DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 were originally filed on 05/15/2025 and is a continuation of US application 17/955,574, which was filed on 09/29/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 05/15/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: There should be a “wherein” after “claim 6,” so that the claim reads “The work management device according to claim 6, wherein the one or more processors cause…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more.
Claim 1 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 1 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “carry out setting of assigned working regions which are assigned to the plurality of autonomous mobile working machines, based on the working region information and the machine number information acquired; and carry out resetting of the assigned working regions in a case where the number of the autonomous mobile working machines used in performing the work has been changed”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally divide a room into three regions when they have three robots, and assign each region to a different robot. The person can then mentally reset the working regions when one of the robots stops working. For example, when one of the robots needs to recharge, the person can then divide the room into two regions and assign each of the two robots one of the regions. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are acquiring working region information, which is information concerning the working region, and machine number information indicating a number of the autonomous mobile working machines used in performing the work; and the one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in memory. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because acquiring working region information and machine number information is merely data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and the processor is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are acquiring working region information, which is information concerning the working region, and machine number information indicating a number of the autonomous mobile working machines used in performing the work; and the one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in memory. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because acquiring working region information and machine number information is merely data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and the processor is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Note: The 101 rejection can be overcome by positively claiming controlling the autonomous mobile working machines to perform the work in their assigned working regions.
Claim 2 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 2 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “determine whether or not the number of the autonomous mobile working machines has been changed, based on the working machine state information acquired; and carry out resetting of the assigned working regions in a case where it is determined that the number of the autonomous mobile working machines has been changed.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. The person can mentally reset the working regions when the number of robots has changed. For example, when one of the three robots needs to recharge, the person can mentally determine that the number of robots has changed from three to two, and then divide the room into two regions and assign each of the two robots one of the regions. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are acquiring working machine state information, which is information indicating states of the autonomous mobile working machines, and the processor. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because acquiring working machine state information is merely data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and the processor is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are acquiring working machine state information, which is information indicating states of the autonomous mobile working machines, and the processor. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because acquiring working machine state information is merely data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and the processor is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Claim 3 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 3 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “the working machine state information includes at least one item of information from among information indicating operating states of the autonomous mobile working machines, information indicating remaining capacities of batteries provided in the autonomous mobile working machines, information indicating errors occurring in the autonomous mobile working machines, information indicating a state of communication between the autonomous mobile working machines and the work management device, and information indicating loads of working units provided in the autonomous mobile working machines.”. A person can use any of this information to determine if the number of robots has changed. For example, a person can mentally determine that one of the three robots needs to recharge based on the information indicating remaining capacities of batteries. The person can then mentally determine that the number of robots has changed from three to two, and then divide the room into two regions and assign each of the two robots one of the regions. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements.
Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Claim 4 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 4 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “determine, based on the travel path information acquired, whether a difference that is greater than or equal to a percentage threshold value has occurred in a work completion percentage between the assigned working regions, the work completion percentage being a ratio of a portion where the work is completed to each of the assigned working regions; and carry out resetting of the assigned working regions in a case where it is determined that the difference that is greater than or equal to the percentage threshold value has occurred in the work completion percentage.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. The person can mentally determine whether the difference that is greater than or equal to the percentage threshold value has occurred in the work completion percentage based on the travel path information. For example, when one of the three robots has only completed 20% of its intended working path and the other robots have already completed more than 30% of their intended working path, the person can mentally determine that difference is greater than or equal to the percentage threshold value. The person can then mentally reset the working regions and assign a smaller working region to the slowest robot. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are acquiring travel path information indicating travel paths of the autonomous mobile working machines, and the processor. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because acquiring travel path information is merely data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and the processor is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are acquiring travel path information indicating travel paths of the autonomous mobile working machines, and the processor. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because acquiring travel path information is merely data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and the processor is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Claim 5 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 5 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “when carrying out resetting of the assigned working regions, carry out the resetting on the working region excluding, from the assigned working regions, a work completed region that is the assigned working region for which a work completion percentage has become greater than or equal to a work completion threshold value, the work completion percentage being a ratio of a portion where the work is completed to each of the assigned working regions.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. The person can mentally reset the working regions while excluding regions that have already been completed. For example, if one of the robots has already completed working its entire assigned region, the person can mentally exclude that completed region when reassigning the work regions to each robot. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are the processor. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are the processor. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Claim 6 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 6 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are the one or more processors cause the work management device to provide a user with at least one item of information from among information indicating the assigned working regions, and working information which is information concerning the work. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is merely directed to manipulating data to provide information to a user, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are the one or more processors cause the work management device to provide a user with at least one item of information from among information indicating the assigned working regions, and working information which is information concerning the work. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim is merely directed to manipulating data to provide information to a user, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 7 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 7 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are the working information includes at least one item of information from among work completion portion information indicating a portion where the work is completed, information indicating loads of the autonomous mobile working machines, and working machine state information indicating states of the autonomous mobile working machines. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is merely stating what information is provided to the user.
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are the working information includes at least one item of information from among work completion portion information indicating a portion where the work is completed, information indicating loads of the autonomous mobile working machines, and working machine state information indicating states of the autonomous mobile working machines. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim is merely stating what information is provided to the user.
Claim 8 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 8 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “carry out resetting of the assigned working regions.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. The person can mentally reset the working regions. For example, a person can mentally divide a room into three regions when they have three robots, and assign each region to a different robot. The person can then mentally reset the working regions when one of the robots stops working. For example, when one of the robots needs to recharge, the person can then divide the room into two regions and assign each of the two robots one of the regions. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are an operation input carried out in order for the user to select at least either the autonomous mobile working machines used in performing the work, or the assigned working regions where the work is to be continued. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the operation input is merely a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are an operation input carried out in order for the user to select at least either the autonomous mobile working machines used in performing the work, or the assigned working regions where the work is to be continued. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the operation input is merely a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Claim 9 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 9 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “set a plurality of the assigned working regions in a manner so that areas of the plurality of assigned working regions are equivalent to each other.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. The person can mentally set the working regions for each robot to have the same area. For example, a person can mentally divide a room into three evenly sized regions when they have three robots, and assign each equivalent region to a different robot. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are the processor. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are the processor. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
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.
Claims 1-3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeon et al (US 20150148951 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Jeon).
Regarding Claim 1, Jeon teaches a work management device for managing work performed in a working region using a plurality of autonomous mobile working machines (See at least Jeon Paragraph 0006, the control apparatus is interpreted as a work management device), the work management device comprising:
one or more processors that execute computer- executable instructions stored in memory (See at least Jeon Paragraph 0108, the computer is interpreted as the processor, which executes the instructions stored in the memory), wherein the one or more processors execute the computer- executable instructions to cause the work management device to:
acquire working region information, which is information concerning the working region (See at least Jeon Paragraphs 0051 and 0069, the environment information and map information of the working region is received), and machine number information indicating a number of the autonomous mobile working machines used in performing the work (See at least Jeon Paragraphs 0007, 0052, and 0093-0095, the number of all robots/autonomous mobile working machines is received by communicating with the robots/ autonomous mobile working machines); and
carry out setting of assigned working regions which are assigned to the plurality of autonomous mobile working machines, based on the working region information and the machine number information acquired (See at least Jeon Paragraphs 0017-0019, 0052, 0077, and Figure 2b, the working region is partitioned into multiple areas and assigns robots to each area based on the working region information and machine number information), and
carry out resetting of the assigned working regions in a case where the number of the autonomous mobile working machines used in performing the work has been changed (See at least Jeon Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0077-0083 and Figure 8, when a robot becomes inoperative and there are no robots on standby, which is interpreted as a number of autonomous mobile working machines used in performing the work has been changed, a robot assigned to a different cleaning area is relocated, which is interpreted as resetting the assigned working regions).
Regarding Claim 2, Jeon teaches the one or more processors cause the work management device to: acquire working machine state information, which is information indicating states of the autonomous mobile working machines (See at least Jeon Paragraphs 0094-0095, the controller acquires information indicating states of each robot);
determine whether or not the number of the autonomous mobile working machines has been changed, based on the working machine state information acquired (See at least Jeon Paragraphs, 0077-0081, 0094-0095, and Figure 8, the controller determines the number of working machines has changed based on the breakdown occurrence information acquired), and
carry out resetting of the assigned working regions in a case where it is determined that the number of the autonomous mobile working machines has been changed (See at least Jeon Paragraphs 0077-0083 and Figure 8, when a robot becomes inoperative and there are no robots on standby, which is interpreted as a number of autonomous mobile working machines has been changed, a robot assigned to a different cleaning area is relocated, which is interpreted as resetting the assigned working regions).
Regarding Claim 3, Jeon teaches the working machine state information includes at least one item of information from among information indicating operating states of the autonomous mobile working machines, information indicating remaining capacities of batteries provided in the autonomous mobile working machines, information indicating errors occurring in the autonomous mobile working machines, information indicating a state of communication between the autonomous mobile working machines and the work management device, and information indicating loads of working units provided in the autonomous mobile working machines (See at least Jeon Paragraphs 0094-0095, the information acquired includes operating states, battery status, errors in the working machines, and load capacities of the working machines).
Regarding Claim 10, Jeon teaches a work management method for managing work performed in a working region using a plurality of autonomous mobile working machines, (See at least Jeon Paragraph 0006), the work management method comprising:
an information acquisition step of acquiring working region information, which is information concerning the working region (See at least Jeon Paragraphs 0051 and 0069, the environment information and map information of the working region is received), and machine number information indicating a number of the autonomous mobile working machines used in performing the work (See at least Jeon Paragraphs 0007, 0052, and 0093-0095, the number of all robots/autonomous mobile working machines is received by communicating with the robots/ autonomous mobile working machines); and
a working region assigning step of carrying out setting of assigned working regions which are assigned to the plurality of autonomous mobile working machines, based on the working region information and the machine number information that have been acquired (See at least Jeon Paragraphs 0017-0019, 0052, 0077, and Figure 2b, the working region is partitioned into multiple areas and assigns robots to each area based on the working region information and machine number information), and
an assigned working region resetting step of carrying out resetting of the assigned working regions in a case where the number of the autonomous mobile working machines used in performing the work has been changed (See at least Jeon Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0077-0083 and Figure 8, when a robot becomes inoperative and there are no robots on standby, which is interpreted as a number of autonomous mobile working machines used in performing the work has been changed, a robot assigned to a different cleaning area is relocated, which is interpreted as resetting the assigned working regions); and
a work performing step of causing the plurality of autonomous mobile working machines to perform the work in the assigned working regions (See at least Jeon Paragraph 0043, and 0073-0074, the robots clean the assigned cleaning area).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Wakayama et al (US 20230072442 A1), Johnson et al (US 20110295424 A1), and Goldenberg et al (US 20180073266 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Wakayama, Johnson, and Goldenberg respectively)
Regarding Claim 4, Jeon teaches the one or more processors cause the work management device to: acquire travel path information indicating travel paths of the autonomous mobile working machines (See at least Jeon Paragraphs 0006, and 0055, the route/path of the robots/working machines is monitored);
Jeon fails to disclose determine, based on the travel path information acquired, whether a difference that is greater than or equal to a percentage threshold value has occurred in a work completion percentage between the assigned working regions.
However, Wakayama teaches determine, based on the travel path information acquired, whether a difference that is greater than or equal to a threshold value has occurred in a work completion between the assigned working regions (See at least Wakayama Paragraphs 0105-0107 and 0111, the subtask sequence includes the trajectory/travel path of the robot, and the subtask sequence of the robots is used to determine if the difference in task completion times is equal to or within a predetermined time difference/threshold value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Jeon with Wakayama to determine whether the difference that is greater than or equal to the percentage threshold value has occurred in the work completion percentage, based on the travel path information acquired by the travel path information acquisition unit. This modification would optimize the allocation of tasks so as to put the completion timings of tasks closer to one another by utilizing the travel path information acquired (See at least Wakayama Paragraphs 0105-0107 and 0111), thus, ensuring that the plurality of autonomous mobile working machines each complete their assigned work around the same time.
Modified Jeon fails to disclose the work completion percentage being a ratio of a portion where the work is completed to each of the assigned working regions.
However, Johnson teaches the work completion percentage being a ratio of a portion where the work is completed to each of the assigned working regions (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0063-0064, and 0071, the percentage of work is calculated based on a percentage of area covered by the autonomous machine relative to the total area of a worksite area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Jeon with Johnson to calculate the work completion percentage based on a ratio of a portion where the work is completed to each of the assigned working regions. This modification, as taught by Johnson, is one of the ways a work completion percentage can be calculated for an autonomous mobile working machine (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0063-0064, and 0071), thus, allowing the work management device in Jeon to calculate a work completion percentage for each autonomous mobile working machine.
Modified Jeon fails to disclose carry out resetting of the assigned working regions in a case where it is determined that the difference that is greater than or equal to the percentage threshold value has occurred in the work completion percentage.
However, Wakayama teaches determines that the difference that is greater than or equal to the threshold value has occurred in the work completion (See at least Wakayama Paragraph 0111, the difference in completion times is compared with the predetermined time difference/threshold value), and Goldenberg teaches carries out resetting of the assigned working regions when one of the autonomous mobile working machine’s progress is too slow (See at least Goldenberg Paragraphs 0304-0308, 0471, and Figure 1a, the resetting of assigned working regions is carried out when one of the robot’s progresses in completing the task is too slow).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Jeon with Wakayama and Goldenberg to carry out resetting of the assigned working regions when the difference that is greater than or equal to the percentage threshold value has occurred in the work completion percentage. This modification would allow the assigned working regions to be reset when one of the autonomous mobile working machines’ progress in completing its work for an assigned region is too slow (See at least Goldenberg Paragraph 0471), which would optimize the allocation of tasks so as to put the completion timings of tasks closer to one (See at least Wakayama Paragraphs 0105-0107 and 0111), thus, ensuring that the plurality of autonomous mobile working machines each complete their assigned work around the same time.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Mosebach et al (US 20220192453 A1) and Johnson (Hereinafter referred to as Mosebach)
Regarding Claim 5, Jeon fails to disclose when carrying out resetting of the assigned working regions, carry out the resetting on the working region excluding, from the assigned working regions, a work completed region.
However, Mosebach teaches when carrying out resetting of the assigned working regions, carry out the resetting on the working region excluding, from the assigned working regions, a work completed region (See at least Mosebach Paragraph 0034 and Figure 6, when resetting the work areas, the last cleaned regions are set as no-go zones, which is interpreted as excluding work completed regions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Jeon with Mosebach to exclude work completed regions when resetting the assigned working regions. This modification, as taught by Mosebach, saves energy and additionally also prevents a shortening of the service life of the autonomous mobile working machines by excluding areas that have been cleaned only recently (See at least Mosebach Paragraph 0034).
Modified Jeon fails to explicitly disclose that the work completed regions are the assigned working region for which the work completion percentage has become greater than or equal to a work completion threshold value, the work completion percentage being a ratio of a portion where the work is completed to each of the assigned working regions.
However, Johnson teaches the work completed regions are the assigned working region for which the work completion percentage has become greater than or equal to a work completion threshold value, (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0153-0154 and Figure 10, a region is considered completed when the percentage of work completed is equal to or greater than the threshold value) the work completion percentage being a ratio of a portion where the work is completed to each of the assigned working regions (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0063-0064, and 0071, the percentage of work is calculated based on a percentage of area covered by the autonomous machine relative to the total area of a worksite area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Jeon with Johnson to have the completed regions be assigned working region for which the work completion percentage has become greater than or equal to a work completion threshold value. By using a threshold value to determine if the assigned region is completed, the system can compare the completed work within the region with the threshold value to determine if the region is completed or not (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0153-0154 and Figure 10), which can be used to determine if the autonomous mobile working machine should move to the next region or not (See at least Johnson Paragraphs 0153-0154 and Figure 10), thereby promoting efficiency.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Ratanaphanyarat et al (US 20220107648 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Ratanaphanyarat)
Regarding Claim 6, Jeon fails to disclose provide a user with at least one item of information from among information indicating the assigned working regions, and working information which is information concerning the work.
However Ratanaphanyarat teaches provide a user with at least one item of information from among information indicating the assigned working regions, and working information which is information concerning the work (See at least Ratanaphanyarat Paragraphs 0021, 0072-0074, and Figures 1b-1c, the user interface displays the assigned working regions and working information to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Jeon with Ratanaphanyarat to provide the user with at least one item of information from among information indicating the assigned working regions, and working information which is information concerning the work. This modification would raise the awareness of the user by providing the user with the information indicating the assigned working regions and working information on a display on a user interface (See at least Ratanaphanyarat Paragraphs 0021, 0072-0074, and Figures 1b-1c).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Jeon fails to disclose the working information includes at least one item of information from among work completion portion information indicating a portion where the work is completed, information indicating loads of the autonomous mobile working machines, and working machine state information indicating states of the autonomous mobile working machines.
However, Ratanaphanyarat teaches the working information includes working machine state information indicating states of the autonomous mobile working machines (See at least Ratanaphanyarat Paragraph 0074, and Figure 1c, the working information includes working machine state information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Jeon with Ratanaphanyarat to have the working information includes working machine state information. This modification, as taught by Ratanaphanyarat, would allow the user to determine the status of each of the robots by selecting status and the interface can provide details regarding the current state of the robot, the charging level of the robot, the geolocation of the robot, past history of the robot, alerts associated with the robot, recommended service for the robot, and other parameters that relate to the robot and/or the robot for the site (See at least Ratanaphanyarat Paragraph 0074), which would increase the awareness of the user.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Jeon fails to disclose carry out resetting of the assigned working regions, based an operation input carried out in order for the user to select at least either the autonomous mobile working machines used in performing the work, or the assigned working regions where the work is to be continued.
However, Ratanaphanyarat teaches carry out resetting of the assigned working regions, based an operation input carried out in order for the user to select at least either the autonomous mobile working machines used in performing the work, or the assigned working regions where the work is to be continued (See at least Ratanaphanyarat Paragraphs 0021, 0073, 0083-0084, and Figures 1b and 1d, the user interface is used to modify the assigned working regions and update the robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Jeon with Ratanaphanyarat to carry out resetting of the assigned working regions based on the operation input. This modification, as taught by Ratanaphanyarat, would allow the user to customize the working regions by changing the dimension, size, or configuration of the working regions, or creating new working regions (See at least Ratanaphanyarat Paragraphs 0021, 0073, 0083-0084, and Figures 1b and 1d), which would improve the control over the working regions by the user.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Goldenberg
Regarding Claim 9, Jeon fails to disclose cause the work management device to set a plurality of the assigned working regions in a manner so that areas of the plurality of assigned working regions are equivalent to each other.
However, Goldenberg teaches setting a plurality of the assigned working regions in a manner so that areas of the plurality of assigned working regions are equivalent to each other (See at least Goldenberg Paragraph 0155, the different regions have the same size and shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Jeon with Goldenberg to set the plurality of the assigned working regions in a manner so that areas of the plurality of assigned working regions are equivalent to each other. This modification would ensure that each autonomous mobile working machine has the same area to perform their work, which would balance the workloads of the autonomous mobile working machines.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-4 of U.S. Patent No. US 12332655 B2.
Claim 1 of Current Application
Claim 3 of US 12332655 B2
A work management device for managing work performed in a working region using a plurality of autonomous mobile working machines,
A work management device for managing work performed in a working region using a plurality of autonomous mobile working machines,
the work management device comprising: one or more processors that execute computer- executable instructions stored in memory,
the work management device comprising: one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory,
wherein the one or more processors execute the computer- executable instructions to cause the work management device to: acquire working region information, which is information concerning the working region,
wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the work management device to: acquire working region information, which is information concerning the working region,
and machine number information indicating a number of the autonomous mobile working machines used in performing the work;
and machine number information indicating a number of the autonomous mobile working machines used in performing the work;
carry out setting of assigned working regions which are assigned to the plurality of autonomous mobile working machines, based on the working region information and the machine number information acquired;
carry out setting of assigned working regions which are assigned to the plurality of autonomous mobile working machines, based on the working region information and the machine number information acquired;
cause the plurality of autonomous mobile working machines to perform the work in the assigned working regions; and carry out resetting of the assigned working regions in a case where, among a plurality of the assigned working regions, a difference that is greater than or equal to a percentage threshold value has occurred in a work completion percentage, which is a ratio of a portion where the work is completed to each of the assigned working regions, wherein the percentage threshold value is twice a percentage of an area difference between an area of each of the assigned working regions and an area corresponding to a work completion threshold value relative to an area of each of the assigned working regions.
The work management device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors cause the work management device to: acquire working machine state information, which is information indicating states of the autonomous mobile working machines; determine whether or not the number of the autonomous mobile working machines has been changed, based on the working machine state information acquired;
and carry out resetting of the assigned working regions in a case where the number of the autonomous mobile working machines used in performing the work has been changed.
and carry out resetting of the assigned working regions in a case where it is determined that the number of the autonomous mobile working machines has been changed.
The differences between the claims are shown in bold. As shown above, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. US 12332655 B2 includes every limitation of claim 1 of the current application. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
Claims 2 and 3 of the current application are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as all the limitations of claim 2 of the current application are included in claim 3 of US 12332655 B2, and all the limitations of claim 3 of the current application are included in claim 4 of US 12332655 B2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuhara (US 9904285 B2) teaches controlling a plurality of mobile robots that perform tasks in different working regions
Park et al (US 20200329935 A1) teaches controlling a plurality of robotic cleaners operating in different zones
Xue et al (US 20210365044 A1) teaches managing a mower fleet
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights