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 .
DETAILED ACTION
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2025, 07/24/2025 & 03/20/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
FOREIGN PRIORITY
A claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C § 119 (a) - (d), which was contained in the Declaration and Power of Attorney filed on 02/13/2025 has been acknowledged. Acknowledgement of claimed foreign priority and receipt of priority documents is reflected in form PTO-326 Office Action Summary.
DOUBLE PATENTING
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of copending Application No. 19/106,058 in view of Gupta (U.S. Publication 2007/0022078). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented. See tabulation below for the claim analysis.
As to claims 1 & 8-9, instant application discloses an information processing device comprising a storage medium storing a computer-readable instruction and a processor coupled to the storage medium, the processor executing the computer-readable instruction to (Co-pending U.S. Publication – 19/106,058 - Claims 1 & 8): acquire a captured image obtained by capturing an image of the vicinity of a movement position of a moving object using a camera (Co-pending U.S. Publication – 19/106,058 - Claims 1 & 6); detect one or more targets included in the captured image and a spatial relationship between the one or more targets (Co-pending U.S. Publication – 19/106,058 - Claim 2);
19/106,058 is silent to add general knowledge information to at least any of the detected one or more targets or spatial relationship; and determine the movement position of the moving object on the basis of a result of addition of the general knowledge information.
However, Gupta discloses add general knowledge information to at least any of the detected one or more targets or spatial relationship ([0006, 0013, 0030-0032, 0036])
; and determine the movement position of the moving object on the basis of a result of addition of the general knowledge information. ([0042, 0045-0048])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify copending Application No. 19/106,058 to include the above limitations in order to improve the primary references candidate area evaluation using both observed environmental information and generally applicable concerning objects and their locations.
As to claims 2-7, these claims are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 of this title, 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 & 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Zhao et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0401835) in view of Wandzel et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0347046)
As to claims 1 & 8-9, Zhao discloses acquire an information processing device comprising a storage medium storing a computer-readable instruction and a processor coupled to the storage medium, the processor executing the computer-readable instruction to ([0010, 0017]): a captured image obtained by capturing an image of the vicinity of a movement position of a moving object using a camera ([0028]); detect one or more targets included in the captured image and a spatial relationship between the one or more targets ([0029-0030, 0037]); add general knowledge information to at least any of the detected one or more targets or spatial relationship ([0031, 0038, 0065, 0067]);
Zhao is silent to determine the movement position of the moving object on the basis of a result of addition of the general knowledge information.
However, Wandzel discloses determine the movement position of the moving object on the basis of a result of addition of the general knowledge information. ([0031, 0037, 0040-0041])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Zhao’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to improve the reliability of the robot’s navigation within the perceived environment.
As to claim 3, Zhao in view of Wandzel discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Zhao discloses wherein the processor detects the one or more targets from the captured image as objects in a scene graph, and detects the spatial relationship as a spatial relationship between the objects. ([0033, 0037-0040])
As to claim 4, Zhao in view of Wandzel discloses everything as disclosed in claim 3. In addition, Zhao discloses wherein the processor adds the general knowledge information to at least any of the one or more objects or spatial relationships in the scene graph. ([0065-0069])
As to claim 5, Zhao in view of Wandzel discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Wandzel discloses wherein the processor determines the movement position by specifying a position to which the moving object is able to move among the one or more targets with reference to the result of addition of the general knowledge information. ([0037, 0040-0041, 0081])
As to claim 6, Zhao in view of Wandzel discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Wandzel discloses wherein the processor determines the movement position by specifying a priority order of positions to which the moving object is able to move among the one or more targets with reference to the result of addition of the general knowledge information. ([0063, 0090-0091])
As to claim 7, Zhao in view of Wandzel discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Zhao discloses wherein the processor further causes the moving object to travel to the determined movement position. ([0040, 0046])
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0401835) in view of Wandzel et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0347046) as applied above further in view of Gupta (U.S. Publication 2007/0022078)
As to claim 2, Zhao in view of Wandzel discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the general knowledge information is information that defines in advance rules related to traveling of the moving object.
However, Gupta discloses wherein the general knowledge information is information that defines in advance rules related to traveling of the moving object. ([0006, 0047-0048])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Zhao in view of Wandzel’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to provide enhance environmental rules to determine where an autonomous robot should navigate in performing a task.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
