DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/15/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 09/29/2025, in which claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 18, 20, and 21 are amended and claims 5 and 6 are cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 7-21 are rejected.
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 and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections are withdrawn. However, a new rejection, under 35 USC § 103, is presented below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 7-21 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 Interpretation
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must “conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.” 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. (MPEP 2111.04)
Claim 12 recites “The method according to claim 1, 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 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.” (Emphasis Added)
By using the conditional statement “if”, the claim creates a contingent limitation that does not have to occur. Courts have determined that an Examiner need not present evidence of the obviousness of the method step that are not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016)
To further prosecution the Examiner has addressed the claim below in view of Lewis. However, appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Lewis (US 2017/0100838 A1, “Lewis”) in view of Grammatke et al. (US 2008/0281441 A1 ,“Grammatke”).
Regarding claim 1, Lewis discloses dynamic automation work zone safety system 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: (In one aspect, a method is provided. A safety controller receives actor information about at least a location of one or more actors. The safety controller is configured to communicate with one or more robotic actors. The safety controller receives robot information including at least a location of a particular robotic actor of the one or more robotic actors. The safety controller determines a command for controlling operation of the particular robotic actor of the one or more robotic actors by the safety controller applying one or more safety criteria to the actor information and the robot information. The safety controller generates an output including the command for controlling operation of the particular robotic actor – See at least ¶ [0003])
detection of a safety-relevant operating situation using at least one sensor system of the working device, (Then, the safety controller can use obtained information from sensors attached to the robot(s). Such as kinematic information, and information with respect to the human actors, such as actor identification and kinematic information, to determine a risk mode for the robot…This risk mode for a robotic actor can indicate at least a probability that the robotic actor can cause harm to a human actor in the environment – See at least ¶ [0016]-[0017])
initiating a braking process, (In some cases, the risk mode for a robotic actor can indicate at least a probability that the robotic actor can cause harm to another actor, robotic or human, in the environment; e.g., by determining distances between and possible intersections between the robotic actor and human actors, robotic actors, and other entities/objects in the environment. Then, the safety con troller can direct the robot to operate according the risk mode if the risk mode is high, the robot can slow down or stop operation, which if the risk mode is low, the robot can maintain relatively-high speed operation – See at least ¶ [0018]) the braking process including using at least one drive motor (In some embodiments, computing device 420 can include one or more actuators 431. Actuator(s) 431 can enable computing device 420 to initiate movement…In addition, actuator(s) 431 can include motors for moving the robotic joints, robotic limbs, wheels and/or tracks – See at least ¶ [0109]) of the working device to reduce speed when a critical operating situation has been detected, (For example, if the safety controller determines that a dangerous or risky situation is occurring or will soon occur, the safety controller can send one or more commands to the robotic actor to slow down, stop immediately, or perhaps take some other action, such as produce one or more audible and/or visual warning signals or stop some or all components (e.g., actuators such as moving arms or other components) of the robotic actor. The command may comprise one or more of a command to switch the particular robotic actor into a particular safety mode, a command to start the particular robotic actor, a command to stop the particular robotic actor, a command to reduce a speed of the particular robotic actor, a command to increase the speed of the particular robotic actor, and a command to change a direction of movement of at least a portion of the particular robotic actor – See at least ¶ [0029])
processing at least one driving parameter determined after initiating the braking process, (The robot will continue to reduce its speed, i.e., a driving parameter, as the slowing down process, i.e., braking process, continues, i.e., after initiation of the process, to its target speed – See at least ¶ [0033]-[0035] and ¶ [0039])
selecting between a continuation of the braking process or the initiation of an emergency braking process depending at least on the processed driving parameter. (However, the safety controller associated with robotic actor 214 can use at least the actor information for human actor 220 and robot information for robotic actor 214; e.g., kinematic information for human actor 220 and/or robotic actor 214 to predict or otherwise determine that a likelihood of collision between human actor 220 and robotic actor 214 is relatively high. Then, the safety controller associated with robotic actor 214 can apply safety criteria based on at least relatively-high likelihood of collision and responsively send one or commands to robotic actor 214 to cause robotic actor 214 to do one or more of the following: change a risk mode of robotic actor 214 (e.g., go into a high-risk or emergency stop mode), change velocity (e.g., slow down and/or change direction), change acceleration (e.g., decelerate gradually or rapidly), make a non-emergency stop (i.e., make a gradual stop), and/or make an emergency stop – See at least ¶ [0052])
wherein the processing of the at least one driving parameter comprises the comparison with at least one driving parameter [] stored in a memory; (It should be understood that for the processes and methods disclosed herein, flowcharts show functionality and operation of possible implementations of respective embodiments. In this regard, each block may represent a module, a segment, or a portion of program code, which includes one or more instructions executable by a processor for implementing specific logical functions or steps in the process. The program code may be stored on any type of computer readable medium or data storage, for example, such as a storage device including a disk or hard drive. The computer readable medium may include non-transitory computer readable medium or memory, for example, such as computer-readable media that stores data for short periods of time like register memory, processor cache and Random Access Memory (RAM). The computer readable medium may also include non-transitory media, such as secondary or persistent long term storage, like read only memory (ROM), optical or magnetic disks, compact-disc read only memory (CD-ROM), for example. – See at least ¶ [0128]; Here, the system implements its functions using memory to store data. Therefore, to determine if the vehicle is slowing down, then there must be a comparison of a previous speed, i.e., stored speed, and the current speed.)
wherein the current speed is determined as a driving parameter, (the safety controller can use obtained information from sensors attached to the robot(s). Such as kinematic information, and information with respect to the human actors, such as actor identification and kinematic information, to determine a risk mode for the robot. Kinematic information for an actor can include, but is not limited to, location, movement, speed/velocity, and acceleration information about the actor – See at least ¶ [0016]) and in that the current speed is determined using at least one of a displacement sensor or an inertial measurement unit or gyro sensor. (In some embodiments, computing device 420 can include one or more sensors 430. Sensor(s) 430 can be configured to measure conditions in an environment around computing device 420 and provide data about the measured conditions of the environment. The data can include, but are not limited to, location data about computing device 420 (including, but not limited to, latitude, longitude, and/or altitude data), other kinematic information related to computing device 420 (e.g., speed, velocity, acceleration data), and other data about the environment around computing device 420, meteorological data about the environment (e.g., air temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, wind speed), and electromagnetic radiation data (e.g., infra-red, ultra violet, X-ray data). The one or more sensors 430, can include, but are not limited to, one or more: Global Positioning System (GPS) sensors, location sensors, gyroscopes, accelerometers, magnetometers, video and/or still cameras, light sensors, infrared sensors, ultraviolet sensors, X-ray sensors, meteorological sensors, proximity sensors, vibration and/or motion sensors, heat sensors, thermometers, lasers, and microphones. Other examples of sensor(s) 430 are possible as well – See at least ¶ [0108])
Lewis does not explicitly teach the use of a driving parameter setpoint. However, Grammatke discloses a method and facility for positioning an element of a machine and teaches:
wherein the processing of the at least one driving parameter comprises the comparison with at least one driving parameter setpoint stored in a memory; (In FIG. 2 at time t the braking distance Xb corresponds to the difference between the expected setpoint position variable XsollE and the target location Xz, so that the comparator 19 sends a signal to the reference variable generation unit 1, which then initiates the braking process with the constant deceleration a so that the speed graph shown in FIG. 1 with a broken line results – See at least ¶ [0038])
In summary, Lewis discloses saving driving parameters into a memory and controlling the machine to achieve a specific velocity, position, or other driving parameter based on current readings. Thus Lewis must be comparing a current value to a target value to determine if that target has been achieved. Lewis does not explicitly teach that this process is done with the use of driving parameter setpoints stored in a memory. However, Grammatke discloses a method and facility for positioning an element of a machine and teaches comparing pre-defined setpoint values with current values to determine if the current operational parameters of the machine match the target setpoint operational parameters. Then adjusting the operation of the machine so the current operational parameters match the target operational parameters at specific time increments.
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 dynamic automation work zone safety system of Lewis to provide for the setpoint control, as taught in Grammatke, because it proves to be advantageous that the braking distance of the element is determined from the expected setpoint position variable, in that an expected setpoint speed of the element is determined from the expected setpoint position variable and/or an expected setpoint acceleration is determined and the braking distance is determined based on the expected setpoint position variable and/or the expected set point speed and/or the expected setpoint acceleration. This allows precise determination of the braking distance. (At Grammatke ¶ [0018])
Regarding claim 2, Lewis further teaches:
the detection is carried out using sensor information of at least one sensor or a plurality of sensors of the sensor system. (In some embodiments, computing device 420 can include one or more sensors 430. Sensor(s) 430 can be configured to measure conditions in an environment around computing device 420 and provide data about the measured conditions of the environment. The data can include, but are not limited to, location data about computing device 420 (including, but not limited to, latitude, longitude, and/or altitude data), other kinematic information related to computing device 420 (e.g., speed, velocity, acceleration data), and other data about the environment around computing device 420, meteorological data about the environment (e.g., air temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, wind speed), and electromagnetic radiation data (e.g., infra-red, ultra violet, X-ray data) – See at least ¶ [0108])
Regarding claim 3, Lewis 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 safety controller can use obtain information from sensors attached to the robot(s). Such as kinematic information, and information with respect to the human actors, such as actor identification and kinematic information, to determine a risk mode for the robot. Kinematic information for an actor can include, but is not limited to, location, movement, speed/velocity, and acceleration information about the actor – See at least ¶ [0016])
Regarding claim 4, Lewis does not explicitly teach, but Grammatke further teaches:
wherein the driving parameter is determined after a predetermined time has elapsed after the initiation of the braking process. (If however the limit controller 2 intervenes at time t1, because the force occurring during the displacement process is too great, the setpoint position variable Xsoll, is reduced by the limit variable B, so that the modified setpoint position variable XsollM is smaller than the setpoint position variable Xsoll, as a result of which the modified setpoint speed Viz (derivation of the setpoint position variable X over time) is similarly smaller than the setpoint speed Vsoll from time t1. If the braking process is again initiated at time t2, as is standard for commercially available machines, the desired position of the element 8, in other words the target location Xz, is not reached and the element 8 comes to a stop before it – See at least ¶ [0033]; Here, the system is determining driving parameters for the entire breaking process over multiple time periods, e.g., t, t1, t2, etc. If the target stopping position will be missed, i.e., too short or too long of a stopping movement, then the system adjusts its movement to meet the stopping point. This means that the system determines driving parameters at different predetermined time periods after the braking process has started.)
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 dynamic automation work zone safety system of Lewis to provide for the setpoint control, as taught in Grammatke, because it proves to be advantageous that the braking distance of the element is determined from the expected setpoint position variable, in that an expected setpoint speed of the element is determined from the expected setpoint position variable and/or an expected setpoint acceleration is determined and the braking distance is determined based on the expected setpoint position variable and/or the expected set point speed and/or the expected setpoint acceleration. This allows precise determination of the braking distance. (At Grammatke ¶ [0018])
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 braking process is continued until a complete standstill of the working device, (In some cases, a command can indicate a mode, such as a safety mode or risk mode, to the robotic actor. For example, if the safety controller determines that a dangerous or risky situation is occurring or will soon occur, then the safety controller can send a command to the robotic actor to enter into a high-safety or high-risk mode. Then, the robotic actor can take actions based on the high-safety/high-risk mode; e.g., make an (emergency) stop, slow down, provide warning signals. In another example, if the safety controller determines that a moderately dangerous or risky situation is occurring or will soon occur, then the safety controller can send commands to reduce and/or eliminate danger/risk in environment 100 – See at least ¶ [0030]; Here, the system determines which commands can “eliminate” danger, i.e., the damage can be prevented. One of the commands is to perform an emergency stop, i.e., a complete standstill.) and that after the standstill of the working device, an operation is continued while avoiding the occurrence of the damaging event. (In this same example, the safety controller can send a command to the robotic actor to switch into a medium-safety or medium-risk mode and the robotic actor can take actions based on the medium-safety/medium-risk mode; e.g., slow down, change direction, change roles/tasks, and/or stop – See at least ¶ [0030] After the first command is sent, e.g., the emergency stop, the system can then change the command to be move slow, i.e., operation is continued while avoid the occurrence.)
Regarding claim 13, Lewis 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 (In some other embodiments, while in the high safety mode, the particular robotic actor can be either stopped or restricted, such as being restricted by range of movement, restricted in speed of movement, restricted by a role that can performed, restricted to only utilize a subset of actuators of the particular robotic actor – See at least ¶ [0118]; Examiner notes that the robotic actor uses “actuators” for movement. Lewis Defines these actuators as including motors for moving robotic joints, limbs, wheels and/or tracks – See at least ¶ [0109] Therefore, the restriction of movement speed is a control of a drive motor.) 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, Lewis discloses a dynamic automation work zone safety system and teaches:
A working device, (The invention is directed towards robots within a working environment – See at least ¶ [0021]) having at least one housing, (In some embodiments, computing device 420 can include one or more actuators 431. Actuator(s) 431 can enable computing device 420 to initiate movement. For example, actuator(s) 431 can include or be incorporated with robotic joints connecting robotic limbs to a robotic body, such as an arm of robotic actor 211, 215, 217, or 218 discussed above in the context of FIGS. 2A-2C – See at least ¶ [0109]) at least one drive unit, (Actuator(s) 431 can enable computing device 420 to initiate movement – See at least ¶ [0109]) at least one environment sensor (In some embodiments, computing device 420 can include one or more sensors 430. Sensor(s) 430 can be configured to measure conditions in an environment around computing device 420 and provide data about the measured conditions of the environment – See at least ¶ [0108]) and at least one control device, (To maintain safety in environment 100 and perhaps for other reasons, Some or all of the robotic actors in the environment can be configured with safety controllers – See at least ¶ [0023]) the drive unit having at least one drive motor and at least one drive wheel, (In addition, actuator(s) 431 can include motors for moving the robotic joints, robotic limbs, wheels and/or tracks – See at least ¶ [0109]) the working device being designed and set up to move autonomously in a processing environment, wherein (A safety controller receives actor information about at least a location of one or more actors. The safety controller is configured to communicate with one or more robotic actors. The safety controller receives robot information including at least a location of a particular robotic actor of the one or more robotic actors. The safety controller determines a command for controlling operation of the particular robotic actor of the one or more robotic actors by the safety controller applying one or more safety criteria to the actor information and the robot information. The safety controller generates an output including the command for controlling operation of the particular robotic actor – See at least ¶ [0003]; Examiner notes that because the robotic actors are performing functions solely on the command of the safety controller, then they are designed and set up to move autonomously within in their environment.)
the working device is constructed and arranged for carrying out a method according to claim 1. (The combination of Lewis and Grammatke disclose the entirety of the method of claim 1, as presented above.)
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 dynamic automation work zone safety system of Lewis to provide for the setpoint control, as taught in Grammatke, because it proves to be advantageous that the braking distance of the element is determined from the expected setpoint position variable, in that an expected setpoint speed of the element is determined from the expected setpoint position variable and/or an expected setpoint acceleration is determined and the braking distance is determined based on the expected setpoint position variable and/or the expected set point speed and/or the expected setpoint acceleration. This allows precise determination of the braking distance. (At Grammatke ¶ [0018])
Regarding claim 16, Lewis 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. (the safety controller can use obtain information from sensors attached to the robot(s). Such as kinematic information, and information with respect to the human actors, such as actor identification and kinematic information, to determine a risk mode for the robot – See at least ¶ [0016]; The safety controller can use the kinematic information to predict location(s) of actor(s) and apply safety criteria based on the predicted locations and/or predicted times of possible collisions – See at least ¶ [0034])
Claim(s) 7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis and Grammatke, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Gagne et al. (US 2020/0064857 A1, “Gagne”).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, the combination of Lewis and Grammatke does not explicitly teach 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 and at least a percentage reduction of an output speed by a predetermined value after a predetermined time. However, Gagne discloses robotic cleaning device with operating speed variation based on environment and 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 and 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 dynamic automation work zone safety system of Lewis and Grammatke 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 Lewis and Grammatke, as applied to claims 1, and in further view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (US 2022/0187841 A1, “Ebrahimi Afrouzi”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lewis and Grammatke 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 dynamic automation work zone safety system of Lewis and Grammatke 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 Lewis and Grammatke 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 dynamic automation work zone safety system of Lewis and Grammatke 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, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis and Grammatke, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Claretti et al. (US 11,059,373 B1, “Claretti”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lewis and Grammatke 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 dynamic automation work zone safety system of Lewis and Grammatke 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, the combination of Lewis and Grammatke 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)
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 dynamic automation work zone safety system of Lewis and Grammatke 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)
Claim(s) 9-11, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis and Grammatke, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Agrawal et al. (US 2024/0034308 A1, “Agrawal”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lewis and Grammatke 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 dynamic automation work zone safety system of Lewis and Grammatke 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, the combination of Lewis and Grammatke 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 dynamic automation work zone safety system of Lewis and Grammatke 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, the combination of Lewis and Grammatke 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 dynamic automation work zone safety system of Lewis and Grammatke 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, the combination of Lewis and Grammatke 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 dynamic automation work zone safety system of Lewis and Grammatke 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, Lewis further teaches:
wherein the generation of the selection value includes a comparison with a driving parameter setpoint held in stored in a memory. (It should be understood that for the processes and methods disclosed herein, flowcharts show functionality and operation of possible implementations of respective embodiments. In this regard, each block may represent a module, a segment, or a portion of program code, which includes one or more instructions executable by a processor for implementing specific logical functions or steps in the process. The program code may be stored on any type of computer readable medium or data storage, for example, such as a storage device including a disk or hard drive. The computer readable medium may include non-transitory computer readable medium or memory, for example, such as computer-readable media that stores data for short periods of time like register memory, processor cache and Random Access Memory (RAM) – See at least ¶ [0128]; Here, the system implements its functions using memory to store data. Therefore, to determine if the vehicle is slowing down, then there must be a comparison of a previous speed, i.e., stored driving parameter setpoint, and the current speed.)
Conclusion
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.
/CHASE L COOLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights