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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/28/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of its undue length.
Applicant is reminded of the proper format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) and their respective support from the specification is/are:
Claim 1:
First mobile body setting portion
[0048] The first mobile body setting portion 121, the region setting portion 122, the operation mode setting portion 123, and the operation mode selection rule setting portion 124 that function as the setting device 100 are elements constituting, for example, a graphical user interface (GUI).
Region setting portion
[0048] see above
Second mobile body detection unit
[0035] The signal processing module 12 constituting the second mobile body detection device 10 is a computer including a calculation unit, a RAM unit, a storage unit, a communication unit, and the like, and is configured as a part of a calculation device 120 constituting the setting device 100 in the embodiment.
Operation mode setting portion
[0048] see above
Operation mode selection rule setting portion
[0048] see above
Setting information storage unit
[0049] The setting information storage unit 150 is, for example, a storage device such as a solid state drive (SSD), a hard disk drive (HDD), or a flash memory
First mobile body position estimation unit
[0046] The calculation device 120 includes a first mobile body setting portion 121, a region setting portion 122, an operation mode setting portion 123, an operation mode selection rule setting portion 124, a second mobile body detection unit 125, a first mobile body position estimation unit 126, and a first mobile body control unit 127.
[0040] The calculation device 120 includes a calculation unit such as a central processing unit (CPU), a random access memory (RAM) unit such as a semiconductor memory, a storage unit such as a solid state drive (SSD) or a hard disk drive (HDD), and a communication unit, and the like.
First mobile body control unit
[0052] The first mobile body control unit 127 functions as the control device 110
[0043] The control device 110 includes a calculation unit, a RAM unit, a storage unit, a communication unit, and the like, similarly to the calculation device 120 of the setting device 100.
Claim 2:
Condition setting portion
[0080] the condition setting portion 1242 is a GUI element
Selected operation mode setting portion
[0081] The selected operation mode setting portion 1243 is a GUI element
Claim 3:
Entry propriety setting portion
[0083] The entry propriety setting portion 1244 is a GUI element
Claim 9:
Detour planning function setting portion
[0099] the operation mode setting portion 123 of Embodiment 3 includes a detour planning function setting portion 1237
See Fig. 12, GUI element
Claim 10:
Condition evaluation order setting portion
[0105] As illustrated in FIG. 13, in the embodiment, a condition evaluation order setting portion 1246 for setting an order of evaluating a condition portion (setting content of the condition setting portion 1242) of an operation mode selection rule is added to the operation mode selection rule setting portion 124
See Fig. 13, GUI element
Claim 11:
Second region priority setting portion
[0107] As illustrated in FIG. 14, the embodiment is an example in which a second region priority setting portion 1225 is added to the region setting portion 122 of Embodiment 1.
See Fig. 14, GUI element
Claim 13:
Movement information display portion
[0121] as illustrated in FIG. 16, the mobile body control system 1 includes a movement information display portion 1002 configured to display information regarding movement of the first mobile body 2 as one of display screens of the input and output device 130 (display)
Claim 14:
Operation mode switching operation portion
[0126] As illustrated in FIG. 17, the mobile body control system 1 includes the operation mode switching operation portion 1003 for switching an operation mode of the first mobile body control unit 127 by a manual operation of a user, as one of display screens of the input and output device 130 (display)
Claim 15:
Multiple operation mode setting portion
[0132] as illustrated in FIG. 18, the multiple operation mode setting portion 1248 is displayed on the central panel 1001c of the operation screen 1001 so as to be superimposed on the region setting portion 122.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 112
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.
Claims 1-15, 17 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 1 recites “set shape information of a first mobile body based on an operation of a user… set the first region and the second region based on an operation of the user… set the operation mode based on an operation of the user… set the operation mode selection rule according to an operation of the user…” It is unclear whether there are multiple distinct operations being performed by the user or whether one operation is performed which sets first mobile body shape information, first and second regions, operation mode, and operation mode selection rule all simultaneously. As such, claim 1 is rendered indefinite by continuing recitations of “an operation of the user” as opposed to “the operation of the user” or “the (first/second/third/fourth) operation of the user” after the initial recitation of “an operation of the user”.
Claim 11 recites “the second regions set at a plurality of locations…” and “the plurality of second regions” after initial recitation of only a single second region. As such, it is unclear whether there are multiple second regions or only one second region as the language in claim 11 conflicts with that in independent claim 1.
Claim 14 recites “an operation mode switching operation portion configured to receive an operation of a user”. Again, it is unclear whether the operation of the user recited in claim 14 is the same operation of the user as was used to set the shape information of the first mobile body or if it is yet another operation of a user.
Claim 17 similarly recites “set an operation mode selection rule… by an operation of the user” after claim 16’s original recitation of “an operation of a user”. As such, claim 17 is rendered indefinite for similar reasons as described above.
Claims 2-15 are similarly rejected due to dependency on a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20220219311 A1 Duthaler, Gregg et al. (hereinafter Duthaler).
Regarding claim 16, Duthaler discloses: A mobile body control system for controlling a first mobile body that moves in a first region (see Duthaler at least [0001] the controller to control operation of the mobile cleaning robot within the environment), the mobile body control system comprising:
a region setting portion configured to set a second region that is a closed region inside the first region (see Duthaler at least [0020] the user 60 can define rooms or zones (such as the rooms 42) within the map);
a second mobile body detection unit configured to detect an operation of a second mobile body present in the second region (see Duthaler at least [0094] when the privacy settings are based on a location of a user, a location of the user can be determined… it can be determined whether the user is in the environment or not in the environment, or whether the user (or users) is in a specific location within the environment);
an operation mode setting portion configured to set, by an operation of a user, content of an operation mode defining a movement condition when the first mobile body moves in the first region (see Duthaler at least [0084] A Create Privacy Zone indication 548 can be selectable when the settings are complete, which can cause the device 500 to transmit instructions of the privacy setting and location to the robot 100 so that the robot 100 can operate in the restricted mode when and how the user prefers); and
a first mobile body control unit configured to select the operation mode based on a detection result of the second mobile body detection unit and control the first mobile body based on the selected operation mode (see Duthaler at least [0058] When the mobile device 404 is used to receive the privacy instruction, the processor 412 of the mobile device 404 can transmit the instruction 416 to the robot 100 (such as through a controller of the robot 100) and [0060] Depending on the location of the user 402, the map, a location of the robot 100 in the environment, and the privacy setting, the robot 100 can be instructed to operate in a restricted mode or a privacy mode).
Regarding claim 17, Duthaler discloses: The mobile body control system according to claim 16, further comprising:
an operation mode selection rule setting portion configured to set an operation mode selection rule, which is a rule when the operation mode is selected by the first mobile body control unit, by an operation of the user (see Duthaler at least [0074] FIG. 5B also shows that the user interface 502B can display a privacy level 524. The privacy level can include one or more selectable indications for various privacy levels or settings. For example, a When Home indication 526 can be selectable to cause the device 500 to instruct the robot to operate the robot in a restricted mode or privacy mode any time the user is home).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duthaler, in view of WO 2023085179 A1 HIROHASHI, YUKI et al. (hereinafter Hirohashi).
Regarding claim 1, Duthaler discloses: A mobile body control system for controlling a mobile body that moves in at least one region (see Duthaler at least [0001] the controller to control operation of the mobile cleaning robot within the environment), the mobile body control system comprising:
a region setting portion configured to display a first region that is a region in which the first mobile body moves and a second region that is a closed region inside the first region, and set the first region and the second region based on an operation of the user (see Duthaler at least [0020] the user 60 can define rooms or zones (such as the rooms 42) within the map. The map can be presentable to the user 60 on a user interface, such as a mobile device, where the user 60 can direct or change cleaning preferences, for example);
a second mobile body detection unit configured to acquire detection information regarding presence or absence and an operation of a second mobile body present in the second region (see Duthaler at least [0094] when the privacy settings are based on a location of a user, a location of the user can be determined… it can be determined whether the user is in the environment or not in the environment, or whether the user (or users) is in a specific location within the environment);
an operation mode setting portion configured to display information on an operation mode defining a determination method of at least one of a moving direction and a speed when the first mobile body moves in the first region, and set the operation mode based on an operation of the user (see Duthaler at least [0052] The interface can receive a user instruction to modify the environment map, such as by adding, removing, or otherwise modifying a keep-out zone in the environment; adding, removing, or otherwise modifying a focused cleaning zone in the environment (such as an area that requires repeated cleaning); restricting a robot traversal direction or traversal pattern in a portion of the environment);
an operation mode selection rule setting portion configured to display an operation mode selection rule that is information on a rule for selecting the operation mode according to the presence or absence and the operation of the second mobile body determined based on the detection information of the second region, and set the operation mode selection rule according to an operation of the user (see Duthaler at least [0060] Depending on the location of the user 402, the map, a location of the robot 100 in the environment, and the privacy setting, the robot 100 can be instructed to operate in a restricted mode or a privacy mode and [0073] FIG. 5B illustrates the user interface 502B of the handheld device 500, which shows a screen for creating or editing one or more privacy settings, such as privacy settings related to a camera or image capture device of a robot);
a (see Duthaler at least [0047] the memory 213 can store data resulting from processing of the sensor data for access by the controller 212. For example, the map can be a map that is usable and updateable by the controller 212 of the robot 100 from one mission to another mission to navigate the robot 100 about the floor surface 50);
a first mobile body position estimation unit configured to estimate and output position information of the first mobile body in the first region (see Duthaler at least [0031] The control system can further include a sensor system with one or more electrical sensors. The sensor system, as described herein, can generate a signal indicative of a current location of the robot 100, and can generate signals indicative of locations of the robot 100 as the robot 100 travels along the floor surface 50); and
a first mobile body control unit configured to select the operation mode according to the (see Duthaler at least [0058] When the mobile device 404 is used to receive the privacy instruction, the processor 412 of the mobile device 404 can transmit the instruction 416 to the robot 100 (such as through a controller of the robot 100) and [0039] The controller 212 can execute software stored on the memory 213 to cause the robot 100 to perform various navigational and cleaning behaviors by operating the various motors of the robot 100).
Duthaler does not teach: a first mobile body setting portion configured to set shape information of a first mobile body based on an operation of a user; a setting information storage unit configured to store the shape information of the first mobile body and setting information of regions, the operation mode, and the operation mode selection rule.
However, Hirohashi teaches: a first mobile body setting portion configured to set shape information of a first mobile body based on an operation of a user (see Hirohashi at least [pg. 4, para. 6, beginning with “The flowchart shown”] Input of setting information can be performed through a predetermined user interface... The setting information received by the CPU 12 in step S101 is information including information regarding the size of the mobile robot. The information on the size of the mobile robot includes, for example, information on the radius of the mobile robot if the shape of the mobile robot is circular); and
a setting information storage unit configured to store the shape information of the first mobile body and setting information of regions, the operation mode, and the operation mode selection rule (see Hirohashi at least [pg. 3, para. 6, beginning with “The processing unit 102 uses the information”] The processing unit 102 uses the information about the size of the mobile robot to determine, as edge information, passing propriety information that determines whether or not the mobile robot can pass or overtake at the edge. The processing unit 102 stores the information of the edge separation condition in the data structure as the information on whether or not the edges can pass each other).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile robot control system disclosed by Duthaler to include the robot size consideration and storage of Hirohashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the size of the mobile robot(s) in an environment determine how they move relative to the environment and other moving bodies in the surroundings, and planning therefore allows for more efficient operation overall, as suggested by Hirohashi (see Hirohashi at least [pg. 4, para. 3, beginning with “By having such”] the information processing apparatus 10 according to the embodiment of the present invention can output a data structure using information on the size of a movable robot. The information processing apparatus 10 according to the embodiment of the present invention uses information on the size of movable robots, so that a data structure for efficiently managing a group of movable robots can be created as compared with the conventional technology).
Regarding claim 2, Duthaler and Hirohashi disclose: The mobile body control system according to claim 1, wherein the operation mode selection rule setting portion includes a condition setting portion configured to set a detection condition related to the detection information (see Duthaler at least [0074] FIG. 5B also shows that the user interface 502B can display a privacy level 524. The privacy level can include one or more selectable indications for various privacy levels or settings), and
a selected operation mode setting portion configured to set the operation mode selected by the first mobile body control unit when the detection condition is satisfied (see Duthaler at least [0074] For example, a When Home indication 526 can be selectable to cause the device 500 to instruct the robot to operate the robot in a restricted mode or privacy mode any time the user is home).
Regarding claim 5, Duthaler and Hirohashi disclose: The mobile body control system according to claim 2, wherein a candidate for the detection condition includes that at least a part of the second mobile body is present inside the second region (see Duthaler at least [0104] the mobile cleaning robot 100 can detect a human occupant in the environment, such as by using the image stream (via obstacle detection), and can operate in the image-capture-restricted mode based at least at least in part on the detection).
Regarding claim 7, Duthaler and Hirohashi disclose: The mobile body control system according to claim 2, wherein a candidate for the detection condition includes that at least a part of the second mobile body as a human is present inside the second region (see Duthaler at least [0104] the mobile cleaning robot 100 can detect a human occupant in the environment, such as by using the image stream (via obstacle detection), and can operate in the image-capture-restricted mode based at least at least in part on the detection).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duthaler, in view of Hirohashi, further in view of US 20180137728 A1 HAHN; Pia (hereinafter Hahn).
Regarding claim 3, Duthaler and Hirohashi disclose: The mobile body control system according to claim 2.
Duthaler and Hirohashi do not teach: wherein the operation mode selection rule setting portion includes an entry propriety setting portion configured to set whether the first mobile body present outside the second region enters the second region when the detection condition is satisfied, and the first mobile body control unit controls the first mobile body according to setting content of the entry propriety setting portion.
However, Hahn teaches: wherein the operation mode selection rule setting portion includes an entry propriety setting portion configured to set whether the first mobile body present outside the second region enters the second region when the detection condition is satisfied, and the first mobile body control unit controls the first mobile body according to setting content of the entry propriety setting portion (see Hahn at least [0036] In case a person 8 enters the apartment, the cleaning strategy of the cleaning device 1 can be adapted. Advantageously, the room surveillance system 7 is coupled to a person recognition system which recognizes, optically or based on a code, a person 8 entering the rooms 3, 4 and thereupon excludes those rooms 3, 4 from cleaning which are likely to be used by that person 8).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile robot control system including an onboard other mobile body detection sensor system disclosed by Duthaler and Hirohashi to include the avoiding entering a room already occupied by a human of Hahn. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because detecting which rooms are or are not occupied by humans allows the robot to clean only the areas which are not occupied by people, avoiding interfering with the household activities of the people, as suggested by Hahn (see Hahn at least [0036] Rooms 3, 4 which usually are not accessed by this person 8 can continue to be cleaned).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duthaler, in view of Hirohashi, further in view of Hahn, and further in view of US 20090198380 A1 Friedman; Scott Justin-Marl et al. (hereinafter Friedman).
Regarding claim 4, Duthaler, Hirohashi, and Hahn disclose: The mobile body control system according to claim 3.
Duthaler, Hirohashi, and Hahn do not teach: wherein the operation mode selectable by the first mobile body control unit includes an evacuation mode of moving the first mobile body in the second region to an outside of the second region.
However, Friedman teaches: wherein the operation mode selectable by the first mobile body control unit includes an evacuation mode of moving the first mobile body in the second region to an outside of the second region (see Friedman at least [0028] if in step 204 it was determined that a person entered the room or area, the process continues to step 206. In this step the robot leaves the area it was cleaning. In step 208 the robot enters a new area and can begin cleaning that area, if needed. Preferably the new area is one without people).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile robot control system disclosed by Duthaler, Hirohashi, and Hahn to include the evacuation of an area when a person is detected in the area of Friedman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the behavior of the mobile robot depends on the presence or absence of a person in the operating area, interacting with people in a way to least interfere with their actions, as suggested by Friedman (see Friedman at least [0022] a robotic cleaner (or other type of service platform) can be configured to implement a method of more effectively interacting with people while servicing a space. The platform and method can determine that the platform is in the presence of people and implement a different servicing pattern or behavior as a function thereof).
Claim(s) 6, 10, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duthaler, in view of Hirohashi, and further in view of US 20230202046 A1 YOSHIKAWA; Kei et al. (hereinafter Yoshikawa).
Regarding claim 6, Duthaler and Hirohashi disclose: The mobile body control system according to claim 2, wherein a candidate for the detection condition includes that at least a part of the second mobile body is present inside the second region (see Duthaler at least [0104] the mobile cleaning robot 100 can detect a human occupant in the environment, such as by using the image stream (via obstacle detection), and can operate in the image-capture-restricted mode based at least at least in part on the detection).
Duthaler and Hirohashi do not teach: wherein a candidate for the detection condition includes that at least a part of the second mobile body is present inside the second region and a moving speed of the second mobile body is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold.
However, Yoshikawa teaches: wherein a candidate for the detection condition includes that at least a part of the second mobile body is present inside the second region and a moving speed of the second mobile body is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold (see Yoshikawa at least [0061] For example, the non-staff person may run across an area ahead of the mobile robot 20 in its moving direction. In a situation in which the non-staff person is moving at a speed higher than a certain threshold speed, the area around the non-staff person needs to be monitored more closely. In a situation in which the non-staff person is moving at a speed lower than the certain threshold speed, there is no need to closely monitor the area around the non-staff person).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile robot control system disclosed by Duthaler and Hirohashi to include the adjustment of mobile robot operations depending on movement speed of a person in a nearby area of Yoshikawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because some people in the operating region of the mobile robot may not recognize how their actions interfere with the operations of the mobile robot, and as such the mobile robot must sometimes adjust its own actions to account for movement of the person, as suggested by Yoshikawa (see Yoshikawa at least [0060] To appropriately control the mobile robot 20, the host management device 10 needs to appropriately monitor the facility depending on situations in the facility… Since the non-staff person is not accustomed to the environment including the mobile robot 20, the non-staff person may perform an action that interferes with the task of the mobile robot).
Regarding claim 10, Duthaler and Hirohashi disclose: The mobile body control system according to claim 2.
Duthaler and Hirohashi do not teach: wherein the region setting portion includes a condition evaluation order setting portion configured to set an evaluation order for the plurality of detection conditions related to the operation of the second mobile body that are set for one of a plurality of the second regions, and when the first mobile body is present inside the second region, the first mobile body control unit evaluates the plurality of detection conditions set for the second region according to the evaluation order and selects the operation mode corresponding to the detection condition first satisfied.
However, Yoshikawa teaches: wherein the region setting portion includes a condition evaluation order setting portion configured to set an evaluation order for the plurality of detection conditions related to the operation of the second mobile body that are set for one of a plurality of the second regions (see Yoshikawa at least [0160] every person in the captured image is classified into the first group or the second group and [0161] The classifier 1172 determines whether a person in the second group is present in the monitoring area (S104). When the person in the second group is not present (NO in S104), the switching unit 1174 selects the low-load mode (S105)), and
when the first mobile body is present inside the second region, the first mobile body control unit evaluates the plurality of detection conditions set for the second region according to the evaluation order and selects the operation mode corresponding to the detection condition first satisfied (see Yoshikawa at least [0162] When the person in the second group is present (YES in S104), the estimation unit 1173 estimates a moving speed of the person in the second group (S106). The estimation unit 1173 determines whether the person in the second group is moving at a high speed (S107) and [0164] When the person in the second group is moving at a high speed (YES in S107), the switching unit 1174 selects the high-load mode (S108)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile robot control system disclosed by Duthaler and Hirohashi to include the adjustment of mobile robot operations depending on a multi-stage ordered determination of other person characteristics including first their identify and secondly their speed of Yoshikawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because some people in the operating region of the mobile robot may not recognize how their actions interfere with the operations of the mobile robot, and as such the mobile robot must sometimes adjust its own actions to account for movement of the person, as suggested by Yoshikawa (see Yoshikawa at least [0060] To appropriately control the mobile robot 20, the host management device 10 needs to appropriately monitor the facility depending on situations in the facility… Since the non-staff person is not accustomed to the environment including the mobile robot 20, the non-staff person may perform an action that interferes with the task of the mobile robot).
Regarding claim 10, Duthaler and Hirohashi disclose: The mobile body control system according to claim 1.
Duthaler and Hirohashi do not teach: wherein the determination of the operation of the second mobile body is a determination of whether the second mobile body is moving.
However, Yoshikawa teaches: wherein the determination of the operation of the second mobile body is a determination of whether the second mobile body is moving (see Yoshikawa at least [0061] For example, the non-staff person may run across an area ahead of the mobile robot 20 in its moving direction. In a situation in which the non-staff person is moving at a speed higher than a certain threshold speed, the area around the non-staff person needs to be monitored more closely. In a situation in which the non-staff person is moving at a speed lower than the certain threshold speed, there is no need to closely monitor the area around the non-staff person).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile robot control system disclosed by Duthaler and Hirohashi to include the adjustment of mobile robot operations depending on movement of a person in a nearby area of Yoshikawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because some people in the operating region of the mobile robot may not recognize how their actions interfere with the operations of the mobile robot, and as such the mobile robot must sometimes adjust its own actions to account for movement of the person, as suggested by Yoshikawa (see Yoshikawa at least [0060] To appropriately control the mobile robot 20, the host management device 10 needs to appropriately monitor the facility depending on situations in the facility… Since the non-staff person is not accustomed to the environment including the mobile robot 20, the non-staff person may perform an action that interferes with the task of the mobile robot).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duthaler, in view of Hirohashi, and further in view of JP 2011110644 A OKABAYASHI YOSHIKAZU et al. (hereinafter Okabayashi).
Regarding claim 8, Duthaler and Hirohashi disclose: The mobile body control system according to claim 2, wherein a candidate for the detection condition includes that at least a part of the second mobile body as a human is present inside the second region.
Duthaler and Hirohashi do not teach: wherein a candidate for the detection condition includes that at least a part of the second mobile body as a human is present inside the second region and a moving direction of the second mobile body is outside a predetermined range with respect to the moving direction of the first mobile body.
However, Okabayashi teaches: wherein a candidate for the detection condition includes that at least a part of the second mobile body as a human is present inside the second region and a moving direction of the second mobile body is outside a predetermined range with respect to the moving direction of the first mobile body (see Okabayashi at least [pg. 4, para. 8, beginning with “In step S <b> 18”] In step S20, the motion determining unit 80 calculates a line connecting the position of the autonomous mobile robot 100 detected by the position detecting unit 62 and the position and moving direction of the person detected by the person detecting unit, and Calculate the angle difference from the person's direction of travel. Then, in step S22, the operation determining unit 80 determines whether the angle difference is within a predetermined range. Here, as the predetermined range, a range in which the line connecting the autonomous mobile robot 100 and the person's position and the traveling direction of the person can be regarded as substantially coincident can be defined. If the determination here is negative, that is, if the person wants to retreat (step S16 is affirmative) and if it is determined that the person is moving in a direction avoiding the robot, step S36 is performed. Then, the action determination unit 80 determines the start of the avoidance process of the autonomous mobile robot 100).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile robot control system disclosed by Duthaler and Hirohashi to include the adjustment of robot operations based on relative travel direction between a person and the robot of Okabayashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the direction of a person’s travel may indicate their interest in moving away from the robot, in which case the most courteous behavior of the robot would be to support the person’s wish and progress, as suggested by Okabayashi (see Okabayashi at least [pg. 4, para. 8, beginning with “In step S <b> 18”] the operation determination unit 80 determines to start moving in a direction in which a person can easily move without hindering movement of the person, for example, a direction perpendicular to the moving direction of the person).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duthaler, in view of Hirohashi, and further in view of US 20180299882 A1 Kichkaylo; Tatiana et al. (hereinafter Kichkaylo).
Regarding claim 9, Duthaler and Hirohashi disclose: The mobile body control system according to claim 1.
Duthaler and Hirohashi do not teach: the operation mode setting portion includes a detour planning function setting portion configured to set whether to permit planning of a detour that is a route for detouring the first mobile body when the second mobile body is present on a path of the first mobile body, and the first mobile body control unit executes the planning of the detour and a detour operation when the planning of the detour is permitted in the selected operation mode and the second mobile body is detected by the second mobile body detection unit.
However, Kichkaylo teaches: the operation mode setting portion includes a detour planning function setting portion configured to set whether to permit planning of a detour that is a route for detouring the first mobile body when the second mobile body is present on a path of the first mobile body (see Kichkaylo at least [0027] The multi-agent planner can assign priority P1 to robot R1 and priority P2 to robot R2, where the priority P1 represents a higher priority to priority P2; thus, in this example, robot R1 is a higher-priority robot than robot R2 and [0032] a higher priority agent can reserve paths and cross conflict areas before lower priority agents, and lower priority agents can be instructed to clear the path for the higher priority agent), and
the first mobile body control unit executes the planning of the detour and a detour operation when the planning of the detour is permitted in the selected operation mode and the second mobile body is detected by the second mobile body detection unit (see Kichkaylo at least [0040] lower priority agents may be instructed to take detours to allow higher priority agents to pass. The lower-priority agents are then instructed to proceed to their goal locations. In some cases higher priority agents are instructed to wait for lower priority agents to get out of the higher priority agents' way).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile robot control system disclosed by Duthaler and Hirohashi to include the designation of detour-eligible mobile bodies of Kichkaylo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because assigning detouring duties to some mobile bodies but not others allows for efficient right-of-way operations, avoiding deadlocks, as suggested by Kichkaylo (see Kichkaylo at least [0032] The priorities can be used to order agents to resolve deadlocks; e.g., agent priorities can be used to specify an order of agents that cross a conflict area).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duthaler, in view of Hirohashi, and further in view of US 20180354132 A1 NOH; Dongki et al. (hereinafter Noh).
Regarding claim 11, Duthaler and Hirohashi disclose: The mobile body control system according to claim 1.
Duthaler and Hirohashi do not teach: wherein the operation mode selection rule setting portion includes a second region priority setting portion configured to set priorities of the second regions set at a plurality of locations, and when at least a part of the first mobile body is simultaneously present inside the plurality of second regions, the first mobile body control unit selects the operation mode based on the operation mode selection rule set for the second region having a highest priority.
However, Noh teaches: wherein the operation mode selection rule setting portion includes a second region priority setting portion configured to set priorities of the second regions set at a plurality of locations, and when at least a part of the first mobile body is simultaneously present inside the plurality of second regions, the first mobile body control unit selects the operation mode based on the operation mode selection rule set for the second region having a highest priority (see Noh at least [0109] When the order of cleaning of a plurality of designated regions is set, the moving robot 100 performs cleaning while moving according to the set order).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile robot control system disclosed by Duthaler and Hirohashi to include the ordered priority of multiple regions within an operating environment of Noh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the order informs what action should be taken in which area at which time, so the highest priority jobs can be completed first, as suggested by Noh (see Noh at least [0100] the travel control module 141 performs cleaning while moving to the designated regions sequentially according to the order).
Claim(s) 12,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duthaler, in view of Hirohashi, further in view of WO 2022180805 A1 MORIWAKA RYOTA et al. (hereinafter Moriwaka), and further in view of JP 4933364 B2 OMACHI TOSHIO et al. (hereinafter Omachi).
Regarding claim 12, Duthaler and Hirohashi disclose: The mobile body control system according to claim 1.
Duthaler and Hirohashi do not teach: wherein the first mobile body control unit includes a state machine that takes any one state of an operation mode execution state and an abnormal stop state, the state machine transitions from the operation mode execution state to the abnormal stop state when an internal error occurs, the state machine in the operation mode execution state further has internal states of a moving state and a temporary stop state, and the state machine transitions from the moving state to the temporary stop state when an obstacle or an entry prohibited region is detected on a path of the first mobile body, transitions from the temporary stop state to the moving state when the obstacle and the entry prohibited region are no longer detected, and issues a timeout error and transitions to the abnormal stop state when the temporary stop state continues for a certain time.
However, Moriwaka teaches: wherein the first mobile body control unit includes a state machine that takes any one state of an operation mode execution state and an abnormal stop state (see Moriwaka at least [pg. 4, para. 6, beginning with “FIG. 2 shows”] FIG. 2 shows state transitions focused on individual devices within the device control system 1, such as the controller server 2 and [translated Fig. 2 (see below)] normal states exist within the "in operation" dashed box, while fatal abnormalities of the normal states result in a separate "abnormal termination" state),
the state machine transitions from the operation mode execution state to the abnormal stop state when an internal error occurs (see Moriwaka at least [pg. 4, para. 6, beginning with “FIG. 2 shows”] If a fatal anomaly occurs in the initialization, normal operation, or suspend states, the device moves to the "abnormal termination" state),
the state machine in the operation mode execution state further has internal states of a moving state and a temporary stop state (see Moriwaka at least [pg. 4, para. 6, beginning with “FIG. 2 shows”] During initialization or normal operation, when a stop instruction is issued by the processor for purposes such as debugging, the device transitions to a "suspended" state), and
the state machine transitions to the abnormal stop state from the temporary stop state (see Moriwaka at least [pg. 4, para. 6, beginning with “FIG. 2 shows”] If a fatal anomaly occurs in the initialization, normal operation, or suspend states, the device moves to the "abnormal termination" state).
PNG
media_image1.png
513
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. English translation of Moriwaka Fig. 2.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile robot control system disclosed by Duthaler and Hirohashi to include the abnormal stop state resulting from a problem occurring in the temporary stop state of Moriwaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such state transition controls are necessary in a variety of device control systems, including those of robotic systems, as suggested by Moriwaka (see Moriwaka at least [pg. 2, para. 4, beginning with “The device control”] The device control system 1 may include multiple types of local devices 3 . FIG. 1 shows a mobile robot 4).
Duthaler, Hirohashi, and Moriwaka do not teach: the state machine transitions from the moving state to the temporary stop state when an obstacle or an entry prohibited region is detected on a path of the first mobile body, transitions from the temporary stop state to the moving state when the obstacle and the entry prohibited region are no longer detected, and issues a timeout error and transitions to the abnormal stop state when the temporary stop state continues for a certain time.
However, Omachi teaches: the state machine
transitions from the moving state to the temporary stop state when an obstacle or an entry prohibited region is detected on a path of the first mobile body (see Omachi at least [pg. 6, para. 7, beginning with “In addition to the contact”] the contact condition that the contact time is less than the first threshold value and greater than or equal to the second threshold value that is smaller than the first threshold value may be associated with the operation state of pause),
transitions from the temporary stop state to the moving state when the obstacle and the entry prohibited region are no longer detected (see Omachi at least [pg. 5, para. 3, beginning with “When the bumper”] When the bumper sensor 200 detects a contact with an obstacle, the mobile robot 20 continues or stops moving according to the degree of the contact and [pg. 8, para. 7, beginning with “On the other hand”] when the fixed time continues from the temporary stop (Step S144, No) and the fixed time has elapsed (Step S144, Yes), the movement control unit 210 resumes the traveling of the mobile robot 20 (Step S138). Return to step S104), and
issues a timeout error and transitions to the abnormal stop state when the temporary stop state continues for a certain time (see Omachi at least [pg. 6, para. 7, beginning with “In addition to the contact”] a contact condition that the contact time is equal to or greater than a preset first threshold value may be associated with an emergency stop operation state and [pg. 4, para. 5, beginning with “According to the present”] the guard is notified only in the case of an emergency stop).
PNG
media_image2.png
811
561
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. English translation of Omachi Fig. 4.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile robot control system disclosed by Duthaler, Hirohashi, and Moriwaka to include the time-based differentiation between temporary or abnormal stop states of a mobile robot of Omachi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because interaction with obstacles is an inevitable aspect of mobile robots traveling in a populated environment, and a system for planning when restarting motion is appropriate increases the efficiency of the robots’ operation in said environment, as suggested by Omachi (see Omachi at least [pg. 2, para. 4, beginning with “The present invention”] a control program capable of safely restarting traveling while preventing a decrease in operational efficiency even when touching an obstacle).
Regarding claim 13, Duthaler, Hirohashi, Moriwaka, and Omachi disclose: The mobile body control system according to claim 12, comprising:
a movement information display portion configured to display, for the second mobile body present inside the second region, a reason for the temporary stop state when the first mobile body control unit is in the temporary stop state before the second region, or display a time required for passage in the second region when the first mobile body resumes moving (see Omachi at least [pg. 8, para. 8, beginning with “For example, in the patrol”] if the suspension frequently occurs, a message “There is a possibility that the patrol may not be continued due to being surrounded by children or strollers” is sent to the monitoring center. Thereby, the guard can face the place where the mobile robot 20 stops as needed. In addition, the message “Because it is patrol, please clear the path.” Is output around).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile robot control system disclosed by Duthaler, Hirohashi, Moriwaka, and Omachi to include the displaying of a message to other parties nearby in the region where the mobile body operates of Omachi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because notifying people in the surroundings of the robot helps them understand how their actions influence the operation of the robot, in order to promote efficient robot operation, as suggested by Omachi (see Omachi at least [pg. 8, para. 8, beginning with “For example, in the patrol”] Thereby, it is possible to urge surrounding people to avoid contact with the mobile robot 20. In this way, by associating messages according to the degree of contact, an appropriate message can be notified to the monitoring center and surrounding people).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duthaler, in view of Hirohashi, and further in view of WO 2021256062 A1 OSHIMA AKIRA et al. (hereinafter Oshima).
Regarding claim 14, Duthaler, Hirohashi, Moriwaka, and Omachi disclose: The mobile body control system according to claim 12.
Duthaler, Hirohashi, Moriwaka, and Omachi do not teach: comprising: an operation mode switching operation portion configured to receive an operation of a user and switching the operation mode when the first mobile body control unit is in the temporary stop state, wherein the first mobile body control unit receives input to the operation mode switching operation portion, ends the temporary stop state, and controls the first mobile body in the operation mode designated by the user.
However, Oshima teaches: comprising: an operation mode switching operation portion configured to receive an operation of a user and switching the operation mode when the first mobile body control unit is in the temporary stop state (see Oshima at least [pg. 20, para. 6, beginning with “Then, when the autonomous”] when the autonomous mobile device 100 arrives at the hold point (third point 83) (step S216; Yes), it temporarily stops (step S221). Here, when the user presses the play button 3222 to issue a hold instruction (step S223; Yes), the autonomous mobile device 100 is in the hold state and [pg. 4, para. 4, beginning with “Note that the”] Note that the operation acquisition unit 32 may include a touch panel that displays a UI (User Interface) that accepts user's instructions instead of the push button), wherein
the first mobile body control unit receives input to the operation mode switching operation portion, ends the temporary stop state, and controls the first mobile body in the operation mode designated by the user (see Oshima at least [pg. 20, para. 6, beginning with “Then, when the autonomous”] the autonomous mobile device 100 is in the hold state (step S226), and the user uses the joystick 321 or the like (not limited to the manual control mode). The autonomous moving device 100 can be freely moved).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile robot control system disclosed by Duthaler, Hirohashi, Moriwaka, and Omachi to include the robot mode-changing user input operation of Oshima. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because when a mobile robot encounters a situation it is unsure of, such as pausing due to an unavoidable obstacle, then a human user may intervene to assist the robot out of its predicament, as suggested by Oshima (see Oshima at least [pg. 19, para. 7, beginning with “Further, the control unit 10 adjusts”] Even if there is a possibility of collision with the vehicle, if it can be avoided, the route can be adjusted to avoid obstacles. If it is unavoidable (when the obstacles cannot be avoided unless the self-position cannot be estimated, or when the distance between the obstacles is too narrow to pass through, etc.), the device is temporarily stopped (step S208). ) Therefore, the user can put the autonomous moving device 100 in the hold state at the paused position and freely run in any running mode).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duthaler, in view of Hirohashi, and further in view of JP 2021171905 A SAKAMOTO YOSHIHIRO et al. (hereinafter Sakamoto).
Regarding claim 15, Duthaler and Hirohashi disclose: The mobile body control system according to claim 1.
Duthaler and Hirohashi do not teach: wherein the operation mode selection rule setting portion includes a multiple operation mode setting portion configured to set the plurality of operation modes, which are assigned with an order, and a timeout time in a case where each operation mode is in a temporary stop state, and when a condition set in the multiple operation mode setting portion is satisfied, the first mobile body control unit selects the corresponding operation mode in the order set by the multiple operation mode setting portion, and when the operation mode has a timeout in the temporary stop state, the first mobile body control unit switches to the next operation mode.
However, Sakamoto teaches: wherein the operation mode selection rule setting portion includes a multiple operation mode setting portion configured to set the plurality of operation modes, which are assigned with an order, and a timeout time in a case where each operation mode is in a temporary stop state (see Sakamoto at least [pg. 9, para. 7, beginning with “FIG. 9B”] It may be executed in combination with at least one of the person correspondence 1 and the person correspondence 3, and the combination timing may be appropriately set and [pg. 9, para. 3, beginning with “Further, the mobile robot”] These predetermined sound types may be appropriately selected from a plurality of patterns stored in advance according to prior settings and the like. Not only the type of sound, but also the volume, the number of times the sound is repeated (the number of times of output), the duration of sound output, and the like may be set in advance), and
when a condition set in the multiple operation mode setting portion is satisfied, the first mobile body control unit selects the corresponding operation mode in the order set by the multiple operation mode setting portion, and when the operation mode has a timeout in the temporary stop state, the first mobile body control unit switches to the next operation mode (see Sakamoto at least [pg. 9, para. 7, beginning with “FIG. 9B”] the face 31 may be directed toward the head of a person after a lapse of a predetermined time from a stationary state, and a sound may be output when a predetermined time has passed).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile robot control system disclosed by Duthaler and Hirohashi to include the escalating person communication strategies after timeout periods of Sakamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the tiered response approach starts with gentler suggestions in order to communicate with the other party only as aggressively as necessary by spacing out escalating communications, as suggested by Sakamoto (see Sakamoto at least [pg. 9, para. 7, beginning with “FIG. 9B”] This makes it possible to work more finely depending on the situation).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20260061611 A1 Rose; Michael et al. discloses a system for managing operational modes of a humanoid robot
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLE ROSE KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1742. The examiner can normally be reached 1000-1700 ET M-F.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ELLE ROSE KNUDSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
8/4/26
Prosecution Insights