DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election for Group I of claims 1-13 elected on 11/16/2025.
The amendment filed on 11/16/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 14-20 have been canceled.
Claims 1-13 are pending in Instant Application.
Election/Restrictions
Examiner will like to indicate that Election statement does state “with traverse” however no remarks/arguments was included with the response. Examiner believes this is a typographical error and believes it should state “without traverse”. With that being said, Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 11/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims’ subject matter eligibility will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
With respect to claims 1 and 5.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claims 1 and 5 are directed to one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: the claim recites, inter alia:
“determine a safety status of the robotic system related to a detected object in an environment based on the infrared data": A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine safety regarding a robot. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
"identify, using the depth image, a change to at least one of a planned trajectory, a map, or a location or an orientation of the robotic system within the map": A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally identify a change based on provide information. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The only limitations not treated above, “receive infrared data from at least two infrared receivers of a safety depth camera affixed to a robotic system”, “send an indication to at least one of emergency braking circuitry of the robotic system or adjustable braking circuitry of the robotic system based on the safety status”, and “receive the infrared data and a color image from a camera of the safety depth camera; generate a depth image using the infrared data and the color image”, involves the mere gathering of data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of the “safety control circuitry” and “processing circuitry” are recited at a high level of generality, and comprises only a processor to simply perform the generic computer functions. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (USPGPub 2020/0122344) in view of Oleynikova et al. (USPGPub 2025/0322608). As per claim 1, Lee discloses a device comprising: safety control circuitry (see at least Figure 8) to: receive infrared data from at least two infrared receivers of a safety depth camera affixed to a robotic system (see at least paragraph 0177; wherein depth sensing module 100, for example, infrared IR sensors…see at least paragraph; wherein robot having the depth sensing module mounted); determine a safety status of the robotic system (see at least paragraph 0189; wherein when the sensors 2181 to 189 detect that there are no objects within 5 meters from the robot, the sensors 2181 to 189 provide the detected information to the sensing controller 2900. The controller 2900 may provide this information to the depth camera 2110 or vision camera 2120) related to a detected object in an environment based on the infrared data (see at least paragraph 0187; wherein sensors sense the objects around the robot having the sensing module 2100 mounted thereon using infrared rays); and processing circuitry (see at least Figure 8; item 900) to: identify, using the depth image, a change to at least one of a planned trajectory, a map, or a location or an orientation of the robotic system within the map (see at least paragraph 0120; wherein the robot controller 900 may identify an object around the robot based on the sensing results from the depth sensing module 100 and the object sensing module 190 and control the travel path of the robot 1000 based on the identification result). Lee does not explicitly mention send an indication to at least one of emergency braking circuitry of the robotic system or adjustable braking circuitry of the robotic system based on the safety status; and receive the infrared data and a color image from a camera of the safety depth camera; generate a depth image using the infrared data and the color image. However Oleynikova does disclose: send an indication to at least one of emergency braking circuitry of the robotic system or adjustable braking circuitry of the robotic system based on the safety status (see at least paragraph 0113; wherein the vehicle 800 may include LIDAR sensor(s) 864. The LIDAR sensor(s) 864 may be used for object and pedestrian detection, emergency braking, collision avoidance, and/or other functions. The LIDAR sensor(s) 864 may be functional safety level ASIL B); and receive the infrared data and a color image from a camera of the safety depth camera; generate a depth image using the infrared data and the color image (see at least paragraph 0049; wherein the sensors 110 may comprise an RGB-D camera, that includes at least two infrared (IR) sensors from which depth is computed for one or more pixels, and an RGB camera to produce input data 112 that includes a stream of depth and color images. As further examples, the sensors 110 may comprise a pair of RGB cameras arranged and synchronized to operate as a stereo pair. In that case, the depth images may be computed from the output from the stereo pair using a stereo matching algorithm, and the RGB images may be used as the raster images). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Oleynikova with the teachings as in Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve navigation (e.g., dynamic obstacle classification and tracking), see Oleynikova paragraph 0004. As per claim 2, Oleynikova discloses wherein when the safety status indicates that the detected object is within a first threshold, the indication is sent to the emergency braking circuitry, and when the detected object is outside the first threshold and within a second threshold, the indication is sent to the adjustable braking circuitry (see at least paragraph 0138; wherein the system may set a threshold value for the confidence and consider only the detections exceeding the threshold value as true positive detections. In an automatic emergency braking (AEB) system, false positive detections would cause the vehicle to automatically perform emergency braking, which is obviously undesirable. Therefore, only the most confident detections should be considered as triggers for AEB). As per claim 3, Oleynikova discloses wherein the detected object is a portion of a human (see at least paragraph 0113; wherein the vehicle 800 may include LIDAR sensor(s) 864. The LIDAR sensor(s) 864 may be used for object and pedestrian detection, emergency braking, collision avoidance, and/or other functions. The LIDAR sensor(s) 864 may be functional safety level ASIL B). As per claim 4, Oleynikova discloses wherein to identify, using the depth image, the change includes using a visual Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) algorithm to identify the change to the location and the orientation of the robotic system within the map (see at least paragraph 0007; wherein pose data may be generated from various sources, such as but not limited to data from Visual Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (VSLAM)). As per claim 5, Lee discloses a robotic system comprising: a safety depth camera (see at least paragraph 0058; wherein depth camera 110) comprising: an infrared projector (see at least paragraph 0187; wherein infrared sensors); at least two infrared receivers (see at least paragraph 0187; wherein infrared sensors); and an image capture sensor (see at least paragraph 0182; wherein sensing module 2100 refers to a device that senses image information of an object in a space where an apparatus equipped with the module); safety control circuitry to: receive infrared data from the at least two infrared receivers (see at least paragraph 0177; wherein depth sensing module 100, for example, infrared IR sensors…see at least paragraph; wherein robot having the depth sensing module mounted); determine a safety status (see at least paragraph 0189; wherein when the sensors 2181 to 189 detect that there are no objects within 5 meters from the robot, the sensors 2181 to 189 provide the detected information to the sensing controller 2900. The controller 2900 may provide this information to the depth camera 2110 or vision camera 2120) related to a detected object based on the infrared data (see at least paragraph 0187; wherein sensors sense the objects around the robot having the sensing module 2100 mounted thereon using infrared rays); and processing circuitry (see at least Figure 8; item 900) to: identify, using the depth image, a change to at least one of a planned trajectory, a map, or a location or an orientation of the robotic system within the map (see at least paragraph 0120; wherein the robot controller 900 may identify an object around the robot based on the sensing results from the depth sensing module 100 and the object sensing module 190 and control the travel path of the robot 1000 based on the identification result). Lee does not explicitly mention emergency braking circuitry; adjustable braking circuitry; end an indication to at least one of the emergency braking circuitry or the adjustable braking circuitry based on the safety status; and receive the infrared data and a color image from the image capture sensor; generate a depth image using the infrared data and the color image. However Oleynikova does disclose: emergency braking circuitry (see at least paragraph 0138; wherein automatic emergency braking (AEB) system); adjustable braking circuitry (see at least paragraph 0138; wherein automatic emergency braking (AEB) system); send an indication to at least one of the emergency braking circuitry or the adjustable braking circuitry based on the safety status (see at least paragraph 0113; wherein the vehicle 800 may include LIDAR sensor(s) 864. The LIDAR sensor(s) 864 may be used for object and pedestrian detection, emergency braking, collision avoidance, and/or other functions. The LIDAR sensor(s) 864 may be functional safety level ASIL B); and receive the infrared data and a color image from the image capture sensor; generate a depth image using the infrared data and the color image (see at least paragraph 0049; wherein the sensors 110 may comprise an RGB-D camera, that includes at least two infrared (IR) sensors from which depth is computed for one or more pixels, and an RGB camera to produce input data 112 that includes a stream of depth and color images. As further examples, the sensors 110 may comprise a pair of RGB cameras arranged and synchronized to operate as a stereo pair. In that case, the depth images may be computed from the output from the stereo pair using a stereo matching algorithm, and the RGB images may be used as the raster images). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Oleynikova with the teachings as in Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve navigation (e.g., dynamic obstacle classification and tracking), see Oleynikova paragraph 0004. As per claim 6, Lee discloses wherein the infrared projector, the at least two infrared receivers, and the image capture sensor are within a single housing of the safety depth camera (see at least paragraph 0182; wherein the sensing module 2100 refers to a device that senses image information of an object in a space where an apparatus equipped with the module, for example, a robot travels…see at least paragraph 0187; wherein the sensing module 2100 includes a plurality of sensors (first to N-th sensors) 2181 to 2189. Examples of sensors include ultrasonic sensors, lidar sensors, infrared sensors). As per claim 10, Oleynikova discloses wherein when the safety status indicates that the detected object is within a first threshold, the indication is sent to the emergency braking circuitry, and when the detected object is outside the first threshold and within a second threshold, the indication is sent to the adjustable braking circuitry (see at least paragraph 0138; wherein the system may set a threshold value for the confidence and consider only the detections exceeding the threshold value as true positive detections. In an automatic emergency braking (AEB) system, false positive detections would cause the vehicle to automatically perform emergency braking, which is obviously undesirable. Therefore, only the most confident detections should be considered as triggers for AEB). As per claim 11, Oleynikova discloses wherein the detected object is a portion of a human (see at least paragraph 0113; wherein the vehicle 800 may include LIDAR sensor(s) 864. The LIDAR sensor(s) 864 may be used for object and pedestrian detection, emergency braking, collision avoidance, and/or other functions. The LIDAR sensor(s) 864 may be functional safety level ASIL B). As per claim 12, Oleynikova discloses wherein to identify, using the depth image, the change includes using a visual Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) algorithm to identify the change to the location and the orientation of the robotic system within the map (see at least paragraph 0007; wherein pose data may be generated from various sources, such as but not limited to data from Visual Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (VSLAM)). As per claim 13, Oleynikova discloses wherein to determine the safety status includes to determine a closest identified obstacle (see at least paragraph 0181; wherein AEB systems detect an impending forward collision with another vehicle or other object, and may automatically apply the brakes if the driver does not take corrective action within a distance parameter).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the infrared data includes a three- dimensional point cloud, and wherein to determine the safety status includes operations to: project the three-dimensional point cloud to a first two-dimensional matrix for a first specified height from a ground location; determine whether the first two-dimensional matrix includes a first set of clusters of a minimum width; and in response to determining that the first two-dimensional matrix includes the first set of clusters of the minimum width, mark, in the map of an environment, the detected object corresponding to the first set of clusters. Claims 8-9 are also object to by virtue of their dependency.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2024/0362928 – Provide leveraging obstacle and lane detections to determine lane assignments for objects in an environment.
USPGPub 2024/0111296 - Provide a driving apparatus and a control method thereof for simultaneously detecting an obstacle in a front and a floor surface height difference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662