DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 19/192,730 filed on April 29, 2025 in which claims 1-14 were presented for examination.
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
Claims 1-14 are pending, of which claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); claims 1, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1); claims 2, 6-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103; and claims 3 and 4 are objected to.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 29, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Title of the Invention
37 C.F.R. § 1.72(a) states: “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible” (emphasis added). Thus, the title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive.
A new title is required that is more clearly and more specifically indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 recites a method claim including the limitation “(g) further includes, when a comparison result indicating that the person shortest route and the robot shortest route do not match is obtained, changing the display format displayed on the display to a display format indicating a difference between a distance of the person shortest route and a distance of the robot shortest route in a recognizable manner.” (Emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the claimed changing of the display format because it does not require the condition precedent (i.e., the comparison result indicating that the shortest routes do not match) to occur. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Reactive Surfaces v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914 (PTAB 2018) (“[t]he use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ does not change whether the method step is conditional”) (citing Ex parte Kaundinya, No. 2016-000917, 2017 WL 5510012, at *5-6 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2017) (“when” may indicate a conditional method step); Ex parte Zhou, No. 2016-004913, 2017 WL 5171533, at *2 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2017) (same); Ex parte Lee, No. 2014-009364, 2017 WL 1101681, at *2 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2017) (same)).
Claim 6 recites a method claim including the limitation “(i) when the robot is capable of guiding the person to a boundary point between a region where the person route is included in the robot travelable area information and a region where the person route is not included in the robot travelable area information, specifying an other robot, different from the robot, capable of guiding the person along the person route from the boundary point to the location of the guidance destination.” (Emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the other robot to be specified because it does not require the condition precedent (i.e., that the robot is capable of guiding the person to a boundary point) to occur. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Reactive Surfaces v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914 (PTAB 2018) (“[t]he use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ does not change whether the method step is conditional”) (citing Ex parte Kaundinya, No. 2016-000917, 2017 WL 5510012, at *5-6 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2017) (“when” may indicate a conditional method step); Ex parte Zhou, No. 2016-004913, 2017 WL 5171533, at *2 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2017) (same); Ex parte Lee, No. 2014-009364, 2017 WL 1101681, at *2 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2017) (same)).
Claim 7 recites a method claim including the limitation “(j) when the robot is capable of guiding the person to the boundary point between the region where the person route is included in the robot travelable area information and the region where the person route is not included in the robot travelable area information, specifying a takeover robot that is an other robot, different from the robot, capable of guiding the person along the person route to the location of the guidance destination from a location within a predetermined range from the boundary point.” (Emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the other robot to be specified because it does not require the condition precedent (i.e., that the robot is capable of guiding the person to a boundary point) to occur. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Reactive Surfaces v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914 (PTAB 2018) (“[t]he use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ does not change whether the method step is conditional”) (citing Ex parte Kaundinya, No. 2016-000917, 2017 WL 5510012, at *5-6 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2017) (“when” may indicate a conditional method step); Ex parte Zhou, No. 2016-004913, 2017 WL 5171533, at *2 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2017) (same); Ex parte Lee, No. 2014-009364, 2017 WL 1101681, at *2 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2017) (same)).
Claim 8 recites a method claim including the limitation “(k) specifying a substitute robot that is an other robot, different from the robot, capable of guiding the person along an entirety of the person route, when the entirety of the person route is not included in the robot travelable area information.” (Emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require specifying a substitute robot because it does not require the condition precedent (i.e., the entirety of the route is not included in the robot travelable area) to occur. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Reactive Surfaces v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914 (PTAB 2018) (“[t]he use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ does not change whether the method step is conditional”) (citing Ex parte Kaundinya, No. 2016-000917, 2017 WL 5510012, at *5-6 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2017) (“when” may indicate a conditional method step); Ex parte Zhou, No. 2016-004913, 2017 WL 5171533, at *2 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2017) (same); Ex parte Lee, No. 2014-009364, 2017 WL 1101681, at *2 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2017) (same)).
Claim 9 recites a method claim including the limitation “(I) specifying a substitute robot that is an other robot, different from the robot, capable of guiding the person from a location within a predetermined range from the current location to the location of the guidance destination, when an entirety of the person route is not included in the robot travelable area information.” (Emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require specifying a substitute robot because it does not require the condition precedent (i.e., the entirety of the route is not included in the robot travelable area) to occur. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Reactive Surfaces v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914 (PTAB 2018) (“[t]he use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ does not change whether the method step is conditional”) (citing Ex parte Kaundinya, No. 2016-000917, 2017 WL 5510012, at *5-6 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2017) (“when” may indicate a conditional method step); Ex parte Zhou, No. 2016-004913, 2017 WL 5171533, at *2 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2017) (same); Ex parte Lee, No. 2014-009364, 2017 WL 1101681, at *2 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2017) (same)).
