DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to claims filed 4/29/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/18/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, claim 3 recites the limitation of the operations performed by the processor further comprise combining the localization data and the signal coverage data into a log of records, and claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, recites:
A user terminal, comprising:
receiver;
a user interface;
a processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable program code therein that is executable by the processor to perform operations…
The disclosure does not support the “user terminal” performing the operation of “combining the localization data and the signal coverage data into a log of records.” Specifically, the specification filed 4/29/2025 recites: “The mobile robot 200 thereby combines the signal coverage data determined at blocks 1201 and 1203 with the occupancy data and positioning determined at block 1202 (and optionally 1204) into a log of records at block 1205” in paragraph [00137], with respect to Figure 12B. As depicted in Figure 12B, while other operations 1207, 1208, 1209, 1211 may be alternatively performed by various devices 150, 200, 142, 144, 400, the step of logging the localization data and signal coverage data is exclusively performed by the mobile robot 200. Paragraph [00138] of the specification further confirms this by reciting that “it will be understood that one or more of the correlation operations 1207, 1208, 1209a, 1209b, and/or 1211 may be performed by the mobile robot 200 itself and/or by one or more other computing devices that may be communicatively coupled to the mobile robot 200, including the remote server 150 and/or a user terminal 142, 444, 400,” where the correlation operations do not include block 1205 in which the data is recorded in a log.
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 1-20 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 the limitation of filtering the localization data and the signal coverage data, and establishing a correlation therebetween using timing or spatial information associated with respective data (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine if the “respective data” is referencing the timing or spatial information, the localization data, and/or the signal coverage data, or if the “respective data” is to be interpreted as entirely distinct from the timing or spatial information, the localization data, and the signal coverage data. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claim 7 recites the limitation of the coverage pattern includes signal characteristics of the wireless communication signals at respective positions in the operating environment (emphasis added). The term “respective” means related to the term previously mentioned, such that “respective positions” should reference previously recited “positions.” However, no positions are previously recited; therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be capable of interpreting the metes and bounds of “respective positions,” e.g. quantity of positions. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of the visual representation of the coverage pattern comprises a two-dimensional representation indicating signal strengths of the wireless communication signals by colors or brightness levels that vary at respective positions in the operating environment (emphasis added). The term “respective” means related to the term previously mentioned, such that “respective positions” should reference previously recited “positions.” However, no positions are previously recited; therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be capable of interpreting the metes and bounds of “respective positions,” e.g. quantity of positions. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Several issues are presented with respect to claim 10, as follows:
Claim 10 recites the visual representation of the coverage pattern comprises a three-dimensional topological representation indicating signal strengths of the wireless communication signals at respective positions in the operating environment relative to an axis and changes in slope of respective signal strengths between the respective positions (emphasis added). Specifically, the limitation of “three-dimensional topological representation” implies a coordinate system with three axes; however, the limitation of “relative to an axis” limits the “signal strengths at respective positions” to a singular axis, and therefore, it is unclear how to interpret the mapping relationship across all three dimensions.
Claim 10 recites the visual representation of the coverage pattern comprises a three-dimensional topological representation indicating…changes in slope of respective signal strengths between the respective positions. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably interpret if the “visual representation” is merely a standard 3D mesh surface where “changes in slope” can be perceived or is provided with visual indicators that represent the “changes in slope,” e.g., labeled inflection points.
Claim 10 recites the visual representation of the coverage pattern comprises a three-dimensional topological representation indicating signal strengths of the wireless communication signals at respective positions in the operating environment relative to an axis (emphasis added). The metes and bounds of “respective positions in the operating environment” cannot be reasonably determined. The term “respective” means related to the term previously mentioned, such that “respective positions” should reference previously recited “positions.” However, no positions are previously recited, and therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claims 2-6, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of independent claims 1 and 13 by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 12-14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al. (WO 2018/141285 A1), hereinafter Lau, in view of Bali et al. (US 2016/0094421 A1), hereinafter Bali, and Suvarna et al. (US 2018/0299899 A1), hereinafter Suvarna.
Claim 1
Lau discloses the claimed terminal (i.e. cloud server 310, described as including SLAM fusion module 312, estimation module 314, and path planning module 316 in ¶0047, with respect to Figure 3), comprising:
a receiver (see ¶0045, regarding that robot agents 102 communicate with cloud server 310 via a wireless communication connection, e.g., Wi-Fi).
Cloud server 310 of Lau inherently includes a processor, and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable program code therein that is executable by the processor to perform operations, given that cloud server 310 includes SLAM fusion module 312, estimation module 314, and path planning module 316 to perform the operations described in at least ¶0047, with respect to Figure 3.
Lau further teaches that the claimed operations comprise:
receiving, via the receiver, (i) localization data detected by a localization sensor of at least one mobile robot in an operating environment thereof (see ¶0046, regarding robot agents 102 utilize SLAM module 332 for performing mapping and localization of the associated robot agent 102, where SLAM module 800 receives raw sensor data input associated with the robot agent 102 for building a local map corresponding to the area in which the corresponding robot agent 102 is located and estimates the location of the robot agent 102 with respect to the local map; ¶0047-0048, with respect to Figure 3, regarding that robot agents 102 submit measurement reports, e.g., value, location, timestamps, etc., to a centralized controller at the cloud server 310 via a wireless connection to the cloud server 310 for processing by the SLAM fusion module 310, estimation module 314, and path planning module 316 of the cloud server 310; ¶0082, with respect to step 1706 of Figure 17, regarding respective robot agents 102 send positions to the cloud server 310 via a wireless connection) and (ii) signal coverage data of wireless communication signals transmitted by at least one electronic device in the operating environment and acquired by a wireless receiver of the at least one mobile robot in the operating environment (see ¶0046, regarding that measurement module 334 of a robot agent 102 captures RSSI from respective wireless access points; ¶0052, regarding that estimation module 314 takes as input a [Coordinates, Signal Strength Indicator] input pair from the one or more robot agents 102, where robot agents 102 communicate to centralized controller at cloud server 310 via wireless connection to the cloud server 310, as described in ¶0045; ¶0082, with respect to step 1706 of Figure 17, regarding that the respective robot agents 102 send their signal strength measurements to the cloud server 310 via a wireless connection) responsive to navigation of the at least one mobile robot in the operating environment (see ¶0054, regarding that path planning module 316 of cloud server 310 is utilized to navigate robot agents 102 through an area based on model estimation results and/or a confidence level associated with those results, e.g., for identification of a weak coverage area; ¶0082-0084, with respect to Figure 17, regarding the continuous navigation control via cloud server 310 of the respective robot agents 102); and
establishing a correlation therebetween using timing or spatial information associated with respective data (see ¶0052-0053, with respect to Figure 6, regarding that estimation model 314 of cloud server 310 takes a [Coordinates, Signal Strength Indicator] input pair from the robot agents 102, where the coordinates in the received input pair correspond to respective positions of robot agents 102 in the global map; ¶0083, with respect to Figure 17, regarding that cloud server 310 performs global map fusion and global signal strength position pairing based on the information received from robot agents 102).
Lau may reasonably disclose the step of filtering the localization data and the signal coverage data as part of the processing of the received location coordinates and signal strength indicator, given that the limitation of “filtering” is not defined in the claim and may be broadly interpreted as mere processing of raw input data through algorithms. In case a narrower interpretation of “filtering” is intended by the Applicant, the technique of pre-processing data to reduce noise for improved data processing is common in the art, and it would be reasonable to incorporate this well-known technique into Lau, given that the “filtering” step does not influence any of the subsequent steps.
Specifically, Bali teaches the known technique in which server 120 (similar to the terminal of Lau) performs the operation of filtering sensor data (similar to the localization data and signal coverage data of Lau), defined as being received from various types of sensors associated with various types of smart devices and/or machines in ¶0024 (see ¶0028, regarding data collected by gateway 102 is sent over network 150 to server 120 which pre-processes the sensor data by filtering).
In Lau, sensor data is received from at least one mobile robot. In Bali, sensor data is received from various types of devices, including smart devices and/or machines. However, it is the technique of filtering received sensor data that is modified by Bali; therefore, the type of device transmitting the sensor data does not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Lau and Bali are directed to the same purpose, i.e. transmitting sensor data to a remote terminal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operations of Lau to further include filtering the localization data and the signal coverage data, in light of Bali, with the predictable result of performing preliminary processing on received data for efficient storage (¶0059-0060 of Bali).
Lau does not further disclose that the claimed terminal is a user terminal with a user interface, such that the claimed operations further comprise based at least in part on the established correlation, generating and presenting a visual representation of a coverage pattern of the wireless communication signals in the operating environment on the user interface. However, the “operations” are interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, which define the “operations” as being performed by either a user terminal 142, 444, 400 or remote server 150, with respect to Applicant’s Figure 12B, and therefore, it would be reasonable to modify the cloud server 310 (i.e. “terminal”) of Lau to be a “user terminal” with a user interface, so as to further display a coverage pattern of the wireless communication signals based on the established correlation of location and signal strength, in light of Suvarna.
Specifically, Suvarna teaches computing system 702 defined as a remote server in ¶0028 (similar to the terminal of Lau), which may alternatively be embodied as a handheld device, e.g., iPhone, cellular phone, iPad computing tablet, or PDA, as described in ¶0029, and thus, Suvarna teaches the known modification of a “terminal” similar to Lau as a user terminal. Suvarna further teaches that the user terminal comprises a user interface (i.e. I/O subsystem 730 defined as including various embodiments of user interfaces in ¶0032-0034) and that the user terminal is further configured to perform the operation of based at least in part on the WiFi signal strength mapped using sensors, described in ¶0060 (similar to the established correlation of Lau), generating and presenting a visual representation of a coverage pattern of WiFi signals (similar to the wireless communication signals of Lau) in the floor plan (similar to the operating environment of Lau) on the user interface (see ¶0086, regarding the display of heat map layer 904 of the relative strength of WiFi is superimposed over floor plan layer 902 mapped by the cleaning robot; Figure 8, depicting a display provided on smartphone 801, similar to the embodiments of computing system 702 described in ¶0029).
Since the systems of Lau and Suvarna are directed to the same purpose, i.e. transmitting signal coverage data from a mobile robot to a remote terminal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the terminal of Lau to be a user terminal further comprising a user interface, such that the operations of Lau further comprise based at least in part on the established correlation, generating and presenting a visual representation of a coverage pattern of the wireless communication signals in the operating environment on the user interface, in light of Suvarna, with the predictable result of providing a known alternative computing system that can be carried by a user (¶0028-0029 of Suvarna) for easy selection and viewing of a heat map indicating relative strength of wireless signals mapped throughout a floor plan (¶0086 of Suvarna), so as to identify an optimum location for a charging station where there is a good WiFi signal (¶0065 of Suvarna).
Claims 2 and 14
Bali further teaches that the data-preprocessing includes both “filtering” and compression (see ¶0028, regarding that the sensor data received by server 120 is pre-processed by filtering, applying rules, etc., where the rules include data compression, as described in ¶0059-0060), and thus, Lau, as modified by Bali, further teaches that the operation of establishing the correlation between the localization data and the signal coverage data further include one or more of data averaging or compression.
Claim 3
Lau further discloses that the operations performed by the processor further comprise combining the localization data and the signal coverage data into a log of records (see ¶0063, regarding that localization results and coordinates are passed to logger 1230 in combination with wireless signal strength data obtained by measurement module 334 to produce a [coordinates, signal strength] data pair for storage at a position and signal strength database 1240).
Claim 7
Suvarna further teaches that the coverage pattern includes signal characteristics of the WiFi signals (similar to the wireless communication signals of Lau) at respective positions in the floor plan (similar to the operating environment of Lau) (see ¶0086, regarding layer 904 is superimposed over floor plan 902 and represents the relative strength of WiFi signals mapped throughout the floor plan; Figure 9, depicting the heat map associated with layer 904).
Claims 8 and 16
Suvarna further teaches that the signal characteristics include signal strengths of the WiFi signals (similar to the wireless communication signals of Lau) at respective positions in the floor plan (similar to the operating environment of Lau) (see ¶0086, regarding layer 904 is superimposed over floor plan 902 and represents the relative strength of WiFi signals mapped throughout the floor plan; Figure 9, depicting the heat map associated with layer 904).
Claims 9 and 17
Suvarna further teaches that the visual representation of the coverage pattern comprises a two-dimensional representation indicating signal strengths of the WiFi signals (similar to the wireless communication signals of Lau) by colors or brightness levels that vary at respective positions in the floor plan (similar to the operating environment of Lau) (see ¶0086, regarding that the heat map associated with layer 904 is provided using different colors to indicate the relative strength of the WiFi signals as mapped throughout the floor plan; Figure 9, depicting the variations of brightness).
Claims 12 and 20
Suvarna further teaches that the visual representation indicates areas in the floor plan (similar to the operating environment of Lau) in which signal coverage by the WiFi signals (similar to the wireless communication signals of Lau) is weak or absent (see ¶0086, with respect to Figure 9, regarding that the display includes a heat map indicating the relative strength of a WiFi signal as mapped through the floor plan). A heat map inherently depicts “absent” WiFi signals on the floor plan of Suvarna. Suvarna further teaches displaying, via the user interface, a suggestion for improvement of the signal coverage (see ¶0061-0067, regarding that information is communicated to the user device that includes signal quality data, so as to indicate where control may be lost, switch over to another WiFi channel, make recommendations for moving a WiFi access point, etc.).
Claim 13
The combination of Lau, Bali, and Suvarna disclose the claimed method of operating a user terminal, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 4-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of Bali and Suvarna, and in further view of Pfister (US 7,043,277 B1), hereinafter Pfister.
Claims 4 and 15
Lau further discloses that the operations performed by the processor further comprise identifying or receiving information about one or more of a type or a position of the at least one electronic device (see ¶0060, with respect to Figure 10, regarding measurement module 334 detects data packets that include RSSI and router identification corresponding to respective routers 1010 and/or other signal sources via an antenna/receiver 1020, where the measurement reports of the robot agents 102 are submitted to a centralized controller at cloud server 310 via wireless connection, as described in ¶0048).
Lau, as modified by Suvarna, does not further disclose that the operation of generating the visual representation of the coverage pattern is further based on one or more of the type or the position of the at least one electronic device. However, incorporating similar “type” information of Lau in the display of Suvarna would be obvious, in light of Pfister.
Specifically, Pfister teaches management station 10 (similar to the user terminal of Lau and Suvarna) that uses graphical user interface software 22 to provide user interface output 32 that includes a graphical representation of the radio frequency domain characteristics of one or more devices in wireless communication network 18 in combination with a graphical representation of the physical space in which the wireless communication network 18 is deployed (similar to the operation of generating the visual representation of the coverage pattern of Lau and Suvarna) (see col. 4, lines 32-40, with respect to Figure 1) based on a MAC address of the corresponding access point (similar to the type of the at least one electronic device of Lau) (see col. 5, lines 11-59, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that wireless communication network management program 20 of management station 10 periodically monitors access point devices discovered in step 52 for updating their radio frequency domain representations layered over the physical space representation 26 in the user interface, where each access point representation includes the last three characters of the MAC address of the corresponding access point, as described in col. 6, line 62-col. 7, line 21).
In Suvarna, the visual representation is determined from data received from a mobile robot. In Pfister, the visual representation is determined from direct communication of the management station with the access points. However, it is the technique of including a type of at least one electronic device into the visual representation of Suvarna that is modified by Pfister; therefore, the source of the data does not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Suvarna and Pfister are directed to the same purpose, i.e. displaying a visual representation of a coverage pattern associated with wireless access points, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation of generating the visual representation of the coverage pattern of Lau and Suvarna to be further based on one or more of the type or the position of the at least one electronic device, in light of Pfister, with the predictable result of allowing a user to more easily identify and distinguish between access points within a wireless network (col. 1, line 43-col. 2, line 3 of Pfister).
Claim 5
Lau further discloses that the type of the at least one electronic device includes one or more of an identification of a stationary or mobile device, a device model, or a device manufacturer (see ¶0060, with respect to Figure 10, regarding measurement module 334 detects data packets that include RSSI and router identification corresponding to respective routers 1010 and/or other signal sources via an antenna/receiver 1020, where the measurement reports of the robot agents 102 are submitted to a centralized controller at cloud server 310 via wireless connection, as described in ¶0048), as discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 6
Lau further discloses persistence and temporal averaging of the localization data and the signal coverage data (see ¶0077, regarding that cloud server 310 passes local position and signal strength data to global database 1660, which transforms the respective local positions to global positions; ¶0052-0053, regarding estimation module 314 takes [coordinates, signal strength indicator] input pairs from one or more robot agents 102 as well as a set of prior estimated parameters and a confidence level associated with the prior estimated parameters, and outputs an updated model and new confidence level). As described in ¶0079 of Lau, the estimation module 314 performs a recursive estimation process, where each new measurement is blended with the accumulated model rather than replacing, which functionally corresponds to “temporal averaging.” Therefore, the operation of generating the visual representation of the coverage pattern taught by the combination of Lau and Suvarna, discussed in the rejection of claim 1, includes persistence and temporal averaging of the localization data and the signal coverage data.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of Bali and Suvarna, and in further view of Rappaport et al. (US 2003/0014233 A1), hereinafter Rappaport.
Claims 10 and 18
Due to the lack of clear antecedent basis and resulting ambiguity discussed in the rejection of claims 10 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the scope of the limitations of claims 10 and 18 have been interpreted broadly for the purposes of the prior art rejection.
Suvarna teaches that the visual representation of the coverage pattern comprises a representation indicating signal strengths of the wireless communication signals at respective positions in the operating environment relative to an axis (see ¶0086, regarding the display of heat map layer 904 of the relative strength of WiFi is superimposed over floor plan layer 902 mapped by the cleaning robot). Suvarna does not teach the “visual representation” as a three-dimensional topological visual representation that further comprises a representation indicating changes in slope of respective signal strengths between the respective positions.
However, Rappaport teaches the known technique of providing a three-dimensional topological visual representation that comprises changes in slope of respective signal strengths between the respective positions (see ¶0031, regarding that a region is overlaid with a grid forming a mesh of received signal strength intensity (RSSI), where elevation may correspond to RSSI).
Since the systems of Suvarna and Rappaport are directed to the same purpose, i.e. displaying signal strength intensity on a map associated with an environment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the visual representation of Suvarna to be a three-dimensional topological visual representation, such that the representation of Suvarna further indicates changes in slope of respective signal strengths between the respective positions, in light of Rappaport, with the predictable result of improving the display of wireless system performance (¶0013 of Rappaport) and providing the user with rapid assimilation of large data sets and their relation to the physical environment (¶0007 of Rappaport).
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of Bali and Suvarna, and in further view of Allard (US 2001/0037163 A1), hereinafter Allard.
Claims 11 and 19
Lau further discloses that the operations performed by the processor further comprise determining or receiving an indication of a most recent location in the operating environment from which the wireless communication signals were received by the at least one electronic device (see ¶0081-0084, with respect to Figure 17, regarding that robot agents 102 send their local maps, positions, and signal strength measurements to cloud server 310 via wireless connection after moving to their next positions based on commands generated based on data received by cloud server 310).
Lau, as modified by Suvarna, does not further disclose generating, via the user interface, an audio or visual indication of the most recent location. However, displaying the most recent location of a mobile robot is well-known in the art and would be obvious to incorporate on the “user interface” of Suvarna, in light of Allard.
Specifically, Allard teaches the known technique of generating, via user interface 300 (similar to the user interface of Lau and Suvarna), an audio or visual indication of the recent location of the robot (similar to the most recent location of Lau) (see ¶0046-0047, with respect to Figure 7, regarding that overhead map 340 contains graphical representations that include the current position, direction, and speed of the robot as an animated element on the display).
In Suvarna, a robot measures WiFi signal strength. In Allard, a robot performs sonar scanning. However, it is the technique of displaying a visual indication of the robot at its most recent location that is modified by Allard; therefore, the additional measurements performed by the robot do not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Lau, Suvarna, and Allard are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining a position of a mobile robot, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the user interface of Suvarna to further generat[e] an audio or visual indication of the most recent location, in light of Allard, with the predictable result of providing awareness of current operation of a robot (¶0047 of Allard) for intuitive tele-operation (¶0012-0013 of Allard).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Goodall et al. (US 2007/0042716 A1) teaches a mobile robot that communicates with transceivers in a wireless network to determine path loss (see abstract), King et al. (US 2011/0274000 A1) teaches developing a Wi-Fi access point map using a mobile device of a user (see abstract), and Deyle et al. (US 2017/0225336 A1) teaches a robot that measures WiFi signal strength for generating a heat map (see ¶0268).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights