www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/224,910
`
`04/07/2021
`
`Yuta MIURA
`
`083710-3283
`
`7526
`
`McDermott Will and Emery LLP
`The McDermott Building
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`WOOD, BLAKE ANDREW
`
`3664
`
`01/31/2023
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`mweipdocket@mwe.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-8 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`Cj} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)___is/are objected to.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)€
`The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)(¥} The drawing(s) filed on 07 April 2021 is/are: a)(¥} accepted or b){j objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`_—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)¥) All
`1.4) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.4.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20230123
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`47/224,910
`MIURAet al.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`BLAKE A WOOD
`3664
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s)filed on 07 April 2021.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file
`
`provisions of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1, 2, and 5 are objected to because ofthe following informalities:
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Regarding claim 1, Applicant claims: “...a first marker allowed to be placed in the cleaning area...”. The
`
`examiner recommends amendingthis claim to state: “...a first marker to be placed in the cleaning area...”.
`
`Claim 2 uses languagesimilar to that of claim 1 (“allowed to be placed”), and is similarly objected to.
`
`Regarding claim 5, Applicant claims: ”...and second corner marker that carries...”. The examiner
`
`recommends amending this claim to state “...and a second corner marker that carries...”.
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`3.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. — An element ina claim for a combination may be expressed as
`a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts
`in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material,
`or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a
`specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim
`shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
`specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`4.
`
`The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning
`
`of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one ofordinary skill in the art. The
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 3
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited
`
`by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
`
`As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection |, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong testwill
`
`be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`(A)
`
`the claim limitation uses the term “means”or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means”that is a
`
`generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural
`
`meaning) for performing the claimed function;
`
`(B)
`
`the term “means”or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language,typically, but
`
`not alwayslinked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for’) or another linking word or phrase, such
`
`as “configured to” or “so that”; and
`
`(C)
`
`the term “means”or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or
`
`acts for performing the claimed function.
`
`Use of the word “means”(or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption
`
`that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interoreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C.
`
`112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely
`
`perform the recited function.
`
`Absence of the word “means”(or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim
`
`limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The
`
`presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or
`
`acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means”(or “step”) are being interpreted under 35
`
`U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
`
`Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means”(or “step”) are not being
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an
`
`Office action.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 4
`
`5.
`
`This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are
`
`nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim
`
`limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient
`
`structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
`
`Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
`
`“Map acquisition unit” in claim 1, which is being interpreted as a computer;
`
`“Positional relationship acquisition unit”, which is being interpreted as a computer; and
`
`“Cleaning plan construction unit”, which is being interpreted as a computer,in claim 1, along with:
`
`“Map construction unit”, which is being interpreted as a computer,in claim 2.
`
`Becausethis/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C.
`
`112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the
`
`specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
`
`If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
`
`(1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the
`
`claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to
`
`perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C.
`
`112, sixth paragraph.
`
`Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 112
`
`6.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or moreclaims 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-AlA), second paragraph:
`The specification shall conclude with one or moreclaims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page5
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
`
`Regarding claim 1, Applicant claims “A vacuum cleaner that autonomously travels in a cleaning area that
`
`has been predetermined to clean the cleaning area”. The examiner submits that this limitation renders the claim
`
`indefinite, as it is unclear whether it is the vacuum cleaner that is “predetermined to clean the cleaning area”or if
`
`it is the cleaning area that is “predetermined to clean the cleaning area”.
`
`Claims 2-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on rejected claim 1.
`
`Regarding claim 4, Applicant claims “...wherein the first marker includes a start marker... and a goal
`
`marker...”. It is unclear, however, how a single marker is supposed to simultaneously serve as two different
`
`markers.
`
`Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 102
`
`8.
`
`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-AlA 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 ofrejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection,
`
`would be the same under either status.
`
`9.
`
`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.
`
`10.
`
`Claim(s) 1, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosskopf (US
`
`20180263449 A1), hereafter Rosskopf.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 6
`
`Regarding claim 1, Rosskopf teaches a vacuum cleaner system comprising:
`
`A vacuum cleaner that autonomously travels in a cleaning area that has been predetermined to clean the
`
`cleaning area (0073, floor cleaning apparatus is a cleaning robot, 0046, cleaning apparatus visits dirty spots in a
`
`targeted manner);
`
`A first marker allowed to be placed in the cleaning area (0029, one or more beacons placed in the
`
`environment); and
`
`A map acquisition unit that acquires a map of the cleaning area (0031, storage member in which a map of
`
`the floor surface is stored), wherein:
`
`The vacuum cleaner includes a positional relationship acquisition unit that acquiresa first positional
`
`relationship indicating a positional relationship between the vacuum cleaner and the first marker in the cleaning
`
`area, and a marker information acquisition unit that acquires first marker information carried by the first marker
`
`(0032, cleaning device located via the localization member based on the position of at least one position landmark,
`
`0080, localization member receives radio signals, which are different from one another); and
`
`The vacuum system further comprises a cleaning plan construction unit that constructs a cleaning plan
`
`based on the first marker information, the first positional relationship, and a self-position corresponding to
`
`information on a position of the vacuum cleaner in the map (0099, floor cleaning apparatus approaches the user
`
`location, detects the dirt and determines it is in the requested location, 0098, localization of the floor cleaning
`
`apparatus realized in a relative reference system of the position landmarks).
`
`Regarding claim 3, Rosskopf teaches the vacuum cleaner system according to claim 1, further comprising
`
`a terminal device including the cleaning plan construction unit (0067, operating unit of the accessory device used
`
`to trigger a cleaning order).
`
`Regarding claim 8, Rosskopf teaches a vacuum cleaner included in a vacuum cleaner system according to
`
`claim 1, the vacuum cleaner comprising:
`
`A map acquisition unit that acquires a map of a cleaning area (0031, storage member in which a map of
`
`the floor surface is stored);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 7
`
`A positional relationship detector that detectsa first positional relationship between the vacuum cleaner
`
`and a first marker included in the vacuum cleaner system in the cleaning area (0032, cleaning device located via
`
`the localization member based on the position of at least one position landmark);
`
`An information detector that detects first marker information carried by the first marker (0080,
`
`localization member receives radio signals, which are different from one another); and
`
`A marker information acquisition unit that acquires the first marker information detected by the
`
`information detector (0080, localization member receives radio signals from beacons).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`11.
`
`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-AlA 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 ofrejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection,
`
`would be the same under either status.
`
`12.
`
`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 ordinaryskill in the art to which the
`claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention
`was made.
`
`13.
`
`Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosskopf as applied to claim 1
`
`above, and further in view of Williams (US 20160297072 A1), hereafter Williams.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Rosskopf teaches the vacuum cleaner system according to claim 1, further comprising:
`
`A second marker allowed to be placed in the cleaning area (Fig. 1, two beacons 18 located in area).
`
`Rosskopffails to teach, however:
`
`A map construction unit that constructs the map based on a second positional relationship between the
`
`vacuum cleaner and the second marker acquired by the positional relationship acquisition unit,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 8
`
`Wherein the map acquisition unit acquires, without interruption, the map under construction by the map
`
`construction unit, and
`
`The cleaning plan construction unit constructs, without interruption, the cleaning plan based on the map
`
`under construction acquired by the map acquisition unit.
`
`Williams does teach, however:
`
`A map construction unit that constructs the map based on a second positional relationship between the
`
`vacuum cleaner and the second marker acquired by the positional relationship acquisition unit (0010, operations
`
`include generating a map, identifying the markets on the map based on the markers),
`
`Wherein the map acquisition unit acquires, without interruption, the map under construction by the map
`
`construction unit (0010, operations include generating a map, identifying the markets on the map based on the
`
`markers), and
`
`The cleaning plan construction unit constructs, without interruption, the cleaning plan based on the map
`
`under construction acquired by the map acquisition unit (0045, sensors on the robot generate signals indicative of
`
`structural elements in the environment, enabling the robot to determine behavior used to navigate about the
`
`environment).
`
`Rosskopf and Williams are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotic controls. It
`
`would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present
`
`invention to have included the simultaneous map and cleaning plan construction of Williams in order to provide a
`
`means of creating a cleaning plan for the detected environment. The motivation to combine is to allow the robot
`
`to plan a cleaning path tailored for the detected environment.
`
`Regarding claim 7, Rosskopf teaches the vacuum cleaner system according to claim 1, but fails to teach
`
`wherein the first marker includesa first regulation line marker that carries, as the first marker information, first
`
`regulation line information showinga first end of a cross-border regulation line and a second regulation line
`
`marker that carries, as the first marker information, second regulation line information showing a second end of
`
`the cross-border regulation line.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 9
`
`Williams, however, does teach wherein the first marker includesa first regulation line marker that carries,
`
`as the first marker information, first regulation line information showinga first end of a cross-border regulation
`
`line and a second regulation line marker that carries, as the first marker information, second regulation line
`
`information showing a second end of the cross-border regulation line (0097, upon determining that the robot has
`
`detected markers 610a and 610b, the robot can designate a virtual barrier based on the positions of the markers).
`
`Rosskopf and Williams are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotic controls. It
`
`would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present
`
`invention to have included the virtual barriers of Williams in order to provide a means of designating an operating
`
`environment for the robot. The motivation to combine is to allow the robot to be prevented from entering an area
`
`without requiring a physical barrier.
`
`14.
`
`Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosskopf as applied to claim 1 above,
`
`and further in view of Akamatsu (US20190155275 A1), hereafter Akamatsu.
`
`Regarding claim 4, Rosskopf teaches the vacuum cleaner system according to claim 1, but fails to teach
`
`wherein the first marker includes a start marker that carries, as the first marker information, start information
`
`showing a cleaning start position and a goal marker that carries, as the first marker information, goal information
`
`showing a cleaning end position.
`
`Akamatsu, however, does teach wherein the first marker includes a start marker that carries, as the first
`
`marker information, start information showing a cleaning start position and a goal marker that carries, as the first
`
`marker information, goal information showing a cleaning end position (0012, first marker comprises, as attribute
`
`information, information of a coordinate position of the first marker and information specifying the second marker
`
`to be passed next, Examiner’s note, the position of the first marker is being interpreted as an initial position, and
`
`the information regarding the second markeris being interpreted as the end location of the travel segment).
`
`Rosskopf and Akamatsu are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotic controls. It
`
`would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the art at the effective filing date of the present
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 10
`
`invention to have included the start and end position of Akamatsu in order to provide a means of determining the
`
`required cleaning path. The motivation to combine is to bound the cleaning path at both ends in order to better
`
`determine an effective cleaning path.
`
`15.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosskopf as applied to claim 1 above,
`
`and further in view of Raman (US 20180093289 A1), hereafter Raman.
`
`Regarding claim 5, Rosskopf teaches the vacuum cleaner system according to claim 1, but fails to teach
`
`wherein the first marker includes a first corner marker that carries, as the first marker information, first corner
`
`information showing a corner of a rectangular area used in the cleaning plan and second corner marker that
`
`carries, as the first marker information, second corner information showing a corner diagonally opposite to the
`
`first corner marker in the rectangular area.
`
`Raman, however, does teach wherein the first marker includes a first corner marker that carries, as the
`
`first marker information, first corner information showing a corner of a rectangular area used in the cleaning plan
`
`and second corner marker that carries, as the first marker information, second corner information showing a
`
`corner diagonally opposite to the first corner marker in the rectangular area (Fig. 5, 0065, local position navigation
`
`system comprises a series of beacons placed in four corners of a rectangular room, Examiner’s note, if beacons are
`
`placedin all four corners of a rectangular room, the beacons must be diagonal from one another).
`
`Rosskopf and Raman are analogous becausethey are in the same field of endeavor, robotic control. It
`
`would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the art at the effective filing date of the present
`
`invention to have included the corner beacons of Raman in order to provide a means of designating a working
`
`area. The motivation to combine is to provide a means of delineating the corners of a navigation space.
`
`16.
`
`Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosskopf in view of Raman as applied
`
`to claim 5 above, and further in view of Williams.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 11
`
`Regarding claim 6, the combination of Rosskopf and Raman teaches the vacuum cleaner system according
`
`to claim 5, but fails to teach wherein at least either of the first corner marker or the second corner marker carries,
`
`as the first marker information, cleaning information showing a cleaning mode in the rectangular area defined by
`
`the first corner marker and the second corner marker.
`
`Williams, however, does teach wherein at least either of the first corner marker or the second corner
`
`marker carries, as the first marker information, cleaning information showing a cleaning mode in the rectangular
`
`area defined by the first corner marker and the second corner marker (Fig. 5A, robot navigates from corner to
`
`corner, 0010, markers include data indicating the area of operation, 0059, robot navigates along the surface in the
`
`first room).
`
`Rosskopf, Raman, and Williams are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotic
`
`navigation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinaryskill in the art at the effective filing date of the
`
`presentinvention to have included the cleaning information of Williams in order to provide a cleaning path for the
`
`mobile robot. The motivation to combine is to allow the mobile robot to determine a cleaning path for a given
`
`bounded environment.
`
`Conclusion
`
`17.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
`
`Lee ‘280 (US 20180039280 A1) and Lee ‘281 (US 20180039281 A1) both teach an autonomous mobile
`
`device that determines its position based on the detection of a marker in the environment, and then determines a
`
`travel path based on an input.
`
`18.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be
`
`directed to BLAKE A WOOD whosetelephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-
`
`F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
`
`Examiner interviewsare 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/224,910
`Art Unit: 3664
`
`Page 12
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Burke
`
`can be reached on 469-295-9067. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding
`
`is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent
`
`Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage
`
`patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions,
`
`contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO
`
`Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)or 571-272-1000.
`
`/B.A.W./
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 3664
`
`/JEFF A BURKE/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
`
`