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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This FINAL action is in response to amendment filed on 01/29/2026.
Claims 1 and 12 are amended.
Claims 2-11 are previously presented.
Claims 13-14 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220041163 A1 Lynn; Greg et al. (hereinafter Lynn), in view of Lynn, in view of US 9517767 B1 Kentley; Timothy David et al. (hereinafter Kentley), further in view of US 20180029706 A1 Baruch; Doron (hereinafter Baruch), and further in view of JP 2010015194 A KUNIHIRO TAKAO et al. (hereinafter Kunihiro).
Regarding claim 1, Lynn discloses: A mobile object (see Lynn at least [0019] an etiquette-based vehicle) comprising:
a sensor configured to detect a target object in surroundings (see Lynn at least [0113] the vehicle can use sensors to determine whether obstacles are in the known path);
recognize and set a user, based on an output from the sensor (see Lynn at least [0137] Using video and radar sensing, the module can identify a target user and provide range and heading information to the host vehicle for tracking and following the user… After the system is started, the user presses the “pair” button the vehicle and user are in position);
generate a path of the mobile object to follow the user at a first position that is an obliquely rear side of the user in accordance with a movement of the user that has been set and the output from the sensor (see Lynn at least [0109] an etiquette-based vehicle moving along a trajectory 1320 from a start point 1304 to an end point 1314, following a user and [0068] FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, from a top view, relative positions of a user 12 and an etiquette-based vehicle, in pair mode, in successive speed-dependent heel-following positions. Fig. 1 shows vehicle located indirectly behind the user); and
cause the mobile object to travel in accordance with the path that has been generated (see Lynn at least [0136] a controller configured to manage movement of an autonomous host self-powered vehicle).
Lynn does not teach: a storage device that stores instructions; and at least one processor that executes the instructions to: wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions to, in a case where the detected target object involves a movement, predict the movement and generate the path of the mobile object to avoid a contact with the detected target object; and cause the sensor to recognize a portion of predetermined area in front of the user by moving the mobile object to the left and/or right in a case where the sensor cannot recognize the portion of the predetermined area due to the user being followed becoming an obstacle.
Kentley teaches: a storage device that stores instructions (see Kentley at least [col. 4, lines 36-37] computer executable instructions embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium); and
at least one processor that executes the instructions (see Kentley at least [col. 21, lines 53-56] One or more processors 810 may be used to implement one or more of the planner system, the localizer system, the perception system, one or more safety systems, and other systems of the vehicle 100) to:
wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions to, in a case where the detected target object involves a movement, predict the movement and generate the path of the mobile object to avoid a contact with the detected target object (see Kentley at least [col. 16, lines 4-7] The planner system may predict one or more regions of probable locations 565 of the object 585d in environment 590 based on predicted motion of the object 585d and/or predicted location of the object and [col. 16, line 65 – col. 17, line 1] The planner system may implement a safe-stop maneuver or a safe-stop trajectory using the bi-directional 680 travel capabilities to avoid a collision with an object).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the user-following mobile object disclosed by Lynn to include the object trajectory prediction and avoidance techniques of Kentley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because predicting the trajectory of an obstacle and accordingly changing the trajectory of the mobile object would avoid injury and/or damage to the mobile object itself, the user, and the object that is to be avoided, as suggested by Kentley (see Kentley at least [col. 18, lines 18-27] the planner system of the autonomous vehicle 100 may be configured to actively attempt to avoid potential collisions (e.g., by calculating alternative collision avoidance trajectories and executing one or more of those trajectories) by calculating (e.g., continuously) safe trajectories (e.g., when possible based on context), while simultaneously, issuing alerts as necessary to objects in the environment when there is a meaningful probability the objects may collide or otherwise pose a danger to the safety of passengers in the autonomous vehicle 100, to the object, or both).
Lynn and Kentley do not teach: cause the sensor to recognize a portion of predetermined area in front of the user by moving the mobile object to the left and/or right in a case where the sensor cannot recognize the portion of the predetermined area due to the user being followed becoming an obstacle.
