CTNF 19/118,313 CTNF 77010 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This action is in reply to the application filed on 3 April 2025 Claims 1-20are currently pending and have been examined. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 9 June 2025 and 9 September 2025 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDSs are hereby attached. Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because Figure 3 shows controller 110. However, the specification only refers to processor 110 (see for example [0061] of the instant application) and does not describe 110 as a controller. The examiner recommends amending the drawings to show a processor 110, or alternatively, amend the specification to refer to 110 as the controller . 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. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification describes processor 110, however the Figure 3 shows a controller 110 (see for example [0061] of the instant application). The examiner recommends amending the drawings to show a processor 110, or alternatively, amend the specification to refer to 110 as the controller . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites “generating a command for controlling one of two lanes not located at the center of the arbitrary area of the map to be used”. It is not clear how a server can control “one of two lanes”. The examiner believes that the controller controls the robot to travel the “one of two lanes”. Claims 10 has a similar limitation and is rejected for the same reason. Claim 5 recites “when it is determined that another robot besides the robot that has transmitted the request will also travel together in the arbitrary area, generating a command for controlling one of two lanes not located at the center of the arbitrary area of the map to be used”. Claim 5 depends from claim 4 which recites “when it is determined that the robot that has transmitted the request will travel alone in the arbitrary area, generating a command for controlling the robot to use one lane located at a center of the arbitrary area of the map.”. It is not clear how it can be determined that there is another robot besides the robot that has transmitted the request and also be determined that the robot is alone. Claims 10 has a similar limitation and is rejected from the same reason. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-3, 6-8, 11-12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Following the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 and MPEP § 2106, hereinafter 2019 Guidance), the claim(s) appear to recite at least one abstract idea, as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. Furthermore, the judicial exception(s) does/do not appear to be integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong II analysis below. Further still, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) as explained in the Step 2B analysis below. STEP 1: Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of matter. Claim 1 is directed toward a method of controlling a server and is therefore eligible for further analysis. Claim 6 is directed toward a server and is therefore eligible for further analysis. Claim 11 is directed toward a method of controlling a robot and is therefore eligible for further analysis. Claim 16 is directed toward a robot and is therefore eligible for further analysis. STEP 2A, PRONG I: Step 2A, prong I, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). Independent claim 6 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim(s) for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 6 recites: A server comprising: a controller configured to create a map where at least one robot is movable, and identify the created map as at least one area ; and a network interface configured to: receive, from the at least one robot, a request for a permit to enter an arbitrary area and information on a lane where the at least one robot is to move in the corresponding area; and transmit, to the robot that has transmitted the request, the permit to enter the arbitrary area and the information on the lane where the robot is to move in the corresponding area. The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “ create a map where at least one robot is movable, and identify the created map as at least one area.” steps encompass a human viewing a manufacturing are and creating a map of the manufacturing area. . 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”): Claim 6 recites: A server comprising: a controller configured to create a map where at least one robot is movable, and identify the created map as at least one area ; and a network interface configured to: receive, from the at least one robot, a request for a permit to enter an arbitrary area and information on a lane where the at least one robot is to move in the corresponding area; and transmit, to the robot that has transmitted the request, the permit to enter the arbitrary area and the information on the lane where the robot is to move in the corresponding area. 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 controller”, “a network interface”, “receive, from the at least one robot, a request for a permit to enter an arbitrary area and information on a lane where the at least one robot is to move in the corresponding area”, “and transmit, to the robot that has transmitted the request, the permit to enter the arbitrary area and the information on the lane where the robot is to move in the corresponding area” the examiner submits that these limitations 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 and do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. Specifically, the courts have held that merely reciting the works “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional limitations of “a controller” and “a network interface” are recited at a high level of generality and simply describes using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of “recieiving” and “transmitting”. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose computer (see instant application at least at [0080] and Figure 5). Further, the limitations of “receive, from the at least one robot, a request for a permit to enter an arbitrary area and information on a lane where the at least one robot is to move in the corresponding area”, “and transmit, to the robot that has transmitted the request, the permit to enter the arbitrary area and the information on the lane where the robot is to move in the corresponding area” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data gathering or data output) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See at least MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, these additional elements merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity. 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. STEP 2B: Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, the representative independent claim 6 does 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 elements of “a controller” and “a network interface” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or generic components (see [0080] and Figure 5 of the instant application). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer or generic components that are simply employed as a tool cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receive, from the at least one robot, a request for a permit to enter an arbitrary area and information on a lane where the at least one robot is to move in the corresponding area”, “and transmit, to the robot that has transmitted the request, the permit to enter the arbitrary area and the information on the lane where the robot is to move in the corresponding area”the examiner submits are insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible. Claims 1, 11 and 16 have similar recitations to claim 6 and the analysis above with respect to claim 6 also applies to claims 1, 11 and 16. Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 7-8, 12, and 17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of these dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process (determining, claims 3 and 8) and insignificant extra-solution activity (receiving, transmitting claims 2, 7, 12, 17). These limitations are considered mental process steps and additional steps that amount to necessary data output. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims are not patent eligible. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-12 and 16-17 are not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US-20220326715-A1, hereinafter "Kang") in view of Shin et al. (US-20190381903-A1, hereinafter “Shin”) . Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches a method for controlling a server the method comprising: creating a map where at least one robot is movable (see at least Kang Figure 2-4 and [0066] “ The map generation unit 211 may receive the usage environment information of the mobile robot 100 and generate a route map based on the usage environment information in S11. In this case, the usage environment information may be information on pre-established guidelines or structures. In other words, the usage environment information may be information about a work environment in which a logistics work is performed through the mobile robot 100, and may be information on a pre-constructed guideline or structure disposed on a route through which the mobile robot 100 moves. The map generating unit 211 may receive the use environment information and generate a route through which the mobile robot 100 may move. Here, the route may appear in a straight line as shown in FIG. 8A, and may appear in a curved shape as shown in FIG. 8B. The route map may be formed in any form, but will be described below with reference to the case where the route map is composed of a grid-shaped map for convenience .”); identifying the created map as at least one area (see at least Kang Figure 4 [0066] as cited above and [0068-0071] “More specifically, referring to FIG. 6, a normalization unit 212 normalizes the grid-shaped map according to a predetermined rule to generate a virtual map in S12. As described above, since the feature pattern of the intersection point needs to be extracted from the virtual map, an actual map should be converted according to a predetermined rule so that the feature pattern of the intersection point may be emphasized…[0071] The learning unit 213 generates an intersection point pattern recognition model of the mobile robot 100 with the sensor data of the virtual map and the mobile robot 100, including the extracted section point pattern as the learning data in S15. The learning unit 213 may generate an intersection point pattern classification criteria based on the intersection point pattern, and generate an intersection point pattern recognition model based on the classification criteria and sensor data. The learning unit 213 may learn an intersection point pattern recognition model based on machine learning…”); Kang does not explicitly teach: receiving, from the at least one robot, a request for a permit to enter an arbitrary area and information on a lane where the at least one robot is to move in the corresponding area; and transmitting, to the robot that has transmitted the request, the permit to enter the arbitrary area and the information on the lane where the robot is to move in the corresponding area. Shin teaches receiving, from the at least one robot, a request for a permit to enter an arbitrary area and information on a lane where the at least one robot is to move in the corresponding area (see at least Shin Figure 2, S10 “transmit entry request signal” [0110-0111] “The server 100 may receive an entry request signal for entering the charging lane 10 from the vehicle 200 which is driving in the general lane 20. In other words, the server 100 may receive an entry request signal from the general vehicle 200 or the electric vehicle 200, which is driving in the general lane 20. It has been described above that the entry request signal may be received through a 5G network, and thus a detailed description thereof will be omitted herein… When the entry request signal is received, the server 100 may transmit an entry permission signal to the vehicle 200 on the basis of at least one among vehicle information on the vehicle 200 and congestion in the charging lane 10.” See also [0096] wherein the vehicle can be any vehicle including a robot.); and transmitting, to the robot that has transmitted the request, the permit to enter the arbitrary area and the information on the lane where the robot is to move in the corresponding area (see at least Shin Figure 2 (S12) “transmit entry permission signal” [0110-0111] “The server 100 may receive an entry request signal for entering the charging lane 10 from the vehicle 200 which is driving in the general lane 20. In other words, the server 100 may receive an entry request signal from the general vehicle 200 or the electric vehicle 200, which is driving in the general lane 20. It has been described above that the entry request signal may be received through a 5G network, and thus a detailed description thereof will be omitted herein… When the entry request signal is received, the server 100 may transmit an entry permission signal to the vehicle 200 on the basis of at least one among vehicle information on the vehicle 200 and congestion in the charging lane 10.” See also [0096] wherein the vehicle can be any vehicle including a robot.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kang with the teaching of Shin, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Shin teaches this method efficiently manages vehicles amongst the lanes based on congestion (see at least Shin [0008]). Regarding claim 2 , the combination of Kang and Shin teach the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving location information and destination information from all robots using the map (see at least Kang Figure 1 and [0061] wherein the first and second mobile robot are communicating with the management server 200 “[0061] As described above, the first mobile robot AGV 1 or the second mobile robot AGV2 may communicate with the management server 200 with respect to the first information I1 or the second information I2 including the unique identifiers AGV1, AGV2, travel direction information, travel speed information, intersection point pattern information, spatial coordinate information (x,y), collision detection information, and the like, of the mobile robot 100. The moving direction information is information necessary for determining the direction of travel of the mobile robot 100, that is, the direction for moving from the current intersection point to the next intersection point, and the driving speed information may be the target moving speed required between the intersection point and the intersection point. The intersection point identifier may be a unique value capable of distinguishing each intersection point, for example, the first intersection point P1 and the second intersection point P2 in the drawing may be divided into different eigenvalues. The spatial coordinate information may be information indicating a location on a map of the mobile robot 100. The collision avoidance direction information may be information for determining the avoidance direction of the mobile robot having a low priority when the collision is detected, and the collision detection signal information may be a detection signal for a collision alarm in the course of an intersection point when a plurality of mobile robots move.” See also Shin [0112] “ The server 100 may receive vehicle information in real time from all vehicles 200 which are driving in the general lane 20 and the charging lane 10. The vehicle information may include various information on the vehicle 200. For example, the vehicle information may include type information indicating a type of the vehicle 200, state information indicating a state of the vehicle 200, position information indicating a position of the vehicle 200, speed information indicating a speed of the vehicle 200, and the like.”). Regarding claim 3 , the combination of Kang and Shin teach the method of claim 2, further comprising determining whether to permit the robot that has transmitted the request to enter the arbitrary area and the information on the lane where the robot is to move in the corresponding area, based on the received location information and destination information (see at least Shin [0111-0112] [0111] “When the entry request signal is received, the server 100 may transmit an entry permission signal to the vehicle 200 on the basis of at least one among vehicle information on the vehicle 200 and congestion in the charging lane 10 ….[0112] The server 100 may receive vehicle information in real time from all vehicles 200 which are driving in the general lane 20 and the charging lane 10. The vehicle information may include various information on the vehicle 200. For example, the vehicle information may include type information indicating a type of the vehicle 200, state information indicating a state of the vehicle 200, position information indicating a position of the vehicle 200, speed information indicating a speed of the vehicle 200, and the like. Further, when the vehicle 200 is the electric vehicle 200, the vehicle information may include battery information indicating a state of a battery, charging state information indicating whether the power reception coil 210 is activated, and the like. In addition to the above information, the vehicle information may include various information on the vehicle 200.” See also and [0121-0136] wherein the congestion in the destination (charging lane) is also a determination factor. For example Shin teaches in [0123-0124] “When the entry request signal is received from the target vehicle 200 (S110), the server 100 may identify congestion in the charging lane 10 and determine whether the identified congestion in the charging lane 10 is equal to or greater than reference congestion (S150) …When the charging lane 10 is already congested over a predetermined level, since the target vehicle 200 being allowed to enter the charging lane 10 may adversely affect traffic safety, in a situation in which the congestion in the charging lane 10 is relatively low, the server 100 may allow the target vehicle 200 to enter the charging lane 10. ”). Regarding claim 4 , the combination of Kang and Shin teach the method of claim 3, further comprising, when it is determined that the robot that has transmitted the request will travel alone in the arbitrary area, generating a command for controlling the robot to use one lane located at a center of the arbitrary area of the map ( The examiner notes that the combination of Kang and Shin teach that the lane (guideline) can be appropriately selected based on the design condition of the mobile robot and based spatial coordinate information (x,y) and collision detection information (Kang as cited below) and further determining the congestion of an area and selecting a lane based on the congestion (Shin as cited below) . Accordingly, it would be obvious to travel down the center of an area when the robot, vehicle is the only vehicle and collisions are not a concern, and further to drive down an area other than the center when there are additional vehicles when collisions are a concern. See at least Kang [0049], [0052] [0061-0062] which teaches that the server provides guidelines and/or controls the robot based on the design condition (e.g. size) of the mobile robot as well as to prevent collisions with other robots. For example Kang [0049] … “ The guideline MP may be formed in a continuous magnetic stripe form from a starting point to an ending point of the driving route, and the number, shape, width, etc. of the line of the guideline MP may be appropriately selected according to the design condition of the mobile robot 100. ” See also Kang [0052] “… The input unit 114 may be provided with a moving route to a work point or a destination point, target intersection point pattern information, collision avoidance information, and the like, from the management server 200. The input unit 114 may perform a bi-directional communication function with the management server 200 to provide the moving information of the mobile robot 100 to the management server 200. In this case, the moving information of the mobile robot 100 may include unique identifiers (AGV1, AGV2), travel direction information, travel speed information, intersection point pattern information, spatial coordinate information (x,y), collision detection information, and the like, of the mobile robot 100 . The information may be provided in both directions of the management server 200 and the mobile robot 100 by a communication protocol….” See also Kang [0061-0062] “The spatial coordinate information may be information indicating a location on a map of the mobile robot 100. The collision avoidance direction information may be information for determining the avoidance direction of the mobile robot having a low priority when the collision is detected, and the collision detection signal information may be a detection signal for a collision alarm in the course of an intersection point when a plurality of mobile robots move.” See also Shin [0110-0111] wherein the lane is determined based on congestion, e.g. the lane is determined based on more than one vehicle or robot. “The server 100 may receive an entry request signal for entering the charging lane 10 from the vehicle 200 which is driving in the general lane 20. In other words, the server 100 may receive an entry request signal from the general vehicle 200 or the electric vehicle 200, which is driving in the general lane 20. It has been described above that the entry request signal may be received through a 5G network, and thus a detailed description thereof will be omitted herein… When the entry request signal is received, the server 100 may transmit an entry permission signal to the vehicle 200 on the basis of at least one among vehicle information on the vehicle 200 and congestion in the charging lane 10 .” See also [0096] wherein the vehicle can be any vehicle including a robot.) Regarding claim 5 , the combination of Kang and Shin teach the method of claim 4, further comprising, when it is determined that another robot besides the robot that has transmitted the request will also travel together in the arbitrary area, generating a command for controlling one of two lanes not located at the center of the arbitrary area of the map to be used ( The examiner notes that the combination of Kang and Shin teach that the lane (guideline) can be appropriately selected based on the design condition of the mobile robot and based spatial coordinate information (x,y) and collision detection information (Kang as cited below) and further determining the congestion of an area and selecting a lane based on the congestion (Shin as cited below) . Accordingly, it would be obvious to travel down the center of an area when the robot, vehicle is the only vehicle and collisions are not a concern, and further to drive down an area other than the center when there are additional vehicles when collisions are a concern. See at least Kang [0049], [0052] [0061-0062] which teaches that the server provides guidelines and/or controls the robot based on the design condition (e.g. size) of the mobile robot as well as to prevent collisions with other robots. For example Kang [0049] … “ The guideline MP may be formed in a continuous magnetic stripe form from a starting point to an ending point of the driving route, and the number, shape, width, etc. of the line of the guideline MP may be appropriately selected according to the design condition of the mobile robot 100. ” See also Kang [0052] “… The input unit 114 may be provided with a moving route to a work point or a destination point, target intersection point pattern information, collision avoidance information, and the like, from the management server 200. The input unit 114 may perform a bi-directional communication function with the management server 200 to provide the moving information of the mobile robot 100 to the management server 200. In this case, the moving information of the mobile robot 100 may include unique identifiers (AGV1, AGV2), travel direction information, travel speed information, intersection point pattern information, spatial coordinate information (x,y), collision detection information, and the like, of the mobile robot 100 . The information may be provided in both directions of the management server 200 and the mobile robot 100 by a communication protocol….” See also Kang [0061-0062] “The spatial coordinate information may be information indicating a location on a map of the mobile robot 100. The collision avoidance direction information may be information for determining the avoidance direction of the mobile robot having a low priority when the collision is detected, and the collision detection signal information may be a detection signal for a collision alarm in the course of an intersection point when a plurality of mobile robots move.” See also Shin [0110-0111] wherein the lane is determined based on congestion, e.g. the lane is determined based on more than one vehicle or robot. “The server 100 may receive an entry request signal for entering the charging lane 10 from the vehicle 200 which is driving in the general lane 20. In other words, the server 100 may receive an entry request signal from the general vehicle 200 or the electric vehicle 200, which is driving in the general lane 20. It has been described above that the entry request signal may be received through a 5G network, and thus a detailed description thereof will be omitted herein… When the entry request signal is received, the server 100 may transmit an entry permission signal to the vehicle 200 on the basis of at least one among vehicle information on the vehicle 200 and congestion in the charging lane 10 .” See also [0096] wherein the vehicle can be any vehicle including a robot.) . Claims 6, 11, and 16 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis , as claim 1, above. The examiner notes that the combination of Kang and Shin teaches a server including a controller and a network interface (see at least Kang Figure 1, server 200 with processor 202 and communication module 203) and a robot in communication with a server and including with a controller and network interface (see at least Kang Figure 1, robot 100, AGV1 in communication with server 200, and including a control unit 113). Claims 7, 12, and 17 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis , as claim 2, above. Claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis , as claim 3, above. Claims 9, 13 and 18 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis , as claim 4, above. Claims 10, 14 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis , as claim 5, above. Regarding claims 15 and 20, the combination of Kang and Shin teach that the state of the arbitrary area varies based on the number of robots to simultaneously travel or stop in the arbitrary area (see citations as provided for claims 4 and 5 above, for example, see at least Kang for possible collision detection, see Shin regarding congestion) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu (US-20210078175-A1) is cited for showing reserving a cell along a path and traveling along the path when there is a single robot in the lane. However, Liu further teaches when there is another vehicle that will intersect or occupy the travel path, providing a further route (i.e. map) for the robot to travel to avoid a collision. This is relevant to claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18 and 19. WO-2024021758-A1 to Jia has a similar teaching and is cited for the same reason. Tran (US-10717528-B1) is cited showing utilizing additional lanes when the are multiple robots to avoid collision and provide efficiency. Yoon (US-20240069571-A1) teaches controlling robots within a narrow space and providing authorization to enter a space based on the number of robots and relative priority. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST. 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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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. /JENNIFER M ANDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 2 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 3 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 4 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 5 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 6 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 7 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 8 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 9 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 10 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 11 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 12 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 13 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 14 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 15 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 16 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 17 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 18 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 19 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 20 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 21 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 22 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 23 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/118,313 Page 24 Art Unit: 3662
Prosecution Insights