condition represents at least one of a condition indicating that a number of mobile objects included in the plurality of partial areas exceeds a specified number and a condition indicating that generation of the travel plan is not completed within a specified time. Cesic teaches: wherein the condition represents at least one of a condition indicating that a number of mobile objects included in the plurality of partial areas exceeds a specified number and a condition indicating that generation of the travel plan is not completed within a specified time. (See at least [0035]: “…The traffic manager may also be configured to regulate the number of vehicles permitted in particular regions of a warehouse. For example, a warehouse may be divided into N vehicle zones, and each zone may be limited to a maximum number of N vehicles therein at any given time. When the maximum number N is reached for a particular zone, robots and/or human pickers outside that zone may be instructed to temporarily refrain from entering that zone.”) One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Tomono, Kim, and Ding’s apparatus with Cesic’s condition of a number of mobile objects included in the plurality of partial areas exceeding a specified number. Doing so would be obvious to “prevent disorganized robot clustering, collisions involving robots” (See [0054] of Cesic) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240361782 A1 is directed to a mobile robot that remains in a movable region representing a communicable region without a collision with another robot. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikki Molina whose telephone number is (571) 272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT. 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, Aniss Chad, can be reached on (571) 270-3832. 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. /NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662 /ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 2 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 3 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 4 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 5 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 6 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 7 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 8 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 9 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 10 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 11 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 12 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 13 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 14 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 15 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 16 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 17 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 18 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 19 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 20 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 21 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 22 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 23 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 24 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 25 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 26 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 27 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 28 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 29 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 30 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 31 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 32 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 33 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 34 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 35 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,775 Page 36 Art Unit: 3662
Prosecution Insights