DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action drafted on the merits of the subject application. Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1-16 are rejected as cited below.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “GUIDANCE ROBOT AND METHOD FOR IMPLEMENTING SURVEILLANCE FUNCTION BASED ON DETERMINED TRAVELING PATH.”
Examiner note regarding 35 USC § 101
Examiner finds that while the independent claims contain at least one judicial exception (e.g. mental process of determining traveling path based on received information), the step of executing a surveillance mode by activation of a camera cannot be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the independent claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception by providing vehicle control.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Traveling-enabling unit (Claims 1, 4)
Sensing unit (Claims 1, 9)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Examiner will interpret a traveling-enabling unit per ¶ [0067] of Applicant specification “the traveling-enabling unit 130 may be configured to include a plurality of wheels and a drive motor.” Examiner will interpret a sensing unit per ¶ [0074] of Applicant specification “the sensing unit 140 may include at least one of the following sensors: a proximity sensor 141, an illumination sensor, a touch sensor, an acceleration sensor, a magnetic sensor, a G-sensor, a gyroscope sensor, a motion sensor, an RGB sensor, an infrared (IR) sensor, a finger scan sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, an optical sensor (e.g., refer to the camera 121), a microphone, a battery gauge, an environment sensor (e.g., a barometer, a hygrometer, a thermometer, a radiation detection sensor, a heat detection sensor, a gas detection sensor, or a similar sensor), or a chemical sensor (e.g., an electronic nose, a health care sensor, a biometric sensor, or a similar sensor).”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1 and 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)2 as being anticipated by Deyle et al. (US Pub. 2020/0050206 A1; hereafter Deyle 1).
Regarding claim 1, Deyle 1 teaches:
A guidance robot (robot 100) comprising:
a camera that, when activated, captures an image of the surroundings of the guidance robot (one or more cameras 722);
a traveling-enabling unit that moves the guidance robot (“navigation system 710” and at least ¶ [0104] “The navigation system can also include wheels, rollers, and the like configured to enable the robot to smoothly move. The navigation system can move the robot in a number of directions, for instance, forwards, backwards, or sideways.”);
a sensing unit that collects state information of the guidance robot (sensor array 612); and
a processor that is electrically connected to the camera, the traveling-enabling unit, and the sensing unit (At least ¶ [0103] “the robot 100 can include one or more hardware processors or controllers configured to perform various functionalities described herein.”),
wherein the processor activates the camera by executing a surveillance move (At least ¶ [0119] “For instance, the security system can configure the robot to investigation a suspicious sound, to obstruct the movement of an unidentified individual, or patrol a portion of a building. The security system can instruct other components of the robot during the performance of security operations, for instance by capturing video of an unidentified user using the cameras 722.”), receives the state information of the guidance robot while the guidance robot travels within a surveillance area in the surveillance mode (At least ¶ [0375] “The diagnostic information 3215 can includes an identity of the robot 100A, a battery level of the robot (7%), a status of the robot (“Obstructed”), a function being performed by the robot (“Patrolling”), any security events flagged by the robot (none), and a connectivity status (“Connected”).”), and determines a traveling path within the surveillance area based on the received state information of the guidance robot (At least ¶ [0134] “a route is selected based on a proximity to a recharge station or based on an amount of available power to the robot.”).
Regarding claim 3, Deyle 1 teaches The guidance robot of claim 1, wherein the state information of the guidance robot includes at least one of the following: the remaining battery charge of the guidance robot, the estimated time required to monitor the entire surveillance area, and the presence of another collaborative guidance robot (At least ¶ [0375] “The diagnostic information 3215 can includes an identity of the robot 100A, a battery level of the robot (7%) …”).
Regarding claim 4, Deyle 1 teaches:
The guidance robot of claim 3, wherein the processor executes a power-saving mode based on the remaining battery charge of the guidance robot, moves the guidance robot to a specific location within the surveillance area by controlling the traveling-enabling unit when executing the power-saving mode, and thus monitors the surveillance area (At least ¶ [0377] “for a robot that is low on power, the human operator can instruct the robot to return to a docking station to recharge, and for detected security violations, the human operator can manually control a robot in order to monitor the security violation.”), and,
wherein the specific location varies depending on situational information collected in the surveillance area (At least ¶ [0105] “Navigation instructions can include an end location and can determine a route from a current location of the robot to the end location, for instance by detecting obstacles and/or paths from the current location to the end location …” The detection of obstacle in analogous to “situational information collected”.).
Regarding claim 5, Deyle 1 teaches The guidance robot of claim 1, wherein the processor recognizes the occurrence of a pre-established surveillance event while the guidance robot travels within the surveillance area (At least ¶ [0136] “While patrolling, the robot 100 can identify suspicious activity, can identify individuals or objects in proximity of the patrol route, and can identify a status of objects or systems along the patrol route. For instance, the robot can identifying suspicious sounds or motion, can determine a location of the identified sounds or motion, and can report the sounds or motion to an external entity (such as the central system 210 or security personnel 250).”), performs an operation corresponding to the recognized surveillance event (At least ¶ [0137] “the robot 100 can perform one or more security operations in response to identifying suspicious activity or a security threat.”), and then resumes monitoring the surveillance area (At least ¶ [0138] “After the security incident has been resolved (e.g., the individual has left or been apprehended), the robot can continue with the patrol, or can return to a charging station.”).
Regarding claim 6, Deyle 1 teaches The guidance robot of claim 5, wherein the pre-established surveillance event is a situational context associated with at least one of the following: visitor condition surveillance, visitor surveillance for epidemic prevention, protected area surveillance, or in- building condition surveillance (At least ¶ [0137] “An individual is identified 905 in proximity to the path, and the security restrictions associated with the location of the individual are determined 910. For instance, the area can be restricted to individuals with particular security credentials, or can be off-limits for all individuals (for instance, during nighttime hours).” and [0167] “security anomalies can be detected using cameras of the robot 100 or of a security system 230. For instance, a security anomaly can be detected if the robot detects an individual at a time or place where no individuals are expected to be present, if the robot identifies an individual that is blacklisted or is otherwise not authorized to be a particular location …” Detecting an individual at a place which is off-limits is analogous to protected area surveillance and in-building condition surveillance.).
Regarding claim 7, Deyle 1 teaches The guidance robot of claim 6, wherein the processor computes a POI location for performing an operation corresponding to the recognized surveillance event based on a location where the situational context occurs (At least ¶ [0136] “For instance, the robot can identifying suspicious sounds or motion, can determine a location of the identified sounds or motion …”) and establishes the next traveling path based on the computed POI location and the current location of the guidance robot (At least ¶ [0138] “In the event that the individual is not authorized to be in the location, the robot can perform 920 a security action. For example, the robot can alert security personnel, follow and monitor the individual, emit a siren, obstruct the movement of the individual, and the like.” The robot 100 following an unauthorized individual in response to a suspicious sound is an example of establishing the next travel path (i.e. a path following the unauthorized individual) based on a computed POI (i.e. location of identified sounds or motion).).
Regarding claim 8, Deyle 1 teaches:
The guidance robot of claim 6, further comprising:
a touchscreen that displays information associated with the recognized surveillance event (At least ¶ [0220] “robot's touchscreen display …”),
wherein the processor is electrically connected to the touchscreen and, through the touchscreen, requests a feedback response to an operation corresponding to the recognized surveillance event (At least ¶ [0345] “the candidate routes can be overlaid onto a displayed map, such as the accessed map of the building floor. The human operator can provide feedback on the candidate route and/or candidate route modifications, and the robot can navigate 2835 a route based on the feedback from the user.” A route modification is analogous to an operation corresponding to a recognized surveillance event.).
Regarding claim 9, Deyle 1 teaches:
The guidance robot of claim 1, wherein the sensing unit collects state information of a traveling space (At least ¶ [0215] “The robot 100 may detect fires, for instance visually using a camera 722, an IR sensors, a temperature sensor, or any other suitable measuring system.”), and
wherein the processor determines the next traveling direction based on the collected state information of the traveling space while the guidance robot travels within the surveillance area in the surveillance mode, identifies a surveillance target corresponding to the state information of the traveling space, which is collected while the guidance robot travels in the determined traveling direction, and performs a corresponding operation associated with the identified surveillance target (At least ¶ [0215] “In response, the robot can attempt to distinguish the fire, for instance using an on-board fire extinguisher, can flag the fire for security personnel to handle, can flag the fire to the central system 210, can trigger a fire alarm, can trigger a building's sprinkler systems, or can call the fire department or other emergency services.”).
Regarding claim 10, Deyle 1 teaches The guidance robot of claim 9, wherein the state information of the traveling space is state data including at least one of the following: temperature data, slip data, or inclination data of the traveling space (At least ¶ [0162] “the robot can determine that the temperature of a room is below a threshold value …”).
Regarding claim 11, Deyle 1 teaches The guidance robot of claim 10, wherein the next traveling direction of the guidance robot is determined to be a direction associated with a point where an abnormality is detected as a result of analyzing the state data of the traveling space (At least ¶ [0281] “the robot 100 can use a semantic map that includes aggregated or historical signal information to identify locations with abnormally high or low temperatures (which may indicate a security violation, a broken furnace or air conditioning unit, an open or broken window, or the like), to identify locations with dangerous levels of carbon monoxide, to identify areas with abnormally high levels of network activity (which may indicate a security violation), or to identify any other signals that vary from historical averages or ranges. In such embodiments, the robot can perform a security operation (for instance, investigating a cause of the abnormal signal values …” Investigating the cause of an abnormal signal value involves the robot 100 traveling to the site of the abnormality (i.e. determining a direction of travel to be in the direction associated with the abnormality).).
Regarding claim 12, Deyle 1 teaches:
The guidance robot of claim 11, wherein the processor establishes a candidate group of POIs for identifying the surveillance target based on the point where the abnormality is detected, and selects one with a high expected abnormality detection weight, as a search POI, from the established candidate group of POIs (At least ¶ [0364] “if the captured image is indicative of a first type of security violation, the robot can perform a security operation without human operator intervention or input. Likewise, if the captured image is indicative of a second type of security violation (for instance, a security violation of higher severity or risk than the first type of security violation), the robot can provide the captured image to a human operator for review (for instance, via a security interface of a remote terminal).” Severity is analogous to the claimed detection weight.), and
wherein, after the guidance robot travels to the search POI, the processor cumulatively collects the state information of the traveling space and detects the next search POI based on the result of the collection (At least ¶ [0381] “For example, if the embodiment of FIG. 33, the robot may patrol a route adjacent to the geofence boundary, may capture images of the people within the boundary in order to determine if any unauthorized personnel are present, and may scan for RFID badges of the people within the boundary, but will not enter the boundary unless a subsequent instruction is received from a human operator to enter the area.”).
Regarding claim 13, Deyle 1 teaches The guidance robot of claim 12, wherein at least one of the following is located outside the surveillance area: the search POI or the next search POI (At least ¶ [0381] “the geofence 3315 is an exclusion geofence. This geofence may be drawn by a human operator, for instance in response to detecting the presence of several people within the portion of the building floor corresponding to the geofence in order to avoid disturbing the people to the extent possible. The robot 100, in response to receiving the exclusion geofence, will autonomously avoid entering the portion of the building floor corresponding to the exclusion geofence boundary.”).
Regarding claim 14, Deyle 1 teaches:
The guidance robot of claim 9, further comprising:
a touchscreen on which to display information associated with a corresponding operation associated with the identified surveillance target (At least ¶ [0220] “robot's touchscreen display …”).
Regarding claim 15, Deyle 1 teaches:
The guidance robot of claim 14, further comprising:
a communication unit (communication interface 714),
wherein the processor verifies that there is no feedback response to the displayed information within a predetermined time period, and transmits the result of identifying the surveillance target and a corresponding operation associated with the identified surveillance target to a predetermined terminal of a manager through the communication unit (At least ¶ [0064] “the robot interface can receive data from the one or more robots 100 via the communication interface 310 for display on the user interface 312.” and ¶ [0108] “the robot 100 can choose to transmit information via the communication interface 714 based on a communicative status of the robot.” and ¶ [0212] “the robot 100 can enable a user within a proximity of the robot to interact with security personnel 250 or an operator of the robot. For instance, the robot can display real-time video of the operator or security personnel to the individual, and/or can transmit audio communications between the individual and the operation or security personnel. Doing so beneficially enables the individual to speak with a human associated with the robot, for instance in order to request authorization for access to a particular area, to authenticate the individual's credentials, or to enable the individual to request help or assistance.”).
Claim 16 recites a method executed by the guidance robot presented in claim 1, thus is rejected
on the same basis.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deyle 1 in view of Deyle et al.
(US Pub. 2021/0046650 A1; hereafter Deyle 2).
Regarding claim 2, Deyle 1 teaches The guidance robot of claim 1.
Deyle 1 does not teach wherein the processor determines the traveling path in such a manner as to monitor the entire surveillance area, based on the field of view of the camera.
However, Deyle 2, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the processor determines the traveling path in such a manner as to monitor the entire surveillance area, based on the field of view of the camera (At least ¶ [0373] “the mobile robot 3105 conducts an initial sweep in which the mobile robot 3105 quickly navigates around the entire environment 3100 to perform a preliminary scan for signals from surveillance devices and to determine if there are areas within the environment 3100 in which strong signals are detected. …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Deyle 1 with Deyle 2. This modification would have been obvious as both Deyle 1 and Deyle 2 contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (mobile robot security systems) and Deyle 1 ¶ [0005] notes that “The robot can patrol routes within a building (such as a workplace, store, or warehouse), and can identify suspicious activity or individuals, detect violations of security policies, and detect security anomalies.” Introducing Deyle 2 to the Deyle 1 system helps further identify or detect security anomalies. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a robot on patrol would need to patrol the entire security area in order to properly identify or detect all security anomalies. A user of the Deyle 1 system may be motivated to implement the thorough navigation tactics of Deyle 2 in order to ensure the entire security area is patrolled, thus increasing the efficiency and precision of the Deyle 1 system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM EST.
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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights