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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 09/29/2025, in which claims 1, 2, 7, and 11 are amended and claim 6 is cancelled. Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information Disclosure Statement filed on 09/20/2023 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following minor informality:
Claim 7 is amended, but is identified as previously present.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS 09/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections are maintained.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 16 the applicant argues:
The Applicant believes that multiple differences exist between the method of operating a working device of the present disclosure and the method for controlling an autonomous mobile body as described by Takai. For example, Takai fails to teach or disclose a process step that includes processing at least one driving parameter determined after initiating the braking process, wherein the processing of the at least one driving parameter comprises a comparison with at least one driving parameter setpoint stored in memory.
In comparison, Takai describes a method in which sensors of a robot 100 are used to check whether an obstacle, such as a person, is located in one of two predefined areas, namely the "entry restricted space" and the "entry prohibited space" adjacent to the robot 100 (see Takai, at least at Figs. 1, 6B, 6C; par. [0006] - [0008], [0010] - [0011], [0034] - [0035], [0055] - [0058], [0067]). When this situation occurs, the robot 100 reduces its speed or performs an evasive maneuver (see Takai, par. [0033] - [0034], [0058], [0064]). In addition, different illumination schemes are disclosed depending on where a person (obstacle) has been detected (see Takai, at least at par. [0006] - [0009], [0051] - [0060]). Simultaneously with the illumination, the speed of the robot 100 is reduced, i.e., a braking process is carried out (see Takai, par. [0007], [0034], [0055], [0068]).
In Takai, if the obstacle ultimately enters the "entry prohibited space," the braking process is continued until the robot 100 stops (see Takai, Figs. 1, 10; par. [0006], [0010]- [0011], [0034], [0064], [0069]). A memory 240 of the robot 100, e.g., a nonvolatile storage medium, stores various parameter values, functions, lookup tables, and the like used for the control, in addition to the control program for controlling the transfer robot 100 (see Takai, par. [0043], [0045]).
Takai discloses operating a machine in an environment where objects move about its position. Part of its operation is to monitor and adjust its behavior based on “spaces” around itself. To achieve this goal, Takai divides the work space up into essentially three spaces. The first space, according to distance to the machine, is a “entry prohibited space”, the next space is the “entry restricted space”, and the final space is not defined as either and can be considered a non-monitored or open space and can be ignored. (Fig. 1)
When an object enters into the restricted space the machine begins a slowdown of its movement and operations. This is the initiation of a “braking process”. When the obstacle moves from the restricted space to the prohibited space the machine will stop completely. (¶ [0034]) This step of further adjusting the speed of the robot based on the obstacle entering into the prohibited space is equivalent to “processing at least one driving parameter after initiating the braking process”.
Takai further teaches that the functions of the system, the parameters used by the system, and the environmental map are all stored in a memory, e.g., memory 240. (¶ [0045]) Additionally, Takai discloses that the relationship between itself and an object is determined by comparing object-robot distance relationships over time. (¶ [0053]) Given that the information about the distances are stored in memory and that a comparison of the values occurs, the Examiner does not agree with the above argument that Takai does not teach wherein the processing of the at least one driving parameter comprises a comparison with at least one driving parameter setpoint stored in memory.”
For the reasons above the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive.
The Office Action states that the recognition of an obstacle in the “entry restricted/prohibited space" represents a driving parameter. The Applicant respectfully traverses this opinion. Rather, the Applicant believes that the presence or absence of an object in a certain space or area is neither a characteristic of the working device nor a characteristic that defines the movement of the working device, i.e., it is not a driving parameter. The Applicant provides several examples of driving parameters, which include, for example, speed and/or direction of movement (see Substitute Specification filed June 7, 2024, par. [0021]-[0022]). Therefore, the feature of "processing at least one driving parameter determined after initiating the braking process" is not disclosed in "Takai."
While speed and/or direction of movement are driving parameters, the specification defines the driving parameter as “The driving parameter can be, for example, a speed and/or a direction of movement and/or another driving parameter. In particular, all parameters that determine the state of movement of the working device and/or that establish a relationship between the movement of the working device and the environment of the working device are suitable as driving parameters.” (¶ [0021], Emphasis added.) The identification of the location of object with respect to the restricted and/or prohibitive space is a parameter that “establishes a relationship between the movement of the working device and the environment of the working device.” Therefore, the Examiner cordially disagrees with the Applicant’s belief that “the presence or absence of an object in a certain space or area is neither a characteristic of the working device nor a characteristic that defines the movement of the working device, i.e., it is not a driving parameter.”
For these reason the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
In addition, Takai does not disclose that the processing of the at least one driving parameter comprises a comparison with at least one driving parameter setpoint stored in a memory. The mere presence of a memory does not demonstrate such a specific comparison, especially when the driving parameter itself is not disclosed in Takai as previously discussed above.
This argument is substantially similar to the ones above and is unpersuasive for the reasons stated above.
Furthermore, Takai fails to disclose the step of "selecting between a continuation of the braking process or the initiation of an emergency braking process depending at least on the processed driving parameter." Rather, in Takai when movement is stopped due to the presence of a person or obstacle, this stoppage does not amount to performing a selection as defined above.
Takai is constantly selecting a speed at which the robot is operating based on its monitored environment. When an obstacle enters into the restricted space the robot will begin to slow down. The robot will continue to operate in this slowed speed mode until the obstacle leaves the restricted space. If the obstacle moves from the restricted space to the prohibited space then the robot will stop movement all together. Thus, the robot selects between a slowed speed, braking process, or a complete stop, emergency braking, depending on its relationship to the environment, i.e., driving parameters as described in the instant specification.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
The remainder of the Applicant’s arguments are directed towards the secondary art not curing the deficiencies of the primary art. However, as provided above there are no deficiencies to cure in the primary art. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takai et al. (US 2021/0157326 A1, “Takai”).
Regarding claim 1, Takai discloses autonomous mobile body system, control program for autonomous mobile body, and control method for autonomous mobile body and teaches:
A method for operating a working device, wherein the working device is arranged to move autonomously in a processing environment, at least comprising the following method steps: (FIG . 1 shows a state where a transfer robot 100, i.e., a working device, according to this embodiment moves in an environment, i.e., a processing environment, in which people coexist with the transfer robot. The transfer robot 100 is an example an autonomous mobile body that moves autonomously – See at least ¶ [0032])
detection of a safety-relevant operating situation using at least one sensor system of the working device, (In such an environment where people also come and go, the transfer robot 100 needs to recognize a person who is moving closer to it, i.e., a safety-relevant operating situation, as an obstacle and thereby avoid contact with the person by stopping its movement or performing an evasive action. Therefore, the transfer robot 100 is equipped with various sensors for detecting an obstacle, and the transfer robot 100 is controlled by a control program so that it operates according to the result of the detection – See at least ¶ [0033])
initiating a braking process, (Specifically, as shown in FIG . 1 , an entry prohibited space is set around the transfer robot 100. When any one of the various sensors detects an obstacle that enters this entry prohibited space, the transfer robot 100 stops its movement. Further, an entry restricted space is set outside the entry prohibited space. When any one of the various sensors detects an obstacle that enters this entry restricted space, the transfer robot 100 reduces its moving speed or performs an evasive action for avoiding the obstacle – See at least ¶ [0034]) the braking process including using at least one drive motor (A movable-base drive unit 210 includes a drive circuit and a motor(s) for driving the driving wheels 111. The control unit 200 sends a drive signal to the movable-base drive unit 210 and thereby controls the driving of the driving wheels 111. That is, the control unit 200 cooperates with the movable-base drive unit 210 and thereby functions as a movement control unit that controls the movement of the transfer robot 100 – See at least ¶ [0043]) of the working device to reduce speed when a critical operating situation has been detected, (FIG. 6B shows a state where an approaching person has entered the entry restricted space. When the detection unit detects that an approaching person has entered the entry restricted space, the illumination unit illuminates the entry restricted area and the movement control unit reduces the moving speed of the transfer robot 100 – See at least ¶ [0055])
processing at least one driving parameter determined after initiating the braking process, (The detection unit determines a distance and movement relationship between the robot and the object in the environment. Depending on this relationship, the robot will perform different functions – See at least ¶ [0053]-[0057])
selecting between a continuation of the braking process or the initiation of an emergency braking process depending at least on the processed driving parameter. (FIG. 6B shows a state where an approaching person has entered the entry restricted space. When the detection unit detects that an approaching person has entered the entry restricted space, the illumination unit illuminates the entry restricted area and the movement control unit reduces the moving speed, i.e., braking process, of the transfer robot 100… FIG. 6C shows a state where the approaching person shown in FIG. 6B has also entered the entry prohibited space. When the detection unit detects that the approaching person has entered the entry prohibited space, the illumination unit continues the illumination of the entry restricted area and that of the entry prohibited area, and the movement control unit stops the movement, i.e., emergency braking process, of the transfer robot 100 – See at least ¶ [0055]-[0056])
wherein the processing of the at least one driving parameter comprises the comparison with at least one driving parameter setpoint (The system has a restricted entry space, i.e., a pre-set driving parameter describing a distance area. Once it is detected that the object has intruded the space, i.e., a comparison of at least one predetermined setpoint, the robot performs a function, e.g., slowing down – See at least ¶ [0055]-[0056] and Fig. 1) stored in a memory. (The memory 240 is a nonvolatile storage medium. For example, a solid-state drive is used as the memory 240. The memory 240 stores various parameter values, functions, lookup tables, and the like used for the control in addition to the control program for controlling the transfer robot 100. In particular, the memory 240 stores an environment map in which map information of an environment in which the transfer robot 100 autonomously moves is described – See at least ¶ [0045])
Regarding claim 2, Takai further teaches:
the detection is carried out using sensor information of at least one sensor or a plurality of sensors of the sensor system. (the transfer robot 100 is equipped with various sensors for detecting an obstacle, and the transfer robot 100 is controlled by a control program so that it operates according to the result of the detection – See at least ¶ [0032])
Regarding claim 3, Takai further teaches:
wherein at least one of at least a speed or a direction of movement or a distance to an obstacle or a distance, to a step is processed as a driving parameter. (the detection unit determines whether or not the transfer robot 100 itself and the object have gotten relatively closer to each other by calculating distances to the object based on outputs of the sensor at different timings and comparing them with the moving distance that the transfer robot 100 has moved during the period between the different timings – See at least ¶ [0053])
Regarding claim 4, Takai further teaches:
wherein the driving parameter is determined after a predetermined time has elapsed after the initiation of the braking process. (the detection unit determines whether or not the transfer robot 100 itself and the object have gotten relatively closer to each other by calculating distances to the object based on outputs of the sensor at different timings and comparing them with the moving distance that the transfer robot 100 has moved during the period between the different timings – See at least ¶ [0053]; Examiner notes that this process occurs continually and therefore would occur after the initiation of the braking process.)
Regarding claim 12, Takai further teaches:
wherein the selection of the continuation of the braking process takes place if, depending on the processing of the driving parameter, the occurrence of a damaging event can be prevented with the braking process, (The transfer robot may perform a braking function or an evasive function based on an identified obstacle. If the obstacle does not or cannot take an action for avoiding the illuminated area, i.e., a collision, then the transfer robot may perform an evasive action for avoiding the object – See at least ¶ [0064]; However, if the obstacle is capable of avoiding the illuminated area, e.g., a person, then the system may slow down, i.e., a braking process – See at least ¶ [0034]) the braking process is continued until a complete standstill of the working device, and that after the standstill of the working device, an operation is continued while avoiding the occurrence of the damaging event. (When the approaching person has moved out from the entry restricted space, the process proceeds to a step S109 and the movement control unit resumes the normal movement at the normal speed – See at least ¶ [0069])
Regarding claim 13, Takai further teaches:
wherein the initiation of the braking process comprises the control of at least one drive motor, with a control command which causes the drive motor to execute a driving movement which has as its objective a reduction in the speed of the working device (When any one of the various sensors detects an obstacle that enters this entry restricted space, the transfer robot 100, via drive unit 210, reduces its moving speed or performs an evasive action for avoiding the obstacle – See at least ¶ [0034] and [0043]) or in that the initiation of the braking process includes an interruption of the voltage supply to the drive motor or the drive motors.
Regarding claim 15, Takai discloses autonomous mobile body system, control program for autonomous mobile body, and control method for autonomous mobile body and teaches:
A working device, (the invention is directed towards a transfer robot, i.e., a working device – See at least ¶ [0032]) having at least one housing, (The moving robot 100 includes, mainly, a movable base part 110 and a main-body part 120 – See at least ¶ [0036]) at least one drive unit, (A movable-base drive unit 210 includes a drive circuit and a motor(s) for driving the driving wheels 111 – See at least ¶ [0043]) at least one environment sensor (transfer robot 100 is equipped with various sensors for detecting an obstacle, and the transfer robot 100 is controlled by a control program so that it operates according to the result of the detection – See at least ¶ [0033]) and at least one control device, (A control unit 200 is, for example, a CPU (Central Processing Unit), and performs overall control of the trans fer robot 100 by executing a control program loaded from a memory 240 – See at least ¶ [0043]) the drive unit having at least one drive motor and at least one drive wheel, (A movable-base drive unit 210 includes a drive circuit and a motor(s) for driving the driving wheels 111 – See at least ¶ [0043]) the working device being designed and set up to move autonomously in a processing environment, wherein (FIG.1 shows a state where a transfer robot 100 according to this embodiment moves in an environment in which people coexist with the transfer robot. The transfer robot 100 is an example an autonomous mobile body that moves autonomously – See at least ¶ [0032])
the working device is constructed and arranged for carrying out a method according to claim 1. (The transfer robot performs the method according to claim as presented above.)
Regarding claim 16, Takai further teaches:
wherein the use of sensor information of at least one of at least one fall sensor or at least one collision sensor is carried out. (transfer robot 100 is equipped with various sensors for detecting an obstacle, and the transfer robot 100 is controlled by a control program so that it operates according to the result of the detection – See at least ¶ [0033]; Examiner notes that the obstacle detection is used to prevent collision with objects within the environment and therefore is a collision sensor.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 5, 7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takai, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Gagne et al. (US 2020/0064857 A1, “Gagne”).
Regarding claim 5, Takai does not explicitly teach wherein the current speed is determined as a driving parameter, and in that the current speed is determined using at least one of a displacement sensor or an inertial measurement unit or a gyro sensor. However Gagne discloses robotic cleaning device with operating speed variation based on environment and teaches:
wherein the current speed is determined as a driving parameter, and in that the current speed is determined using at least one of a displacement sensor or an inertial measurement unit or a gyro sensor. (The system also may include a positional sensor 860 and/or motion sensor 870 to detect position and movement of the device. Examples of motion sensors 870 include gyroscopes or accelerometers – See at least ¶ [0070])
In summary, Takai discloses determining the current speed of the robot. Takai does not explicitly teach that the speed is determined using one of a displacement sensor or an inertial measurement unit or a gyro sensor. However, Gagne discloses robotic cleaning device with operating speed variation based on environment and teaches the robot’s motion, i.e., speed, is determined using at least gyroscopes and accelerometers, i.e., gyros and displacement sensors.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the autonomous mobile body system, control program for autonomous mobile body, and control method for autonomous mobile body of Takai to provide for the operating speed variation based on environment, as taught in Gagne, to reduce the risk of tipping over. (At Gagne ¶ [0003])
Regarding claim 7, Takai does not explicitly teach, but Gagne further teaches:
at least one driving parameter setpoint represents at least one of at least one speed value which has been determined taking into account a configuration of the working device at least a percentage reduction of an output speed by a predetermined value (At step 409, the confidence-in-position scores related to each sensor type are aggregated, determining a final confidence-in-position score. Depending on the final, aggregated confidence-in-position score, the travelling speed of the robotic device is converted at step 410 to account for the system's confidence in the device's position within a known area. For example, if the aggregated confidence-in-position score is “50” on a scale of 0-100, the robotic device's travelling speed may be reduced to half of a maximum travelling speed, thereby allowing the device more time to adequately react to undetected, unknown, or unexpected obstacles in its path. Additionally and/or alter natively, if the aggregated confidence-in-position score is at or near “o ” on a scale of 0-100, the robotic device may be entirely disabled, and an alert and/or error code may be generated, indicating that one or more sensor(s) of the robotic device have either malfunctioned or the map of the known area of travel is outdated and/or incorrect – See at least ¶ [0055]) after a predetermined time. (Referring again to step 403, if a reading from sensor type 1 was both not received and not expected based on known information from the stored map, a weighted reduction in the confidence-in-position score of sensor type 1 may also be made at step 406 due to an elapsed predetermined amount of time. That is, the robotic device may be travelling through a particular portion of the known area where no sensor feedback is expected, but it is assumed that the device will eventually enter an area where sensor feedback should be present. Thus, if sensor type 1 does not provide a reading after a predetermined period of time has elapsed, the confidence-in-position score may be reduced, even if such a reading was not previously expected. The reduction in confidence-in-position score for under this scenario may be less than the reduction provided at step 405 due to bad data from the sensor type 1, map would not definitively verify an expected reading. For example, as opposed to a confidence-in-position score being reduced to “0” on a scale of 0-100 due to bad data, the confidence-in position score may be reduced to, e.g., “50”, due to elapsed time without a reading – See at least ¶ [0050])
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the autonomous mobile body system, control program for autonomous mobile body, and control method for autonomous mobile body of Takai to provide for the operating speed variation based on environment, as taught in Gagne, to reduce the risk of tipping over. (At Gagne ¶ [0003])
Regarding claim 21, Takai does not explicitly teach, but Gagne further teaches:
at least one driving parameter setpoint represents at least one of at least one speed value which has been determined taking into account a configuration of the working device or at least a percentage reduction of an output speed by a predetermined value after a predetermined time. (Referring again to step 403, if a reading from sensor type 1 was both not received and not expected based on known information from the stored map, a weighted reduction in the confidence-in-position score of sensor type 1 may also be made at step 406 due to an elapsed predetermined amount of time. That is, the robotic device may be travelling through a particular portion of the known area where no sensor feedback is expected, but it is assumed that the device will eventually enter an area where sensor feedback should be present. Thus, if sensor type 1 does not provide a reading after a predetermined period of time has elapsed, the confidence-in-position score may be reduced, even if such a reading was not previously expected. The reduction in confidence-in-position score for under this scenario may be less than the reduction provided at step 405 due to bad data from the sensor type 1, map would not definitively verify an expected reading. For example, as opposed to a confidence-in-position score being reduced to “0” on a scale of 0-100 due to bad data, the confidence-in position score may be reduced to, e.g., “50”, due to elapsed time without a reading – See at least ¶ [0050])
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the autonomous mobile body system, control program for autonomous mobile body, and control method for autonomous mobile body of Takai to provide for the operating speed variation based on environment, as taught in Gagne, to reduce the risk of tipping over. (At Gagne ¶ [0003])
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takai in view of Gagne, as applied to claim 5, and in further view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (US 2022/0187841 A1, “Ebrahimi Afrouzi”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Takai and Gagne does not explicitly teach wherein different driving parameter setpoints for different configurations of the working device are kept ready in the memory, and wherein the processing of the driving parameter takes place taking into account a current configuration of the working device. However, Ebrahimi Afrouzi discloses method of lightweight simultaneous localization and real-time computing and battery operated wheeled device and teaches:
wherein different driving parameter setpoints for different configurations of the working device are kept ready in the memory, (In some embodiments, setting a disinfecting mode may include, for example, setting a service condition, a service type, a service parameter, a service schedule, or a service frequency for all or different areas of the environment. A service condition may indicate whether an area s to be serviced or not, and embodiments may determine whether to service an area based on specified service conditions in memory – See at least ¶ [1252]) and wherein the processing of the driving parameter takes place taking into account a current configuration of the working device. (Thus, a regular service condition indicates that the area is to be serviced in accordance with service parameters like those described below. In contrast, a no service condition may indicate that the area is to be excluded from service. A service type may indicate what kind of disinfecting is to occur. A service parameter may indicate various settings for the robot. In some embodiments, service parameters may include, but are not limited to, an impeller speed or power parameter, a wheel speed parameter, a brush speed parameter, a sweeper parameter, a disinfectant dispensing parameter, a driving direction parameter, a movement parameter, a disinfecting intensity parameter, and a timer parameter, i.e., driving parameter setpoints – See at least ¶ [1252])
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the autonomous mobile body system, control program for autonomous mobile body, and control method for autonomous mobile body of Takai and Gagne to provide for the method of lightweight simultaneous localization and real-time computing and battery operated wheeled device, as taught in Ebrahimi Afrouzi, to improve performance and reduce costs, thereby paving the road forward for mass adoption of robots within homes, offices, small warehouses, and commercial spaces. (At Ebrahimi Afrouzi ¶ [0795])
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Takai and Gagne does not explicitly teach, but Ebrahimi Afrouzi further teaches:
wherein the different configurations of the working device take into account at least one of different housing dimensions or the position of the center of gravity in the housing or the presence of an accessory component mounted on the working device or the filling level of a cleaning water tank or the filling level of a dirt collection tank. (In some embodiments, robots may require servicing. Examples of services include changing a tire or inflating the tire of a robot. In the case of a commercial cleaner, an example of a service may include emptying waste water from the commercial cleaner and adding new water into a fluid reservoir. For a robotic vacuum, an example of a service may include emptying the dustbin. For a disinfecting robot, an example of a service may include replenishment of supplies such as UV bulbs, scrubbing pad, or liquid disinfectant. In some embodiments, robots may be services at a service station or at the charging station. In some cases, particularly when the fleet of robots is large, it may be more efficient for servicing to be provided at a station that is different from the charging station as servicing may require less time than charging. In some embodiments, servicing received by the robots may be automated or may be manual. In some embodiments, robots may be serviced by stationary robots. In some embodiments, robots may be services by mobile robots. In some embodiments, a mobile robot may navigate to and service a robot while the robot is being charged at a charging station. In some embodiments, a history of services may be recorded in a database for future reference. For example, the history of services may be referenced to ensure that maintenance is provided at the required intervals. In some cases, maintenance is provided on an as-need basis. In some cases, the history of services may reducing redundant operations performed on the robots. For example, if a part of a robot was replaced due to failure of the part, the new due date of service is calculated from the date on which the part was replaced instead of the last service date of the part.– See at least ¶ [1284])
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the autonomous mobile body system, control program for autonomous mobile body, and control method for autonomous mobile body of Takai and Gagne to provide for the method of lightweight simultaneous localization and real-time computing and battery operated wheeled device, as taught in Ebrahimi Afrouzi, to improve performance and reduce costs, thereby paving the road forward for mass adoption of robots within homes, offices, small warehouses, and commercial spaces. (At Ebrahimi Afrouzi ¶ [0795])
Claim(s) 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takai, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Claretti et al. (US 11,059,373 B1, “Claretti”).
Regarding claim 14, Takai does not explicitly teach wherein the triggering of the emergency brake function includes the triggering of a separate emergency brake system. However, Claretti discloses braking systems for an autonomous ground vehicle and teaches:
wherein the triggering of the emergency brake function includes the triggering of a separate emergency brake system. (Accordingly, the hybrid braking system of the delivery AGV includes an electrical means to short across the motor terminals and a mechanical brake. The electrical means is referred to herein as the electrical brake or an emergency electrical brake. The electrical brake may be used when an emergency stop is required, and is distinguished from the normal braking procedure of diminishing or stopping battery power to the drive wheels – See at least Col. 3, ln. 46-54)
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the autonomous mobile body system, control program for autonomous mobile body, and control method for autonomous mobile body of Takai to provide for the braking systems for an autonomous ground vehicle, as taught in Claretti, in order to quickly slow the speed of the AGV when it is traveling at moderate to high speeds. (At Claretti Col. 3, ln. 45-64)
Regarding claim 20,Takai does not explicitly teach, but Claretti further teaches:
wherein the emergency brake system after a triggering causes the mechanical application of a braking force with at least one brake element to at least one component moving to cause a movement of the working device or includes the interruption of the voltage supply of the drive motor or the drive motors. (Accordingly, the hybrid braking system of the delivery AGV includes an electrical means to short across the motor terminals and a mechanical brake. The electrical means is referred to herein as the electrical brake or an emergency electrical brake. The electrical brake may be used when an emergency stop is required, and is distinguished from the normal braking procedure of diminishing or stopping battery power to the drive wheels – See at least Col. 3, ln. 46-54)
Claim(s) 9-11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takai, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Agrawal et al. (US 2024/0034308 A1, “Agrawal”).
Regarding claim 9, Takai does not explicitly teach wherein a selection value is generated in the course of the processing, and wherein the selection value represents a statement as to whether the occurrence of a damaging event resulting from the safety-relevant operating situation can be prevented by the braking process. However, Agrawal discloses systems and methods for rapid deceleration and teaches:
wherein a selection value is generated in the course of the processing, and wherein the selection value represents a statement as to whether the occurrence of a damaging event resulting from the safety-relevant operating situation can be prevented by the braking process. (In examples, the trajectory determination system may be configured to refrain from using a maximum braking trajectory until a vehicle computing system determines that a potential collision is unavoidable using other available trajectories (e.g., associated with braking application levels that are less than a maximum braking application level) to avoid collision. – See at least ¶ [0024])
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the autonomous mobile body system, control program for autonomous mobile body, and control method for autonomous mobile body of Takai to provide for the systems and methods for rapid deceleration, as taught in Agrawal, to increase the likelihood of avoiding a potential collision and/or mitigating damage that may result from a collision. (At Agrawal ¶ [0001])
Regarding claim 10, Takai does not explicitly teach, but Agrawal further teaches:
wherein the processing includes determining a probability representing the prevention of a damaging event with the braking process or the occurrence of the damaging event if the braking process continues. (at operation 124 the vehicle computing system may determine whether a potential collision with the obstacle is likely, i.e., a probability, using the current operational trajectory and/or applying braking pressure short of maximum braking pressure.– See at least ¶ [0041])
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the autonomous mobile body system, control program for autonomous mobile body, and control method for autonomous mobile body of Takai to provide for the systems and methods for rapid deceleration, as taught in Agrawal, to increase the likelihood of avoiding a potential collision and/or mitigating damage that may result from a collision. (At Agrawal ¶ [0001])
Regarding claim 11, Takai does not explicitly teach, but Agrawal further teaches:
wherein the selection of the triggering of the emergency braking process takes place if, depending on the processing of the driving parameter, the occurrence of a damaging event cannot be prevented with the braking process. (In examples, the trajectory determination system may be configured to refrain from using a maximum braking trajectory until a vehicle computing system determines that a potential collision is unavoidable using other available trajectories (e.g., associated with braking application levels that are less than a maximum braking application level) to avoid collision – See at least ¶ [0024])
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the autonomous mobile body system, control program for autonomous mobile body, and control method for autonomous mobile body of Takai to provide for the systems and methods for rapid deceleration, as taught in Agrawal, to increase the likelihood of avoiding a potential collision and/or mitigating damage that may result from a collision. (At Agrawal ¶ [0001])
Regarding claim 17, Takai does not explicitly teach, but Agrawal further teaches:
wherein the time is selected such that, at undiminished speed of the working device, a damage event has not yet occurred after the time has elapsed. (The trajectory determination system may (e.g., substantially continuously and/or periodically) evaluate vehicle and/or environmental conditions over time and determine or otherwise update a trajectory for use controlling the vehicle – See at least ¶ [0009] Examiner notes that by continuously evaluating and adjusting trajectories over time, the system will make the evaluation prior to the adjusting, i.e., at an undiminished speed. Additionally, because the system prevents the collision, it will also perform the evaluating and adjusting prior to a damage event.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the autonomous mobile body system, control program for autonomous mobile body, and control method for autonomous mobile body of Takai to provide for the systems and methods for rapid deceleration, as taught in Agrawal, to increase the likelihood of avoiding a potential collision and/or mitigating damage that may result from a collision. (At Agrawal ¶ [0001])
Regarding claim 19, Takai further teaches:
wherein the generation of the selection value includes a comparison with a driving parameter setpoint held in (The system has a restricted entry space, i.e., a pre-set driving parameter describing a distance area. Once it is detected that the object has intruded the space, i.e., a comparison of at least one predetermined setpoint, the robot performs a function like slowing down, i.e., a selection value, until the current speed matches the desired speed – See at least ¶ [0055]-[0056] and Fig. 1) stored in a memory. (The memory 240 is a nonvolatile storage medium. For example, a solid-state drive is used as the memory 240. The memory 240 stores various parameter values, functions, lookup tables, and the like used for the control in addition to the control program for controlling the transfer robot 100. In particular, the memory 240 stores an environment map in which map information of an environment in which the transfer robot 100 autonomously moves is described – See at least ¶ [0045])
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Grammatke et al. (US 2008/0281441 A1) discloses the use of setpoint parameters in a memory for operating a robot within an environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASE L COOLEY whose telephone number is (303)297-4355. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5MT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/C.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662