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 .
This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-14 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
The specification was objected to due to minor informalities. Applicant amended the title accordingly; therefore, the specification objection is withdrawn.
Claims 1-11 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite. Applicant amended the claims accordingly; therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Claim 11 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicant amended the claim accordingly; therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues “generating such a travel plan with respect to a management apparatus does not constitute merely “mental processes”, and thereby the claims are not merely directed to an abstract idea” and “the claims also recite a practical application as the claim features are directed to generate, for each of a plurality of zones obtained by dividing an entire movement area, a travel plan of mobile objects in the zone for generating a moving plan of the mobile object to thereby be at a higher speed, which clearly provides a practical application”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are still directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The limitation “generate, for each of the plurality of partial areas, a travel plan…” is still recited at a high level of generality such that it can be performed by any generic computer, and it encompasses the abstract idea of generating a travel plan for a plurality of partial areas, which can be performed mentally. Furthermore, there is no practical application because the limitation “management apparatus” (or “information processing apparatus”, as recited in claims 1 and 10) is recited at a high level of generality such that it merely “applies” the mental process of generating a travel plan to a technological environment using generic computer components.
On page 11 of the response, Applicant further argues that the claim amendments further defining the “first partial area” and “second partial area” and reciting “…change, before the mobile object moves from the first position to the second position, a boundary between the first partial area and the second partial area…” “are not merely directed to mental processes and which are also clearly directed to the above-noted practical application of providing a travel plan of mobile objects in a zone for generating a moving plan of the mobile object that can thereby be at a higher speed”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations regarding the “first partial area” and the “second partial area” only further describe the characteristics of these partial areas and do not amount to significantly more. The limitation “…before the mobile object moves from the first position to the second position…” is also recited at a high level of generality such that it merely indicates when to perform the abstract idea of changing the boundary as a mental process or via pen and paper (i.e., editing a hand-drawn map) as well as a technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more. Furthermore, the invention does not recite controlling the mobile objects in any way nor does it require the mobile object to move (“…before the mobile object moves…”).
Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-14 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues “Thereby the technique disclosed in Tomono does not require determining whether or not the working region A2 to which a movement-body 100-existing position (a position of the moving body 100 in Fig. 11A) belongs and the working region (the working region Al at the stage of Figure 11A) to which a position to move to next (a position of the moving body 100 in Fig. 11B) belongs are different from each other”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not provide any evidence or explanation as to why updating the working regions and the boundary line K does not satisfy the limitation of determining whether a first partial area and a second partial area are different from each other. Furthermore, in view of [0073] recited in the rejection below, since the working regions and the boundary line K are continuously updated as the movement body moves, this means that the system must identify that the new position is distinct from the original position to trigger and compute the updated working regions, thereby satisfying the limitation of determining that the first and second partial areas are different.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-15 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues “Tomono was cited for those features in the outstanding rejection, but applicant submits Tomono does not meet those claim features as Tomono merely discloses changing a boundary or generating a plan at whatever time, and when the upper limit value/threshold value is "1". Applicant submits such a technique in Tomono based on "whenever performing processing" does not meet the features recited in claims 2 and 3.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not provide any evidence or explanation as to why changing the boundary or generating a plan when the number of changes is equal to an upper limit value/threshold of 1 does not satisfy the limitations “…when a number of changes for changing the boundary is equal to or less than an upper limit value…” and “…when a number of changes for changing the boundary exceeds a threshold value” from claims 2 and 3, respectively. Furthermore, as discussed in the rejection below, 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, as recited in [0073-0074]. Since the boundary line K is updated as the movement route R2 changes and the movement route R1 is updated whenever the movement route R2 changes, and, thus, each time the boundary line K changes, the teachings of Tomono render obvious changing the boundary when a number of changes for changing the boundary is equal to or less than an upper limit value and changing the travel plan when the number of changes exceeds a threshold value.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7-8, and 10-11 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (and claims 10-11 by reciting analogous limitations) recites “…the mobile object…”. Examiner respectfully recommends modifying this to “…each of the plurality of mobile objects…” for consistency with the previous instance of the term: “…each of the plurality of mobile objects…”.
Claim 7 recites “…wherein the one or more hardware processors use an initial value in among the any one or more initial values accordance with a time zone in which determination is performed”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
Claim 8 recites “…wherein the one or more hardware processors further…further determine…”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-9 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.
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 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 any of one or more initial values of the plurality of the partial areas”. It is unclear how it can be determined if a first and second partial area are different from each other “among any of one or more initial values of the plurality of the partial areas”.
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 1-14 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 and a second partial area are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area, the first partial area including a first position in which the mobile object exists, the second partial area including a second position to which the mobile object moves next to the first position,
change, before the mobile object moves from the first position to the second position, 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 and a second partial area are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area, the first partial area including a first position in which the mobile object exists, the second partial area including a second position to which the mobile object moves next to the first position” 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, before the mobile object moves from the first position to the second position, 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 and a second partial area are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area, the first partial area including a first position in which the mobile object exists, the second partial area including a second position to which the mobile object moves next to the first position;
change, before the mobile object moves from the first position to the second position, 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 and a second partial area are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area, the first partial area including a first position in which the mobile object exists, the second partial area including a second position to which the mobile object moves next to the first position;
changing, before the mobile object moves from the first position to the second position, 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 “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 and a second partial area are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area, the first partial area including a first position in which the mobile object exists, the second partial area including a second position to which the mobile object moves next to the first position” 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 “changing, before the mobile object moves from the first position to the second position, 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 and a second partial area are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area, the first partial area including a first position in which the mobile object exists, the second partial area including a second position to which the mobile object moves next to the first position;
changing, before the mobile object moves from the first position to the second position, 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.
Regarding Independent Claim 11:
Step 1: Claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a manufacture). Therefore, claim 11 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 11 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 11 recites:
A non-transitory computer readable medium including programmed instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute:
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 and a second partial area are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area, the first partial area including a first position in which the mobile object exists, the second partial area including a second position to which the mobile object moves next to the first position;
changing, before the mobile object moves from the first position to the second position, 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 and a second partial area are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area, the first partial area including a first position in which the mobile object exists, the second partial area including a second position to which the mobile object moves next to the first position” 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, before the mobile object moves from the first position to the second position, 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”):
A non-transitory computer readable medium including programmed instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute:
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 and a second partial area are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area, the first partial area including a first position in which the mobile object exists, the second partial area including a second position to which the mobile object moves next to the first position;
changing, before the mobile object moves from the first position to the second position, 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 “including programmed instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute” 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 11 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 “including programmed instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute” 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 11 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C §101.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 2-9 and 12-14 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, 5, and 12 are further directed to the abstract idea of changing the boundary, dependent claim(s) 3-4 and 13 are further directed to the abstract idea of generating the travel plan, dependent claim(s) 6, 8, and 14 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) 1-14 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
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(s) 1-7, 10-11, and 13-14 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 and a second partial area are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area, the first partial area including a first position in which the mobile object exists, the second partial area including a second position to which the mobile object moves next to the first position, (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)…”. See also [0071], which recites that there can be multiple robots.)
change(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 (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:
…before the mobile object moves from the first position to the second position…
However, Tomono does teach updating the working regions when a movement body has moved, in which there can be multiple robots or movement bodies in the environment, as recited in at least [0071] & [0073]. Since there are multiple working robots, if one robot chooses not to move and another robot chooses to enter a new area, this would render obvious the situation of updating the boundary of the robot that did move and not updating the boundary of the robot that did not move, which provides the benefit of “various types of operation can be executed according to motion of other objects or a movement body and a utilization area can be expanded accordingly” (See [0099] of Tomono).
Additionally, Tomono does not explicitly teach:
…specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route…
Kim teaches:
…specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route… (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 partial area are different from each other. (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 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 boundary line K is updated as the movement route R2 changes, the teachings of Tomono render obvious changing the boundary when the boundary has not yet been changed (i.e., a number of changes less than an upper limit value of 1), 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, each time 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 (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 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 an initial value in among the any one or more initial values accordance with a time zone in which determination is performed. (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 and a second partial area are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area, the first partial area including a first position in which the mobile object exists, the second partial area including a second position to which the mobile object moves next to the first position; (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(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 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:
…before the mobile object moves from the first position to the second position…
However, Tomono does teach updating the working regions when a movement body has moved, in which there can be multiple robots or movement bodies in the environment, as recited in at least [0071] & [0073]. Since there are multiple working robots, if one robot chooses not to move and another robot chooses to enter a new area, this would render obvious the situation of updating the boundary of the robot that did move and not updating the boundary of the robot that did not move, which provides the benefit of “various types of operation can be executed according to motion of other objects or a movement body and a utilization area can be expanded accordingly” (See [0099] of Tomono).
Additionally, Tomono does not explicitly teach:
…specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route…
Kim teaches:
…specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route… (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 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 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 and a second partial area are different from each other among a plurality of partial areas included in the movement area, the first partial area including a first position in which the mobile object exists, the second partial area including a second position to which the mobile object moves next to the first position; (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(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 (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:
…before the mobile object moves from the first position to the second position…
However, Tomono does teach updating the working regions when a movement body has moved, in which there can be multiple robots or movement bodies in the environment, as recited in at least [0071] & [0073]. Since there are multiple working robots, if one robot chooses not to move and another robot chooses to enter a new area, this would render obvious the situation of updating the boundary of the robot that did move and not updating the boundary of the robot that did not move, which provides the benefit of “various types of operation can be executed according to motion of other objects or a movement body and a utilization area can be expanded accordingly” (See [0099] of Tomono).
Additionally, Tomono does not explicitly teach:
…specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route…
Kim teaches:
…specifying a timing at which the plurality of mobile objects moves on the route… (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 13, 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 do not generate the travel plan when a number of changes for changing the boundary is equal to or less than a threshold 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, as recited in [0073-0074]. Since the movement route R1 is updated whenever the movement route R2 changes, and, thus, each time the boundary line K changes, the teachings of Tomono render obvious not generating the travel plan when the boundary has not been changed (i.e., the number of changes is less than a threshold value of 1), 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 14, 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(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)…” & [0071]: “Note that in a case where the movement robot is one other than the cleaning robot, a coordinated work performed during follow-up of, e.g., other working robots, persons, or automobiles can be selected as necessary, and a proper work can be executed in various fields such as security, transport, guide, nursing-care, and agriculture.”)
Tomono and Kim in combination do not explicitly teach:
…before the mobile object moves from the first position to the second position…
However, Tomono does teach updating the working regions when a movement body has moved, in which there can be multiple robots or movement bodies in the environment, as recited in at least [0071] & [0073]. Since there are multiple working robots, if one robot chooses not to move and another robot chooses to enter a new area, this would render obvious the situation of updating the boundary of the robot that did move and not updating the boundary of the robot that did not move, which provides the benefit of “various types of operation can be executed according to motion of other objects or a movement body and a utilization area can be expanded accordingly” (See [0099] of Tomono).
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 further: determine whether or not the first partial area and the second partial area are different from each other by using a first initial value, 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 a second initial value when a predetermined condition is satisfied, the second initial value including a partial area obtained by dividing at least a part of the plurality of partial areas.
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, the second initial value including a partial area obtained by dividing at least a part of the plurality of partial areas, 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).
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).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomono in view of Kim and further in view of Ling of US 20240053758 A1, filed 12/09/2022, hereinafter “Ling”.
Regarding claim 12, Tomono and Kim in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Tomono and Kim do not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more hardware processors do not change the boundary when a number of changes for changing the boundary is larger than an upper limit value.
However, Ling teaches creating a goal map via a robot that moves around an environment to “build an initial explored region, and then moving toward un-explored region to perform exploring until all the regions are completely explored”, then “directly sets the explored region of the exploration map 140 (i.e., the positions that the robot has accessed under the exploration mode) as the accessible region of the goal map 141 through the goal map maintenance module 309” (See at least Fig. 4, Figs. 8-9 & [0098-0100]). Ling further teaches generating 2D and 3D obstacle regions, wherein “By setting the expanded 2D obstacle region 70 and the 3D obstacle region 71, an accessible region 72 may be decided” (See at least [0121], [0125] & [0130-0131]). Since the robot performs the exploration process until all regions are explored, finalizes the accessible region according to obstacle regions, and then moves within the accessible region to perform a task, the teachings of Ling render obvious not changing the boundary when the boundary has already been changed enough times to account for the entire region, which provides the benefit of “automatically determining the accessible region, which may quickly build a map for movement that includes a 2D map for the function of 3D avoidance” and “so the goal map may be used to correctly indicate an accessible region that the robot won't collide with the obstacles” (See [0006] & [0032] of Ling).
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 method with Ling’s technique of updating the explored region until all regions are completely explored. Doing so would be obvious for “automatically determining the accessible region, which may quickly build a map for movement that includes a 2D map for the function of 3D avoidance” and “so the goal map may be used to correctly indicate an accessible region that the robot won't collide with the obstacles” (See [0006] & [0032] of Ling).
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 NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA whose telephone number is (571)272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm 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 at 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
Prosecution Insights