However, Baruch teaches: cause the sensor to recognize a portion of predetermined area in front of the user by moving the mobile object (see Baruch at least [0039] The UAV may be configured to monitor areas surrounding and/or ahead of the user for potential dangers and warn the user of those dangers and [0043] if there is a stationary object 208 near the user 202 (e.g., bushes), the UAV 100 may fly at a height higher than the stationary object 208 in order to have unobstructed views of the surrounding area).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the user-following mobile object disclosed by Lynn and Kentley to include the adjustment of the positioning of the mobile following unit in order to maintain or regain a view of the area in ahead of the user of Baruch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because maintaining a view of the area surrounding – and particularly in front of – a tracked user is important for functions offering convenience and increased safety such as for vulnerable road users, as suggested by Baruch (see Baruch at least [0039] Such UAVs may have applications in pedestrian/cyclist safety and other situations, such as a navigation guide for the elderly, or as a navigation aide to customers in large commercial or public areas such as amusement parks, parking lots, and shopping areas).
Lynn, Kentley, and Baruch do not teach: moving the mobile object to the left and/or right due to a user becoming an obstacle.
However, Kunihiro teaches: moving the mobile object to the left and/or right due to a user becoming an obstacle (see Kunihiro at least [pg. 9, para. 4, beginning with "Then, as shown"] this autonomous mobile robot apparatus has an obstacle when two adult pedestrians enter the obstacle target 201 between the following target 101 on a narrow road. The field of view to the tracking target 101 is obstructed by the object 201. At this time, if the field of view up to the tracking target 101 can be secured by moving to the side road, the field of view is secured by moving to the side road).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the user-following mobile object monitoring the area in front of a user disclosed by Lynn, Kentley, and Baruch to include the side movement of the following robot in response to a human dynamic obstacle obstructing the view of the target of Kunihiro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because since view-obstructing obstacles in an environment often cannot be controlled, the following unit must change its own motion or positioning relative to dynamic human obstacles to maintain or regain a view of the target, as suggested by Kunihiro (see Kunihiro at least [pg. 4, para. 3, beginning with "The method for"] When there is a possibility of being obstructed by, or when obstructed, it is possible to determine a planned movement path to follow the tracking target by performing an operation to secure the field of view to the tracking target).
Regarding claim 2, Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro disclose: The mobile object according to claim 1, wherein the first position is either on a left rear side or a right rear side of the user who is moving (see Lynn at least [0067] A decision on whether the vehicle's following position should default to one side, to the left or to the right of the user, is made with considerations for social norms and takes into account regional differences).
Regarding claim 9, Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro disclose: The mobile object according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to: adjust the first position in accordance with the output from the sensor (see Lynn at least [0137] Using video and radar sensing, the module can identify a target user and provide range and heading information to the host vehicle for tracking and following the user), and
conduct travel control for the mobile object (see Lynn at least [0137] The host then operates the vehicle based on the information coming from the module).
Regarding claim 10, Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro disclose: The mobile object according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to:
set a travel mode related to path control of the mobile object in accordance with a user input (see Lynn at least [0137] the user selects the operating mode: pure follow, heeling, custom offsets), wherein in a case where a following mode is selected, generate the path to follow the user (see Lynn at least [0137] The module then begins processing the user's heading information and makes the information available to the host using the specified protocol. The host then operates the vehicle based on the information coming from the module).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynn, in view of Kentley, further in view of Baruch, further in view of Kunihiro, and further in view of US 20060106496 A1 Okamoto; Tamao (hereinafter Okamoto).
Regarding claim 3, Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro disclose: The mobile object according to claim 2.
Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro do not teach: wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to: in a case where the number of target objects detected by the sensor in a surrounding environment where the user moves exceeds a predetermined number, generate the path to follow the user at a second position to be located between the left rear side and the right rear side, instead of the first position.
Okamoto teaches: wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to: in a case where the number of target objects detected by the sensor in a surrounding environment where the user moves exceeds a predetermined number (see Okamoto at least [0131] the congestion degree herein may be the number of objects in a surrounding environment such as passers 53 in a predetermined range around the mobile robot), generate the path (see Okamoto at least [0130] FIG. 26 also shows a variation of the position and the path of the mobile robot 22… where the positional relationship is changed depending on the congestion degree of the environment around the mobile robot 22) to follow the user at a second position to be located between the left rear side and the right rear side, instead of the first position (see Okamoto at least [0130] the mobile robot 22 which follows with a large difference d from diagonally behind the accompanied target 1 in the case where the environment is not crowded as shown in the first condition, changes the positional relationship so as to make the difference d smaller when the environment is getting crowded with passers 53 as shown in the second condition. Fig. 26 shows that distance d is smaller when there are more detected objects in the surroundings. Thus, the robot is closer to the centerline of the target object and is thus between the left rear and right rear positions which occur when the surroundings contain fewer detected objects).
PNG
media_image1.png
417
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the following robot of Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro by moving the robot closer to the centerline of the target object when there are more objects in the surroundings than were previously present as taught by Okamoto, in order to avoid collisions with objects (i.e., when the surroundings become crowded, the robot moves more directly behind the user it follows, to stay out of the way of other people or objects in the surrounding area -- see Okamoto at least [0130] reduces a probability of causing contacts with the passers).
Regarding claim 4, Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, Kunihiro, and Okamoto disclose The mobile object according to claim 3, wherein a distance between the second position and the user is shorter than a distance between the first position and the user (see Okamoto at least [0130] changes the positional relationship so as to make the difference d smaller when the environment is getting crowded with passers 53 as shown in the second condition and Fig. 26. Fig. 26 shows that distance d is smaller, and thus the overall distance between the robot and the user is shorter than in the first position).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the following robot of Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, Kunihiro, and Okamoto by decreasing the distance between the robot and the target object when there are more objects in the surroundings than were previously present as taught by Okamoto, in order to avoid collisions with objects (i.e., when the surroundings become crowded, the robot moves closer the user it follows, to stay out of the way of other people or objects in the surrounding area -- see Okamoto at least [0130] reduces a probability of causing contacts with the passers).
Regarding claim 5, Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, Kunihiro, and Okamoto disclose: The mobile object according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to:
generate the path to follow the user at a position on either the left rear side or the right rear side where an estimated area of a free space detected by the sensor is largest, as the first position (see Kentley at least [col. 37, line 66-col. 38, line 4] a region that is free of objects may be detected (e.g., via the planner system and perception system) in a region 1691. The region 1691 may be designated as an open region 1693 and the planner system may command the drive system to alter the trajectory from trajectory Tav to an avoidance maneuver trajectory Tm).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the following robot of Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, Kunihiro, and Okamoto by updating a travel path to travel where there is free space as taught by Kentley, in order to operate in the safest space, where there is the least likelihood of collision with other static or dynamic objects (i.e., by choosing the trajectory of the autonomous vehicle to take advantage of open space, it is possible to avoid injury and property damage that could result from driving somewhere with less space in which to maneuver -- see Kentley at least [col. 38, lines 4-7] The resulting command may cause the vehicle 100 to turn the corner into the open region 1693 to avoid the potential rear-ending by object 1661).
Claim(s) 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynn, in view of Kentley, further in view of Baruch, further in view of Kunihiro, and further in view of CN 106791565 A He, Jian-qiang (hereinafter He).
Regarding claim 6, Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro disclose The mobile object according to claim 2.
Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro do not teach: wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to: generate the path to follow the user at a rear position on either the left rear side or the right rear side of the user where more recognizable feature points of the user are present, as the first position.
He teaches: wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to: generate the path to follow the user at a rear position on either the left rear side or the right rear side of the user where more recognizable feature points of the user are present, as the first position (see He at least [pg. 9, para. 4, beginning with “S300: when the target…”] S300: when the target object is not captured, performing local motion starting walking device, performing image recognition for the video stream of the camera unit includes the target in the moving process, determining the characteristic information of the image to capture a target object and [pg. 10, para. 3, beginning with “S400: when after capturing…”] S400: when after capturing the target object, controlling a travel device so as to keep predetermined distance range between local and target object).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the following robot of Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro by moving to a position where the tracking target can be best recognized as taught by He, in order to identify and keep track of the user (i.e., if the robot cannot easily identify the target from its current position, it should move to a side where it can recognize the target, thereby keeping the target in sight and maintaining its safety -- see He at least [pg. 6, para. 4, beginning with “4. The method relates…”] after capturing the children and the children and interaction process, by the distance measuring device, time keeping and the children in the preset distance range, ensures the safe and clear of children receiving child information and capturing state of children maximum range).
Regarding claim 11, Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro disclose The mobile object according to claim 1.
Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro do not teach: wherein the sensor serves as a camera capable of capturing an image at 360 degrees in a horizontal direction.
He teaches: wherein the sensor serves as a camera capable of capturing an image at 360 degrees in a horizontal direction (see He at least [pg. 26, para. 1, beginning with “each mobile terminal…”] the robot is at the received position of the instruction position, the robot 360 degrees rotating image pickup unit and performing image recognition through the video stream of the camera unit).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the following robot of Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro by using sensors capable of capturing footage in a 360-degree range around the robot as taught by He, in order to identify the target subject that may exist at any direction in the vicinity of the robot (i.e., the target may not be directly in front of the robot, so capturing a 360-degree image allows the robot to identify the subject without moving the entire robot to reposition the sensor -- see He at least [pg. 26, para. 1, beginning with “each mobile terminal…”] to capture the target characteristic of the parapet).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynn, in view of Kentley, further in view of Baruch, further in view of Kunihiro, and further in view of KR 20160086794 A SHIN YONG MIN et al. (hereinafter Shin).
Regarding claim 7, Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro disclose The mobile object according to claim 2.
Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro do not teach: wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to: generate the path to follow the user at a rear position on either the left rear side or the right rear side of the user where one of user's arms makes more movements recognized in a predetermined time, as the first position.
Shin teaches: wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to: generate the path to follow the user at a rear position on either the left rear side or the right rear side of the user where one of user's arms makes more movements recognized in a predetermined time, as the first position (see Shin at least [pg. 8, para. 10, beginning with “In the present invention…”] when the user's arm angle indicated by the user's gesture is 90 degrees, it may mean, for example, a command to move to a region located in the direction in which the user's arm is pointing and Fig. 8 Fig. 8 shows that the robot moves to the side corresponding to the arm movement of the user).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the following robot of Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro by adopting arm movement as a method to control the positioning of the robot as taught by Shin, in order to control the robot in a fast, simple way (i.e., changing the position of the robot to where it senses arm movement requires low resource use compared to more complex control mechanisms, because of the simple image processing involved -- see Shin at least [pg. 6, para. 11, beginning with “For example…”] since the outline of the arm is different on the arm image for each of the gestures of FIGS. 5A to 5F and FIGS. 6A to 6F and has a certain pattern, only the outline per gesture is stored in the memory You can save it. The information stored in the memory can be reduced. Accordingly, in the arm angle determination process, the comparison process of the contours is simple and takes a little time).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynn, in view of Kentley, further in view of Baruch, further in view of Kunihiro, and further in view of JP 6899028 B1 TAKAYAMA TOMOHIRO (hereinafter Takayama).
Regarding claim 8, Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro disclose The mobile object according to claim 2.
Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro do not teach: wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to: generate the path to follow the user at a rear position on either the left rear side or the right rear side of the user where the user looks back a larger number of times recognized in a predetermined time, as the first position.
Takayama teaches: wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to: generate the path to follow the user at a rear position on either the left rear side or the right rear side of the user where the user looks back a larger number of times recognized in a predetermined time, as the first position (see Takayama at least [pg. 13, para. 7, beginning with “In the face recognition operation…”] when the camera 35 cannot capture the face of the wandering person, the mobile robot 30 emits a voice such as "Please turn to this side" from the moving robot side speaker 36 to encourage the wandering person to look back. , Move to a position where you can take a picture of the wandering person's face by wrapping around in front of the wandering person. The recognition process in the face recognition operation may be performed by the mobile robot control unit 31 or by the monitoring device side storage unit 47).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the following robot of Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro by positioning the robot in a place where it can recognize the face of an individual who has turned back to look at the robot as taught by Takayama, in order to identify the individual and respond accordingly (i.e., the robot may need to change positions in order to identify a person’s face, before performing an action that corresponds to a specific person. With this identification and response capability, the robot can perform a task otherwise performed by a human, thus saving human labor hours -- see Takayama at least [pg. 17, para. 8, beginning with “Further, when the mobile robot…”] when the mobile robot 30 detects a person in the common area 82 during the patrol operation, the mobile robot 30 recognizes the face of the detected person and identifies the person to be watched, and corresponds to the person to be watched… the mobile robot 30 automatically calls out to the watching target person who is walking alone, so that the watching target person returns to his / her private room area 81 without the help of the staff... As a result, the labor of the staff can be further reduced).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynn, in view of Kentley, further in view of Baruch, further in view of Kunihiro, and further in view of Okamoto.
Regarding claim 12, Lynn discloses: A control method for a mobile object including a sensor configured to detect a target object in surroundings (see Lynn at least [0113] the vehicle can use sensors to determine whether obstacles are in the known path), the control method comprising:
a setting step of recognizing and setting a user, based on an output from the sensor (see Lynn at least [0137] Using video and radar sensing, the module can identify a target user and provide range and heading information to the host vehicle for tracking and following the user… After the system is started, the user presses the “pair” button the vehicle and user are in position);
a path generation step of generating a path of the mobile object to follow the user at a first position that is an obliquely rear side of the user in accordance with a movement of the user that has been set by the setting step and the output from the sensor (see Lynn at least [0109] an etiquette-based vehicle moving along a trajectory 1320 from a start point 1304 to an end point 1314, following a user and [0068] FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, from a top view, relative positions of a user 12 and an etiquette-based vehicle, in pair mode, in successive speed-dependent heel-following positions. Fig. 1 shows vehicle located indirectly behind the user); and
a travel control step of causing the mobile object to travel in accordance with the path that has been generated (see Lynn at least [0136] manage movement of an autonomous host self-powered vehicle),
wherein the first position is either on a left rear side or a right rear side of the user who is moving (see Lynn at least [0067] A decision on whether the vehicle's following position should default to one side, to the left or to the right of the user, is made with considerations for social norms and takes into account regional differences).
Lynn does not teach: wherein in the path generation step, in a case where the detected target object involves a movement, the movement is predicted and the path of the mobile object is generated to avoid a contact with the detected target object, wherein in the travel control step, the sensor is caused to recognize a portion of predetermined area in front of the user by moving the mobile object to the left and/or right in a case where the sensor cannot recognize the portion of the predetermined area because the user being followed becomes an obstacle, and wherein in the path generation step, in a case where the number of target objects detected by the sensor in a surrounding environment where the user moves exceeds a predetermined number, the path to follow the user at a second position to be located between the left rear side and the right rear side is generated, instead of the first position.
However, Kentley teaches: wherein in the path generation step, in a case where the detected target object involves a movement, the movement is predicted and the path of the mobile object is generated to avoid a contact with the detected target object (see Kentley at least [col. 16, lines 4-7] The planner system may predict one or more regions of probable locations 565 of the object 585d in environment 590 based on predicted motion of the object 585d and/or predicted location of the object and [col. 16, line 65 – col. 17, line 1] The planner system may implement a safe-stop maneuver or a safe-stop trajectory using the bi-directional 680 travel capabilities to avoid a collision with an object),
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the user-following mobile object control method disclosed by Lynn to include the object trajectory prediction and avoidance techniques of Kentley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because predicting the trajectory of an obstacle and accordingly changing the trajectory of the mobile object would avoid injury and/or damage to the mobile object itself, the user, and the object that is to be avoided, as suggested by Kentley (see Kentley at least [col. 18, lines 18-27] the planner system of the autonomous vehicle 100 may be configured to actively attempt to avoid potential collisions (e.g., by calculating alternative collision avoidance trajectories and executing one or more of those trajectories) by calculating (e.g., continuously) safe trajectories (e.g., when possible based on context), while simultaneously, issuing alerts as necessary to objects in the environment when there is a meaningful probability the objects may collide or otherwise pose a danger to the safety of passengers in the autonomous vehicle 100, to the object, or both).
Lynn and Kentley do not teach: wherein in the travel control step, the sensor is caused to recognize a portion of predetermined area in front of the user by moving the mobile object to the left and/or right in a case where the sensor cannot recognize the portion of the predetermined area because the user being followed becomes an obstacle, wherein in the path generation step, in a case where the number of target objects detected by the sensor in a surrounding environment where the user moves exceeds a predetermined number, the path to follow the user at a second position to be located between the left rear side and the right rear side is generated, instead of the first position.
However, Baruch teaches: wherein in the travel control step, the sensor is caused to recognize a portion of predetermined area in front of the user by moving the mobile object (see Baruch at least [0039] The UAV may be configured to monitor areas surrounding and/or ahead of the user for potential dangers and warn the user of those dangers and [0043] if there is a stationary object 208 near the user 202 (e.g., bushes), the UAV 100 may fly at a height higher than the stationary object 208 in order to have unobstructed views of the surrounding area).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the user-following mobile object disclosed by Lynn and Kentley to include the adjustment of the positioning of the mobile following unit in order to maintain or regain a view of the area in ahead of the user of Baruch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because maintaining a view of the area surrounding – and particularly in front of – a tracked user is important for functions offering convenience and increased safety such as for vulnerable road users, as suggested by Baruch (see Baruch at least [0039] Such UAVs may have applications in pedestrian/cyclist safety and other situations, such as a navigation guide for the elderly, or as a navigation aide to customers in large commercial or public areas such as amusement parks, parking lots, and shopping areas).
Lynn, Kentley, and Baruch do not teach: moving the mobile object to the left and/or right because a user becomes an obstacle.
However, Kunihiro teaches: moving the mobile object to the left and/or right because a user becomes an obstacle (see Kunihiro at least [pg. 9, para. 4, beginning with "Then, as shown"] this autonomous mobile robot apparatus has an obstacle when two adult pedestrians enter the obstacle target 201 between the following target 101 on a narrow road. The field of view to the tracking target 101 is obstructed by the object 201. At this time, if the field of view up to the tracking target 101 can be secured by moving to the side road, the field of view is secured by moving to the side road).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the user-following mobile object monitoring the area in front of a user disclosed by Lynn, Kentley, and Baruch to include the side movement of the following robot in response to a human dynamic obstacle obstructing the view of the target of Kunihiro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because since view-obstructing obstacles in an environment often cannot be controlled, the following unit must change its own motion or positioning relative to dynamic human obstacles to maintain or regain a view of the target, as suggested by Kunihiro (see Kunihiro at least [pg. 4, para. 3, beginning with "The method for"] When there is a possibility of being obstructed by, or when obstructed, it is possible to determine a planned movement path to follow the tracking target by performing an operation to secure the field of view to the tracking target).
Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro do not teach: wherein in the path generation step, in a case where the number of target objects detected by the sensor in a surrounding environment where the user moves exceeds a predetermined number, the path to follow the user at a second position to be located between the left rear side and the right rear side is generated, instead of the first position.
However, Okamoto teaches: wherein in the path generation step, in a case where the number of target objects detected by the sensor in a surrounding environment where the user moves exceeds a predetermined number, the path to follow the user at a second position to be located between the left rear side and the right rear side is generated, instead of the first position (see Okamoto at least [0131] the congestion degree herein may be the number of objects in a surrounding environment such as passers 53 in a predetermined range around the mobile robot and [0130] FIG. 26 also shows a variation of the position and the path of the mobile robot 22… where the positional relationship is changed depending on the congestion degree of the environment around the mobile robot 22).
PNG
media_image2.png
283
333
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the following robot control method of Lynn, Kentley, Baruch, and Kunihiro by moving the robot closer to the centerline of the target object when there are more objects in the surroundings than were previously present as taught by Okamoto, in order to avoid collisions with objects (i.e., when the surroundings become crowded, the robot moves more directly behind the user it follows, to stay out of the way of other people or objects in the surrounding area -- see Okamoto at least [0130] reduces a probability of causing contacts with the passers).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynn, in view of Kentley, and further in view of Okamoto.
Regarding claim 13, Lynn discloses: A mobile object (see Lynn at least [0019] an etiquette-based vehicle) comprising:
a sensor configured to detect a target object in surroundings (see Lynn at least [0113] the vehicle can use sensors to determine whether obstacles are in the known path);
recognize and set a user, based on an output from the sensor (see Lynn at least [0137] Using video and radar sensing, the module can identify a target user and provide range and heading information to the host vehicle for tracking and following the user… After the system is started, the user presses the “pair” button the vehicle and user are in position);
generate a path of the mobile object to follow the user at a first position that is an obliquely rear side of the user in accordance with a movement of the user that has been set and the output from the sensor (see Lynn at least [0109] an etiquette-based vehicle moving along a trajectory 1320 from a start point 1304 to an end point 1314, following a user and [0068] FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, from a top view, relative positions of a user 12 and an etiquette-based vehicle, in pair mode, in successive speed-dependent heel-following positions. Fig. 1 shows vehicle located indirectly behind the user); and
cause the mobile object to travel in accordance with the path that has been generated (see Lynn at least [0136] a controller configured to manage movement of an autonomous host self-powered vehicle),
wherein the first position is either on a left rear side or a right rear side of the user who is moving (see Lynn at least [0067] A decision on whether the vehicle's following position should default to one side, to the left or to the right of the user, is made with considerations for social norms and takes into account regional differences).
Lynn does not teach: a storage device that stores instructions; and at least one processor that executes the instructions; and wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions to, in a case where the number of target objects detected by the sensor in a surrounding environment where the user moves exceeds a predetermined number, generate the path to follow the user at a second position to be located between the left rear side and the right rear side, instead of the first position.
However, Kentley teaches: a storage device that stores instructions (see Kentley at least [col. 4, lines 36-37] computer executable instructions embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium); and
at least one processor that executes the instructions (see Kentley at least [col. 21, lines 53-56] One or more processors 810 may be used to implement one or more of the planner system, the localizer system, the perception system, one or more safety systems, and other systems of the vehicle 100).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the user-following mobile object disclosed by Lynn to include the storage device and processor of Kentley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because execution of such processes requires computation by equipment such as processors, as suggested by Kentley (see Kentley at least [col. 4, lines 34-42] Autonomous vehicle system 101 may include but is not limited to hardware, software, firmware, logic, circuitry, computer executable instructions embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium, or any combination of the foregoing, to implement a path calculator 112, an object data calculator 114 (e.g., implemented in a perception system of the autonomous vehicle 100), a collision predictor 116, an object classification determinator 118 and a kinematics calculator 115).
Lynn and Kentley do not teach: wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions to, in a case where the number of target objects detected by the sensor in a surrounding environment where the user moves exceeds a predetermined number, generate the path to follow the user at a second position to be located between the left rear side and the right rear side, instead of the first position.
However, Okamoto teaches: wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions to, in a case where the number of target objects detected by the sensor in a surrounding environment where the user moves exceeds a predetermined number, generate the path to follow the user at a second position to be located between the left rear side and the right rear side, instead of the first position (see Okamoto at least [0131] the congestion degree herein may be the number of objects in a surrounding environment such as passers 53 in a predetermined range around the mobile robot and [0130] FIG. 26 also shows a variation of the position and the path of the mobile robot 22… where the positional relationship is changed depending on the congestion degree of the environment around the mobile robot 22).
PNG
media_image2.png
283
333
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the following robot of Lynn and Kentley by moving the robot closer to the centerline of the target object when there are more objects in the surroundings than were previously present as taught by Okamoto, in order to avoid collisions with objects (i.e., when the surroundings become crowded, the robot moves more directly behind the user it follows, to stay out of the way of other people or objects in the surrounding area -- see Okamoto at least [0130] reduces a probability of causing contacts with the passers).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynn, in view of Okamoto.
Regarding claim 14, Lynn discloses: A control method for a mobile object including a sensor configured to detect a target object in surroundings (see Lynn at least [0113] the vehicle can use sensors to determine whether obstacles are in the known path), the control method comprising:
a setting step of recognizing and setting a user, based on an output from the sensor (see Lynn at least [0137] Using video and radar sensing, the module can identify a target user and provide range and heading information to the host vehicle for tracking and following the user… After the system is started, the user presses the “pair” button the vehicle and user are in position);
a path generation step of generating a path of the mobile object to follow the user at a first position that is an obliquely rear side of the user in accordance with a movement of the user that has been set by the setting step and the output from the sensor (see Lynn at least [0109] an etiquette-based vehicle moving along a trajectory 1320 from a start point 1304 to an end point 1314, following a user and [0068] FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, from a top view, relative positions of a user 12 and an etiquette-based vehicle, in pair mode, in successive speed-dependent heel-following positions. Fig. 1 shows vehicle located indirectly behind the user); and
a travel control step of causing the mobile object to travel in accordance with the path that has been generated (see Lynn at least [0136] manage movement of an autonomous host self-powered vehicle), and
wherein the first position is either on a left rear side or a right rear side of the user who is moving (see Lynn at least [0067] A decision on whether the vehicle's following position should default to one side, to the left or to the right of the user, is made with considerations for social norms and takes into account regional differences).
Lynn does not teach: wherein in the path generation step, in a case where the number of target objects detected by the sensor in a surrounding environment where the user moves exceeds a predetermined number, the path to follow the user at a second position to be located between the left rear side and the right rear side is generated, instead of the first position.
However, Okamoto teaches: wherein in the path generation step, in a case where the number of target objects detected by the sensor in a surrounding environment where the user moves exceeds a predetermined number, the path to follow the user at a second position to be located between the left rear side and the right rear side is generated, instead of the first position (see Okamoto at least [0131] the congestion degree herein may be the number of objects in a surrounding environment such as passers 53 in a predetermined range around the mobile robot and [0130] FIG. 26 also shows a variation of the position and the path of the mobile robot 22… where the positional relationship is changed depending on the congestion degree of the environment around the mobile robot 22).
PNG
media_image2.png
283
333
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the following robot control method of Lynn by moving the robot closer to the centerline of the target object when there are more objects in the surroundings than were previously present as taught by Okamoto, in order to avoid collisions with objects (i.e., when the surroundings become crowded, the robot moves more directly behind the user it follows, to stay out of the way of other people or objects in the surrounding area -- see Okamoto at least [0130] reduces a probability of causing contacts with the passers).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments provided for the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 12 (from remarks pages 8-11), Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully disagrees… In this respect, the control in Kunihiro appears to describe avoiding losing sight of a target… As set forth in claim 1, lateral movements (arrow 902) are performed even when the user is being tracked… Applicant notes that when the user A acts as an obstacle to the front view – Kunihiro would already have successfully captured the target… Also, Applicant asserts that Lynn and Kentley fail to teach or suggest the elements of claim 1 as amended.”
As to point (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The updated rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103 incorporates an additional reference (Baruch). As applicant notes in the remarks, Kunihiro follows a target while moving to the side in order to avoid an intermediate pedestrian obstacle from hindering its view of its target (in this example from Kunihiro, the target is a person). Applicant notes that, “As long as the target is correctly tracked, Kunihiro would not perform any lateral (left/right) movements.” Examiner notes that the claimed invention, as currently amended, does not preclude various combinations of movement actions occurring or not occurring depending on the target being tracked or not tracked. One element of the claimed invention can be interpreted as a lateral movement of the mobile object when its view of its target is interrupted by a dynamic object. Kunihiro captures this side movement in order to secure a view of its target. The new rejection of claim 1 considers the combination of Lynn, Kentley, and Kunihiro with Baruch. The view obstruction-dependent sideways movement of Kunihiro when viewed in combination with the monitoring of an area ahead of a user (including moving as needed to maintain a view when obstructions occur) of Baruch, in addition to the disclosures of Lynn and Kentley as recited above, render obvious the claimed invention of claim 1. As such, claim 1 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103. Additionally, Claims 2, 9, and 10 remain rejected for their own merit as set forth above.
(B) Applicant argues that claims 3-8 and 11 are patentable.
As to point (B), Examiner notes that each of these claims remain rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130226344 A1 Wong; Cheuk Wah et al. discloses a robot maneuvering to regain perception of a person when the person moved out of the field of view of the imaging sensor
US 20160059962 A1 Abuelsaad; Kelly et al. discloses UAV sensors which monitor whether a user’s view is obstructed (monitors the area in front of a user)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLE ROSE KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1742. The examiner can normally be reached 1000-1700 ET M-F.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached on (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ELLE ROSE KNUDSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/4/26
Prosecution Insights