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 .
Response to Amendment
This correspondence is in response to amendments filed on February 5, 2026. Claims 1, 4, 11, and 16-17 are amended. Claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-15, and 18-21 are cancelled. Amendments render the previous 112b rejections and claim objections moot, and therefore those rejections and objections have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Noh, Kunii, and Lafary (in combination) cannot teach the amended limitations of the claims (Pages 9-12 of “Remarks”). Examiner will further address the broader argument presented by Applicant by addressing how each combination was determined. However, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For reiteration purposes, the factual inquiries for establishing a bac0kground 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.
Applicant argues that Noh in view of Kunii does not teach the combination of the defined shape of the marker is an arrow projected onto the floor in the driving direction and including directionality information, a reference image of the arrow on a floor without a risk factor is stored and the current marker image is compared to this reference image, and based on the comparison, the controller performs different control actions depending on whether the risk factor is determined to be an obstacle or a floor height difference (Page 9 of “Remarks”). Noh, without any modification, teaches the defined shape of the marker is marker
To amend these shortcomings, Examiner relies on Kunii to teach an arrow-shaped projection which includes directionality information ([0041-0042]). MPEP 2144.04.IV(B) acknowledges “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)”. It is thus understood that changes in shape are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. No such argument has been presented as to why such an arrow and directionality shape is significant to the image analysis, specifically when Noh exemplifies the analysis for a cross-shaped projection, i.e., a defined shape. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to thus modify Noh to include the arrow projection of Kunii because the modification merely demonstrates a change of shape/configuration rather than a modification of the functions of the image analysis process. Examiner ascertains that there are benefits of using arrows and directionality information in place of the output cross pattern because by projecting the future travel directions allows other robots/humans/vehicles, etc. which operate in the vicinity of the apparatus to know where the robot will be travelling and improve the safety of the system.
Kunii was not relied upon to modify the specific control actions which are performed in response to specific risk factors. Lafary, although using a different means for measuring obstacle collisions and distances to obstacles, teaches the specific control actions required depending on the risk factor being an obstacle ([0009-0010]) and a floor surface height difference ([0014], [0039]). Lafary compares distances acquired by the sensor readings to thresholds which determine when there are obstacles above the surface, and additionally thresholds which determines when there are gaps in the floor. Provided that Noh’s image analysis technique teaches measuring distances, heights, and widths with regard to the projection pattern, it would be obvious to combine such teachings to include the threshold determinations and control actions which are taught by Lafary. Examiners ascertains that there are benefits to including the teachings of Lafary because the teachings of Lafary suggest that proper avoidance of obstacles and floor gaps is necessary to avoid damage to the robot, cargo, or other members of a collision that would occur if obstacles were not appropriately avoided.
Thus, Noh in view of Kunii would teach the features of Noh relevant to the claims inclusive of the arrow projection of Kunii in place of the cross projection of Noh, and Noh in view of Lafary would teach specifics of the control response which are absent from the control response of Noh due to a determination that the obstacle exists above the or below the floor surface. Therefore, Noh in view of Lafary and further in view of Kunii teaches in combination the limitations of claim 1 and claim 11.
Claim 17, although taught by Lafary in view of Noh and further in view of Kunii would additionally be supported by similar rationale, wherein the structure of Lafary is modified to include the projection and imaging features of Noh to determine obstacles in place of the laser distancing technology of Lafary. Such modification is a simple substitution (MPEP 2143.I(B)) with a reasonable expectation of success which would reduce monetary costs required for laser distancing sensors. Noh teaches obstacle detection with regard to distances, heights, and widths of obstacles similar to Lafary, thus making such a substitution obvious. Kunii merely modifies the shape of the projection feature, and as such is rendered as an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV(B)). Kunii does not further modify any of the control features disclosed by either Lafary and Noh.
As such, the broader arguments with regard to claims 1, 11, and 17 have been considered but are NOT PERSUASIVE. The previous rejection is upheld.
Applicant additionally argues that Lafary does not teach a floor height difference, only floor gaps (Pages 11-12 of “Remarks”). It is unclear to the Examiner how a gap in the floor and other such negative obstacles determined in Paragraph [0012] would not be considered, at the broadest, a floor height difference. A gap would merely be a span of the floor system which drops out and exposes a hole in the floor surface. This span which serves as hole in the floor would thus have a different height which is below the main floor surface, and thus would be considered as a floor height difference. Gaps would accommodate any such hole, ditch, or cliff which is determined as a negative obstacle. As such, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is NOT PERSUASIVE.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al. (US 2015/0115876 A1; hereinafter “Noh”) in view of LaFary et al. (US 2014/0074287 A1; hereinafter “LaFary”) and further in view of Kunii et al. (US 2018/0118095 A1; hereinafter “Kunii”).
Regarding claim 1, Noh teaches a driving apparatus (mobile robot shown in Fig. 3) comprising:
a main body ("main body 10 of the robot"; [0034]);
a driver configured to provide a driving force so the main body may drive ("The traveling drive unit 300 serves to move the main body 10 of the robot cleaner in response to a drive signal. The robot cleaner may include left and right drive wheels and the traveling drive unit 300 may include a pair of wheel motors to rotate the left drive wheel and the right drive wheel, respectively" [0034]. Thus, the traveling drive unit, i.e., the driving unit, provides a force to the wheels through motors in order to move the main body.);
a marker outputer configured to irradiate a marker in a driving direction of the main body, the marker being in the form of a defined shape ("Referring to FIG. 1, a mobile robot emits an optical pattern to a working area thereof (see FIG. 1(a))" [0017]. “The optical pattern may include a cross-shaped pattern P as exemplarily shown in FIG. 1(a)” [0019]. "The pattern emission unit 110 may emit light forward of the main body" [0021]. The robot has a pattern emission unit, i.e., marker output unit, which emits, i.e., irradiates, an optical pattern, i.e., marker, in the form of a cross-shaped pattern P, i.e., a defined shape (cross), forward of the main body to a working area, i.e., the driving direction.)…;
an image acquirer configured to acquire a marker image by imaging an irradiated marker ("Referring to FIG. 1, a mobile robot ... acquires an input image by capturing an image of the area to which the optical pattern is emitted (see FIG. 1(b))" [0017]. "The pattern image acquisition unit 120 acquires an input image by capturing an image of an area to which the optical pattern is emitted. The pattern image acquisition unit 120 may include a camera" [0022]. The pattern image acquisition unit, i.e., the image acquisition unit, captures an image of the optical pattern, i.e., marker, and the surrounding area where the pattern is emitted.); and
a determinator for determining whether an image change or loss exists between the marker image and the defined shape of the marker that indicates a risk factor that is associated with the driving direction ("On the other hand, in an input image acquired by emitting an optical pattern to an area where an obstacle is present, coordinates Q(Xi', Yi') of a pattern expression element may be displaced from the coordinates Q(Xi, Yi) in the reference input image. The position information acquisition unit 220 may acquire position information of the obstacle, such as a width and height of the obstacle, a distance to the obstacle, and the like, by comparing these coordinates” [0028]. Thus, by comparing the input image, i.e., marker image, to the reference image, i.e., defined shape of the marker, it may be determined that the position of the pattern is displaced, i.e., changed from its original shape. The position information acquisition unit uses such displacement (change of the pattern) to determine an obstacle exists in a position relevant to the robot, i.e., in the robot’s driving direction.); and
wherein the marker outputer irradiates a visible laser or a light ("The optical pattern is generated as light emitted from the light source penetrates the optical pattern projection element. For example, the light source may include Laser Diodes (LDs) or Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs)" [0020]. Thus, the emission of the optical pattern results from visible laser or a light.),
…wherein the determinator determines whether the risk factor exists in the driving direction by storing a reference image of the irradiated marker to a bottom surface which does not have the risk factor ("When the pattern emission unit 110 emits an optical pattern to the floor where no obstacle is present, the pattern in the input image remains at a consistent position. In the following description, this input image is referred to as a reference input image" [0027]. Thus, there is a reference input image which is kept as a basis for the optical pattern output, i.e., marker irradiated to the bottom surface, when no obstacle is present, i.e., there is no risk factor present.), and
comparing the marker image acquired from the image acquirer with the reference image ("[P]osition information of pattern expression elements constituting a pattern differs from that in a reference input image, which enables acquisition of 3D obstacle information based on actual distances, heights, widths and the like with regard to respective pattern expression elements" [0030]. The obstacle location is thus found by comparing the pattern expression presented, i.e., marker image acquired from the image acquisition unit, with the reference input image.)…
However, Noh does not explicitly teach … the marker being in the form of a defined shape that includes directional information…
a controller configured to control the driver to stop driving, avoid the risk factor, or decrease a driving speed, in response to the determinator determining that the risk factor exists…
wherein the marker outputer selectively outputs an arrow with the directional information to a bottom surface of the driving direction, the defined shape being the arrow…
wherein, in response to the determinator determining that the risk factor is an obstacle, the controller is configured to control the driver to stop driving or to avoid the obstacle, and
wherein, in response to the determinator determining that the risk factor is a height difference of a floor, the controller is configured to control the driver to stop driving or to decrease a driving speed according to a distance from the height difference.
Lafary, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches a controller configured to control the driver to stop driving, avoid the risk factor, or decrease a driving speed, in response to the determinator determining that the risk factor exists ("Sensors in the laser detect and process the reflections, thereby informing the mobile robot 10 that there is an obstacle 20 in its path that needs to be avoided. Thus, the obstacle avoidance and locomotion controllers on board mobile robot 10, if any, cause mobile robot 10 to go around obstacle 20 or otherwise brake to come to a stop before mobile robot 10 can collide with the obstacle 20" [0029]. Thus, when an obstacle, i.e., a risk factor, is determined to exist in the robot's path, the robot uses locomotion controls to avoid the obstacle or stop the robot altogether.)…
wherein, in response to the determinator determining that the risk factor is an obstacle, the controller is configured to control the driver to stop driving or to avoid the obstacle ("If the z-component is between the minimum ceiling height and the maximum floor height, then the positive obstacle avoidance engine is considered to have detected a positive obstacle suspended above the floor and below the ceiling. ... In this case, the positive obstacle avoidance engine will add the x-component and the y-component of the three-dimensional coordinate (representing the two-dimensional locations on the floor plan beneath the table, keyboard tray or other object) to the first data structure of two-dimensional coordinates to represent a new location in the physical environment to be avoided by the mobile robot" [0009]. "This means the propulsion system prevents the mobile robot from passing into the locations in the physical environment represented by the two-dimensional coordinates in the first data structure by plotting a path around the locations, if possible, or bringing the mobile robot to a stop if no path around the obstacle is available" [0010]. Thus, in the event that a positive obstacle is detected, the propulsion system, i.e., the driving unit, provides signals which avoid the obstacle or stop the robot. The propulsion system has a locomotion controller which controls the avoidance of the obstacle (see [0039]).), and
wherein, in response to the determinator determining that the risk factor is a height difference of a floor, the controller is configured to control the driver to stop driving or to decrease a driving speed according to a distance from the height difference ("If the distance G exceeds the maximum allowable floor gap, the negative obstacle avoidance engine adds the x-component, the y-component and the last good floor reading coordinates to the first data structure of two-dimensional coordinates to represent another location in the physical environment to be avoided by the mobile robot... Thus, the mobile robot, operating under the control of the propulsion system, which itself operates under the influence of the first data structure of two-dimensional coordinates identifying all of the two-dimensional coordinates in the floor plan to be avoided, avoids driving into the gap, ditch or hole, or off of a cliff." [0014]. "[T]he mobile robot 501 may slow down and/or come to a complete stop if the path to the current destination is blocked by a prohibited location or because proceeding along the intended path would cause the mobile robot 510 to drive into a gap in the floor" [0039]. Thus, in the event that the negative obstacle avoidance system detects a gap in the floor, i.e., a height difference, then the robot is directed to slow down, i.e., decrease a driving speed, or stop in the event that the path is blocked. Measurements for floor gaps are made by comparing a maximum distance G allowed for the height difference in adjacent floor surfaces. Additionally, the propulsion system is directed by a locomotion controller (see [0039]).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control of Noh to include the control in response to risk factors as taught by Lafary with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because unwanted collisions with obstacles could cause unnecessary damage to the robot, the obstacle, any cargo that the robot may be carrying, or any members of the collision (LaFary, [0029]).
However, Noh as modified by Lafary still does not teach the marker being in the form of a defined shape that includes directional information…
wherein the marker outputer selectively outputs an arrow with the directional information to a bottom surface of the driving direction, the defined shape being the arrow…
Kunii, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches a marker outputer configured to irradiate a marker in a driving direction of the main body, the marker being in the form of a defined shape that includes directional information (“FIG. 1(B) illustrates an example in which only one image projection apparatus is mounted on a front part of a vehicle body. In this case, image light from the image projection apparatus is projected onto a road surface ahead of the vehicle through, for example, a transparent window part 12 provided on the front part of the vehicle body” [0041]. Thus, there is a projection apparatus, i.e., marker outputer, which irradiates an image, i.e., marker, at the front part of the vehicle body, i.e., in a driving direction of the main body. Such image is a defined arrow shape 17 as is also shown in Fig. 1(B). “The above-described arrow image projected on the road surface or the like indicates a current or subsequent traveling direction of the vehicle” [0042]. Thus, the image which is projected as an arrow shape includes an indication, i.e., information, for directionality. That is, the shape of the arrow indicates a traveling direction.)…
wherein the marker outputer selectively outputs an arrow with the directional information to a bottom surface of the driving direction, the defined shape being the arrow ("The above-described arrow image projected on the road surface or the like indicates a current or subsequent traveling direction of the vehicle" [0042]. Thus, an arrow-shaped marker indicating the current or subsequent, i.e., selective, driving direction of the vehicle is projected onto the road, i.e., bottom surface of the predetermined driving direction.)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the shape of the irradiated marker of Noh to include the marker image output as an arrow with directionality information as taught by Kunii with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because using such a projection shape which indicates a direction of travel promotes safety for the travelling vehicle/robot, as well as safety for other surrounding vehicles/robots, people, or other potential dynamic obstacles that may harm the robot or be harmed by the robot in the event of a collision (Kunii, [0096]).
Regarding claim 4, Noh as modified by Lafary and Kunii (references made to Noh) teaches the driving apparatus of claim 1, wherein the marker outputer irradiates the marker in a downwardly inclined direction toward a bottom surface of the driving direction ("The pattern emission unit 110 may emit light forward of the main body. For example light may be emitted slightly downward to ensure that the optical pattern is emitted to the floor within a working area of the mobile robot" [0021]. Thus, the pattern is emitted downward onto the floor, i.e., bottom surface, forward of the main body in the working area of the robot, i.e., predetermined driving direction.).
Regarding claim 11, Noh teaches a method of controlling a driving apparatus ("FIG. 1 is a view showing the general steps of acquiring position information of an obstacle using an optical pattern" [0017]. These general steps make up the general method for controlling the mobile robot as will be described below.), comprising:
irradiating, by a marker outputer installed at the driving apparatus, a marker in a driving direction, the marker being in the form of a defined shape ("Referring to FIG. 1, a mobile robot emits an optical pattern to a working area thereof (see FIG. 1(a))" [0017]. “The optical pattern may include a cross-shaped pattern P as exemplarily shown in FIG. 1(a)” [0019]. Thus, the method includes emitting an optical pattern, i.e., a marker, in the form of a cross-shaped pattern P, i.e., a defined shape (cross), to a working area, i.e., a driving direction.)…;
imaging an irradiated marker to acquire a marker image ("Referring to FIG. 1, a mobile robot ... acquires an input image by capturing an image of the area to which the optical pattern is emitted (see FIG. 1(b))" [0017]. Thus, the method includes capturing an image of the optical pattern, i.e., marker, over the working area.); and
determining whether an image change or loss exists between the marker image and the defined shape of the marker that indicates a risk factor that is associated with the driving direction ("On the other hand, in an input image acquired by emitting an optical pattern to an area where an obstacle is present, coordinates Q(Xi', Yi') of a pattern expression element may be displaced from the coordinates Q(Xi, Yi) in the reference input image. The position information acquisition unit 220 may acquire position information of the obstacle, such as a width and height of the obstacle, a distance to the obstacle, and the like, by comparing these coordinates” [0028]. Thus, by comparing the input image, i.e., marker image, to the reference image, i.e., defined shape of the marker, it may be determined that the position of the pattern is displaced, i.e., changed from its original shape (see 112a rejection of “distorted). The position information acquisition unit uses such displacement (change of the pattern) to determine an obstacle exists in a position relevant to the robot, i.e., in the robot’s driving direction.),
wherein the marker is provided by a visible laser or a light which is output from a marker outputer installed at the driving apparatus ("The optical pattern is generated as light emitted from the light source penetrates the optical pattern projection element. For example, the light source may include Laser Diodes (LDs) or Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs)" [0020]. Thus, the emission of the optical pattern from the pattern emission unit 110, i.e., marker output unit, of the robot results from visible laser or a light.),
…wherein the determining determine whether the risk factor of the driving direction exists ("When the pattern emission unit 110 emits an optical pattern to the floor where no obstacle is present, the pattern in the input image remains at a consistent position. In the following description, this input image is referred to as a reference input image" [0027]. Thus, there is a reference input image which is kept as a basis for the optical pattern output, i.e., marker irradiated to the bottom surface, when no obstacle is present, i.e., there is no risk factor present.) by comparing a reference image of the marker which is irradiated to a bottom surface without the risk factor with the marker image ("[P]osition information of pattern expression elements constituting a pattern differs from that in a reference input image, which enables acquisition of 3D obstacle information based on actual distances, heights, widths and the like with regard to respective pattern expression elements" [0030]. The obstacle location is thus found by comparing the pattern expression presented, i.e., marker image acquired from the image acquisition unit, with the reference input image.)…
However, Noh does not explicitly teach the marker being in the form of a defined shape that includes directional information…
wherein irradiating the marker includes selectively irradiating an arrow having the directional information onto a bottom surface in the driving direction, the defined shape being the arrow,
wherein the directional information includes at least one of a straight-line directionality, a left turn shape and a right turn shape based on an intended travel direction that is determined by the marker outputer…
controlling a driver of the driving apparatus to stop driving of the driving apparatus or to avoid an obstacle in response to the risk factor being determined to be the obstacle, and
controlling a driver of the driving apparatus to stop driving of the driving apparatus or to decrease a driving speed according to a distance between a height difference of a floor surface in response to the risk factor being determined to be the height difference.
Lafary, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches … controlling a driver of the driving apparatus to stop driving of the driving apparatus or to avoid an obstacle in response to the risk factor being determined to be the obstacle ("If the z-component is between the minimum ceiling height and the maximum floor height, then the positive obstacle avoidance engine is considered to have detected a positive obstacle suspended above the floor and below the ceiling. ... In this case, the positive obstacle avoidance engine will add the x-component and the y-component of the three-dimensional coordinate (representing the two-dimensional locations on the floor plan beneath the table, keyboard tray or other object) to the first data structure of two-dimensional coordinates to represent a new location in the physical environment to be avoided by the mobile robot" [0009]. "This means the propulsion system prevents the mobile robot from passing into the locations in the physical environment represented by the two-dimensional coordinates in the first data structure by plotting a path around the locations, if possible, or bringing the mobile robot to a stop if no path around the obstacle is available" [0010]. Thus, in the event that a positive obstacle is detected, the propulsion system, i.e., the driving unit, provides signals which avoid the obstacle or stop the robot.), and
controlling a driver of the driving apparatus to stop driving of the driving apparatus or to decrease a driving speed according to a distance between a height difference of a floor surface in response to the risk factor being determined to be the height difference ("If the distance G exceeds the maximum allowable floor gap, the negative obstacle avoidance engine adds the x-component, the y-component and the last good floor reading coordinates to the first data structure of two-dimensional coordinates to represent another location in the physical environment to be avoided by the mobile robot... Thus, the mobile robot, operating under the control of the propulsion system, which itself operates under the influence of the first data structure of two-dimensional coordinates identifying all of the two-dimensional coordinates in the floor plan to be avoided, avoids driving into the gap, ditch or hole, or off of a cliff." [0014]. "[T]he mobile robot 501 may slow down and/or come to a complete stop if the path to the current destination is blocked by a prohibited location or because proceeding along the intended path would cause the mobile robot 510 to drive into a gap in the floor" [0039]. Thus, in the event that the negative obstacle avoidance system detects a gap in the floor, i.e., a height difference, then the robot is directed to slow down, i.e., decrease a driving speed, or stop in the event that the path is blocked. Measurements for floor gaps are made by comparing a maximum distance G allowed for the height difference in adjacent floor surfaces.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control of Noh to include the control in response to obstacles as taught by Lafary with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because unwanted collisions with undetected obstacles could cause unnecessary damage to the robot, the obstacle, any cargo that the robot may be carrying, or all members of the collision (LaFary, [0029]).
However, Noh as modified by Lafary still does not teach the marker being in the form of a defined shape that includes directional information…
wherein irradiating the marker includes selectively irradiating an arrow having the directional information onto a bottom surface in the driving direction, the defined shape being the arrow,
wherein the directional information includes at least one of a straight-line directionality, a left turn shape and a right turn shape based on an intended travel direction that is determined by the marker outputer…
Kunii, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches irradiating, by a marker outputer installed at the driving apparatus, a marker in a driving direction, the marker being in the form of a defined shape that includes directional information (“FIG. 1(B) illustrates an example in which only one image projection apparatus is mounted on a front part of a vehicle body. In this case, image light from the image projection apparatus is projected onto a road surface ahead of the vehicle through, for example, a transparent window part 12 provided on the front part of the vehicle body” [0041]. Thus, there is a projection apparatus, i.e., marker outputer, which irradiates an image, i.e., marker, at the front part of the vehicle body, i.e., in a driving direction of the main body. Such image is a defined arrow shape 17 as is also shown in Fig. 1(B). “The above-described arrow image projected on the road surface or the like indicates a current or subsequent traveling direction of the vehicle” [0042]. Thus, the image which is projected as an arrow shape includes an indication, i.e., information, for directionality. That is, the shape of the arrow indicates a traveling direction.)…
wherein irradiating the marker includes selectively irradiating an arrow having the directional information onto a bottom surface in the driving direction, the defined shape being the arrow ("The above-described arrow image projected on the road surface or the like indicates a current or subsequent traveling direction of the vehicle" [0042]. Thus, an arrow-shaped marker indicating the current or subsequent, i.e., selective, driving direction of the vehicle is projected onto the road, i.e., bottom surface of the predetermined driving direction.),
wherein the directional information includes at least one of a straight-line directionality, a left turn shape and a right turn shape based on an intended travel direction that is determined by the marker outputer (The light control ECU, i.e., controller, receives navigation information as input to determine the traveling direction (see Fig. 3 and [0050]). “In particular, according to the projection image onto the road surface or the like of FIG. 14, it is easy for the surrounding drivers and pedestrians to recognize the traveling direction of the vehicle 10, and when the arrow image is projected based on a signal from navigation information, it is easy also for the driver of the vehicle 10 to recognize a route to which the vehicle 10 should enter at the intersection, and it is thus possible to secure higher safety” [0096]. Thus, there is an intended travel direction that is determined by the controller via navigation information received. Fig. 7 shows an example of a straight-line directionality, while Fig. 14 displays a right turn shaped projection. No such left turn projection is explicitly shown, but such left turn is implied to be included as would be pertinent to the driving direction of the vehicle. However, such modification for a left turn projection could additionally be based on a combination of known methods which would yield predictable results pertinent to the indicated driving direction (see MPEP 2143.I(A)).)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the shape of the irradiated marker of Noh to include the marker image output as an arrow with directionality information as taught by Kunii with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because using such a projection shape which indicates a direction of travel promotes safety for the travelling vehicle/robot, as well as safety for other surrounding vehicles/robots, people, or other potential dynamic obstacles that may harm the robot or be harmed by the robot in the event of a collision (Kunii, [0096]).
Regarding claim 16, Noh as modified by Lafary and Kunii (references made to Noh) teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the marker is downwardly inclined toward a bottom surface of the driving direction ("The pattern emission unit 110 may emit light forward of the main body. For example light may be emitted slightly downward to ensure that the optical pattern is emitted to the floor within a working area of the mobile robot" [0021]. Thus, the pattern is emitted downward onto the floor, i.e., bottom surface, forward of the main body in the working area of the robot, i.e., driving direction.).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaFary in view of Noh and further in view of Kunii.
Regarding claim 17, Lafary teaches a driving apparatus (mobile robot 10 (See Fig. 1A/1B)) comprising:
a main body having a loader for loading an object (Fig. 1A and 1B show robot 10 holding cargo 12 in some type of cargo holder. These spaces which hold cargo 12 may be considered as the “loader” for loading objects, i.e., cargo, as a part of the main body.);
a driver configured to have a driving wheel equipped at a bottom of the main body and the driver for driving the driving wheel (“The propulsion system 550 may comprise a combination of hardware, such as motors and wheels 570, and software processors and/or controllers, such as path planning engine 555 and locomotion controller 560, that when executed by a microprocessor on board the mobile robot 501 (the microprocessor is not shown), cause the mobile robot 501 to avoid driving into the locations in the physical environment represented by the coordinates in the data structure of two dimensional coordinates 520” [0039]. Thus, the propulsion system, i.e., driving unit, comprises motors and wheels (seen at the bottom of the main body in Fig. 2) which move the robot through the environment. Since the propulsion system has motors, there is sufficient structure which satisfies the 112(f) claim interpretation.);
a marker outputer equipped at a front of the main body and configured to irradiate a marker in a driving direction of the main body (“The first laser attached to the mobile robot is oriented to scan the physical environment in a first plane that is not parallel to the floor of the physical environment” [0005]. “The laser controller receives a set of laser readings from the first laser, each laser reading corresponding to a location in the physical environment where the first laser detects a physical obstacle that may or may not need to be avoided by the mobile robot, depending, for example, on whether the object at the location is truly a physical object existing in the path of the mobile robot, or merely a spot on a distant part of the floor or the ceiling of the physical environment” [0006]. The first laser, i.e., marker output unit, scans, i.e., irradiates, a laser, i.e., marker, at an angle over the path, i.e., driving direction, of the robot.) …and
a controller configured to control the driver to stop driving, avoid the risk factor, or decrease a driving speed, in response to the determinator determining that the risk factor exists ("Sensors in the laser detect and process the reflections, thereby informing the mobile robot 10 that there is an obstacle 20 in its path that needs to be avoided. Thus, the obstacle avoidance and locomotion controllers on board mobile robot 10, if any, cause mobile robot 10 to go around obstacle 20 or otherwise brake to come to a stop before mobile robot 10 can collide with the obstacle 20" [0029]. Thus, when an obstacle, i.e., a risk factor, is determined to exist in the robot's path, the robot uses locomotion controls to avoid the obstacle or stop the robot altogether.),
wherein the marker outputer irradiates a visible laser or a light (As referenced above, the marker outputer has been defined as “the first laser”, thus irradiating a visible laser or light.),
…wherein, in response to the determinator determining that the risk factor is an obstacle, the controller is configured to control the driver to stop driving or to avoid the obstacle ("If the z-component is between the minimum ceiling height and the maximum floor height, then the positive obstacle avoidance engine is considered to have detected a positive obstacle suspended above the floor and below the ceiling. ... In this case, the positive obstacle avoidance engine will add the x-component and the y-component of the three-dimensional coordinate (representing the two-dimensional locations on the floor plan beneath the table, keyboard tray or other object) to the first data structure of two-dimensional coordinates to represent a new location in the physical environment to be avoided by the mobile robot" [0009]. "This means the propulsion system prevents the mobile robot from passing into the locations in the physical environment represented by the two-dimensional coordinates in the first data structure by plotting a path around the locations, if possible, or bringing the mobile robot to a stop if no path around the obstacle is available" [0010]. Thus, in the event that a positive obstacle is detected, the propulsion system, i.e., the driving unit, provides signals which avoid the obstacle or stop the robot. The propulsion system has a locomotion controller which controls the avoidance of the obstacle (see [0039]).), and
wherein, in response to the determinator determining that the risk factor is a height difference of a floor, the controller is configured to control the driver to stop driving or to decrease a driving speed according to a distance from the height difference ("If the distance G exceeds the maximum allowable floor gap, the negative obstacle avoidance engine adds the x-component, the y-component and the last good floor reading coordinates to the first data structure of two-dimensional coordinates to represent another location in the physical environment to be avoided by the mobile robot... Thus, the mobile robot, operating under the control of the propulsion system, which itself operates under the influence of the first data structure of two-dimensional coordinates identifying all of the two-dimensional coordinates in the floor plan to be avoided, avoids driving into the gap, ditch or hole, or off of a cliff." [0014]. "[T]he mobile robot 501 may slow down and/or come to a complete stop if the path to the current destination is blocked by a prohibited location or because proceeding along the intended path would cause the mobile robot 510 to drive into a gap in the floor" [0039]. Thus, in the event that the negative obstacle avoidance system detects a gap in the floor, i.e., a height difference, then the robot is directed to slow down, i.e., decrease a driving speed, or stop in the event that the path is blocked. Measurements for floor gaps are made by comparing a maximum distance G allowed for the height difference in adjacent floor surfaces. Additionally, the propulsion system is directed by a locomotion controller (see [0039]).).
However, Lafary does not explicitly teach … the marker being in the form of a defined shape that includes directional information…
an image acquirer equipped at a front of the main body and configured to image an irradiated marker and to acquire a marker image;
a determinator configured to determine whether an image change or loss exists between the marker image and the defined shape of the marker that indicates a risk factor that is associated with the driving direction…
wherein the marker outputer selectively outputs an arrow with the directional information to a bottom surface of the driving direction, the defined shape being the arrow,
wherein the directional information includes at least one of a straight-line directionality, a left turn shape and a right turn shape based on an intended travel direction that is determined by the marker outputer,
wherein the determinator determines whether the risk factor of the driving direction exists by storing a reference image of the irradiated marker to a bottom surface which does not have the risk factor, and comparing the marker image which is acquired from the image acquirer with the reference image…
Noh, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches a driving apparatus (mobile robot shown in Fig. 3) comprising:
a main body ("main body 10 of the robot"; [0034])…;
a driver configured to have a driving wheel equipped at a bottom of the main body and the driver for driving the driving wheel ("The traveling drive unit 300 may include a wheel motor to drive one or more wheels installed at the bottom of the main body 10 of the robot cleaner. The traveling drive unit 300 serves to move the main body 10 of the robot cleaner in response to a drive signal. The robot cleaner may include left and right drive wheels and the traveling drive unit 300 may include a pair of wheel motors to rotate the left drive wheel and the right drive wheel, respectively" [0034]. Thus, the traveling drive unit, i.e., the driving unit, provides a force to the wheels (which are attached to the bottom of the main body) through motors in order to move the main body.);
a marker outputer equipped at a front of the main body and configured to irradiate a marker in a driving direction of the main body, the marker being in the form of a defined shape ("Referring to FIG. 1, a mobile robot emits an optical pattern to a working area thereof (see FIG. 1(a))" [0017]. “The optical pattern may include a cross-shaped pattern P as exemplarily shown in FIG. 1(a)” [0019]. "The pattern emission unit 110 may emit light forward of the main body" [0021]. The robot has a pattern emission unit, i.e., marker output unit, which emits, i.e., irradiates, an optical pattern, i.e., marker, in the form of a cross-shaped pattern P, i.e., a defined shape (cross), forward of the main body to a working area, i.e., the driving direction. Additionally, in Fig. 3, we see pattern emission unit 110 which is fixed at the front of the main body. The pattern emission unit emits light projections, thus satisfying the conditions set forth by the 112(f) claim interpretations.)…;
an image acquirer equipped at a front of the main body and configured to image an irradiated marker and to acquire a marker image ("Referring to FIG. 1, a mobile robot ... acquires an input image by capturing an image of the area to which the optical pattern is emitted (see FIG. 1(b))" [0017]. "The pattern image acquisition unit 120 acquires an input image by capturing an image of an area to which the optical pattern is emitted. The pattern image acquisition unit 120 may include a camera" [0022]. The pattern image acquisition unit, i.e., the image acquisition unit, captures an image of the optical pattern, i.e., marker, and the surrounding area where the pattern is emitted. Additionally, pattern image acquisition unit 120 is shown to be equipped at the front of the main body in Fig. 3. Since the image acquisition unit may be a camera, the structural requirement set forth by the 112(f) claim interpretation is satisfied.);
a determinator configured to determine whether an image change or loss exists between the marker image and the defined shape of the marker that indicates a risk factor that is associated with the driving direction ("On the other hand, in an input image acquired by emitting an optical pattern to an area where an obstacle is present, coordinates Q(Xi', Yi') of a pattern expression element may be displaced from the coordinates Q(Xi, Yi) in the reference input image. The position information acquisition unit 220 may acquire position information of the obstacle, such as a width and height of the obstacle, a distance to the obstacle, and the like, by comparing these coordinates” [0028]. Thus, by comparing the input image, i.e., marker image, to the reference image, i.e., defined shape of the marker, it may be determined that the position of the pattern is displaced, i.e., changed from its original shape (see 112a rejection regarding “distortion”). The position information acquisition unit uses such displacement (change of the pattern) to determine an obstacle exists in a position relevant to the robot, i.e., in the robot’s driving direction.)…
wherein the marker outputer irradiates a visible laser or a light ("The optical pattern is generated as light emitted from the light source penetrates the optical pattern projection element. For example, the light source may include Laser Diodes (LDs) or Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs)" [0020]. Thus, the emission of the optical pattern results from visible laser or a light.), …
wherein the determinator determines whether the risk factor of the driving direction exists by storing a reference image of the irradiated marker to a bottom surface which does not have the risk factor ("When the pattern emission unit 110 emits an optical pattern to the floor where no obstacle is present, the pattern in the input image remains at a consistent position. In the following description, this input image is referred to as a reference input image" [0027]. Thus, there is a reference input image which is kept as a basis for the optical pattern output, i.e., marker irradiated to the bottom surface, when no obstacle is present, i.e., there is no risk factor present.), and
comparing the marker image which is acquired from the image acquirer with the reference image ("[P]osition information of pattern expression elements constituting a pattern differs from that in a reference input image, which enables acquisition of 3D obstacle information based on actual distances, heights, widths and the like with regard to respective pattern expression elements" [0030]. The obstacle location is thus found by comparing the pattern expression presented, i.e., marker image acquired from the image acquisition unit, with the reference input image.)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the marker outputer and determination systems of Lafary to instead include the marker outputer and imaging determination systems as taught by Noh with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the use of such a marker system finds a distance to and location of an obstacle through image comparison means which saves monetary resources that would otherwise be required for laser distancing technologies.
However, Lafary as modified by Noh still does not teach the marker being in the form of a defined shape that includes directional information…
wherein the marker outputer selectively outputs an arrow with the directional information to a bottom surface of the driving direction, the defined shape being the arrow,
wherein the directional information includes at least one of a straight-line directionality, a left turn shape and a right turn shape based on an intended travel direction that is determined by the marker outputer…
Kunii, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches a marker outputer equipped at a front of the main body and configured to irradiate a marker in a driving direction of the main body, the marker being in the form of a defined shape that includes directional information (“FIG. 1(B) illustrates an example in which only one image projection apparatus is mounted on a front part of a vehicle body. In this case, image light from the image projection apparatus is projected onto a road surface ahead of the vehicle through, for example, a transparent window part 12 provided on the front part of the vehicle body” [0041]. Thus, there is a projection apparatus, i.e., marker outputer, which irradiates an image, i.e., marker, at the front part of the vehicle body, i.e., equipped at the front of the main body and irradiating the marker in a driving direction of the main body. Such image is a defined arrow shape 17 as is also shown in Fig. 1(B). “The above-described arrow image projected on the road surface or the like indicates a current or subsequent traveling direction of the vehicle” [0042]. Thus, the image which is projected as an arrow shape includes an indication, i.e., information, for directionality. That is, the shape of the arrow indicates a traveling direction.)…
wherein the marker outputer selectively outputs an arrow with the directional information to a bottom surface of the driving direction, the defined shape being the arrow ("The above-described arrow image projected on the road surface or the like indicates a current or subsequent traveling direction of the vehicle" [0042]. Thus, an arrow-shaped marker indicating the current or subsequent, i.e., selective, driving direction of the vehicle is projected onto the road, i.e., bottom surface of the predetermined driving direction.),
wherein the directional information includes at least one of a straight-line directionality, a left turn shape and a right turn shape based on an intended travel direction that is determined by the marker outputer (The light control ECU, i.e., controller, receives navigation information as input to determine the traveling direction (see Fig. 3 and [0050]). “In particular, according to the projection image onto the road surface or the like of FIG. 14, it is easy for the surrounding drivers and pedestrians to recognize the traveling direction of the vehicle 10, and when the arrow image is projected based on a signal from navigation information, it is easy also for the driver of the vehicle 10 to recognize a route to which the vehicle 10 should enter at the intersection, and it is thus possible to secure higher safety” [0096]. Thus, there is an intended travel direction that is determined by the controller via navigation information received. Fig. 7 shows an example of a straight-line directionality, while Fig. 14 displays a right turn shaped projection. No such left turn projection is explicitly shown, but such left turn is implied to be included as would be pertinent to the driving direction of the vehicle. However, such modification for a left turn projection could additionally be based on a combination of known methods which would yield predictable results pertinent to the indicated driving direction (see MPEP 2143.I(A)).)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the marker as taught by Noh in modifying Lafary to include an arrow-shaped directionality indication as taught by Kunii with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because using such a projection shape which indicates a direction of travel promotes safety for the travelling vehicle/robot, as well as safety for other surrounding vehicles/robots, people, or other potential dynamic obstacles that may harm the robot or be harmed by the robot in the event of a collision (Kunii, [0096]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In updating the search requirements, Examiner found Kim et al. (US 2023/0091839 A1) which contains similar subject matter to the rejected claims.
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 SIDNEY L MOLNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-2276. The examiner can normally be reached 8 A.M. to 3 P.M. EST Monday-Friday.
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, Jonathan (Wade) Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/S.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights