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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed 09/10/2025 (claimed foreign priority date 02/21/2025):
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
Ln = line, e.g., ln25 = line 25; ln25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
1.1 Claims 6-8, 14 and 20 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.
1.1.1 Claims 6, 14 and 20 recite the limitation "the wheel" in the bodies of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
1.1.2 Claims 7-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected dependent claim 6, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
1.1 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.
1.1.1 Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method for modeling an area of a robot (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
1. A method for modeling an area of a robot including at least one wheel, the method comprising:
determining status information of a corner module of the robot by a sensor device;
receiving the status information of the corner module by a controller;
determining a robot boundary based on specifications of the robot and the status information of the corner module by the controller; and
performing modeling with the multiple circles covering the robot boundary by the controller,
wherein the robot boundary has a smallest rectangle that encompasses the area of the robot in which the robot is locatable,
wherein performing modeling with the multiple circles covering the robot boundary includes:
performing modeling with multiple small circles, each of which is positioned at a corner and has a first radius; and
performing modeling with multiple large circles, each of which is positioned at a central portion and has a second radius that is greater than the first radius.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining,” in the context of this claim encompass a person (user/driver/operator/user/consumer/human, etc.) looking at data collected (from sensors) and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. A method for modeling an area of a robot including at least one wheel, the method comprising:
determining status information of a corner module of the robot by a sensor device;
receiving the status information of the corner module by a controller;
determining a robot boundary based on specifications of the robot and the status information of the corner module by the controller; and
performing modeling with the multiple circles covering the robot boundary by the controller,
wherein the robot boundary has a smallest rectangle that encompasses the area of the robot in which the robot is locatable,
wherein performing modeling with the multiple circles covering the robot boundary includes:
performing modeling with multiple small circles, each of which is positioned at a corner and has a first radius; and
performing modeling with multiple large circles, each of which is positioned at a central portion and has a second radius that is greater than the first radius.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving,” “modeling,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (robot/vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the “receiving,” “modeling” steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of obtaining data for modeling for further determining step(s)), and amounts to mere pre solution receiving data and post solution modeling, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. Lastly, the “robot/vehicle controller” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose robotic vehicle control environment. The robotic vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular article, method step, condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a robotic vehicle controller to perform the determining … amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of “receiving,” “modeling” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the robot, and the specification does not provide any indication that the robotic vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a robot. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1. It is unclear what the claimed limitations/features, in both independent and dependent claims, are directed to in order to, or what or how they contribute/improve/influence/affect/innovate vehicle control, or operation, or use, or handling, or navigation, etc. Therefore, claims 1-8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
1. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN (CN110906946A) in view of CHEN (US20250216860), and further in view of HUANG (CN115292796A).
As per claim 1, HAN discloses through the invention (see entire document) a method for modeling an area of a robot (Para [0012, 0014, 0025, 0030, 0036, 0041-0042, 0049]), the method comprising:
determining status information of a corner module of the robot by a sensor device (abstract, Para [0018, 0045, 0542, 0054, 0058, 0062, 0064]);
receiving the status information of the corner module by a controller (abstract, Para [0018, 0045, 0542, 0054, 0058, 0062, 0064]);
determining a robot boundary (abstract, Para [0018, 0045, 0542, 0054, 0058, 0062, 0064]); and
performing modeling (abstract, Para [0005, 0012, 0014, 0025, 0030, 0036-0042]).
HAN does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing), robot including at least one wheel; status information of a corner module of the robot; receiving status information of a corner module of the robot; determining a robot boundary based on specifications of the robot and the status information of the corner module by the controller; and performing modeling with the multiple circles covering the robot boundary by the controller, wherein the robot boundary has a smallest rectangle that encompasses the area of the robot in which the robot is locatable, wherein performing modeling with the multiple circles covering the robot boundary includes: performing modeling with multiple small circles, each of which is positioned at a corner and has a first radius; and performing modeling with multiple large circles, each of which is positioned at a central portion and has a second radius that is greater than the first radius.
However, CHEN discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in numerous figures, paragraph – teaching D-shaped robot with wheels R and L, a wheel at one side selected as the rotation center for turning, and a shortest distance between the rotation center and the linear contour as a linear distance to obstacle(s); a case that a universal wheel is arranged in the middle of the body 2 of the D-shaped robot, two wheels arranged at two sides of the head 1 respectively.
CHEN further discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, Para [0016, 0023, 0078, 0080] – teaching a protrusion A at a right edge (a protrusion at a junction of a front edge and the right edge of the head 1) easily collides with the wall/obstacle.
CHEN further discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1-4, abstract, Para [0006, 0019, 0022, 0026, 0029] – teaching body size parameter of the D-shaped robot, wherein the Examiner finds that the robot body 2 and the head 1 are within D-shaped robot boundary, which is similar to the “boundary based on specifications of the robot” presented in the instant specification, fig. 4, wherein the robot 40 is within the robot boundary 48.
HUANG, in turn, discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly fig. 1-5, 7, abstract, Para [0013-0014, 0022-0037, 0045-0053, 0066, 0071-0072, 0084-0087, 0091-0094] – teaching multi-circle model constructed with the center point of each rectangle as the center and the distance from the center point to the vertex of each corresponding rectangle as the radius; the model that avoids occupying too much safe area, thereby improving the accuracy of the autonomous vehicle's shape model.
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of HAN by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by CHEN, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to control turning for a D-shaped robot based on an obstacle contour; extracting a linear contour of an obstacle in front of the D-shaped robot, and calculating a rotation angle for turning a side edge of a head of the D-shaped robot; calculating an edge distance to be adjusted for the head before turning based on the rotation angle and a body size parameter of the D-shaped robot; and adjusting a position of the D-shaped robot based on the edge distance, and making a turn based on the rotation angle until the side edge of the head is parallel to the linear contour (see entire CHEN document, particularly abstract); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUANG, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide a collision detection method and apparatus implemented through the obtaining the vehicle body model, wherein the vehicle body model contains a multi-circle model; performing collision detection based on the vehicle body model (see entire HUANG document, particularly Para [0004-0007]).
As per claim 2, HAN does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) a number of small circles is four, and a number of large circles is three.
However, HUANG, in turn, discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly fig. 1-5, 7, abstract, Para [0013-0014, 0022-0037, 0045-0053, 0066, 0071-0072, 0084-0087, 0091-0094].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of HAN by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUANG, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide a collision detection method and apparatus implemented through the obtaining the vehicle body model, wherein the vehicle body model contains a multi-circle model; performing collision detection based on the vehicle body model (see entire HUANG document, particularly Para [0004-0007]).
As per claim 3, HAN does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) performing modeling with multiple small circles that includes determining parameters of four small circles, parameters of each small circle include center coordinates of each small circle and a first radius, and the parameters of each small circle are determined such that each small circle passes through a vertex close to the corresponding small circle and a point that is close to the vertex among points that divide a short side of the robot boundary including the vertex into three equal portions.
However, HUANG, in turn, discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly fig. 1-5, 7, abstract, Para [0013-0014, 0022-0037, 0045-0053, 0066, 0071-0072, 0084-0087, 0091-0094].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of HAN by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUANG, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide a collision detection method and apparatus implemented through the obtaining the vehicle body model, wherein the vehicle body model contains a multi-circle model; performing collision detection based on the vehicle body model (see entire HUANG document, particularly Para [0004-0007]).
As per claim 4, HAN does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) performing modeling with multiple large circles that includes determining parameters of three large circles; parameters of each large circle include center coordinates of each large circle and a second radius; the three large circles include a large circle at a center, and a center of the large circle at the center coincides with a center of the robot boundary; and the second radius is determined such that the large circle at the center is tangent to a line parallel to a long side of the robot boundary and to which the small circle is tangent.
However, CHEN discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, Para [0006, 0016, 0019, 0022-0023, 0026, 0029, 0078, 0080].
HUANG, in turn, discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly fig. 1-5, 7, abstract, Para [0013-0014, 0022-0037, 0045-0053, 0066, 0071-0072, 0084-0087, 0091-0094].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of HAN by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by CHEN, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to control turning for a D-shaped robot based on an obstacle contour; extracting a linear contour of an obstacle in front of the D-shaped robot, and calculating a rotation angle for turning a side edge of a head of the D-shaped robot; calculating an edge distance to be adjusted for the head before turning based on the rotation angle and a body size parameter of the D-shaped robot; and adjusting a position of the D-shaped robot based on the edge distance, and making a turn based on the rotation angle until the side edge of the head is parallel to the linear contour (see entire CHEN document, particularly abstract); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUANG, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide a collision detection method and apparatus implemented through the obtaining the vehicle body model, wherein the vehicle body model contains a multi-circle model; performing collision detection based on the vehicle body model (see entire HUANG document, particularly Para [0004-0007]).
As per claim 5, HAN does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) a center of each of the remaining large circles determined to be tangent to two lines parallel to long and short sides of the robot boundary and to which a small circle is tangent.
However, HUANG, in turn, discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly fig. 1-5, 7, abstract, Para [0013-0014, 0022-0037, 0045-0053, 0066, 0071-0072, 0084-0087, 0091-0094].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of HAN by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUANG, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide a collision detection method and apparatus implemented through the obtaining the vehicle body model, wherein the vehicle body model contains a multi-circle model; performing collision detection based on the vehicle body model (see entire HUANG document, particularly Para [0004-0007]).
As per claim 6, HAN does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) status information of the corner module that includes whether the corner module is a selected one or more of a variable corner module, a steering angle of the corner module, or a longitudinal distance from a center of the wheel to a corresponding joint.
However, CHEN discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, Para [0006, 0016, 0019, 0022-0023, 0026, 0029, 0078, 0080].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of HAN by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by CHEN, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to control turning for a D-shaped robot based on an obstacle contour; extracting a linear contour of an obstacle in front of the D-shaped robot, and calculating a rotation angle for turning a side edge of a head of the D-shaped robot; calculating an edge distance to be adjusted for the head before turning based on the rotation angle and a body size parameter of the D-shaped robot; and adjusting a position of the D-shaped robot based on the edge distance, and making a turn based on the rotation angle until the side edge of the head is parallel to the linear contour (see entire CHEN document, particularly abstract).
As per claim 7, HAN does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) a robot boundary determined based at least in part on using a relative position of the joint to a center of the robot, a relative position of the center of the wheel to the corresponding joint, a radius of the wheel, and the steering angle of the corner module, based at least in part on the status information of the corner module indicates that the corner module is not the variable corner module.
However, CHEN discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, Para [0006, 0011, 0016-0023, 0026, 0029-0030, 0078, 0080].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of HAN by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by CHEN, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to control turning for a D-shaped robot based on an obstacle contour; extracting a linear contour of an obstacle in front of the D-shaped robot, and calculating a rotation angle for turning a side edge of a head of the D-shaped robot; calculating an edge distance to be adjusted for the head before turning based on the rotation angle and a body size parameter of the D-shaped robot; and adjusting a position of the D-shaped robot based on the edge distance, and making a turn based on the rotation angle until the side edge of the head is parallel to the linear contour (see entire CHEN document, particularly abstract).
As per claim 8, HAN does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) robot boundary determined based at least in part on using a relative position of the joint to a center of the robot, a relative position of the center of the wheel to the corresponding joint, a radius of the wheel, the steering angle of the corner module, and the longitudinal distance from the center of the wheel to the corresponding joint, based at least in part on the status information of the corner module indicates that the corner module is the variable corner module.
However, CHEN discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, Para [0006, 0016, 0019, 0022-0023, 0026, 0029, 0078, 0080].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of HAN by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by CHEN, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to control turning for a D-shaped robot based on an obstacle contour; extracting a linear contour of an obstacle in front of the D-shaped robot, and calculating a rotation angle for turning a side edge of a head of the D-shaped robot; calculating an edge distance to be adjusted for the head before turning based on the rotation angle and a body size parameter of the D-shaped robot; and adjusting a position of the D-shaped robot based on the edge distance, and making a turn based on the rotation angle until the side edge of the head is parallel to the linear contour (see entire CHEN document, particularly abstract).
2. Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN (CN110906946A) in view of CHEN (US20250216860), and further in view of HUANG (CN115292796A), as applied to claim 1 rejections above, further in view of Lee (US20220276654).
Claims 9 and 15, recite most limitations/features similar to the limitations/features recited in independent claim 1, therefore claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN (CN110906946A) in view of CHEN (US20250216860), and further in view of HUANG (CN115292796A), as applied to claim 1 rejections above.
In addition to the above, as per claims 9 and 15, HAN further discloses through the invention (see entire document) a path generation system/method for a robot (Para [0021, 0027, 0031, 0056-0059, 0062-0065]);
generating a path from a current position of the robot to a destination, and control movement of the robot according to the generated path (Para [0021-0022, 0027, 0031, 0056-0059, 0062-0066]);
HAN does not explicitly disclose through the invention (or is missing) creating a cost map corresponding to at least surroundings of the robot based on a grid map and the sensor data received from the sensor device.
However, in addition to the rejections presented in the instant office action above, Lee discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0011-0012, 0025-0026, 0044-0045, 0088-0089].
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of HAN by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Lee, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to generate multiple paths for a mobile robot, including detecting “n” multiple waypoints located at the maximum straight line distance without collision with an obstacle in “n” directions centered on the mobile robot and planning “n” multiple paths to a destination by passing through each of the multiple waypoints as an initial waypoint, and selecting a path satisfying a preset cost function requirement among the “n” multiple paths planned, as an optimal path, making it possible to select the optimal path suitable for various driving conditions of the mobile robot by simultaneously generating multiple paths along which the mobile robot (i.e., a single mobile robot) to travel from its current location to its destination (see entire Lee document, particularly Para [0009]).
Claims 10 and 16 recite limitations/features similar to the limitations/features recited in independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3-4, therefore claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN (CN110906946A) in view of CHEN (US20250216860), and further in view of HUANG (CN115292796A), as applied to claims 1 and 3-4 rejections above, further in view of Lee (US20220276654), because of claim 10 dependency on claim 9, and claim 16 dependency on claim 15.
Claims 11 and 17 recite limitations/features similar to the limitations/features recited in dependent claim 3, therefore claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN (CN110906946A) in view of CHEN (US20250216860), and further in view of HUANG (CN115292796A), as applied to claim 3 rejections above, further in view of Lee (US20220276654), because of claim 11 dependency on claim 10, and claim 17 dependency on claim 16.
Claims 12 and 18 recite limitations/features similar to the limitations/features recited in dependent claim 4, therefore claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN (CN110906946A) in view of CHEN (US20250216860), and further in view of HUANG (CN115292796A), as applied to claim 4 rejections above, further in view of Lee (US20220276654), because of claim 12 dependency on claim 11, and claim 18 dependency on claim 17.
Claims 13 and 19 recite limitations/features similar to the limitations/features recited in dependent claim 5, therefore claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN (CN110906946A) in view of CHEN (US20250216860), and further in view of HUANG (CN115292796A), as applied to claim 5 rejections above, further in view of Lee (US20220276654), because of claim 13 dependency on claim 12, and claim 19 dependency on claim 18.
Claims 14 and 20 recite limitations/features similar to the limitations/features recited in dependent claim 6, therefore claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN (CN110906946A) in view of CHEN (US20250216860), and further in view of HUANG (CN115292796A), as applied to claim 6 rejections above, further in view of Lee (US20220276654), because of claim 14 dependency on claim 9, and claim 20 dependency on claim 15.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
Lee (US20230359210) – (see entire Lee document, particularly abstract – teaching a robot path planning apparatus that includes: a storage configured to receive an obstacle occupancy grid map, and a controller configured to generate a cost map in which a cost corresponding to a separation distance from an obstacle to a movement area to which a robot is able to move is assigned, based on the obstacle occupancy grid map, determine a first path from a current location of the robot to a destination, and determine a second path by calibrating the first path based on the cost map).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/YURI KAN, P.E./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights