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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1-9, 11-20, and 22 are currently pending.
3. Claims 10 and 21 are canceled.
4. Claims 1 and 12 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-9, 11-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afrouzi (US 20210089040 A1) in view of Verma (US 20200391386 A1).
9. Regarding Claim 1, Afrouzi teaches a method, comprising: capturing, using a sensor of a mobile robot, sensor data representing a physical environment of the mobile robot (Afrouzi: [0240]);
Detecting, from the sensor data, an obstacle in the physical environment (Afrouzi: [0245]);
Responsive to detecting the obstacle, determining from the sensor data whether the obstacle exhibits a predetermined attribute (Afrouzi: [0551], [0590], and [0592] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the movement, location, and volume characteristics are equivalent to a predetermined attribute.);
Assigning an operational state to the obstacle, according to the determination (Afrouzi: [0366], [0591], and [0592] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, identifying a static or dynamic obstacle based on characteristics is equivalent to assigning an operational state to the obstacle (e.g., static, dynamic).);
Selecting a navigational constraint based on the assigned operational state (Afrouzi: [0593]);
And controlling a locomotive assembly of the mobile robot to navigate the physical environment based on the selected navigational constraint (Afrouzi: [0557] and [0594]).
Afrouzi fails to explicitly teach determining whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute includes determining whether a movable component of the obstacle is in a predetermined position relative to the obstacle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Verma teaches determining whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute includes determining whether a movable component of the obstacle is in a predetermined position relative to the obstacle (Verma: [0020]).
Afrouzi and Verma are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection and robot control/navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Afrouzi to incorporate the teachings of Verma to determine whether a movable component of the obstacle is in a predetermined position relative to the obstacle because it provides the benefit of avoiding a collision between a robot and movable object with moving components. Determining a safety zone radius based on the designated work tasks of the object avoids collisions by accounting for the largest possible extension.
10. Regarding Claim 2, Afrouzi remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches detecting the obstacle includes detecting a location of the obstacle, and a type of the obstacle selected from a plurality of obstacle types (Afrouzi: [0591] and [0593]).
11. Regarding Claim 3, Afrouzi and Verma remains as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Afrouzi teaches storing, in a memory of the mobile robot, an association between a definition of the predetermined attribute and the detected type of the obstacle (Afrouzi: [0363], [0590], and [0592] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, movement over time or speed of the object is equivalent to an association between a definition of the predetermined attribute (movement of object) and the detected object type (dynamic or static).).
12. Regarding Claim 4, Afrouzi and Verma remains as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Afrouzi teaches prior to determining whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute, retrieving the definition of the predetermined attribute according to the detected type of the obstacle (Afrouzi: [0590] and [0597]).
13. Regarding Claim 5, Afrouzi and Verma remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Afrouzi teaches assigning the operational state to the obstacle includes: assigning a first operational state when the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute (Afrouzi: [0588]);
And assigning a second operational state when the obstacle does not exhibit the predetermined attribute (Afrouzi: [0591] and [0592]).
14. Regarding Claim 6, Afrouzi and Verma remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Afrouzi teaches determining from the sensor data whether the obstacle exhibits a further predetermined attribute; wherein assigning the operational state to the obstacle is further according to the determination of whether the obstacle exhibits the further predetermined attribute (Afrouzi: [0588] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, movement and location of the object may be interpreted to be equivalent to the predetermined attribute and the further attribute.).
15. Regarding Claim 7, Afrouzi and Verma remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Afrouzi teaches the navigational constraint includes a maximum travel velocity for the mobile robot (Afrouzi: [0449]).
16. Regarding Claim 8, Afrouzi and Verma remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Afrouzi teaches the navigational constraint defines a distance from the obstacle to be maintained during navigation of the physical environment (Afrouzi: [0498] and [0531]).
17. Regarding Claim 9, Afrouzi and Verma remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Verma teaches determining whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute includes determining whether a human is physically associated with the obstacle (Verma: [0020]).
18. Regarding Claim 11, Afrouzi and Verma remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Afrouzi teaches determining whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute includes determining whether a light emitter of the obstacle is activated (Afrouzi: [0541]).
19. Regarding Claim 12, Afrouzi teaches a computing device, comprising: a sensor; and a processor configured to: capture, using the sensor, sensor data representing a physical environment of a mobile robot (Afrouzi: [0240]);
Detect, from the sensor data, an obstacle in the physical environment (Afrouzi: [0245]);
Responsive to detecting the obstacle, determine from the sensor data whether the obstacle exhibits a predetermined attribute (Afrouzi: [0551], [0590], and [0592] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the movement, location, and volume characteristics are equivalent to a predetermined attribute.);
Assign an operational state to the obstacle, according to the determination (Afrouzi: [0366], [0591], and [0592] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, identifying a static or dynamic obstacle based on characteristics is equivalent to assigning an operational state to the obstacle (e.g., static, dynamic).);
Select a navigational constraint based on the assigned operational state (Afrouzi: [0593]);
And control a locomotive assembly of the mobile robot to navigate the physical environment based on the selected navigational constraint (Afrouzi: [0557] and [0594]).
Afrouzi fails to explicitly teach determining whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute includes determining whether a movable component of the obstacle is in a predetermined position relative to the obstacle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Verma teaches determining whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute includes determining whether a movable component of the obstacle is in a predetermined position relative to the obstacle (Verma: [0020]).
Afrouzi and Verma are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection and robot control/navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Afrouzi to incorporate the teachings of Verma to determine whether a movable component of the obstacle is in a predetermined position relative to the obstacle because it provides the benefit of avoiding a collision between a robot and movable object with moving components. Determining a safety zone radius based on the designated work tasks of the object avoids collisions by accounting for the largest possible extension.
20. Regarding Claim 13, Afrouzi and Verma remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Afrouzi teaches the processor is configured to detect the obstacle by detecting a location of the obstacle, and a type of the obstacle selected from a plurality of obstacle types (Afrouzi: [0591] and [0593]).
21. Regarding Claim 14, Afrouzi and Verma remains as applied above in Claim 13, and further, Afrouzi teaches a memory storing an association between a definition of the predetermined attribute and the detected type of the obstacle (Afrouzi: [0363], [0590], and [0592] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, movement over time or speed of the object is equivalent to an association between a definition of the predetermined attribute (movement of object) and the detected object type (dynamic or static).).
22. Regarding Claim 15, Afrouzi and Verma remains as applied above in Claim 14, and further, Afrouzi teaches prior to determining whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute, retrieve the definition of the predetermined attribute according to the detected type of the obstacle (Afrouzi: [0590] and [0597]).
23. Regarding Claim 16, Afrouzi and Verma remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Afrouzi teaches to assign the operational state to the obstacle by: assigning a first operational state when the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute (Afrouzi: [0588]);
And assigning a second operational state when the obstacle does not exhibit the predetermined attribute (Afrouzi: [0591] and [0592]).
24. Regarding Claim 17, Afrouzi and Verma remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Afrouzi teaches to determine from the sensor data whether the obstacle exhibits a further predetermined attribute; and assign the operational state to the obstacle according to the determination of whether the obstacle exhibits the further predetermined attribute (Afrouzi: [0588] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, movement and location of the object may be interpreted to be equivalent to the predetermined attribute and the further attribute.).
25. Regarding Claim 18, Afrouzi and Verma remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Afrouzi teaches the navigational constraint includes a maximum travel velocity for the mobile robot (Afrouzi: [0449]).
26. Regarding Claim 19, Afrouzi and Verma remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Afrouzi teaches the navigational constraint defines a distance from the obstacle to be maintained during navigation of the physical environment (Afrouzi: [0498] and [0531]).
27. Regarding Claim 20, Afrouzi and Verma remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Verma teaches to determine whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute by determining whether a human is physically associated with the obstacle (Verma: [0020]).
28. Regarding Claim 22, Afrouzi and Verma remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Afrouzi teaches to determine whether the obstacle exhibits the predetermined attribute by determining whether a light emitter of the obstacle is activated (Afrouzi: [0541]).
Response to Arguments
29. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-9, 11-20, and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Verma (US 20200391386 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of determining whether a movable component of the obstacle is in a predetermined position relative to the obstacle in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0020]. Verma teaches to determine the radius around a human that needs to be a safety zone based on the extension of the arms and legs of the human.
30. Afrouzi (US 20210089040 A1) in view of Verma (US 20200391386 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
31. Claims 1-9, 11-20, and 22 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
32. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coe (US 10733445 B1)
33. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663