Claim Objections
Claims 6-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “an other robot” is grammatically awkward. The examiner recommends replacing “an other” with “another.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the term “recognizable” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “recognizable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is generally used to mean that something has a particular meaning which is not defined by the claim. Otherwise, this term would cover any display that can be seen (i.e., recognized) by a person.
Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, this claim includes the limitation “(g) includes changing the display format displayed on the display to a display format indicating that the robot is capable of transporting the one person among two or more people to the guidance destination along the robot route, and that a person among the two or more people and aside from the one person is capable of moving to the guidance destination along the person route, the two or more people each being the person.” (Emphasis added). The claims fails to conform with current U.S. practice and appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and includes idiomatic errors. This limitation appears to state that each of the two people are the claimed person capable of being transported, which would be impossible.
Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watabe et al., US Publication 2019/0369642 (hereinafter Watabe).
Regarding claim 1, Watabe discloses a control method for a robot capable of autonomous movement for guiding a person to a guidance destination, the control method comprising “(a) obtaining robot current location information indicating a current location of the robot” (Watabe ¶ 93) where the mobile robot positions are acquired. Additionally, Watabe discloses “(b) obtaining guidance destination location information indicating a location of the guidance destination” (Watabe ¶ 135) where the user enters destination information. Further, Watabe discloses “(c) obtaining person movable area information indicating an area where the person is capable of moving” (Watabe ¶ 152 and Fig. 8) by determining a table of data representing environmental information where the user intends to move. Moreover, Watabe discloses “(d) obtaining robot travelable area information indicating an area where the robot is capable of traveling” (Watabe ¶ 100) by obtaining locations in the area where the robot may stop within the hazards. In addition, Watabe discloses “(e) calculating a person route that is a route for the person from the current location to the location of the guidance destination, to satisfy a predetermined condition for reducing a burden on the person, based on the robot current location information, the guidance destination location information, and the person movable area information obtained” (Watabe ¶ 98) where “a route having the shortest distance” is set as the route. The shortest distance is a predetermined condition for reducing a burden on the person. Watabe also discloses “(f) comparing the person route calculated with the robot travelable area information” (Watabe ¶ 205) by updating the map information, which includes the route (Watabe ¶ 42), based on the locations including hazards (i.e., the robot’s travelable area). This is a comparison because the process examines all the information and updates the map information with the data contained in the other information (i.e., the result of the comparison). Finally, Watabe discloses “(g) changing a display format of guidance to the guidance destination, the display format being displayed on a display of the robot, in accordance with a comparison result obtained from the comparing” (Watabe ¶ 120) where the presenting part changes the display based on the guide information generated based on the updated map information (i.e., the comparison).
Regarding claim 13, it merely recites a robot for performing the method of claim 1. The robot comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the various functions. Watabe comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, it merely recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for embodying the method of claim 1. The medium comprises computer software modules for performing the various functions. Watabe comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe in view of Sisbot et al., US Patent 9,817,395 (hereinafter Sisbot).
Regarding claim 2, Watabe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Watabe does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein (g) includes changing the display format displayed on the display to a display format indicating that the robot is capable of guiding the person to a boundary point between a region where the person route is included in the robot travelable area information and a region where the person route is not included in the robot travelable area information.”
However, Sisbot discloses a mobile robot guide with a display interface “wherein (g) includes changing the display format displayed on the display to a display format indicating that the robot is capable of guiding the person to a boundary point between a region where the person route is included in the robot travelable area information and a region where the person route is not included in the robot travelable area information” (Sisbot col. 10, l. 61-col. 11, l. 8) by notifying the user that he or she is being transferred to another robot.
Watabe and Sisbot are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of mobile robot guides.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Watabe and Sisbot before him or her to modify the robot guide of Watabe to include the boundaries and accompanying notifications of Sisbot.
The motivation for doing so would have been that the use of multiple robot units for a single patron results in increased efficiency. (Sisbot col. 14, ll. 4-15).
Regarding claim 6, Watabe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Watabe does not appear to explicitly disclose “(i) when the robot is capable of guiding the person to a boundary point between a region where the person route is included in the robot travelable area information and a region where the person route is not included in the robot travelable area information, specifying an other robot, different from the robot, capable of guiding the person along the person route from the boundary point to the location of the guidance destination, wherein (g) includes changing the display format displayed on the display to a display format indicating that the robot is capable of guidance along the person route from the current location to the boundary point, and that the other robot specified is capable of guidance from the boundary point to the location of the guidance destination.”
However, Sisbot discloses a mobile robot guide with a display interface wherein “(i) when the robot is capable of guiding the person to a boundary point between a region where the person route is included in the robot travelable area information and a region where the person route is not included in the robot travelable area information, specifying an other robot, different from the robot, capable of guiding the person along the person route from the boundary point to the location of the guidance destination, wherein (g) includes changing the display format displayed on the display to a display format indicating that the robot is capable of guidance along the person route from the current location to the boundary point, and that the other robot specified is capable of guidance from the boundary point to the location of the guidance destination” (Sisbot col. 10, l. 61-col. 11, l. 8) by notifying the user that he or she is being transferred to another robot when the robot has reached the boundary for its region.
Watabe and Sisbot are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of mobile robot guides.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Watabe and Sisbot before him or her to modify the robot guide of Watabe to include the boundaries and accompanying notifications of Sisbot.
The motivation for doing so would have been that the use of multiple robot units for a single patron results in increased efficiency. (Sisbot col. 14, ll. 4-15).
Regarding claim 7, Watabe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Watabe does not appear to explicitly disclose “(j) when the robot is capable of guiding the person to the boundary point between the region where the person route is included in the robot travelable area information and the region where the person route is not included in the robot travelable area information, specifying a takeover robot that is an other robot, different from the robot, capable of guiding the person along the person route to the location of the guidance destination from a location within a predetermined range from the boundary point, wherein (g) includes changing the display format displayed on the display to a display format indicating that the robot is capable of guidance along the person route from the current location to the boundary point, and that the takeover robot specified is capable of guidance to the location of the guidance destination from the location within a predetermined range from the boundary point.”
However, Sisbot discloses a mobile robot guide with a display interface wherein “(j) when the robot is capable of guiding the person to the boundary point between the region where the person route is included in the robot travelable area information and the region where the person route is not included in the robot travelable area information, specifying a takeover robot that is an other robot, different from the robot, capable of guiding the person along the person route to the location of the guidance destination from a location within a predetermined range from the boundary point, wherein (g) includes changing the display format displayed on the display to a display format indicating that the robot is capable of guidance along the person route from the current location to the boundary point, and that the takeover robot specified is capable of guidance to the location of the guidance destination from the location within a predetermined range from the boundary point” (Sisbot col. 10, l. 61-col. 11, l. 8) by notifying the user that he or she is being transferred to another robot when the robot has reached the boundary for its region that another robot will continue to guide the user.
Watabe and Sisbot are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of mobile robot guides.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Watabe and Sisbot before him or her to modify the robot guide of Watabe to include the boundaries and accompanying notifications of Sisbot.
The motivation for doing so would have been that the use of multiple robot units for a single patron results in increased efficiency. (Sisbot col. 14, ll. 4-15).
Regarding claim 8, Watabe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Watabe does not appear to explicitly disclose “(k) specifying a substitute robot that is an other robot, different from the robot, capable of guiding the person along an entirety of the person route, when the entirety of the person route is not included in the robot travelable area information, wherein (g) includes changing the display format displayed on the display to a display format indicating that the substitute robot is capable of guiding the person along the person route from the current location to the location of the guidance destination.”
However, Sisbot discloses a mobile robot guide with a display interface wherein “wherein (g) includes changing the display format displayed on the display to a display format indicating that the substitute robot is capable of guiding the person along the person route from the current location to the location of the guidance destination” (Sisbot col. 10, l. 61-col. 11, l. 8) by notifying the user that he or she is being transferred to another robot when the robot has reached the boundary for its region.
As discussed above, the prior art is not required to teach or suggest the limitation “(k) specifying a substitute robot that is an other robot, different from the robot, capable of guiding the person along an entirety of the person route, when the entirety of the person route is not included in the robot travelable area information,” rendering it obvious.
Watabe and Sisbot are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of mobile robot guides.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Watabe and Sisbot before him or her to modify the robot guide of Watabe to include the boundaries and accompanying notifications of Sisbot.
The motivation for doing so would have been that the use of multiple robot units for a single patron results in increased efficiency. (Sisbot col. 14, ll. 4-15).
Regarding claim 9, Watabe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Watabe does not appear to explicitly disclose “(I) specifying a substitute robot that is an other robot, different from the robot, capable of guiding the person from a location within a predetermined range from the current location to the location of the guidance destination, when an entirety of the person route is not included in the robot travelable area information, wherein (g) includes changing the display format displayed on the display to a display format indicating that the substitute robot is capable of guiding the person along the person route from the location within a predetermined range from the current location to the location of the guidance destination.”
However, Sisbot discloses a mobile robot guide with a display interface wherein “(I) specifying a substitute robot that is an other robot, different from the robot, capable of guiding the person from a location within a predetermined range from the current location to the location of the guidance destination, when an entirety of the person route is not included in the robot travelable area information, wherein (g) includes changing the display format displayed on the display to a display format indicating that the substitute robot is capable of guiding the person along the person route from the location within a predetermined range from the current location to the location of the guidance destination” ” (Sisbot col. 10, l. 61-col. 11, l. 8) by notifying the user that he or she is being transferred to another robot.
Watabe and Sisbot are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of mobile robot guides.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Watabe and Sisbot before him or her to modify the robot guide of Watabe to include the boundaries and accompanying notifications of Sisbot.
The motivation for doing so would have been that the use of multiple robot units for a single patron results in increased efficiency. (Sisbot col. 14, ll. 4-15).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe in view of Choi et al., US Publication 2021/0064019 (hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claim 10, Watabe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Watabe discloses “(m) calculating a robot route that is a route for the robot from the current location to the location of the guidance destination, based on the robot current location information, the guidance destination location information, and the robot travelable area information obtained” (Watabe ¶ 98) as discussed in the rejection to claim 1 above.
Watabe does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the robot is further capable of transporting a load, and (g) includes changing the display format displayed on the display to a display format indicating that the robot is capable of transporting the load to the guidance destination along the robot route and that the person is capable of moving to the guidance destination along the person route.”
However, Choi discloses a mobile robot guide “wherein the robot is further capable of transporting a load, and (g) includes changing the display format displayed on the display to a display format indicating that the robot is capable of transporting the load to the guidance destination along the robot route and that the person is capable of moving to the guidance destination along the person route” (Choi ¶ 89) where, when the robot is loaded, it transports a message of “transporting,” which indicates that the robot is capable of transporting the load.
Watabe and Choi are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of mobile robot guides.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Watabe and Choi before him or her to modify the robot guide of Watabe to include the ability to carry a load of Choi.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve user convenience. (Choi ¶ 21).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe in view of Roh et al., US Publication 2019/0005545 (hereinafter Roh).
Regarding claim 12, Watabe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Watabe does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein (g) further includes changing the display format displayed on the display to a display format that displays an advertisement of a shop present on the person route.”
However, Roh discloses a mobile robot guide with a display “wherein (g) further includes changing the display format displayed on the display to a display format that displays an advertisement of a shop present on the person route” (Roh ¶ 223) where the robot displays advertisements for from “shops along the route.”
Watabe and Roh are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of mobile robot guides.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Watabe and Roh before him or her to modify the display of Watabe to include the advertisements of Roh.
The motivation for doing so would have been that such targeted advertisements improves advertising effects in the facility. (Roh ¶ 166).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Ichinose et al., US Publication 2008/0147261, Robot capable of guiding a human.
Palan et al., US Publication 2019/0302775, Robot capable of guiding a human through a store while allowing the human to place objects on the robot.
Yeo et al., US Publication 2019/0381671, Robot capable of guiding a human.
Lee, US Publication 2020/0012293, Robot capable of guiding a human.
Shin et al., US Publication 2020/0088524, Robot capable of guiding a human within a predefined region.
Park et al., US Publication 2020/0156256, Robot capable of guiding a human.
Kim et al., US Publication 2021/0078180, Robot capable of guiding a human by selecting the shortest route.
Yeom et al., US Publication 2021/0129344, Robot capable of guiding a human.
Son et al., US Publication 2021/0145670, Robot capable of guiding a human, including allowing the robot to be ridden.
Kim et al., US Publication 2021/0145671, Robot capable of guiding a human, including allowing the robot to be ridden.
Son et al., US Publication 2021/0145672, Robot capable of guiding a human, including allowing the robot to be ridden.
Son et al., US Publication 2021/0145673, Robot capable of guiding a human, including allowing the robot to be ridden.
Son et al., US Publication 2021/0146528, Robot capable of guiding a human, including allowing the robot to be ridden.
Kato, US Publication 2021/0333798, Robot capable of guiding a human, including allowing the robot to be ridden.
Sato et al., US Publication 2022/0044337, Robot capable of guiding a human.
Ichinose et al., US Patent 8,195,353, Robot capable of guiding a human.
Rezvani, US Patent 11,060,873, Robot capable of guiding a human by determining a shortest path.
Higashi, US Patent 11,739,449, Robot capable of guiding a human.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights