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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/13/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicant has not provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s) discussed below.
Reference US 11,161,519 B2 is a general background reference covering A method and system for impaired driving detection, monitoring and accident prevention with driving habits. An impairment test method is provided with an impairment test determining in real-time whether a driver of vehicle is impaired (e.g., has used drugs, alcohol, is distracted, talking, texting, eating, etc. or is drowsy, etc.). The impairment test determines plural assigned probability impairment values over a pre-determined time interval to compare a frequency of received plural event signals from a passenger compartment of the vehicle and from an environment detected outside the vehicle and external to the vehicle for one or more of the plural driver performance actions completed by a driver of a vehicle to those previously stored in a unique driver profile for the driver to determine with a statistical probability whether the driver operating the vehicle may be impaired based on the unique behavior patterns for the driver of the vehicle stored in the unique driver profile. The unique driver profile includes unique behavior patterns of the driver comprising “habit evidence” to determine if a driver may be impaired. (see abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-12, 14-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-12, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al. (Nielsen) (US 2011/0054689 A1) in view of Castelli et al. (Castelli) (US 10,170,011 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Nielsen discloses a hazard identification system comprising:
a computer device comprising a hazard identification application (e.g., An embodiment of the present invention comprises a robot platform including a locomotor configured for providing mobility to the robot platform and a hazard sensor configured for sensing an environmental hazard to generate a signal containing hazard information indicative of a magnitude of the environmental hazard, paragraph 24);
a mobile robotic device for self-propelled movement within a designated environment and with an interface for communicating with the hazard identification application, the mobile robotic device further comprising a camera for imaging the designated environment (e.g., a system controller is disposed on the robot platform and is operably coupled to the signal from the at least one hazard sensor and the at least one locomotor. The system controller is configured for executing a hazard evaluation of an area of interest by repeatedly determining a hazard level of the hazard information proximate the hazard sensor and using a robot initiative to adaptively move the robot platform with the locomotor to a new position responsive to the hazard level, paragraph 24);
the hazard identification application to receive imaging of the designated environment from the camera of the mobile robotic device and to identify hazards in the designated environment from the imaging (e.g., an embodiment of the present invention also comprises a robot control system including a robot platform and a remote controller. The robot platform includes a hazard sensor, a locomotor, a robot communicator and a system controller. The robot platform is configured for sensing a hazard intensity at a current location of the robot platform with the hazard sensor, moving the robot platform to a new location with the locomotor responsive to the hazard intensity, and autonomously repeating the sensing and moving to determine multiple hazard levels at multiple locations responsive to the hazard intensity at the current location, paragraph 26).
Nielsen does not specifically disclose the hazard identification application to classify the identified hazards to output a report of the identified hazards along with directions for mitigating the identified hazards.
Castelli discloses the hazard identification application to classify the identified hazards to output a report of the identified hazards along with directions for mitigating the identified hazards (e.g., In a non-limiting example, hazard response component 610 can determine an action for drone device 502 to perform to mitigate occurrence of a determined hazard. For example, hazard response component 610 can determine an action for drone device 502 to perform that prevents or reduces a probability that the determined hazard will actually occur. In another non-limiting example, hazard response component 610 can determine an action for drone device 502 to perform to mitigate an effects of a determined hazard that has or will occur, paragraphs 59, 60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Nielsen to include the hazard identification application to classify the identified hazards to output a report of the identified hazards along with directions for mitigating the identified hazards as taught by Castelli. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Nielsen by the teaching of Castelli to reduce security risk, reducing impact to flight schedule, reducing aircraft downtime, and/or any other effect that can result from the determined hazard occurring.
Regarding claim 3, Nielsen discloses further comprising a user interface of the hazard identification application to receive a profile of an individual or type of individual to be protected from hazards in the designated environment, the application to send instructions to the robotic device based on the profile (e.g., An embodiment of the present invention comprises a robot platform including a locomotor configured for providing mobility to the robot platform and a hazard sensor configured for sensing an environmental hazard to generate a signal containing hazard information indicative of a magnitude of the environmental hazard. A system controller is disposed on the robot platform and is operably coupled to the signal from the at least one hazard sensor and the at least one locomotor, paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 4, Nielsen discloses wherein the profile comprises an actual path of the individual while moving in the designated environment as a guide for searching for hazards with the mobile robotic device (e.g., the present invention also comprises a robot control system including a robot platform and a remote controller. The robot platform includes a hazard sensor, a locomotor, a robot communicator and a system controller. The robot platform is configured for sensing a hazard intensity at a current location of the robot platform with the hazard sensor, moving the robot platform to a new location with the locomotor responsive to the hazard intensity, and autonomously repeating the sensing and moving to determine multiple hazard levels at multiple locations responsive to the hazard intensity at the current location, paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 6, Nielsen discloses wherein the mobile robotic device comprises a flying drone (e.g., furthermore, perceptors 165 may be configured in conjunction with the locomotors 175 (which can be flying drone), paragraph 73).
Regarding claim 7, Nielsen discloses wherein the mobile robotic device comprises a robotic vacuum cleaner (e.g., The manipulators 170 may include vacuum devices, magnetic pickup devices, paragraph 72).
Regarding claim 8, Nielsen discloses wherein the robotic vacuum cleaner searches for hazards in the designated environment while vacuuming (e.g., action abstractions 212 (also referred to as manipulation abstractions) for defining and controlling manipulation type devices on the robot, communication abstractions 214 for defining and controlling communication media and protocols, control abstractions 216 (also referred to as locomotion abstractions) for defining and controlling motion associated with various types of locomotion hardware, and perception abstractions 218 for defining and controlling a variety of hardware modules configured for perception of the robot's surroundings and pose (e.g., position and orientation), paragraphs 90, 92).
Regarding claim 9, Nielsen discloses further comprising a trained machine learning model that is trained to identify hazards from the imaging received from the mobile robotic device (e.g., a robot platform including a locomotor configured for providing mobility to the robot platform and a hazard sensor configured for sensing an environmental hazard to generate a signal containing hazard information indicative of a magnitude of the environmental hazard, paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 10, Nielsen discloses further comprising a user interface of the hazard identification application to receive a profile of an individual or type of individual to be protected from hazards in the designated environment, the application to send instructions to the robotic device based on the profile (e.g., an embodiment of the present invention comprises a robot platform including a locomotor configured for providing mobility to the robot platform and a hazard sensor configured for sensing an
environmental hazard to generate a signal containing hazard information indicative of a magnitude of the environmental hazard. A system controller is disposed on the robot platform and is operably coupled to the signal from the at least one hazard sensor and the at least one locomotor, paragraph 24);
wherein the report distinguishes between hazards that are relevant to the protected individual based on the profile and risks that are not hazards for the protected individual based on the profile (e.g., a system controller is disposed on the robot platform and is operably coupled to the signal from the at least one hazard sensor and the at least one locomotor. The system controller is configured for executing a hazard evaluation of an area of interest by repeatedly determining a hazard level of the hazard information proximate the hazard sensor and using a robot initiative to adaptively move the robot platform with the locomotor to a new position responsive to the hazard level, paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 11, Nielsen discloses further comprising an interface of the hazard identification application to communicate with smart devices in the designated environment as to operating status, the application further identifying hazards in the designated environment based on the operating status of the smart devices (e.g., an embodiment of the present invention comprises a robot platform including a locomotor configured for providing mobility to the robot platform and a hazard sensor configured for sensing an environmental hazard to generate a signal containing hazard information indicative of a magnitude of the environmental hazard. A system controller is disposed on the robot platform and is operably coupled to the signal from the at least
one hazard sensor and the at least one locomotor. The system controller is configured for executing a hazard evaluation of an area of interest by repeatedly determining
a hazard level of the hazard information proximate the hazard sensor and using a robot initiative to adaptively move the robot platform with the locomotor to a new position responsive to the hazard level, paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is a method of hazard identification claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected as set forth above as claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is a method of hazard identification claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected as set forth above as claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is a method of hazard identification claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 7. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected as set forth above as claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is a method of hazard identification claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 9. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected as set forth above as claim 9.
Regarding claim 17, Nielsen discloses further comprising distinguishing between hazards that are relevant to the protected individual based on the profile and risks that are not hazards for the protected individual based on the profile (e.g., asystem controller is disposed on the robot platform and is operably coupled to the signal from the at least one hazard sensor and the at least one locomotor. The system controller is configured for executing a hazard evaluation of an area of interest by repeatedly determining a hazard level of the hazard information proximate the hazard sensor and using a robot initiative to adaptively move the robot platform with the locomotor to a new position responsive to the hazard level, paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is a method of hazard identification claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected as set forth above as claim 11.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is a computer program product claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected as set forth above as claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al. (Nielsen) (US 2011/0054689 A1) and Castelli et al. (Castelli) (US 10,170,011 B2) as applied to claims 1, 3 above, and further in view of Rau et al. (Rau) (US 2015/0092056 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Nielsen and Castelli do not specifically disclose wherein the individual profiled is a pet.
Rau discloses wherein the individual profiled is a pet (e.g., his system captures stationary objects, for example, road debris and other hazards, animals, stationary emergency vehicles, etc. The RTFC4 subsystem is preferably capable of capturing light in avariety of ambient conditions, paragraph 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Nielsen and Castelli to include wherein the individual profiled is a pet as taught by Rau. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Nielsen and Castelli by the teaching of Rau to protect pet/animal from accident.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 QUANG N VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, EST.
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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at 571-270-3438. 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.
/QUANG N VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights