DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 8-9, filed 08/04/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claims 20, 38, and 39 and their respective dependent claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Erhart and Gupta fail to teach or suggest “generating remote control signals for remotely controlling the robot based only when the check indicates that the at least one safety condition is met”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, Applicant alleges that [0197]-[0198] of Erhart do not meet the amended claim feature because (1) it discusses the robot 102 being in a non-secure mode, which is not comparable to the safety condition check of the claims and (2) that nothing in [0197] discloses dispensing with the generating of remote control signals. With respect to argument (1), the Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant’s arguments fail to consider how Erhart teaches the checking of whether the at least one safety condition is met. As cited to in the previous Office Action, [0075] discloses determining whether the robot is in compliance with security criteria, operating the robot in a secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is in compliance with the security criteria, and operating the robot in a non-secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is not in compliance with the security criteria. That is, the checking of whether the at least one safety condition is met results in the robot being placed in either the secure mode or the non-secure mode, which the Examiner asserts meets the requirements of the claimed limitations. With respect to argument (2), referring to paragraphs [0197] and [0198], Erhart teaches that when the robot is in the non-secure mode (i.e., when the safety condition is not met), “measures are put in place to curtail the operation of robot 102” due to the robot 102 not being trusted. Paragraph [0198] further teaches that such security imposed limits may render robot 102 inoperable. The Examiner further notes that Erhart teaches that radio-frequency communications are enabled in the secure mode, and communication between the robot and a remote operator is required for remotely-controlling the robot (see at least [0192] and [0080]). If the robot is placed in the non-secure mode, the robot may be rendered inoperable; that is, generating remote control signals cannot occur because the robot is inoperable and communications are not enabled. If, instead, the check indicates that the at least one safety condition is met and the root is placed in the secure mode, communications are enabled and remote control signals for remotely controlling the robot may be generated. Therefore, due to the above-discussed reasons, the Examiner asserts that the combination of Erhart and Gupta does teach “generating remote control signals for remotely controlling the robot based only when the check indicates that the at least one safety condition is met”.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claims 20, 38, and 39 and their respective dependent claims has been maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 20, 38, and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of claims 20, 38, and 39 include features directed towards “[generating] remote control signals for remotely controlling the robot based only when the check indicates that the at least one safety condition is met;” Here, “…remotely controlling the robot based only when the check indicates…” should be “…remotely controlling the robot only when the check indicates…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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(s) 20-21, 23, 26, 29-33, and 35-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erhart et al. (US 2017/0286708 A1), hereinafter Erhart, in view of Gupta et al. (US 2019/0354106 A1), hereinafter Gupta.
Regarding claim 20, Erhart teaches a method for remotely controlling a robot situated within a factory infrastructure, comprising the following steps:
[receiving] surroundings signals that represent surroundings of the robot;
Erhart teaches ([0016]): "A robot may have one or more movable "heads" and thus one or more fixed or movable cameras. The robot can capture still or video images in optical and non-optical wavelengths, passive and/or induced magnetic field imaging, and/or sonar or other mechanical wave-based imaging. The robot may determine the precise location of the camera relative to the body of the robot. With this information, a robot can be programmed by the contact center to transmit a stream of data to the contact center and enable the contact center systems to perform scene/environment two-dimensional (2D) and/or three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions..."
receiving safety condition signals, which represent at least one safety condition which must be met for the robot to be allowed to be remotely controlled;
Erhart teaches ([0075]): "In one embodiment, a system is disclosed, comprising: a network interface; a data repository; a microprocessor in communication with the network interface and when provided with instructions cause the microprocessor to: communicate with a robot configured to perform a customer service task at a service location; access a security criteria from the data repository; determine whether the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; operate the robot in a secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; and operate the robot in a non-secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is not in compliance with the security criteria" Erhart further teaches ([0197]): "Robot 102, when in the non-secure mode, is not trusted in whole or in part. Therefore, measures are put in place to curtail the operation of robot 102 or a component thereof to reduce the risk of harm to persons, property, or data that may be caused by a robot that cannot be trusted." Erhart even further teaches ([0198]): "The security-imposed limit may render robot 102 inoperable, inoperable to perform a particular task, such as the customer service task, or inhibit robot 102's ability to perform an operation as quickly, efficiently, or in a desired manner. The security-imposed limit may be directed to a particular component, such as one associated with the reason for robot 102 being in the non-secure mode, or to a different component."
checking whether the at least one safety condition is met;
Erhart teaches ([0075]): "In one embodiment, a system is disclosed, comprising: a network interface; a data repository; a microprocessor in communication with the network interface and when provided with instructions cause the microprocessor to: communicate with a robot configured to perform a customer service task at a service location; access a security criteria from the data repository; determine whether the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; operate the robot in a secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; and operate the robot in a non-secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is not in compliance with the security criteria" Erhart further teaches ([0192]): "One security criteria may be the establishment of an encrypted communication link, such as a virtual private network (VPN). Once robot 102 is determined to be in compliance with the criteria, robot 102 may be operated in a secure mode wherein radio-frequency communications are enabled..."
generating remote control signals for remotely controlling the robot based only when the check indicates that the at least one safety condition is met;
Erhart teaches ([0192]): "One security criteria may be the establishment of an encrypted communication link, such as a virtual private network (VPN). Once robot 102 is determined to be in compliance with the criteria, robot 102 may be operated in a secure mode wherein radio-frequency communications are enabled..." Erhart further teaches ([0080]): "Robot 102 may be entirely autonomous, autonomous once positioned in a predetermined location or proximate to the object of a task, or a drone or proxy for an operator, such as a supervisor robot or agent of a contact center remotely controlling robot 102 in whole or in part. Control may alternate from robot 102 to a networked supervisor, human or robotic, based upon progression of the task, specific waypoints in a task, or due to component or linkage failures... For example, an agent of a contact center may be remotely operating robot 102 and attempting to light a pilot light of a gas water heater when communication between the contact center and agent are lost. Robot 102 may be configured to then discontinue attempting to light the pilot light, turn off the gas supply, and wait for communications to be restored." Erhart even further teaches ([0075]): "In one embodiment, a system is disclosed, comprising: a network interface; a data repository; a microprocessor in communication with the network interface and when provided with instructions cause the microprocessor to: communicate with a robot configured to perform a customer service task at a service location; access a security criteria from the data repository; determine whether the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; operate the robot in a secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; and operate the robot in a non-secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is not in compliance with the security criteria" Erhart still further teaches ([0197]): "Robot 102, when in the non-secure mode, is not trusted in whole or in part. Therefore, measures are put in place to curtail the operation of robot 102 or a component thereof to reduce the risk of harm to persons, property, or data that may be caused by a robot that cannot be trusted." Erhart yet further teaches ([0198]): "The security-imposed limit may render robot 102 inoperable, inoperable to perform a particular task, such as the customer service task, or inhibit robot 102's ability to perform an operation as quickly, efficiently, or in a desired manner. The security-imposed limit may be directed to a particular component, such as one associated with the reason for robot 102 being in the non-secure mode, or to a different component." Above, Erhart teaches that if the safety condition is not met, the robot is placed in a non-secure mode. The Examiner notes that [0192] indicates that radio-frequency communications are enabled in the secure mode, and such communication is needed for remotely controlling the robot. When the robot is placed in the non-secure mode, the robot is considered untrusted and the robot may be rendered inoperable. Therefore, as the robot is made inoperable and radio-frequency communications with a remote operator is not enabled, the remote control signals are not generated.
outputting the generated remote control signals;
Erhart teaches ([0192]): "One security criteria may be the establishment of an encrypted communication link, such as a virtual private network (VPN). Once robot 102 is determined to be in compliance with the criteria, robot 102 may be operated in a secure mode wherein radio-frequency communications are enabled..." Erhart further teaches ([0080]): "Robot 102 may be entirely autonomous, autonomous once positioned in a predetermined location or proximate to the object of a task, or a drone or proxy for an operator, such as a supervisor robot or agent of a contact center remotely controlling robot 102 in whole or in part."
and remotely controlling the robot based on the generated remote control signals.
Erhart teaches ([0080]): "Robot 102 may be entirely autonomous, autonomous once positioned in a predetermined location or proximate to the object of a task, or a drone or proxy for an operator, such as a supervisor robot or agent of a contact center remotely controlling robot 102 in whole or in part. Control may alternate from robot 102 to a networked supervisor, human or robotic, based upon progression of the task, specific waypoints in a task, or due to component or linkage failures... For example, an agent of a contact center may be remotely operating robot 102 and attempting to light a pilot light of a gas water heater when communication between the contact center and agent are lost. Robot 102 may be configured to then discontinue attempting to light the pilot light, turn off the gas supply, and wait for communications to be restored." Erhart further teaches ([0110]): "Fault detection 206 comprises means to detect, and optionally manage, any out of parameter operation of robot 102. In one embodiment, processor 236 commands mobility/actuator 226 to apply a force to an object. Mobility/actuator 226 draws power, via power 204, commensurate with the desired force. However, the actually force measured by sensor 228 may be outside of an expected for the force. Fault detection 206 may determine that a fault exists and apply an adjustment (e.g., increase the amount of power requested to apply the desired force) or indicate a fault, known or unknown, which may lead to robot 102 discontinuing a task, seeking assistance from a human or automated agent, or other action associated with a particular fault."
However, Erhart does not outright teach receiving a driving route signal that represents a setpoint driving route, and that the checking includes checking, based on the surroundings signals, whether the robot is able to negotiate the setpoint driving route. Gupta teaches a system and method for complete coverage of unknown environments, comprising:
receiving a driving route signal that represents a setpoint driving route
Gupta teaches ([0025]): "Herein are described techniques for online coverage path planning (CPP) that includes providing coverage paths for complete coverage of an a priori unknown environment. Examples of such techniques can be applied to methods and apparatus related to, but not restricted to, autonomous vehicles (e.g., robotics devices, UUVs, UGVs, UAVs)." Gupta further teaches ([0141]): "At block 1320, while the autonomous vehicle is in the environment, the computing device can: receive status data from the autonomous vehicle, the status data at least related to a location of the autonomous vehicle and to obstacles at the location of the autonomous vehicle, update the environmental status for at least one cell based on the status data related to the location of the autonomous vehicle and to obstacles at the location of the autonomous vehicle, determine, for each cell of the plurality of cells, a value for the cell that is based on the environmental status of the cell, determine a waypoint of a coverage path that substantially covers at least a region in the environment, where the coverage path is based on the location of the autonomous vehicle, determine whether the waypoint of the coverage path is reachable from the location of the autonomous vehicle, after determining that the waypoint of the coverage path is reachable, send a command directing an autonomous vehicle to begin travel in the environment toward the waypoint of the coverage path, the command based on the mapping of the environment, and update the waypoint of the coverage path based on the status data..."
wherein the checking includes checking, based on the surroundings signals, whether the robot is able to negotiate the setpoint driving route;
Gupta teaches ([0141]): "At block 1320, while the autonomous vehicle is in the environment, the computing device can: receive status data from the autonomous vehicle, the status data at least related to a location of the autonomous vehicle and to obstacles at the location of the autonomous vehicle, update the environmental status for at least one cell based on the status data related to the location of the autonomous vehicle and to obstacles at the location of the autonomous vehicle, determine, for each cell of the plurality of cells, a value for the cell that is based on the environmental status of the cell, determine a waypoint of a coverage path that substantially covers at least a region in the environment, where the coverage path is based on the location of the autonomous vehicle, determine whether the waypoint of the coverage path is reachable from the location of the autonomous vehicle, after determining that the waypoint of the coverage path is reachable, send a command directing an autonomous vehicle to begin travel in the environment toward the waypoint of the coverage path, the command based on the mapping of the environment, and update the waypoint of the coverage path based on the status data..."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Erhart to incorporate the teachings of Gupta to provide receiving a driving route signal that represents a setpoint driving route, and that the checking includes checking, based on the surroundings signals, whether the robot is able to negotiate the setpoint driving route. Erhart and Gupta are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of remote control for robots. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Gupta, as the checking of Gupta advantageously determines whether or not the robot is capable of following the setpoint driving route (see at least [0141]). If it is determined that it is not possible for the robot to reach the setpoint (i.e., the waypoint), Gupta advantageously prevents following the incompatible coverage path by remotely sending a command to shut down the autonomous vehicle, as recognized by Gupta (see at least [0153]).
Regarding claim 21, Erhart and Gupta teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 20. Erhart further teaches:
the at least one safety condition selects one element from the following groups of safety conditions: presence of a predetermined Safety Integrity Level of at least the robot and an infrastructure, including a communication line and/or communication components, for remotely controlling the robot with respect to the overall systems in the robot and the infrastructure; presence of a maximum latency period of a communication between the robot and a remote control device for remotely controlling the robot based on the remote control signals; presence of a predetermined computer protection level of a device for carrying out the method steps; presence of predetermined components and/or algorithms and/or communication options which are used to carry out the method steps; presence of a redundancy and/or diversity in predetermined components and/or algorithms and/or communication options which are used to carry out the method steps; presence of predetermined availability information which indicates an availability of predetermined components and/or algorithms and/or communication options; presence of predetermined quality criteria of the predetermined components and/or algorithms and/or communication options; presence of a plan which encompasses measures for reducing errors and/or measures in the event of failures of predetermined components and/or algorithms and/or communication options and/or measures for error analyses and/or measures in the event of misinterpretations; presence of one or multiple fallback scenarios; presence of a predetermined function; presence of a predetermined traffic situation; presence of predetermined weather; a maximum possible time for carrying out and/or executing one or multiple of the method steps; presence of a test result that elements and/or functions which are used to carry out the method are presently functioning error-free.
Erhart teaches ([0075]): "In one embodiment, a system is disclosed, comprising: a network interface; a data repository; a microprocessor in communication with the network interface and when provided with instructions cause the microprocessor to: communicate with a robot configured to perform a customer service task at a service location; access a security criteria from the data repository; determine whether the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; operate the robot in a secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; and operate the robot in a non-secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is not in compliance with the security criteria" Erhart further teaches ([0192]): "One security criteria may be the establishment of an encrypted communication link, such as a virtual private network (VPN). Once robot 102 is determined to be in compliance with the criteria, robot 102 may be operated in a secure mode wherein radio-frequency communications are enabled..."
Regarding claim 23, Erhart and Gupta teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 20. Erhart further teaches:
the check of whether the at least one safety condition is met is carried out before and/or after and/or during one or multiple predetermined method step(s).
Erhart teaches ([0075]): "In one embodiment, a system is disclosed, comprising: a network interface; a data repository; a microprocessor in communication with the network interface and when provided with instructions cause the microprocessor to: communicate with a robot configured to perform a customer service task at a service location; access a security criteria from the data repository; determine whether the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; operate the robot in a secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; and operate the robot in a non-secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is not in compliance with the security criteria" Erhart further teaches ([0192]): "One security criteria may be the establishment of an encrypted communication link, such as a virtual private network (VPN). Once robot 102 is determined to be in compliance with the criteria, robot 102 may be operated in a secure mode wherein radio-frequency communications are enabled..."
Regarding claim 26, Erhart and Gupta teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 20. Erhart further teaches:
after the remote control signals are output, the remote control of the robot based on the output remote control signals is checked to detect an error,
Erhart teaches ([0110]): "Fault detection 206 comprises means to detect, and optionally manage, any out of parameter operation of robot 102. In one embodiment, processor 236 commands mobility/actuator 226 to apply a force to an object. Mobility/actuator 226 draws power, via power 204, commensurate with the desired force. However, the actually force measured by sensor 228 may be outside of an expected for the force. Fault detection 206 may determine that a fault exists and apply an adjustment (e.g., increase the amount of power requested to apply the desired force) or indicate a fault, known or unknown, which may lead to robot 102 discontinuing a task, seeking assistance from a human or automated agent, or other action associated with a particular fault."
the remote control being aborted upon detection of an error, or emergency remote control signals being generated and output for remotely controlling the robot in an emergency.
Erhart teaches ([0110]): "Fault detection 206 comprises means to detect, and optionally manage, any out of parameter operation of robot 102. In one embodiment, processor 236 commands mobility/actuator 226 to apply a force to an object. Mobility/actuator 226 draws power, via power 204, commensurate with the desired force. However, the actually force measured by sensor 228 may be outside of an expected for the force. Fault detection 206 may determine that a fault exists and apply an adjustment (e.g., increase the amount of power requested to apply the desired force) or indicate a fault, known or unknown, which may lead to robot 102 discontinuing a task, seeking assistance from a human or automated agent, or other action associated with a particular fault."
Regarding claim 29, Erhart and Gupta teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 20. Erhart further teaches:
the surroundings signals are processed to ascertain an instantaneous state of the surroundings and/or to predict a future state of the surroundings,
Erhart teaches ([0103]): "Sensor 228… may enable robot 102 with physical movements and optionally measure attributes associated with physical movements… Sensor 228 may be embodied as a camera (e.g., one of I/O devices 230) and terminate the rotational motion when the camera detects the screw is properly positioned or, if removing the screw, no longer present."
the remote control signals being generated based on the instantaneous state and/or the future state.
Erhart teaches ([0103]): "Sensor 228… may enable robot 102 with physical movements and optionally measure attributes associated with physical movements… Sensor 228 may be embodied as a camera (e.g., one of I/O devices 230) and terminate the rotational motion when the camera detects the screw is properly positioned or, if removing the screw, no longer present."
Regarding claim 30, Erhart and Gupta teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 29. Erhart further teaches:
the instantaneous and/or future state encompasses one or multiple pieces of the following information: position and/or velocity and/or acceleration of at least one object, position and/or velocity and/or acceleration of at least one road user, signal pattern of a traffic light system.
Erhart teaches ([0103]): "Sensor 228… may enable robot 102 with physical movements and optionally measure attributes associated with physical movements… Sensor 228 may be embodied as a camera (e.g., one of I/O devices 230) and terminate the rotational motion when the camera detects the screw is properly positioned or, if removing the screw, no longer present."
Regarding claim 31, Erhart and Gupta teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 20. Erhart further teaches:
robot task signals are received, which signal a predefined task which the robot is to carry out,
Erhart teaches ([0185]): "FIG. 13 depicts interaction 1300 in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure. Certain tasks may not be able to be completed by robot 102 alone. For example, customer 302 may need to make a selection to their liking or assist robot 102 with a physical task. In one embodiment, agent 612 may be utilized to coordinate efforts between user customer 302 and robot 102. In step 1302, agent 612 directs user 302 to perform a particular task. In step 1304, agent 612 directs robot 102 to perform a counterpart portion of the task." Erhart further teaches ([0186]): "Agent 612 may provide task instructions 1306 to server 902 for implementation via robot 102, such as to perform the robot portion of a task at step 1310. " FIG. 13, included below, depicts the robot task signal reception.
PNG
media_image1.png
494
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
whether and how the predefined task may be carried out by the robot is ascertained, the remote control signals being generated based on a result of the ascertainment.
Erhart teaches ([0095]): "In another embodiment, external processing agent 112 provides live executable software to robot 102. Robot 102, even when configured to perform a task, may lack data or data processing required to perform at least a portion of the task. Accordingly, robot 102 may communicate with external processing agent 112 to gain additional data accessing and/or data processing resources. For example, robot 102 may be tasks to repair a washing machine. Due to a parts shortage, the manufacturer installed a motor different from the motor provided in the documentation, which robot 102 may currently have accessed. Robot 102, or other agent in communication with robot 102, may identify the discrepancy. However, robot 102 may not have access to the correct information regarding the actual motor. Accordingly, robot 102 may access external processing agent 112 to access motor documentation, which may comprise instructions for robot 102 to perform a service (e.g., location of mounting bolts, disconnection procedures for wires, etc.)."
Regarding claim 32, Erhart and Gupta teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 20. Erhart further teaches:
one or multiple of the method steps, except for the steps of generating and outputting the remote control signals is carried out robot- internally and/or one or multiple of the method steps is carried out robot-externally, in an infrastructure.
Erhart teaches ([0080]): "Robot 102 may be entirely autonomous, autonomous once positioned in a predetermined location or proximate to the object of a task, or a drone or proxy for an operator, such as a supervisor robot or agent of a contact center remotely controlling robot 102 in whole or in part. Control may alternate from robot 102 to a networked supervisor, human or robotic, based upon progression of the task, specific waypoints in a task, or due to component or linkage failures... For example, an agent of a contact center may be remotely operating robot 102 and attempting to light a pilot light of a gas water heater when communication between the contact center and agent are lost. Robot 102 may be configured to then discontinue attempting to light the pilot light, turn off the gas supply, and wait for communications to be restored."
Regarding claim 33, Erhart and Gupta teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 32. Erhart further teaches:
the infrastructure is a cloud infrastructure.
Erhart teaches ([0080]): "Robot 102 may be entirely autonomous, autonomous once positioned in a predetermined location or proximate to the object of a task, or a drone or proxy for an operator, such as a supervisor robot or agent of a contact center remotely controlling robot 102 in whole or in part. Control may alternate from robot 102 to a networked supervisor, human or robotic, based upon progression of the task, specific waypoints in a task, or due to component or linkage failures... For example, an agent of a contact center may be remotely operating robot 102 and attempting to light a pilot light of a gas water heater when communication between the contact center and agent are lost. Robot 102 may be configured to then discontinue attempting to light the pilot light, turn off the gas supply, and wait for communications to be restored." The Examiner has interpreted remote control infrastructure as cloud infrastructure.
Regarding claim 35, Erhart and Gupta teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 20. Erhart further teaches:
whether the robot and an infrastructure involved in the method are safe is checked, including a communication between the infrastructure and the robot.
Erhart teaches ([0075]): "In one embodiment, a system is disclosed, comprising: a network interface; a data repository; a microprocessor in communication with the network interface and when provided with instructions cause the microprocessor to: communicate with a robot configured to perform a customer service task at a service location; access a security criteria from the data repository; determine whether the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; operate the robot in a secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; and operate the robot in a non-secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is not in compliance with the security criteria" Erhart further teaches ([0192]): "One security criteria may be the establishment of an encrypted communication link, such as a virtual private network (VPN). Once robot 102 is determined to be in compliance with the criteria, robot 102 may be operated in a secure mode wherein radio-frequency communications are enabled..."
Regarding claim 36, Erhart and Gupta teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 35. Erhart further teaches:
the robot and/or the infrastructure and/or a communication between the robot and the infrastructure are checked as to whether they are safe.
Erhart teaches ([0075]): "In one embodiment, a system is disclosed, comprising: a network interface; a data repository; a microprocessor in communication with the network interface and when provided with instructions cause the microprocessor to: communicate with a robot configured to perform a customer service task at a service location; access a security criteria from the data repository; determine whether the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; operate the robot in a secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; and operate the robot in a non-secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is not in compliance with the security criteria" Erhart further teaches ([0192]): "One security criteria may be the establishment of an encrypted communication link, such as a virtual private network (VPN). Once robot 102 is determined to be in compliance with the criteria, robot 102 may be operated in a secure mode wherein radio-frequency communications are enabled..."
Regarding claim 37, Erhart and Gupta teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 20. Erhart further teaches:
the robot is a mobile robot.
Erhart teaches ([0170]): "For example, robot 102 may be self propelled and able to navigate to service location autonomously or via a delivery robot (e.g., self-driving car, etc.,)."
Regarding claim 38, Erhart teaches a device configured to remotely control a robot situated within a factory infrastructure, the device configured to:
[receive] surroundings signals that represent surroundings of the robot;
Erhart teaches ([0016]): "A robot may have one or more movable "heads" and thus one or more fixed or movable cameras. The robot can capture still or video images in optical and non-optical wavelengths, passive and/or induced magnetic field imaging, and/or sonar or other mechanical wave-based imaging. The robot may determine the precise location of the camera relative to the body of the robot. With this information, a robot can be programmed by the contact center to transmit a stream of data to the contact center and enable the contact center systems to perform scene/environment two-dimensional (2D) and/or three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions..."
receive safety condition signals, which represent at least one safety condition which must be met for the robot to be allowed to be remotely controlled;
Erhart teaches ([0075]): "In one embodiment, a system is disclosed, comprising: a network interface; a data repository; a microprocessor in communication with the network interface and when provided with instructions cause the microprocessor to: communicate with a robot configured to perform a customer service task at a service location; access a security criteria from the data repository; determine whether the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; operate the robot in a secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; and operate the robot in a non-secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is not in compliance with the security criteria" Erhart further teaches ([0197]): "Robot 102, when in the non-secure mode, is not trusted in whole or in part. Therefore, measures are put in place to curtail the operation of robot 102 or a component thereof to reduce the risk of harm to persons, property, or data that may be caused by a robot that cannot be trusted." Erhart even further teaches ([0198]): "The security-imposed limit may render robot 102 inoperable, inoperable to perform a particular task, such as the customer service task, or inhibit robot 102's ability to perform an operation as quickly, efficiently, or in a desired manner. The security-imposed limit may be directed to a particular component, such as one associated with the reason for robot 102 being in the non-secure mode, or to a different component."
check whether the at least one safety condition is met;
Erhart teaches ([0075]): "In one embodiment, a system is disclosed, comprising: a network interface; a data repository; a microprocessor in communication with the network interface and when provided with instructions cause the microprocessor to: communicate with a robot configured to perform a customer service task at a service location; access a security criteria from the data repository; determine whether the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; operate the robot in a secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; and operate the robot in a non-secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is not in compliance with the security criteria" Erhart further teaches ([0192]): "One security criteria may be the establishment of an encrypted communication link, such as a virtual private network (VPN). Once robot 102 is determined to be in compliance with the criteria, robot 102 may be operated in a secure mode wherein radio-frequency communications are enabled..."
generate remote control signals for remotely controlling the robot based only when the check indicates that the at least one safety condition is met;
Erhart teaches ([0192]): "One security criteria may be the establishment of an encrypted communication link, such as a virtual private network (VPN). Once robot 102 is determined to be in compliance with the criteria, robot 102 may be operated in a secure mode wherein radio-frequency communications are enabled..." Erhart further teaches ([0080]): "Robot 102 may be entirely autonomous, autonomous once positioned in a predetermined location or proximate to the object of a task, or a drone or proxy for an operator, such as a supervisor robot or agent of a contact center remotely controlling robot 102 in whole or in part. Control may alternate from robot 102 to a networked supervisor, human or robotic, based upon progression of the task, specific waypoints in a task, or due to component or linkage failures... For example, an agent of a contact center may be remotely operating robot 102 and attempting to light a pilot light of a gas water heater when communication between the contact center and agent are lost. Robot 102 may be configured to then discontinue attempting to light the pilot light, turn off the gas supply, and wait for communications to be restored." Erhart even further teaches ([0075]): "In one embodiment, a system is disclosed, comprising: a network interface; a data repository; a microprocessor in communication with the network interface and when provided with instructions cause the microprocessor to: communicate with a robot configured to perform a customer service task at a service location; access a security criteria from the data repository; determine whether the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; operate the robot in a secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is in compliance with the security criteria; and operate the robot in a non-secure mode when the determination indicates the robot is not in compliance with the security criteria" Erhart still further teaches ([0197]): "Robot 102, when in the non-secure mode, is not trusted in whole or in part. Therefore, measures are put in place to curtail the operation of robot 102 or a component thereof to reduce the risk of harm to persons, property, or data that may be caused by a robot that cannot be trusted." Erhart yet further teaches ([0198]): "The security-imposed limit may render robot 102 inoperable, inoperable to perform a particular task, such as the customer service task, or inhibit robot 102's ability to perform an operation as quickly, efficiently, or in a desired manner. The security-imposed limit may be directed to a particular component, such as one associated with the reason for robot 102 being in the non-secure mode, or to a different component." Above, Erhart teaches that if the safety condition is not met, the robot is placed in a non-secure mode. The Examiner notes that [0192] indicates that radio-frequency communications are enabled in the secure mode, and such communication is needed for remotely controlling the robot. When the robot is placed in the non-secure mode, the robot is considered untrusted and the robot may be rendered inoperable. Therefore, as the robot is made inoperable and radio-frequency communications with a remote operator is not enabled, the remote control signals are not generated.
output the generated remote control signals;
Erhart teaches ([0192]): "One security criteria may be the establishment of an encrypted communication link, such as a virtual private network (VPN). Once robot 102 is determined to be in compliance with the criteria, robot 102 may be operated in a secure mode wherein radio-frequency communications are enabled..." Erhart further teaches ([0080]): "Robot 102 may be entirely autonomous, autonomous once positioned in a predetermined location or proximate to the object of a task, or a drone or proxy for an operator, such as a supervisor robot or agent of a contact center remotely controlling robot 102 in whole or in part."
and remotely control the robot based on the generated remote control signals.
Erhart teaches ([0080]): "Robot 102 may be entirely autonomous, autonomous once positioned in a predetermined location or proximate to the object of a task, or a drone or proxy for an operator, such as a supervisor robot or agent of a contact center remotely controlling robot 102 in whole or in part. Control may alternate from robot 102 to a networked supervisor, human or robotic, based upon progression of the task, specific waypoints in a task, or due to component or linkage failures... For example, an agent of a contact center may be remotely operating robot 102 and attempting to light a pilot light of a gas water heater when communication between the contact center and agent are lost. Robot 102 may be configured to then discontinue attempting to light the pilot light, turn off the gas supply, and wait for communications to be restored." Erhart further teaches ([0110]): "Fault detection 206 comprises means to detect, and optionally manage, any out of parameter operation of robot 102. In one embodiment, processor 236 commands mobility/actuator 226 to apply a force to an object. Mobility/actuator 226 draws power, via power 204, commensurate with the desired force. However, the actually force measured by sensor 228 may be outside of an expected for the force. Fault detection 206 may determine that a fault exists and apply an adjustment (e.g., increase the amount of power requested to apply the desired force) or indicate a fault, known or unknown, which may lead to robot 102 discontinuing a task, seeking assistance from a human or automated agent, or other action associated with a particular fault."
However, Erhart does not outright teach receiving a driving route signal that represents a setpoint driving route, and that the checking includes checking, based on the surroundings signals, whether the robot is able to negotiate the setpoint driving route. Gupta teaches a system and method for complete coverage of unknown environments, comprising:
receive a driving route signal that represents a setpoint driving route
Gupta teaches ([0025]): "Herein are described techniques for online coverage path planning (CPP) that includes providing coverage paths for complete coverage of an a priori unknown environment. Examples of such techniques can be applied to methods and apparatus related to, but not restricted to, autonomous vehicles (e.g., robotics devices, UUVs, UGVs, UAVs)." Gupta further teaches ([0141]): "At block 1320, while the autonomous vehicle is in the environment, the computing device can: receive status data from the autonomous vehicle, the status data at least related to a location of the autonomous vehicle and to obstacles at the location of the autonomous vehicle, update the environmental status for at least one cell based on the status data related to the location of the autonomous vehicle and to obstacles at the location of the autonomous vehicle, determine, for each cell of the plurality of cells, a value for the cell that is based on the environmental status of the cell, determine a waypoint of a coverage path that substantially covers at least a region in the environment, where the coverage path is based on the location of the autonomous vehicle, determine whether the waypoint of the coverage path is reachable from the location of the autonomous vehicle, after determining that the waypoint of the coverage path is reachable, send a command directing an autonomous vehicle to begin travel in the environment toward the waypoint of the coverage path, the command based on the mapping of the environment, and update the waypoint of the coverage path based on the status data..."
wherein the checking includes checking, based on the surroundings signals, whether the robot is able to negotiate the setpoint driving route;
Gupta teaches ([0141]): "At block 1320, while the autonomous vehicle is in the environment, the computing device can: receive status data from the autonomous vehicle, the status data at least related to a location of the autonomous vehicle and to obstacles at the location of the autonomous vehicle, update the environmental status for at least one cell based on the status data related to the location of the autonomous vehicle and to obstacles at the location of the autonomous vehicle, determine, for each cell of the plurality of cells, a value for the cell that is based on the environmental status of the cell, determine a waypoint of a coverage path that substantially covers at least a region in the environment, where the coverage path is based on the location of the autonomous vehicle, determine whether the waypoint of the coverage path is reachable from the location of the autonomous vehicle, after determining that the waypoint of the coverage path is reachable, send a command directing an autonomous vehicle to begin travel in the environment toward the waypoint of the coverage path, the command based on the mapping of the environment, and update the waypoint of the coverage path based on the status data..."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Erhart to incorporate the teachings of Gupta to provide receiving a driving route signal that represents a setpoint driving route, and that the checking includes checking, based on the surroundings signals, whether the robot is able to negotiate the setpoint driving route. Erhart and Gupta are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of remote control for robots. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Gupta, as the checking of Gupta advantageously determines whether or not the robot is capable of following the setpoint driving route (see at least [0141]). If it is determined that it is not possible for the robot to reach the setpoint (i.e., the waypoint), Gupta advantageously