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 § 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to one or more abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method for controlling a robot, which is in the process category of the four statutory categories. The claim as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the recited limitations in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes each of the steps performed by the device from practically being performed in the human mind. The steps may be described as mere mental analysis that corresponds to an abstract idea.
The step of determining an exclusion zone in a space where a robot travels may be performed in the human mind. The foregoing step is equivalent to a person mentally determining an area or zone in which his robot cannot travel to.
The step of determining whether the robot is capable of occupying the exclusion zone may also be performed in the human mind. The foregoing step is equivalent to the person mentally determining whether the robot is capable of being in the area or zone.
The claim limitations do not require any particular level of accuracy or precision, so nothing in the claim elements preclude these processes from practically being performed in the mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because each of the limitations are recited at a high level of generality. There is nothing implemented to technologically improve the functionality of what is recited in claim 1. The judicial exception does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more. The limitations of the claim fail to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In other words, the limitations of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In summary, with respect to the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106), independent claim 1 falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention which satisfies STEP 1 (i.e., a process). Claim 1 covers performance of at least one step in the human mind which constitutes a mental process, which may include an evaluation, determination, judgment, or opinion, for example. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea which satisfies STEP 2A (Prong 1). Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application which does not satisfy STEP 2A (Prong 2). Furthermore, with regard to STEP 2B, claim 1 does not recite anything other than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept is not present.
Since claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites limitations of a mental process, without integrating the limitations into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more, it is ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims fall into the mental processes grouping as each of them depends on independent claim 1 and the additional limitations recited in each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 10 recites a system which is in the machine category of the four statutory categories. Examiner rejects claim 10 for the same reasons as stated above for claim 1 because claim 10 performs the same steps that are recited in independent claim 1 and does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 11-17 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims fall into the mental processes grouping as each of them depends on independent claim 10 and the additional limitations recited in each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Each of claims 4-5 and 13-14 recites the words: ”dynamically determined” or “dynamically determine”. It is unclear what is meant by dynamically determining. How is the dynamically determining performed in each of these claims? The phrase “dynamically determine[d]” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claims is undefined, and it is unclear what each of the claims is directed to. For example, regarding claim 4, Applicant should amend the claims to define how a number of robots capable of occupying the exclusion zone is dynamically determine[d]. Otherwise, the word “dynamically” should be removed.
Appropriate amendments are required to correct the foregoing issues. Applicant is requested to provide support from the specification for any amendments made. No new matter should be added for any amendment. For the sake of examination, the Examiner will strike-out the term “dynamically” in claims 4-5 and 13-14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Artes et al. (EP 3974934).
Regarding claim 1, Artes teaches a method for controlling a robot, the method comprising the steps of: (a) determining an exclusion zone in a space where a robot travels; and (b) determining whether the robot is capable of occupying the exclusion zone (see Artes at least at the Abstract which discloses a method for entering a virtual restricted area into an electronic map of a robot deployment area of an autonomous mobile robot and that in one embodiment, the method includes: receiving user input from the human-machine interface to define the virtual restricted area; Evaluating the user input, checking whether the user input meets at least one predefined criterion, and deciding, based on the evaluation of the user input, whether and/or in what geometric form the virtual restricted area is stored in the map. Examiner maps restricted area to exclusion zone. Further, see Artes at page 4 which discloses that a method for controlling an autonomous mobile robot is described, the robot being designed to navigate independently in a robot deployment area using sensors and an electronic map, and to regularly determine its position on the map, the map having at least one virtual restricted area, which the robot does not navigate during navigation. Examiner notes that the robot not being to navigate in at least one virtual restricted area corresponds to determine whether the robot is capable of occupying the exclusion zone.)
Regarding claim 9, Artes teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored thereon a computer program for executing the method of Claim 1 (see Artest at page 5 which teaches that the software responsible for the behavior of the robot 100 (comprising a control software module 151 and navigation module 152, see Figure 1B) can be executed on the control unit 150 of the robot 100 (by means of appropriate processor 155 and memory 156), and that the control unit 150 can also carry out some operations, at least in part, with the aid of an external computer; see Artes at page 6 which discloses that the control unit 150 comprises, for example, a processor 155 and a memory 156 to run control software.)
Claim 10 is directed toward a system that performs the steps recited in method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 1.
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 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.
Claim 2-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artes et al. (EP 3974934) in view of Sprute et al. (CN 112789570).
Regarding claim 2, Artes does not expressly disclose the method of Claim 1, wherein the exclusion zone is determined by selecting at least three points in the space which, in a related art, Sprute teaches (see Sprute at least at the Abstract which discloses a robot system (15) for inputting a work area (4) in a monitoring area (14), wherein the robot system (15) has a laser indicator (2) as an input unit, for inputting a plurality of laser points (3) by a user (1); see Sprute at page 5 which discloses that the control point may indicate by its location whether the area in which the control point is located is marked as a forbidden area or as an allowed area, and thus may cause a change in the work area 4 if necessary in such a way that the allowed area and the forbidden area may be exchanged; see Sprute at page 5 in conjunction with Fig. 3 which discloses that: FIG. 3 illustrates an example of a fifth method step 25. The set of points identified from the laser points and projected into the three-dimensional coordinate space is used as the initial set 30. After grouping and filtering the initial set 30, there is a reduced set of points 31. The thinning is performed on the reduced set of points 31 to obtain a sparse set of points 32. The polygonal chain 33 is generated according to the sparse point set 32.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Artes to include wherein the exclusion zone is determined by selecting at least three points in the space, as taught by Sprute.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to facilitate inputting of points user a laser indicator, as suggested by Heinrich at [0006].
Regarding claim 3, the modified Artes teaches the method of Claim 2, wherein the exclusion zone is determined in a shape of a polygon that has the at least three points as its vertices (see Sprute at least at page 3 which discloses that the point set in the three-dimensional coordinate space is determined by projecting the laser point into the three-dimensional coordinate space, and the polygonal chain for determining the work area is determined and analyzed according to the point set; see Sprute at page 3 which discloses that the control point is determined according to the laser point, wherein the control point causes a change in the occupancy probability of the work area; further see Sprute at page 5 in conjunction with Fig. 3 which discloses that: FIG. 3 illustrates an example of a fifth method step 25. The set of points identified from the laser points and projected into the three-dimensional coordinate space is used as the initial set 30. After grouping and filtering the initial set 30, there is a reduced set of points 31. The thinning is performed on the reduced set of points 31 to obtain a sparse set of points 32. The polygonal chain 33 is generated according to the sparse point set 32. Examiner notes that Sprute at Fig. 3 depicts a polygon with at least three points as its vertices.)
Claims 11-12 are directed toward a system that performs the steps recited in method of claims 2-3. Therefore, claims 11-12 are rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 2-3.
Claim 4-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artes et al. (EP 3974934) in view of Whitaker et al. (US 11,256,259).
Regarding claim 4, Artes teaches an exclusion zone (see Artes at Abstract which teaches a virtual restricted zone.)
Artes does not expressly disclose the method of Claim 1, wherein in step (a), a number of robots capable of occupying [the exclusion zone] is dynamically determined, which, in a related art, Whitaker teaches (see at least Whitaker at col. 2 which discloses that the method also includes associating a rule with the zone, the rule at least partially dictating operation of one or more robots within the zone, and that in some embodiments, the rule dictates at least one of whether the zone is open or closed, a type of the zone, a maximum occupancy of the zone, … whether a definition of the zone has been dynamically updated, an expiration of the zone, or combinations thereof. Also, see Whitaker at col. 12 which discloses that the maximum occupancy property dictates a maximum number of robots 18 or, alternatively, a maximum combined number of robots and humans that are permitted in the zone at any one time. Examiner notes that a maximum occupancy of the zone corresponds to a number of robots capable of occupying the zone.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Artes to include that a number of robots capable of occupying zone is dynamically determined, as taught by Whitaker.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that the system can avoid clusters of transiting robots creating congestion within what would typically be a high usage zone, as suggested by Whitaker at col. 14.
Regarding claim 5, Artes teaches an exclusion zone (see Artes at Abstract which teaches a virtual restricted zone.)
Artes does not expressly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein in step (a), a number of robots capable of occupying [the exclusion zone] in a predetermined time range is dynamically determined, which in a related art, Whitaker teaches (see at least Whitaker at col. 14 which discloses that the expiration property dictates a time remaining until this zone is automatically removed or reconfigured by the zone server, …, and that in such embodiments the maintenance zone can be temporarily defined as a closed zone and, after the designated time period expires, the zone can be reopened.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Artes to include that a number of robots capable of occupying the exclusion zone in a predetermined time range is dynamically determined, as taught by Whitaker.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification such that after the designated time period expires, the zone can be reopened, as suggested by Whitaker at col. 14.
Claims 13-14 are directed toward a system that performs the steps recited in method of claims 4-5. Therefore, claims 13-14 are rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 4-5.
Claim 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artes et al. (EP 3974934) in view of Mead et al. (US 2014/0222206).
Regarding claim 6, Artes teaches an exclusion zone (see Artes at Abstract which teaches a virtual restricted zone.)
Artes does not expressly disclose the method of Claim 1, wherein in step (b), in response to the robot possessing a right to occupy [the exclusion zone], the robot is allowed to occupy [the exclusion zone], which, in a related art, Mead teaches (see at least Mead at [0111] which discloses that the work environment can be adapted for the presence of robots, … and that buffer zones or no-entry zones for robots can also be established. Also, see Mead at [0112] which discloses that the robot 10 approaches a secured area in the work environment, such as a meeting room 18, and if the robot encounters an electronic barrier or other type of indicator of restricted access, such as a light beam or electrical signal, the robot stops moving and will not enter the space, and that the restricted access indicators can be configured so that they are detectable primarily only by robots and do not provide any encumbrance to people in the work environment, and that if the robot is authorized for access into a restricted area, the robot is able to move across the barrier into the space or room and conduct its business.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Artes to include that in response to the robot possessing a right to occupy the exclusion zone, the robot is allowed to occupy the exclusion zone, as taught by Mead.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to control range of access or movement of a robot in the work environment, as suggested by Mead at [0112].
Claim 15 is directed toward a system that performs the steps recited in method of claim 6. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artes et al. (EP 3974934) in view of Voorhies et al. (US 2018/0239343).
Regarding claim 7, Artes teaches an exclusion zone (see Artes at Abstract which teaches a virtual restricted zone.)
Artes does not expressly disclose the method of Claim 1, wherein in step (b), in response to the robot possessing a right to occupy [the exclusion zone,] the robot is caused to advertise the possession of the right, which in a related art, Voorhies teaches (see Voorhies at [0027] which discloses that the synchronization primitive provides notification regarding resource availability. Examiner maps notification regarding resource availability to advertising the possession of the right. Also, see Voorhies at [0075] which discloses that the figure also illustrates the first robot 1110 queuing synchronization primitives for access at a security door 1160 and that the first robot 1110 may require authorization prior to accessing a restricted area secured by the security door 1160. Examiner maps prior authorization to possession of the right to occupy.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Artes to include that in response to the robot possessing a right to occupy the exclusion zone, the robot is caused to advertise the possession of the right, as taught by Voorhies.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to optimize access to limited resources for robots operating in the same space, as suggested by Voorhies at [0005].
Regarding claim 8, Artes teaches an exclusion zone (see Artes at Abstract which teaches a virtual restricted zone.)
Artes does not expressly disclose the method of Claim 1, wherein in step (b), in response to the robot possessing a right to occupy [the exclusion zone], the robot is caused to advertise a time of possessing the right as well as the possession of the right, which in a related art, Voorhies teaches (see Voorhies at [0027] which discloses that the synchronization primitive provides notification regarding resource availability. Examiner maps notification regarding resource availability to advertising the possession of the right. Also, see Voorhies at [0075] which discloses that the figure also illustrates the first robot 1110 queuing synchronization primitives for access at a security door 1160 and that the first robot 1110 may require authorization prior to accessing a restricted area secured by the security door 1160. Examiner maps prior authorization to possession of the right to occupy. Further, see Voorhies at [0026] which discloses that some embodiments establish a resource queue in which synchronization primitives from different robots can be entered for ordered or future reservation of a corresponding resource and that in other words, the synchronization primitive can be issued with respect to a particular resource with a time, wherein the time specifies the reservation duration or future time for reserving the resource. Also, see Voorhies at [0027] which discloses that the synchronization primitive provides notification regarding resource availability and that for instance. Examiner maps the notification to advertising the time of possessing the right.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Artes to include that in response to the robot possessing a right to occupy the exclusion zone, the robot is caused to advertise a time of possessing the right as well as the possession of the right, as taught by Voorhies.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to optimize access to limited resources for robots operating in the same space, as suggested by Voorhies at [0005].
Claims 16-17 are directed toward a system that performs the steps recited in method of claims 7-8. Therefore, claims 16-17 are rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 7-8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, 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.
/ROY RHEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights