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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks bottom of page 7 and top of page 8, filed 6/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1,11 & 17 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Julian et al (US 20190025853 A1) in view of Clarke et al (US11015324).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later 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 1-2 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julian et al (US20190025853A1) in view of Clarke et al (US11015324).
A method for exploring a real-world environment (¶0005 “real-world driving situations”) using a mobile robot (¶0003 “Driving a moveable object…vehicle or a robot”) platform, the method comprising the steps of:
mapping the real-world environment at a first time (¶0008 “determining a path of travel of a vehicle from a first time to a second time…and mapping the determined path of travel”), to generate a first representation of the real-world environment at the first time (¶0042 “The system may then map the determined future path of travel to the perspective of the camera view at time t0”; ¶0046 “pin marker 202 indicates the location of an ego-car at a first time, time t0”) based on data obtained from at least one sensor associated with the mobile robot platform (¶0030 “up-to-the-moment data, such as a recently captured video frame data, and may additionally have access to a history or sensor data. Based on sensor data”; ¶0041 2nd sentence), and identifying an initial geographic location of an object (0007; 0025) in the first representation of the real-world environment (fig. 2 “pin marker 202 indicates the location of an ego-car at a first time, time t0”, & fig. 4 “pin marker 402 indicates the location of an ego-car at a first time, time t0”);
mapping the real-world environment at a second time (¶0008 “first time to a second time, wherein the second time is later than the first time; and mapping the determined path of travel”; ¶0046 “FIG. 2 illustrates an example of mapping a path of travel…pin marker 204 indicates the location of the ego-car at time t1 (t0+1 second). The pin marker 206 indicates the location of the ego-car at time t2 (t0+2 seconds)”; similarly see ¶0050), later than the first time, to generate a second representation of the real-world environment at the second time (¶0046 “pin marker 204 indicates the location of the ego-car at time t1 (t0+1 second). The pin marker 206 indicates the location of the ego-car at time t2 (t0+2 seconds)”) based on data obtained from the at least one sensor associated with the mobile robot platform (¶0030 “up-to-the-moment data, such as a recently captured video frame data, and may additionally have access to a history or sensor data. Based on sensor data”; ¶0041 2nd sentence), and identifying a new geographic location of the object in the second representation of the real-world environment (fig. 2 “pin marker 204 indicates the location of the ego-car at time t1 (t0+1 second)”, & fig. 4 “pin marker 404 indicates the location of the ego-car at time t1 (t0+1 second)”);
determining a difference between the initial geographic location of the object and the new geographic location of the object (¶0046 “pin marker 202…indicates the location of an ego-car at a first time, time t0. The pin marker 204 indicates the location of the ego-car at time t1 (t0+1 second)” this shows difference in location); and
using a manipulator associated with the mobile robot platform to move the object to the initial geographic location in the real-world environment when it is determined that the initial geographic location of the object differs from the new geographic location of the object.
Julian does not disclose using a manipulator associated with the mobile robot platform to move the object to the initial geographic location in the real-world environment when it is determined that the initial geographic location of the object differs from the new geographic location of the object.
Clarke discloses a real world environment (“mining and construction” environment col. 1 ll 20) using a manipulator (col. 12 ll 22-23 “manipulator 29…manipulator platform 37”) associated with the mobile robot platform (“robot” col. 12 ll 58 to col. 13 ll 4) to move the object (“manipulator to move an auxiliary tool”) to the initial geographic location (“first location”) in the real-world environment when it is determined that the initial geographic location of the object differs (claim 1 “different locations within a mine including from a first location away from the earth moving equipment with wear member to a second location”) from the new geographic location (“second location”) of the object (“claim 1”).
At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in this art to upgrade the method and device of Julian with the object manipulator and location differentiation of Clarke. A motivation for this would be to help differentiate various locations for delivery. This USC 103 commination follows the KSR case law rationale A; combining prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 2 both Julian in view of Clarke discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein mapping the real-world environment at the first time and mapping the real-world environment at the second time, comprises identifying at least one of:
a surface within the real-world environment on which the object is placed (both Julian & Clarke teach surfaces where an object could be dropped off); and
a storage receptacle in the real-world environment containing the object (Clarke fig. 7 at 37).
Claim 8 Julian discloses the method according to claim 1, comprising storing at least the first representation of the real-world environment in storage associated with the mobile robot platform (¶0030 “a history or sensor data”, “memory storage 114”, ¶0075 “a system may store all of the actual and predicted paths”).
Claims 11, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julian et al (US20190025853A1) in view of Clarke et al (US11015324).
A system for exploring a real-world environment (¶0005 “real-world driving situations”), the system comprising:
at least one sensor to capture information associated with the real-world environment (¶0030 “sensor measurements”, “sensor data”);
a manipulator to move an object in the real-world environment; and
at least one processor arranged to (¶0009 “at least one processor coupled to the memory”):
map the real-world environment at a first time (¶0008 “first time”), to generate a first representation of the real-world environment at the first time (e.g., “pin marker 202”) based on data obtained from the at least one sensor (¶0030 “sensor measurements”, “sensor data”), and identify an initial geographic location of the object in the first representation of the real-world environment (figures 2 & 4);
map the real-world environment at a second time (¶0008 “second time”), later than the first time, to generate a second representation of the real-world environment at the second time (e.g., “pin marker 204”) based on data obtained from the at least one sensor (¶0030 “sensor measurements”, “sensor data”), and identify a new geographic location of the object in the second representation of the real-world environment (figures 2 & 4);
determine a difference between the initial geographic location of the object and the new geographic location of the object (¶0046 “pin marker 202…indicates the location of an ego-car at a first time, time t0. The pin marker 204 indicates the location of the ego-car at time t1 (t0+1 second)”); and
control the manipulator to move the object to the initial geographic location in the real-world environment when it is determined the initial geographic location of the object differs from the new geographic location of the object.
Julian does not disclose using a manipulator associated with the mobile robot platform to move the object to the initial geographic location in the real-world environment when it is determined that the initial geographic location of the object differs from the new geographic location of the object.
Clarke discloses a real world environment (“mining and construction” environment col. 1 ll 20) using a manipulator (col. 12 ll 22-23 “manipulator 29…manipulator platform 37”) associated with the mobile robot platform (“robot” col. 12 ll 58 to col. 13 ll 4) to move the object (“manipulator to move an auxiliary tool”) to the initial geographic location (“first location”) in the real-world environment when it is determined that the initial geographic location of the object differs (claim 1 “different locations within a mine including from a first location away from the earth moving equipment with wear member to a second location”) from the new geographic location (“second location”) of the object (“claim 1”).
At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in this art to upgrade the method and device of Julian with the object manipulator and location differentiation of Clarke. A motivation for this would be to help differentiate various locations for delivery. This USC 103 commination follows the KSR case law rationale A; combining prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 13 Julian discloses the system according to claim 11, comprising storage for storing (fig. 1, “memory storage 114”) at least the first representation of the real-world environment.
Claim 14 Julian discloses the system according to claim 11 , wherein the manipulator comprises a robotic system (¶0033, “factory robots, humanoid robots, and the like”) for manipulating the object.
Claim 15 Julian discloses the system according to claim 11, wherein the at least one sensor for capturing information associated with the real-world environment comprises at least one of:
a camera unit (102, 104);
a time of flight sensor unit;
an array distance sensor unit; and
an inertial measuring unit (inertial sensors 106).
Claim 16 Julian discloses the system according to claim 11, wherein the at least one sensor is a moveable sensor (cameras & inertial unit in fig. 1) configured to scan the real-world environment to increase the field-of-view of the at least one sensor (¶0087 “camera field of view (FOV)”).
Claim 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julian et al (US20190025853A1) in view of Clarke et al (US11015324).
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (¶0011 “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”) comprising a set of computer-readable instructions stored thereon which, when executed by at least one processor (¶0011 “The program code is executed by a processor”) are arranged to control a mobile robot platform to explore a real-world environment (¶0011 “having program code recorded thereon for mapping a determined path”), wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to:
map the real-world environment at a first time (¶0008 “first time”), to generate a first representation of the real-world environment at the first time (e.g., “pin marker 202”) based on data obtained from at least one sensor associated with the mobile robot platform (¶0030 “sensor measurements”, “sensor data”), and identifying an initial geographic location of an object in the first representation of the real-world environment (figures 2 & 4);
map the real-world environment at a second time (¶0008 “second time”), later than the first time, to generate a second representation of the real-world environment at the second time (e.g., “pin marker 204”) based on data obtained from the at least one sensor associated with the mobile robot platform (¶0030 “sensor measurements”, “sensor data”), and identifying a new geographic location of the object in the second representation of the real-world environment (figures 2 & 4);
determine a difference between the initial geographic location of the object and the new geographic location of the object (¶0046 “pin marker 202…indicates the location of an ego-car at a first time, time t0. The pin marker 204 indicates the location of the ego-car at time t1 (t0+1 second)”); and
use a manipulator associated with the mobile robot platform to move the object to the initial geographic location in the real-world environment when it is determined that the initial geographic location of the object differs from the new geographic location of the object.
Julian does not disclose using a manipulator associated with the mobile robot platform to move the object to the initial geographic location in the real-world environment when it is determined that the initial geographic location of the object differs from the new geographic location of the object.
Clarke discloses a real world environment (“mining and construction” environment col. 1 ll 20) using a manipulator (col. 12 ll 22-23 “manipulator 29…manipulator platform 37”) associated with the mobile robot platform (“robot” col. 12 ll 58 to col. 13 ll 4) to move the object (“manipulator to move an auxiliary tool”) to the initial geographic location (“first location”) in the real-world environment when it is determined that the initial geographic location of the object differs (claim 1 “different locations within a mine including from a first location away from the earth moving equipment with wear member to a second location”) from the new geographic location (“second location”) of the object (“claim 1”).
At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in this art to upgrade the method and device of Julian with the object manipulator and location differentiation of Clarke. A motivation for this would be to help differentiate various locations for delivery. This USC 103 commination follows the KSR case law rationale A; combining prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 9-10 & 12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
MICHAEL C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights