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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 21 March 2025 contains a single reference to Japanese Patent Application 2016-033029 as cited in Paragraph 2 of Applicants Specification. The Examiner notes that the specification describes the cited reference as disclosing a technique for avoiding an obstacle. The document attached with the supplied IDS however is Japanese Patent Application 2014-0156427. Therefore the information disclosure statement filed 21 March 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. The Examiner notes that the supplied reference is Japanese Patent Publication 2016-033029, which further is titled Portable Beverage Container with Cover. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
The Examiner notes that the Yoshikawa reference relied upon in the rejection below claims Foreign Priority to JP Application 2016-033029.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-11 is/are directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical concept and a mental process. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) recite(s) acquire data, perform some calculations and update a plan. The rejected dependent claims only supply additional steps (mathematical calculations, and mental processes) that a processor must perform. All of these concepts relate to the abstract idea of certain methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes. The concept described in claims 1-11 is/are not meaningfully different than those methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claims 1-11 is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitations of "information processing apparatus”. The hardware is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components that perform the generic functions of [e.g. "transmitting information", "generating information"] common to electronics and computer systems does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation (i.e. mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing system).
Claims 1-11 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoshikawa (US Patent Publication 2017/0241790) in view of Orita (US Patent Publication 2006/0265103).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 11, Yoshikawa discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing a program; and at least one processor that when executing the program causes the information processing apparatus to:
an information processing method; [and]
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program for causing a central processing unit to execute a method
(¶84)
acquire at least one plan assigned to at least one autonomous mobile object; (¶80-81, 111)
detect, based on the at least one plan, an obstruction factor that is likely to cause an obstruction to execution of the at least one plan; (¶82-83)
predict the obstruction with respect to the at least one plan based on the at least one plan and the obstruction factor; (¶14, 18-20)
determine a modification content for the at least one plan based on the obstruction; and update the at least one plan based on the modification content. (¶15, 21-24)
Yoshikawa generates and has generally available a plan assigned to a robot, and thus is considered to have “acquired” the plan for purposes of this rejection.
Should Applicant deem “acquire” to have a narrower meaning the limitation is alternatively rejected under Orita (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Yoshikawa with acquire at least one plan assigned to at least one autonomous mobile object as taught by Orita with a reasonable expectation of success as simple substitution of one known plan-obtaining means from another to yield a predictable result and further because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 4, Orita teaches wherein the at least one autonomous mobile object comprises a plurality of autonomous mobile objects, wherein the at least one plan comprises a plurality of plans, wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to acquire a plan assigned to each of the plurality of autonomous mobile objects, respectively, and wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to determine a modification content for each of the plurality of plans based on the predicted obstruction. (abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Yoshikawa with wherein the at least one autonomous mobile object comprises a plurality of autonomous mobile objects, wherein the at least one plan comprises a plurality of plans, wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to acquire a plan assigned to each of the plurality of autonomous mobile objects, respectively, and wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to determine a modification content for each of the plurality of plans based on the predicted obstruction as taught by Orita with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 6, Orita teaches wherein the at least one plan comprises a plurality of plans, and wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to select at least one modification content from among modification contents for the plurality of plans based on an amount of reduction in work efficiency of each of the modification contents for the plurality of plans. (abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Yoshikawa with wherein the at least one plan comprises a plurality of plans, and wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to select at least one modification content from among modification contents for the plurality of plans based on an amount of reduction in work efficiency of each of the modification contents for the plurality of plans as taught by Orita with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 9, Yoshikawa discloses wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to predict at least one or more of "passage impassable", "decrease in friction on a passage floor surface", "passage difficulty", or "occupied work area" as the obstruction. (Claim 3; ¶29, 33-36)
Claims 2-3, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of Orita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et. al. (Machine Translation of Chinese Patent 2019/10470067).
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to move at least one time included in the at least one plan forward or backward. (middle of page 6; “one is a waiting strategy, one is modifying path policy. waiting strategy is that if the conflict at certain node, the node priority task time window low backward translation, i.e., backward searching available idle time window in the window queue idle time of the node, ensures the size of the idle time window allows the trolley by node, then continuing conflict detecting and solving the re planning the route to the time window, there is no conflict in the time window path.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Yoshikawa with wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to move at least one time included in the at least one plan forward or backward as taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to shorten or extend an execution time of the at least one plan. (middle of page 6; “one is a waiting strategy, one is modifying path policy. waiting strategy is that if the conflict at certain node, the node priority task time window low backward translation, i.e., backward searching available idle time window in the window queue idle time of the node, ensures the size of the idle time window allows the trolley by node, then continuing conflict detecting and solving the re planning the route to the time window, there is no conflict in the time window path.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Yoshikawa with wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to shorten or extend an execution time of the at least one plan as taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches wherein the at least one plan comprises a plurality of plans, wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to determine whether modification contents for the plurality of plans are executable, and wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to select at least one modification content from among the modification contents for the plurality of plans determined to be executable. (middle of page 6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Yoshikawa with wherein the at least one plan comprises a plurality of plans, wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to determine whether modification contents for the plurality of plans are executable, and wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to select at least one modification content from among the modification contents for the plurality of plans determined to be executable as taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to predict an obstruction occurrence time, and wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to determine the modification content of the at least one plan such that the obstruction occurrence time is not included in an execution time of the at least one plan. (top and middle of page 6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Yoshikawa with wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to predict an obstruction occurrence time, and wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to determine the modification content of the at least one plan such that the obstruction occurrence time is not included in an execution time of the at least one plan as taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the §101 Rejection is overcome and if the claim is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to determine to modify an executor of the at least one plan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN D HUTCHINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8413. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Mon-Thur.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/ALAN D HUTCHINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights