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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the text in Figs. 7-9 is not clear and therefore illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-8 are directed to a process.
Claims 9-16 are directed to a machine.
Claims 17-20 are directed to an article of manufacture
Therefore, claims 1-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I 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 follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1, 9, and 17 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and claim 9will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claims 1/9/17 A system for autonomous navigation of an autonomous robot, comprising:
at least one hardware processor; and
at least one non-transitory computer readable media that store instructions that when executed by the at least one hardware processor cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations comprising:
creating a topological mapping of an area of environment around a location of the mobile robot using data from one or more perception sensors;
identifying at least one pathway around the location using the data from the one or more perception sensors; and
locally constraining a motion of the mobile robot based on the topological mapping and the identified at least pathway.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “creating a topological mapping” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data and performing a mental observation on a topological mapping and possibly recording it with pen and paper. For example, “identifying at least one pathway” in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing a mental judgement on a traversable path using said topological mapping. For example, “locally constraining a motion of the mobile robot” in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing a mental judgement on the selection of the path based on travel or task criteria. Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
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”):
Claims 1/9/17 A system for autonomous navigation of an autonomous robot, comprising:
at least one hardware processor; and
at least one non-transitory computer readable media that store instructions that when executed by the at least one hardware processor cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations comprising:
creating a topological mapping of an area of environment around a location of the mobile robot using data from one or more perception sensors;
identifying at least one pathway around the location using the data from the one or more perception sensors; and
locally constraining a motion of the mobile robot based on the topological mapping and the identified at least pathway.
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.
Regarding the additional limitations of a “processor” and “non-transitory computer readable media”, they merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computer environment. The units are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 1, 10, and 13 do 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the “storage” and the “processor” to perform the method amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 17 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 10-11 are also rejected for not providing significantly more. They amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Dependent claim 4 and 12 are also rejected for not providing significantly more. They merely define what the topological map comprises thereof.
Dependent claim 5, 13, and 18 are also rejected for not providing significantly more. They merely define a process for image analysis a person follows while performing a mental observation.
Dependent claim 6, 14, and 20 are also rejected for not providing significantly more. They merely further define the constraint.
Dependent claim 7, 15, and 19 is also rejected for not providing significantly more. They merely define a process for image analysis a person follows while performing a mental observation.
Dependent claim 8 and 16 are also rejected for not providing significantly more. The additional element of using machine learning techniques to perform the method amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 9-10, 14, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klingensmith (US 2022/0390954).
As per claims 1, 9, and 17, Klingensmith discloses a system for autonomous navigation of an autonomous robot, comprising:
at least one hardware processor (processor 1110); and
at least one non-transitory computer readable media (storage 1130) that store instructions that when executed by the at least one hardware processor cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations comprising:
creating a topological mapping of an area of environment around a location of the mobile robot using data from one or more perception sensors (see at least para. 58 for generating graph map or topological map 222 of an environment 30 from sensor data 134; see at least para. 45 for sensor system 130 generates sensor data 134; see at least para. 44 for sensor system 130 includes camera and IMU and kinematic sensors);
identifying at least one pathway around the location using the data from the one or more perception sensors (see at least para. 58 for graph map or topological map 222 includes a series of route edges that represents a traversable route for the robot 100 through an environment of a robot); and
locally constraining a motion of the mobile robot based on the topological mapping and the identified at least pathway (see at least para. 58 for map includes information representing obstacles 330 that mark boundaries where the robot may be unable to traverse; see also at least para. 60 for traversing without colliding with an obstacle 330).
As per claims 2 and 10, Klingensmith further discloses wherein the one or more perception sensors comprise one or more of a monocular camera, a wheel odometry, an inertial measurement unit and a red, green, and blue camera (see at least para. 44 for sensor system 130 includes IMU).
As per claims 6, 14, and 20, Klingensmith further discloses wherein locally constraining the motion of the mobile robot comprises defining a safe criteria for robot motion commands based on analyzing the data from the one or more perception sensors (see at least para. 58 for map includes information representing obstacles 330 that mark boundaries where the robot may be unable to traverse; see also at least para. 60 for traversing without colliding with an obstacle 330).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingensmith (US 2022/0390954) in view of Deljkovic (US 2024/0202922).
As per claims 3 and 11, Klingensmith is silent regarding, but Deljkovic teaches wherein creating the topological mapping of the area of environment comprises receiving data from a Real-Time Kinematic Global Positioning System (see at least para. 220 for using RTK to create a topological map).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Klingensmith with the features of Deljkovic because it provides centimeter-level accuracy positioning when high precision is required and, unlike an IMU, acquires position independent of prior movement.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingensmith (US 2022/0390954) in view of Lee (US 2019/0310653).
As per claims 4 and 12, Klingensmith is silent regarding, but Lee (US 2019/0310653) teaches wherein the topological mapping of the area of environment comprises a network of interconnected landmarks including one or more landmarks and a relationship between the one or more landmarks (see at least para. 68 for node is a point at which a certain service a mobile robot is performed or at which the mobile robot rotates and an edge is a line that connects two nodes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Klingensmith with the features of Lee because it provides traversable paths between critical points where the robot is to perform an action rather than all possible traversable paths within an area.
Claim(s) 5, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingensmith (US 2022/0390954) in view of Lee (US 2019/0310653) in view of Hehn (US 2024/0212190).
As per claims 5, 13, and 18, Klingensmith is silent regarding wherein creating the topological mapping of the environment further comprises:
extracting features from images captured by the one or more perception sensors;
matching the extracted features across different images to establish connections between landmarks; and
generating a topological graph using the matched features and the connections between the landmarks.
However, Lee teaches wherein creating the topological mapping of the environment further comprises a network of interconnected landmarks including one or more landmarks and a relationship between the one or more landmarks (see at least para. 68 for node is a point at which a certain service a mobile robot is performed or at which the mobile robot rotates and an edge is a line that connects two nodes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Klingensmith with the features of Lee because it provides traversable paths between critical points where the robot is to perform an action rather than all possible traversable paths within an area.
Modified Klingensmith is silent regarding using feature extraction on a plurality of images to detect landmarks.
However, Hehn teaches using feature extraction on a plurality of images to detect landmarks (see at least claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of modified Klingensmith with the features of Hehn because it provides for an image analysis technique to identify landmarks in an image, particularly to distinguish landmarks within a certain distance threshold that are similar looking or identical to one another that would otherwise be assumed to be the same landmark.
Claim(s) 7, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingensmith (US 2022/0390954) in view of Yang (US 2026/0073631).
As per claims 7, 15, and 19, Klingensmith is silent regarding, but Yang teaches wherein identifying the at least one pathway further comprises:
semantic segmenting an image captured by the one or more perception sensors to classify each pixel in the image into a corresponding semantic category (see at least para. 59 for semantic segmentation and classifying each pixel);
detecting edges in the segmented image to identify continuous lines and boundaries (see at least para. 57 for using segmented image to determine shape and boundaries of a building); and
combining the segmented image and the detected edges to identify the at least one pathway within the image as a route for navigation (see at least para. 70 for using segmented data and determined shape and boundaries of the building to create a route to move through the environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Klingensmith with the features of Yang because semantic segmentation provides improved integrity, location precision, shape precision, and semantic precision in environment mapping for identifying edges and boundaries for implementation in of safe navigation through an environment.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingensmith (US 2022/0390954) in view of Zelek (US 2024/0104771).
As per claims 8 and 16, Klingensmith is silent regarding but Zelek (US 2024/0104771) teaches wherein the operations further comprise improving an accuracy and robustness of the topological mapping and pathway identification using machine learning techniques (see at least para. 3 for using machine learning in topological map generation and global localization which is in turn used path planning and obstacle avoidance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Klingensmith with the features of Zelek because implementing machine learning is faster and more accurate than traditional programming as it allows computers to learn from historical or training data to identify patterns and make accurate predictions without human intervention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights