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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 19/134,926 filed on 06/02/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Jeffrey Chalhoub.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 2nd, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
“1406”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“502”,
“704”,
“1200”,
“1504”.
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. 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-12, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pack (CA 2928262 A1) in view of Patron (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0202770 A1) in further view of Galluzzo (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0316786 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Pack teaches:
A computer-implemented method to recover travel of a service robot, the method comprising:, (See (Pack: 3rd-13th, 203rd-204th, and 283rd-287th paragraphs))
detecting a first obstacle in a first travel path to a destination of the service robot; performing an orientation operation to align a camera of the service robot with the first obstacle; capturing an image of the first obstacle;, (See (Pack: 110th-119th, 133rd-137th, 139th-152nd, and 202nd paragraphs))
Pack does not teach but Patron teaches:
processing the image to identify an obstacle type of the first obstacle;, (See (Patron: Detailed Description – 119th, 155th-158th, and 485th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pack with these above aforementioned teachings from Patron in order to create a safe service robot recovery system from a blocked path. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Pack’s mobile robot system with Patron’s sidewalk messaging system of an autonomous robot in order to process an image taken by a service robot to identify an obstacle type. Combining Pack and Patron would thus provide a safe “method, apparatus, and system of sidewalk messaging of an autonomous robot.” (Pack: Field of Technology – 3rd paragraph)
Pack in view of Patron does not teach but Galluzzo teaches:
and based on an identification of the first obstacle as a person obstacle type, generating a communication requesting assistance., (See (Galluzzo: Detailed Description – 125th-127th, 145th, 148th, and 181st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pack in view of Patron with these above aforementioned teachings from Galluzzo in order to create a user-friendly service robot recovery system from a blocked path. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Pack’s mobile robot system with Galluzzo’s autonomous mobile robotic systems and methods for picking and put-away in order to generate a communication requesting assistance for an obstacle to be removed from a service robot’s travel path. Combining Pack and Galluzzo would thus “dynamically respond to changes in pick or put-away volume, in addition to changes in the available manual labor, providing systems and methods flexible enough to work side-by-side with human pick workers. Moreover, the presently disclosed systems and methods may improve the accuracy and efficiency of that automation within a logistics facility.” (Galluzzo: Summary – 9th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 2:
Pack in view of Patron in further view of Galluzzo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Pack does not teach but Galluzzo teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the communication is a request for the first obstacle to be removed from the first travel path., (See (Galluzzo: Detailed Description – 125th-127th, 145th, 148th, and 181st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pack with these above aforementioned teachings from Galluzzo in order to create a user-friendly service robot recovery system from a blocked path. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Pack’s mobile robot system with Galluzzo’s autonomous mobile robotic systems and methods for picking and put-away in order to generate a communication requesting assistance for an obstacle to be removed from a service robot’s travel path. Combining Pack and Galluzzo would thus “dynamically respond to changes in pick or put-away volume, in addition to changes in the available manual labor, providing systems and methods flexible enough to work side-by-side with human pick workers. Moreover, the presently disclosed systems and methods may improve the accuracy and efficiency of that automation within a logistics facility.” (Galluzzo: Summary – 9th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 3:
Pack in view of Patron in further view of Galluzzo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Pack does not teach but Patron teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the communication is a request directed at the first obstacle that asks the first obstacle to move out of the first travel path., (See (Patron: Detailed Description – 504th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pack with these above aforementioned teachings from Patron in order to create a safe service robot recovery system from a blocked path. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Pack’s mobile robot system with Patron’s sidewalk messaging system of an autonomous robot in order to process an image taken by a service robot to identify an obstacle type. Combining Pack and Patron would thus provide a safe “method, apparatus, and system of sidewalk messaging of an autonomous robot.” (Pack: Field of Technology – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 4:
Pack in view of Patron in further view of Galluzzo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Pack does not teach but Patron teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the communication is an audible communication generated at a speaker system of the service robot., (See (Patron: Detailed Description – 120th-123rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pack with these above aforementioned teachings from Patron in order to create a safe service robot recovery system from a blocked path. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Pack’s mobile robot system with Patron’s sidewalk messaging system of an autonomous robot in order to process an image taken by a service robot to identify an obstacle type. Combining Pack and Patron would thus provide a safe “method, apparatus, and system of sidewalk messaging of an autonomous robot.” (Pack: Field of Technology – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 5:
Pack in view of Patron in further view of Galluzzo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Pack further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the service robot is in a first orientation in which the camera of the service robot is unaligned with the first obstacle, and performing the orientation operation responsive to the determination that the service robot is in the first orientation, the orientation operation to reorient the service robot from the first orientation to a second orientation in which the camera of the service robot is aligned with the first obstacle., (See (Pack: 4th, 110th-119th, 133rd-137th, 139th-152nd, and 202nd paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 6:
Pack in view of Patron in further view of Galluzzo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Pack further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the performing of the orientation operation comprises: calculating a yaw angle orientation based on a current position of the service robot; and rotating the service robot into a position in which the camera of the service robot is aligned with the first obstacle., (See (Pack: 4th, 110th-119th, 133rd-137th, 139th-152nd, 172nd, and 202nd paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 7:
Pack in view of Patron in further view of Galluzzo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Pack further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: responsive to the detection of the first obstacle in the first travel path of the service robot, initiating travel on a second travel path to the destination; detecting a second obstacle in the second travel path of the service robot; and responsive to detecting the second obstacle,, (See (Pack: 123rd-131st, 160th, 166th-167th, 188th-190th, and 264th-270th paragraphs))
[…] performing the orientation operation to align the camera of the service robot with the first obstacle., (See (Pack: 4th, 110th-119th, 133rd-137th, 139th-152nd, and 202nd paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 10:
Pack in view of Patron in further view of Galluzzo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Pack further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the processing of the image comprises performing a depth estimate to identify the first obstacle as a person., (See (Pack: 119th-121st, 135th-144th, 157th-159th, and 202nd-203rd paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 11:
Pack in view of Patron in further view of Galluzzo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Pack further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting of the first obstacle is performed using a LiDAR of the service robot., (See (Pack: 25th, 119th, and 132nd paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 12:
Pack in view of Patron in further view of Galluzzo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Pack further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting a plurality of obstacles in the first travel path to the destination of the service robot; performing the orientation operation to align the camera of the service robot with the plurality of obstacles; capturing the image, using the camera of the service robot, to include the plurality of obstacles;, (See (Pack: 110th-119th, 133rd-137th, 139th-152nd, and 202nd paragraphs))
Pack does not teach but Patron teaches:
[…] processing the image to identify a respective obstacle type for each of the plurality of obstacles, based on the identification of at least one of the plurality of obstacles as being of the person obstacle type; […], (See (Patron: Detailed Description – 119th, 155th-158th, and 485th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pack with these above aforementioned teachings from Patron in order to create a safe service robot recovery system from a blocked path. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Pack’s mobile robot system with Patron’s sidewalk messaging system of an autonomous robot in order to process an image taken by a service robot to identify an obstacle type. Combining Pack and Patron would thus provide a safe “method, apparatus, and system of sidewalk messaging of an autonomous robot.” (Pack: Field of Technology – 3rd paragraph)
Pack in view of Patron does not teach but Galluzzo teaches:
[…] and generating a communication requesting assistance with respect to removal of at least one of the plurality of obstacles from the first travel path., (See (Galluzzo: Detailed Description – 125th-127th, 145th, 148th, and 181st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pack in view of Patron with these above aforementioned teachings from Galluzzo in order to create a user-friendly service robot recovery system from a blocked path. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Pack’s mobile robot system with Galluzzo’s autonomous mobile robotic systems and methods for picking and put-away in order to generate a communication requesting assistance for an obstacle to be removed from a service robot’s travel path. Combining Pack and Galluzzo would thus “dynamically respond to changes in pick or put-away volume, in addition to changes in the available manual labor, providing systems and methods flexible enough to work side-by-side with human pick workers. Moreover, the presently disclosed systems and methods may improve the accuracy and efficiency of that automation within a logistics facility.” (Galluzzo: Summary – 9th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 15:
Pack in view of Patron in further view of Galluzzo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Pack further teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the performing of the orientation operation further comprises, (See (Pack: 110th-119th, 133rd-137th, 139th-152nd, and 202nd paragraphs))
[…] identifying the first obstacle as a closest obstacle according to the first travel path., (See (Pack: 123rd-131st, 160th, 166th-167th, 188th-190th, and 264th-270th paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 17:
Pack in view of Patron in further view of Galluzzo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Pack further teaches:
The method of claim 16, wherein the predetermined position along the first travel path is a current position of the service robot., (See (Pack: 222nd paragraph))
Regarding Claim 18:
Pack in view of Patron in further view of Galluzzo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Pack further teaches:
The method of claim 16, wherein the closest point along the first travel path is further selected to be within a predetermined distance range from the predetermined position., (See (Pack: 222nd and 266th-270th paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 19:
Pack teaches:
A computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the apparatus to:, (See (Pack: 3rd-13th, 203rd-204th, and 283rd-287th paragraphs))
detect a first obstacle in a first travel path to a destination of a service robot; perform an orientation operation to align a camera of the service robot with the first obstacle; capture an image of the first obstacle;, (See (Pack: 110th-119th, 133rd-137th, 139th-152nd, and 202nd paragraphs))
Pack does not teach but Patron teaches:
process the image to identify an obstacle type of the first obstacle;, (See (Patron: Detailed Description – 119th, 155th-158th, and 485th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pack with these above aforementioned teachings from Patron in order to create a safe service robot recovery system from a blocked path. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Pack’s mobile robot system with Patron’s sidewalk messaging system of an autonomous robot in order to process an image taken by a service robot to identify an obstacle type. Combining Pack and Patron would thus provide a safe “method, apparatus, and system of sidewalk messaging of an autonomous robot.” (Pack: Field of Technology – 3rd paragraph)
Pack in view of Patron does not teach but Galluzzo teaches:
and based on an identification of the first obstacle as a person obstacle type, generate a communication requesting assistance., (See (Galluzzo: Detailed Description – 125th-127th, 145th, 148th, and 181st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pack in view of Patron with these above aforementioned teachings from Galluzzo in order to create a user-friendly service robot recovery system from a blocked path. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Pack’s mobile robot system with Galluzzo’s autonomous mobile robotic systems and methods for picking and put-away in order to generate a communication requesting assistance for an obstacle to be removed from a service robot’s travel path. Combining Pack and Galluzzo would thus “dynamically respond to changes in pick or put-away volume, in addition to changes in the available manual labor, providing systems and methods flexible enough to work side-by-side with human pick workers. Moreover, the presently disclosed systems and methods may improve the accuracy and efficiency of that automation within a logistics facility.” (Galluzzo: Summary – 9th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 20:
Pack teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer- readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer, cause the computer to:, (See (Pack: 3rd-13th, 203rd-204th, and 283rd-287th paragraphs))
detect a first obstacle in a first travel path to a destination of a service robot; perform an orientation operation to align a camera of the service robot with the first obstacle; capture an image of the first obstacle;, (See (Pack: 110th-119th, 133rd-137th, 139th-152nd, and 202nd paragraphs))
Pack does not teach but Patron teaches:
process the image to identify an obstacle type of the first obstacle;, (See (Patron: Detailed Description – 119th, 155th-158th, and 485th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pack with these above aforementioned teachings from Patron in order to create a safe service robot recovery system from a blocked path. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Pack’s mobile robot system with Patron’s sidewalk messaging system of an autonomous robot in order to process an image taken by a service robot to identify an obstacle type. Combining Pack and Patron would thus provide a safe “method, apparatus, and system of sidewalk messaging of an autonomous robot.” (Pack: Field of Technology – 3rd paragraph)
Pack in view of Patron does not teach but Galluzzo teaches:
and based on an identification of the first obstacle as a person obstacle type, generate a communication requesting assistance., (See (Galluzzo: Detailed Description – 125th-127th, 145th, 148th, and 181st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pack in view of Patron with these above aforementioned teachings from Galluzzo in order to create a user-friendly service robot recovery system from a blocked path. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Pack’s mobile robot system with Galluzzo’s autonomous mobile robotic systems and methods for picking and put-away in order to generate a communication requesting assistance for an obstacle to be removed from a service robot’s travel path. Combining Pack and Galluzzo would thus “dynamically respond to changes in pick or put-away volume, in addition to changes in the available manual labor, providing systems and methods flexible enough to work side-by-side with human pick workers. Moreover, the presently disclosed systems and methods may improve the accuracy and efficiency of that automation within a logistics facility.” (Galluzzo: Summary – 9th paragraph)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pack (CA 2928262 A1) in view of Patron (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0202770 A1) in further view of Galluzzo (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0316786 A1) in even further view of Wang (CN 112025709 A).
Regarding Claim 9:
Pack in view of Patron in further view of Galluzzo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Pack in view of Patron in further view of Galluzzo does not teach but Wang teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the processing of the image is performed using CPU compute., (“First, the CPU of the Jetson TX2 computing unit receives the image frame captured by the RGB-D camera and uploads it to the GPU of the Jetson TX2 computing unit […] Finally, the GPU uploads the calculation result to the CPU after completing the calculation of the Brief descriptor, and the CPU finally obtains and outputs the image frame containing the complete ORB feature points with the Brief descriptor.” (Wang: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pack in view of Patron in further view of Galluzzo with these above aforementioned teachings from Wang in order to create an effective service robot recovery system from a blocked path. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Pack’s mobile robot system with Wang’s mobile robot positioning system and method based on vehicle-mounted camera vision in order to process an image taken by a service robot using CPU compute. Combining Pack and Wang would thus provide “higher positioning precision, better reliability, simple operation, lower equipment cost and stronger practicability.” (Wang: Abstract)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pack (CA 2928262 A1) in view of Patron (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0202770 A1) in further view of Galluzzo (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0316786 A1) in even further view of Huang (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0020045 A1).
Regarding Claim 16:
Pack in view of Patron in further view of Galluzzo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 15. Pack further teaches:
The method of claim 15, wherein the identifying of the closest obstacle according to the first travel path further comprises:, (See (Pack: 123rd-131st, 160th, 166th-167th, 188th-190th, and 264th-270th paragraphs))
Pack in view of Patron in further view of Galluzzo does not teach but Huang teaches:
[…] starting with a predetermined position along the first travel path, searching the first travel path for a closest point with a respective cost in a local cost map being greater than a predetermined minimum cost threshold; and returning the closest point as the closest obstacle., (See (Huang: Detailed Description – 30th-37th, 62nd-68th, 73rd-75th, 81st-89th-99th, 108th-116th, 139th-147th, and 155th-159th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pack in view of Patron in further view of Galluzzo with these above aforementioned teachings from Huang in order to create a cost-efficient service robot recovery system from a blocked path. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Pack’s mobile robot system with Huang’s unstructured vehicle path planner in order to search a travel path of a service robot for a closest point with a respective cost in a local cost map being greater than a predetermined minimum cost threshold. Combining Pack and Huang would thus provide a service robot recovery system able “to navigate accurately and efficiently, avoiding other objects, even when the environment is “unstructured” (i.e., the environment does not contain pathway indicators or the pathway indicators are degraded, obscured, and/or obsolete) such as an environment like an open field that does not include markings, a roadway, sidewalks, and/or other similar structures that may serve to identify bounds for operating an autonomous vehicle and/or in a situation where no one lane of a roadway has open space wide enough for an autonomous vehicle to operate.” (Huang: Detailed Description – 18th paragraph)
Comment on the Closest Prior Art References
Claims 8 and 13-14 are 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.
The allowable subject matter in claim 8 includes calculating a first travel path using a global cost map and the second travel path is calculated using a local cost map, performing an orientation operation by subtracting the global cost map from the local cost map to generate a subtracted cost map, and identifying the first obstacle as being a closest point in the subtracted cost map.
The allowable subject matter in claim 13 includes performing an orientation operation by subtracting a global cost map from a local cost map to generate a subtracted cost map.
The allowable subject matter in claim 14 includes identifying the first obstacle as being a closest point in the subtracted cost map.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights