DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-Final office action is in response to the CON application filled on 08/14/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
This application which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 18/667,289 filed May 17, 2024, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/042,840 filed Sep. 28, 2020, which is a national stage application of International Patent Application No. PCT/US2019/023981 filed Mar. 26, 2019, which claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/648,005 filed Mar. 26, 2018.
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 .
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(s) 1-20 is/are 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, which recites “spectrographic sensing”, the specification lacks written description. Submitted specification does not have support for spectrographic sensing.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, which recites “substantially” on line 2, 11 and 14. The term substantially does not define the meets and bounds of claim limitation.
Dependent claim(s) 2-20 is/are also rejected because they do not resolve their parent deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0212521 (“Pack”), and in view of US 2022/0156967 (“Korjus”), and further in view of US 7,831,075 (“Wilson”).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Pack discloses a mobile robot (see at least [0047], where “FIGS. 1A-1C and 2A-2D illustrate exemplary mobile robots 100, 100a, 100b that may operate autonomously using a navigation system 300.”), comprising:
a mobile robot body having a height and substantially opposing first and second surface portions (see at least fig 2A, where height of the body and two opposing surfaces are shown);
a plurality of 3D depth sensors integrated with the mobile robot body, each of the plurality of 3D depth sensors including at least imaging, infrared, (see at least fig 2A-D, where 450a is a camera attached to a first top side of the robot body. See also [0064], where “The sonar proximity sensors 410S and/or an array of infrared (IR) proximity sensors”; see also [0070]), and each directed outwardly from the mobile robot body and each having a field of view central axis inclined downward from the height of the mobile robot body (see at least [0065], where “The first imaging sensor 450a is arranged to aim its imaging axis 455a downward”), wherein at least two of the plurality of 3D depth sensors are arranged on the first surface portion and at least two other of the 3D depth sensors are arranged on the second surface portion (see at least fig 2A-D, where 450a camera and 410a proximity sensor attached to a first top side of the robot body and 450c camera and 410c proximity sensor attached to a second top side of the robot body), wherein the plurality of 3D depth sensors collectively provides a substantially (see at least [0065], where “Referring to FIG. 2D, in some implementations, the torso 140 includes first, second, and third imaging sensors 450, 450a, 450b, 450c. Each imaging sensor 450 is arranged to have a field of view 452 centered about an imaging axis 455 directed along the forward drive direction F.”; see also [0067], where “During fast travel, the robot 100 may use the first imaging sensor 450a, which is aimed downward slightly to increase a total or combined field of view of both the first and second imaging sensors 450a, 450b, and to give sufficient time for the robot 100 to avoid an obstacle (since higher speeds generally mean less time to react to obstacles).”; see also fig 2D, where 452’s are field of view and 455’s are motion axis and [0056]); and
an at least partially onboard processing system configured to provide autonomous navigation of the mobile robot body and data accumulation according to the substantially (see at least [0011], [0047], [0058] and [0086]).
Pack does not disclose the following limitations:
the plurality of 3D depth sensors including…spectrographic sensing; and
sensors collectively provide a substantially 360-degree view about the mobile robot body.
However, Korjus discloses a system wherein sensors collectively provide a substantially 360-degree view about the mobile robot body (see at least [0150], where “the mobile robot 100 can have at least one camera, such as a 360-degree view camera, and/or a plurality of cameras”).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pack to incorporate the teachings of Korjus by including the above feature for increasing the field of view area so that presence of obstacle in a larger area is identified for generating map.
Pack in view of Korjus does not disclose the following limitation:
the plurality of 3D depth sensors including…spectrographic sensing.
However, Wilson discloses a system wherein the plurality of 3D depth sensors including…spectrographic sensing (see at least col 13, lines 50-53, where “The second imaging device may be, for example, a histological imaging device, an autoradiographic imaging device, an FTIR device”).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pack in view of Korjus to incorporate the teachings of Wilson by including the above feature for providing advanced chemical, material, and structural awareness far beyond standard RGB cameras.
Regarding claim 3, Pack further discloses a robot wherein an angle of incidence for each depth sensor relative to the major floor surface comprises a predetermined angle related to the field of view (see at least [0061], where “Referring to FIG. 2C, in some implementations, the robot 100 includes a first and second imaging sensors 450a, 450b (e.g., 3D depth imaging sensors) disposed on the torso 140. Both imaging sensors 450a, 450b are arranged to have a field of view 452 along the forward drive direction F.”; see also [0065], where “Each imaging sensor 450 is arranged to have a field of view 452 centered about an imaging axis 455 directed along the forward drive direction F.”; see also [0094], where “As the robot 100 moves, the SLAM controller 350 receives sensor data updates from different angles (i.e., from different perspectives of the scene 10)”; see also [0101], where “the robot 100 captures multiple images (using the camera 320 and/or imaging sensor 450) of a scene 10 or object 12 (e.g., under different conditions, from different angles, etc.) and stores the images, such as in a matrix.”; cameras covering a particular field of view with a set angle. So, angle of incidences has predetermined angle related to the field of view.).
Regarding claim 6, Pack further discloses a robot wherein an inception point of th e360-degree view is less than 20 cm from the robot body (per submitted specification inception point is interpreted as starting point, see [0037] of PGPUB of submitted specification. see Pack [0061], where “Referring to FIG. 2C, in some implementations, the robot 100 includes a first and second imaging sensors 450a, 450b (e.g., 3D depth imaging sensors) disposed on the torso 140. Both imaging sensors 450a, 450b are arranged to have a field of view 452 along the forward drive direction F. The first imaging sensor 450a is arranged to aim its imaging axis 455 substantially downward and away from the robot 100 (e.g., to view an area on the ground and/or about a lower portion of the robot) to detect objects before contact with the base 120 or leg 130. By angling the first imaging sensor 450a downward, the robot 100 receives dense sensor coverage in an area immediately forward or adjacent to the robot 100, which is relevant for short-term travel of the robot 100 in the forward direction. The second imaging sensor 450b is arranged with its imaging axis 455 pointing substantially parallel with the ground along the forward drive direction F (e.g., to detect objects approaching a mid and/or upper portion of the robot 100). In other examples, the second imaging sensor 450b is arranged with its imaging axis 455 pointing above the ground or even upward away from the ground.”; the sensors are detecting obstacles immediate forward /adjacent to the robot. So, it is obvious that starting point of a radius of the field of view is less than 20 cm.).
Regarding claim 7, Pack further discloses a robot wherein an inception point of a radius of the 360-degree view is on the robot body (see at least fig 2D, where 452s are field of view and 140 is the torso of the robot body. The stating point is on the robot body. see also [0061]).
Regarding claim 10, Pack further discloses a robot wherein the processing system analyzes the accumulated dated to perform obstacle detection (see at least [0055], where “the sensor system 400 includes an array of proximity sensors 410, one or more cameras 420 (e.g., stereo cameras, visible light camera, infrared camera, etc.), and/or one or more 3-D imaging sensors 450 (e.g., volumetric point cloud imaging device) in communication with the controller 500 and arranged in one or more zones or portions of the robot 100 for detecting any nearby or intruding obstacles.”; see also [0060]).
Regarding claim 15, Pack further discloses a robot wherein the processing system modifies the autonomous navigation of the robot based on an obstacle detection (see at least [0046], where “Mobile robots need to navigate in a robust or reliable manner, for example, to avoid obstacles and reach intended destinations.”).
Regarding claim 17, Pack further discloses a robot wherein the modification comprises a maneuver precise to +/- 0.5 cm (see at least [0083], where “The robot motion model 360 models movement and corresponding measurement error of the robot 100. Using odometry and/or an inertial measurement unit (MU) 470, the robot motion model 360 measures motion (e.g., travel distance and/or travel path) of the robot 100. Due to drive wheel slip, encoder tolerances, etc., the measured odometry may include an error or tolerance. For example, if the robot 100 rotates 90 degree and translates one meter, the measured odometry may be off by +/-10 degree of rotation and +/-5 cm of translation.”; movement error or tolerance is interpreted as maneuver precise).
Regarding claim 20, Pack further discloses a robot wherein the data accumulated comprises pixel data (see at least [0005], where “the method includes receiving two-dimensional image data and three-dimensional image data of a scene about the robot.”; see also [0010], where “the method includes identifying a feature point in a received image by computing a Harris Corner Score for every pixel, identifying a pixel having an associated local maximum Harris Corner Score, keeping neighboring pixels or pixels within a threshold distance of the pixel having the associated local maximum Harris Corner Score and discarding remaining pixels.”; see also [0104]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0212521 (“Pack”), and in view of US 2022/0156967 (“Korjus”), and in view of US 7,831,075 (“Wilson”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0339354 (“Soto Arriaza”).
Regarding claim 2, Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson does not disclose claim 2. However, Soto Arriaza discloses a mobile robot comprising a robot body having a height of at least one meter (see at least [0041], where “This configuration of sensors at different heights within the body of the robot allows ensuring that the captured images cover the entire shelf; in addition, it allows capturing information from hanging signs such as aisle posters. As an example, the capture sensors can be placed towards the lower end of the robot body, over the mobile base, for example at 1 meter height, and towards the upper end of the robot body, for example at 2 meters height.”; see also fig 1).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson to incorporate the teachings of Soto Arriaza by including the above feature for increasing the field of view area so that presence of obstacle in a larger area is identified for generating map.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0212521 (“Pack”), and in view of US 2022/0156967 (“Korjus”), and in view of US 7,831,075 (“Wilson”), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 6,975,410 (“Sturgill”).
Regarding claim 4, Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson does not disclose claim 4. However, Sturgill discloses a system wherein the angle of incidence for each 3D depth sensor is equal (see at least col 2, where “a symmetrical two view embodiment using two non-collimated and diverging light sources and two image sensors at equal but opposite angles of incidence from the same side of the object provides a means to correct for errors caused by internal prism effects as a result of undulations of either the nearest or furthest surface.”; see also col 11, lines 12-15, where “If the line light sources 40 and 41 and mirrors 42 and 43 are placed on opposite sides of the sensor assemblies, for example, both inside or both outside, then the outside surface angles of incidence and refection can be made to be nearly equal”; see also fig 8).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson to incorporate the teachings of Sturgill by including the above feature for lowering complexity of data processing by setting two cameras equal incident angle.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0212521 (“Pack”), and in view of US 2022/0156967 (“Korjus”), and in view of US 7,831,075 (“Wilson”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0336575 (“Zeng”).
Regarding claim 5, Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson does not disclose claim 5. However, Zeng discloses a system wherein the 360-degree field of view comprises at least two meters in radius (see at least [0031], where “Based on the scans of the environment surrounding the vehicle, an obstacle map is generated. The local obstacle map is preferably generated as a circular region surrounding the vehicle. For example, the distance may be a predetermined radius from the vehicle including, but not limited to 50 meters.”; see also [0033], where “ In FIG. 7, a first obstacle map 40 is generated having an origin O.sub.1 and detected static objects f.sub.1 and f.sub.2. Objects f.sub.1 and f.sub.2 are within the predetermined range R from O.sub.1, and are therefore, incorporated as part of the first local obstacle map O.sub.1. As the vehicle travels beyond the predetermined range from the origin O.sub.1, a subsequent local obstacle map 42 is generated having an origin O.sub.2. The subsequent local obstacle map 42 will be defined by a region having a radius equal to the predetermined range from origin O.sub.2. As shown in the subsequent local obstacle map 42, newly detected objects include f.sub.3 and f.sub.4. As is also shown, object f.sub.2 is still within the predetermined range of origin O.sub.2, so object f.sub.2 will be maintained in the subsequent local obstacle map even though object f.sub.2 is not in a current FOV of the Lidar sensing device.”).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson to incorporate the teachings of Zeng by including the above feature for avoiding abrupt stop/turn by providing collision avoidance warning ahead of time.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0212521 (“Pack”), and in view of US 2022/0156967 (“Korjus”), and in view of US 7,831,075 (“Wilson”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of and in view of US 9,533,760 (“Wagreich”).
Regarding claim 8, Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson does not disclose claim 8. However, Wagreich discloses a robot wherein the first and second three-dimensional depth camera sensors are configured to rotate to provide the 360 degree field of view (see at least col 1, line 66-col 2, line7, mount configured to capture payload video and a second wireless transmitter configured where “It also comprises a rotating mount attached to the aerial drone and configured to be rotational on both horizontal and vertical axes independent of the movement of the aerial drone and configured to respond to the rotational commands received by the second wireless receiver. The aerial drone of this embodiment also includes a payload camera attached to the rotating to transmit the payload video”).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson to incorporate the teachings of Wagreich by including the above feature for avoiding collision during backward or left/right turn by generating occupancy map that covers 360 degrees surrounding of the mobile robot.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0212521 (“Pack”), and in view of US 2022/0156967 (“Korjus”), and in view of US 7,831,075 (“Wilson”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0092318 (“Mei”).
Regarding claim 9, Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson does not disclose claim 9. However, Mei discloses a system wherein the 3D depth sensors have a frame rate in a range of 15 fps to 90 fps (see at least [0047], where “Furthermore, a frame rate of the camera 126 can also influence how many images are in the series of signal images. That is, the monitoring module 220 may be configured to capture 16 images. Accordingly, if the frame rate of the camera is 30 fps, then the defined period of time is 0.5 seconds. Moreover, if the frame rate is higher or lower, then the number of images may be increased or decreased in order to ensure that a complete cycle of the dynamic flashing state of the turn signal is captured. In any case, the signal images generally include images captured at a frame rate of 30 fps over a defined period of time that correlates with at least a single cycle (e.g., on and off) of a turn signal.”).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson to incorporate the teachings of Mei by including the above feature for providing real-time trajectories by anticipating dynamic objects frequently.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0212521 (“Pack”), and in view of US 2022/0156967 (“Korjus”), and in view of US 7,831,075 (“Wilson”), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2020/0057897 (“Matsuura”).
Regarding claim 11, Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson does not disclose claim 11. However, Matsuura discloses a system wherein the obstacles are at least 2 cm in height (see at least [0093], where “Examples of such an object include a low step with a height of about 5 cm and a lid of a manhole. Such an obstacle B does not interfere with traveling of the own vehicle 10 at all, and therefore, the need for recognizing the obstacle B as an “obstacle” in drive assist operation is low.”; see also [0095], where “With this configuration, e.g., unnecessary informing operation due to recognition of the object with such a small protrusion height that the own vehicle 10 can directly move over the object without interference with traveling of the own vehicle 10 as the obstacle B can be suppressed as much as possible. The above-described “predetermined height” for suppressing this type of erroneous object recognition may be set to about 5 to 10 cm, for example.”; see also [0105], where “Moreover, at S606, the CPU determines whether the height H acquired at S605 is less than a predetermined height Hth1. The predetermined height Hth1 is 5 cm, for example.”; see also [0121], where “That is, the obstacle sensing device 20 can recognize, for example, the height of the obstacle B by the above-described image processing technique such as the mobile stereo technique or the SFM technique.”; see also [0161], where “After the processing of S1405, the CPU executes the processing of S1406. At S1406, the CPU determines whether the height H acquired at S1405 is less than a predetermined height Hth2. The predetermined height Hth2 is 20 cm, for example.”; Matsuura teaches a system to detect obstacles of 5 cm height. It will be obvious to detect obstacles of 2 cm height by using the method disclosed by Matsuura as setting the height of obstacle is a matter of design choice.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson to incorporate the teachings of Matsuura by including the above feature for providing smooth navigation by including obstacle height information.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0212521 (“Pack”), and in view of US 2022/0156967 (“Korjus”), and in view of US 7,831,075 (“Wilson”), as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of US 2010/0121561 (“Kodaira”), and in view of US 2014/0088761 (“Shamlian”), and in view of US 2016/0378117 (“Szatmary”), and further in view of US 2022/0050454 (“Lacaze”).
Regarding claim 12, Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson does not disclose claim 12. However, Kodaira discloses a system wherein the obstacles are selected from the group consisting of (see at least [0011], where “when a road marking as a recognition target is hidden by another vehicle or a shadow of the vehicle, an image captured before the marking is hidden, among images stored in the past, is combined with the newly clipped image, and the mark is detected and recognized by using the composite image, which enables accurate recognition of the road marking such as a traffic directional marking, leading to improved accuracy in the recognition of a traveling direction of the vehicle.”).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson to incorporate the teachings of Kodaira by including the above feature for avoiding collision by generating occupancy map of blind spots of the mobile robot.
Pack in view of Korjus, Wilson and Kodaira does not disclose the following limitation:
the obstacles are selected from the group consisting of a step, slope, cliff, hole.
However, Shamlian discloses a robot wherein the obstacles are selected from the group consisting of a step, (see [0058], where “The cliff proximity sensors 520 can detect when the robot 100 has encountered a falling cliff 12 of the floor 10, such as when it encounters a set of stairs or a change in the height of the floor surface 10. The controller 200 (executing a control system) may execute behaviors that cause the robot 100 to take an action, such as changing its direction of travel, when a cliff 12 is detected. In some implementations, the sensor system 500 includes one or more secondary cliff sensors (e.g., other sensors configured for cliff sensing and optionally other types of sensing). The cliff detecting proximity sensors 520 can be arranged to provide early detection of cliffs 12, provide data for discriminating between actual cliffs 12b--where the robot 100 is not able to traverse (e.g., stairs with vertical stair risers)”; see also [0061], where “Referring to FIG. 6, in some examples, a robot 100 is moving in a forward drive direction F. The proximity sensor 520 detects a cliff 12 or a change in the height (e.g., a drop distance D.sub.C) of the floor surface 10 it is traversing, for example a first-floor surface 10a (e.g., a carpet floor surface) to a second-floor surface 10b (e.g., hardwood floor surface or a tile surface).”; see also fig 6, 7A-B).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pack in view of Korjus, Wilson and Kodaira to incorporate the teachings of Shamlian by including the above feature for avoiding damage of the mobile robot due to fall on the route.
Pack in view of Korjus, Wilson, Kodaira and Shamlian does not disclose the following limitation:
the obstacles are selected from the group consisting of a…slope…hole.
However, Szatmary discloses a system wherein the obstacles are selected from the group consisting of a…(see [0214], where “If one or more “holes” are detected within the trapezoid in the reflected pattern, then the detected holes may be regarded as obstacles within the path of the robot or even an actual hole in the floor (which for the purposes of many tasks, is an obstacle”).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pack in view of Korjus, Wilson, Kodaira and Shamlian to incorporate the teachings of Szatmary by including the above feature for avoiding damage or stuck of robot during movement.
Pack in view of Korjus, Wilson, Kodaira, Shamlian and Szatmary do not disclose the following limitation:
the obstacles are selected from the group consisting of a…slope.
However, Lacaze discloses a system wherein the obstacles are selected from the group consisting of a…slope (see [0094], where “A controllable pan motor rotates the LADAR providing vertical scans for terrain slope detection and a horizontal scan for thin obstacle detection and registration. In FIG. 11b, 3D scans of an office space are shown.”).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pack in view of Korjus, Wilson, Kodaira, Shamlian and Szatmary to incorporate the teachings of Lacaze by including the above feature for avoiding any shaking by preparing the robot for moving on the sloped terrain.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0212521 (“Pack”), and in view of US 2022/0156967 (“Korjus”), and in view of US 7,831,075 (“Wilson”), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2017/0078901 (“Iwanaga”).
Regarding claim 13, Pack further discloses a robot wherein the obstacle detection is determined by comparison to a template comprising(see at least [0057], where “FIGS. 2A-2D, the robot 100, 100b includes 3-D image sensors 450 may be capable of producing the following types of data: (i) a depth map”; see also [0060] and [0101], where occupancy map (obstacles in the scene) is generated by comparing the current image with the stored previously taken image. presence of real-time obstacle is determined by comparing. So, the previously taken image was taken when there was no obstacle. stored images are interpreted as templates).
Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson does not disclose the following limitation:
templates comprising an average of a plurality of sample depth images.
However, Iwanaga discloses a system wherein the templates comprising an average of a plurality of sample depth images (see at least [0097], where “As illustrated in FIG. 8, the present device first generates the reference image used for determining the likelihood for the wireless communication device 11 serving as the communication counterpart (S101). The reference image is an image serving as a template which is compared with the photographed image in template matching of the image analysis process which will be described later. In S101, at least one reference image is generated by averaging images photographed by the imaging unit 150 when the device is installed or in a state in which a field of view is good. As will be described later, a plurality of average images are stored according to an environment such as day or night (time), the weather, or a season, and one image selected from the average images can be used as the reference image.”).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson to incorporate the teachings of Iwanaga by including the above feature for avoiding confusion during obstacle identification on the scene.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0212521 (“Pack”), and in view of US 2022/0156967 (“Korjus”), and in view of US 7,831,075 (“Wilson”), as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of US 2017/0078901 (“Iwanaga”), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 2010/0121561 (“Kodaira”).
Regarding claim 14, Pack in view of Korjus, Wilson and Iwanaga does not disclose claim 14. However, Kodaira discloses a system wherein the processing system identifies missing or erroneous data via comparison to the template (see at least [0011], where “when a road marking as a recognition target is hidden by another vehicle or a shadow of the vehicle, an image captured before the marking is hidden, among images stored in the past, is combined with the newly clipped image, and the mark is detected and recognized by using the composite image, which enables accurate recognition of the road marking such as a traffic directional marking, leading to improved accuracy in the recognition of a traveling direction of the vehicle.”; images stored (more than one image) in the past is interpreted as template and images are interpreted as plurality of images. See also [0160], where “For this road marking recognition processing, a marking information database (hereinafter, referred to as "marking information") in which a plurality of sets of reference binary images of markings such as arrows and labels indicating the names thereof is used.”; see also [0171], where “The unnecessary image removing unit 23 functions as an unnecessary area detecting unit which detects an image of an object whose recognition is not necessary, by comparing a new image area stored in the storage unit 7b and an old image area already stored in the storage unit 7b (held image).”; see also [0100] and [0184]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pack in view of Korjus, Wilson and Iwanaga to incorporate the teachings of Kodaira by including the above feature for avoiding collision by generating occupancy map of blind spots of the mobile robot by comparing with the previously stored image.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0212521 (“Pack”), and in view of US 2022/0156967 (“Korjus”), and in view of US 7,831,075 (“Wilson”), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2019/0137999 (“Taguchi”).
Regarding claim 16, Pack further discloses a robot wherein the modification is selected from the group consisting of a(see at least [0052], where “To operate autonomously, the robot 100 may use a navigation system 300 to simultaneously localize and map its surroundings, using sensory inputs from the sensor system 400. Simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) is a technique the robot 100 may use to build up a map (e.g., an occupancy map) within an unknown environment or scene 10 (without a priori knowledge), or to update an map within a known environment (with a priori knowledge from a given map), while at the same time keeping track of its current location.”; see also [0053], where “Maps 310 can be used to determine a location within an environment 10 and to depict an environment for planning and navigation.”).
Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson does not disclose the following limitation:
modification is selected from the group consisting of a full stop of motion…and safety monitoring.
However, Taguchi discloses a system wherein modification is selected from the group consisting of a full stop of motion…and safety monitoring (see at least fig 2, block S120 and S160. See also [0067], where “When an obstacle having a risk of collision is detected in step S110, the stop control unit 26 stops the vehicle 10 automatically before the obstacle (step S120). The stop control unit 26 transmits a stop signal to the remote monitoring center 4.”; see also [0068], where “The vehicle 10 has stopped until the departure signal is received. When receiving a departure signal from the remote monitoring center 4, the restart control unit 28 performs the processing for departure of the vehicle 10 (step S150), and makes the vehicle 10 run at reduced speed for the predetermined time after the departure (step S160).”).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson to incorporate the teachings of Taguchi by including the above feature for avoiding collision by providing navigation guidance based on the dynamic surrounding situation.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0212521 (“Pack”), and in view of US 2022/0156967 (“Korjus”), and in view of US 7,831,075 (“Wilson”), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2018/0314265 (“Matsuno”).
Regarding claim 18, Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson does not disclose claim 18. However, Matsuno discloses a robot wherein the obstacle comprises a glass surface (see at least [0049], where “determining whether or not there is an obstacle in a traveling direction”; see also [0055], where “a transparent glass is detected”).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pack in view of Korjus and Wilson to incorporate the teachings of Matsuno by including the above feature for avoiding collision with glass door by detecting glass door as obstacle on the route.
Non-Statutory 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 §§ 706.02(l) (1) - 706.02(l) (3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-17 and 20 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-8 and 11-17 of copending US Patent No. 12,019,452 (application No. 17/042,840).
This is a non-provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have in fact been patented. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Below shows the claims comparison:
Application 19/299,580; claim
US Patent No. 12,019,452; Claim
1
1/16/17
2
1/16/17
3
2
4
1/16/17
5
3
6
4
7
4
8
9
9
8
10
1/16/17
11
6
12
7
13
11
14
12
15
13
16
14
17
15
20
1/16/17
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-17 and 20 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3, 5-7 and 9-16 of copending US Patent No. 12,422,853 (application No. 18/667,289).
This is a non-provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have in fact been patented. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Below shows the claims comparison:
Application 19/299,580; claim
US Patent No. 12,422,853; Claim
1
1/15/16
2
16
3
2
4
1/15/16
5
3
9
7
10
9
11
5
12
6
13
10
14
11
15
12
16
13
17
14
20
1/15/16
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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 on 5712703976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights