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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final office action in response to the RCE filed on 02/18/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-17 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 9-15 are either amended directly or via a claim they depend from.
Claims 4 and 8 are canceled.
Claims 16-17 are new.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Interpretation of Claim 1 under 35 § USC 112(f): Applicant has chosen not to comment at this time. Examiner acknowledges this.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 § USC 103: Applicant’s respectful arguments and corresponding amendments, see pages 10-13, filed on 02/18/2026, are addressed as follows.
First, regarding the amendments towards independent Claims 1 and 12, the Examiner is in agreement with the Applicant that no new matter has been added and support can be found in at least original claim 8 and 13, paragraph [0028], [0041-45], and Figures 6-8 of the original specification.
Second, regarding the addition of new claims 16 and 17, the Examiner is in agreement with the Applicant that no new matter has been added and support was available in the original specification within at least Fig. 8 and paragraphs [0041-0046].
Third, regarding the argument that Glatfelter and Beggs alone do not teach, “wherein the exclusion management unit further allocates a preferential area for each of the respective moving body that surrounds each respective moveable area of each respective moving body, wherein no moving body may allocate or enter a respective preferential area of another moving body,” as recited within amended independent claim 1, the Examiner is in agreement. As the Applicant has successfully argued, with regards to Beggs particularly, (Page 12, Final Line of First Paragraph) “A system that warns after overlap is detected is not the same as a system that prevents overlap.”
Fourth, regarding the argument that Zhang does not disclose or suggest a human-machine cooperative control system that exclusively manages each area such that the movable areas do no overlap, Examiner agrees. However, Examiner wishes to note that Zhang is still relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure due to at least, (Paragraph [0320], Lines 24-28) “generating the collision map based upon the occupancy grid map with an adjustable collision radius. Preferably, the adjustable collision radius is set large enough to permit the robot to bypass obstacles in the occupancy grid without colliding.”
Fifth, with regards to the argument that Ito does not remedy the deficiencies of Glatfelter, Beggs, and Zhang with regards to amended claim 1 and 12, Examiner agrees inasmuch that Ito alone does not cure the deficiencies. However, Examiner wishes to note that Zhang is still relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure due to at least, (Paragraph [0005]) “A management system according to one aspect of the present invention is a management system having a mobility management unit that communicates with a plurality of moving bodies, including an autonomous moving body equipped with an autonomous control unit for moving autonomously, via a communication device and manages the movement of the plurality of moving bodies, wherein the autonomous moving body is characterized in that it has a superiority/inferiority acquisition unit that acquires a priority/inferiority relationship regarding the movement of the autonomous moving body and other moving bodies among the plurality of moving bodies that are different from the autonomous moving body, and a proximity suppression unit that suppresses the approach of the autonomous moving body to the current position of the other moving bodies or the future positions of the other moving bodies when the superiority/inferiority acquisition unit acquires that the autonomous moving body is inferior to the other moving bodies.”
Outcome of Preceding Arguments and Additional Search/Consideration: Examiner thanks Applicant for their insightful and diligent response. As discussed, the arguments/amendments are successful in traversing/rendering moot the rejections under 35 § USC 103 presented in the previous office action. Upon further search and consideration, the Examiner has come across prior art deemed to be relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure that have been applied in a new ground of rejection for the claim set. The rejections are available in the following, Claim Rejections - § USC 103, section.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
Claim 1, Line 14 reads “an exclusion management unit that plans a movable area of each moving body based on a planned route of the unmanned machine and a moving body prediction motion obtained from the moving body motion prediction unit;”
Regarding Prongs 1 and 2: The preceding claim limitation could be reasonably rewritten as “means for planning a movable area,” without changing the scope of the claim.
Regarding Prong 3, the exclusion management unit is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Therefore, the portion of the specification that will be used for the determining the scope of the claim will be paragraph [0024] which reads, “The exclusion management unit 502 has a function of receiving the prediction motion of one or the plurality of moving bodies 1 predicted by the moving body motion prediction unit 501 and the planned route planned by the route planning unit 101 of the unmanned machine la, excluding an area in the shared area 2 such that the courses of the moving bodies 1 do not overlap, and determining the occupied area of each moving body 1.”
Because this claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paschall II et al., (US 2019/0161274 A1) in view of Glatfelter et al., (US 2017/0337820 A1) further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0192388 A1), further in view of Beggs et al. (US 9,230,419 B2, hereinafter Beggs)
Claim 1 Discloses: (Currently Amended)
“A human-machine cooperative control system configured to exclusively manage[[s]] respective movable areas of a person and an unmanned machine capable of autonomously moving such that the person and the unmanned machine do not collide with each other in a shared area,”
Paschall II teaches that the, (Abstract, Lines 1-6) “Disclosed autonomous mobile robot systems can be used to safely and efficiently navigate through a facility while avoiding objects in the path of the autonomous mobile robot during completion of a task. Specifically, a safety zone of a first size may be generated around an autonomous mobile robot,” and further that, (Paragraph [0019], Lines 24-28) “the autonomous mobile robot may encounter unexpected static/stationary or mobile/dynamic obstacles, including human bystanders, which require the autonomous mobile robot to safely and efficiently negotiate around the obstacle to complete its task.”
Therefore, the system of Paschall II manages a movable area around an autonomous vehicle to avoid collision with, for example, a human bystander. Paschall II, however, does not teach an explicit management of a movable area around a person as relayed in the preceding limitation.
“the human-machine cooperative control system comprising: one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media,”
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0041]) “In one illustrative configuration, the fleet management computers 310 may include at least one memory 330 and one or more processing units or processors(s) 332 … to perform the various functions described” and that, (Paragraph [0042], Lines 1-3) “The memory 330, the additional storage 334, both removable and non-removable, are all examples of non-transitory computer-readable storage media.”
“the non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored thereon at least: a moving body position measurement unit that includes one or a plurality of sensors that measure a position of a moving body including the person and the unmanned machine;”
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0029], Lines 13-19) “the navigation computer 200 might attempt to identify objects as humans and estimate their direction and speed of travel using the data captured by the object detection sensors 206 and/or external sensors 212 to better plan the autonomous mobile robots trajectory accounting for the human obstacles and their potential future locations,” and additionally that, (Paragraph [0037], Lines 1-9) “The autonomous mobile robot 312 may also include geo-location devices (e.g., a global positioning system (GPS) device or the like) for providing and/or recording geographic location information associated with the autonomous mobile robot 312 … the autonomous mobile robot 312 may also utilize other sensor technologies for determining location information.”
“a moving body motion prediction unit that predicts a future motion of a target moving body from the position of the moving body measured by the moving body position measurement unit;”
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0029], Lines 10-19) “This configuration of components enables the navigation computer 200 to utilize sophisticated algorithms to generate complex navigation paths in a given environment. For example, the navigation computer 200 might attempt to identify objects as humans and estimate their direction and speed of travel using the data captured by the object detection sensors 206 and/or external sensors 212 to better plan the autonomous mobile robots trajectory accounting for the human obstacles and their potential future locations.”
“an exclusion management unit that plans a movable area of each moving body based on a planned route of the unmanned machine and a moving body prediction motion obtained from the moving body motion prediction unit;”
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0036], Lines 23-27) “By updating the size of the safety zone, the safety module 328 provides a certified fail safe for the navigation module 328 and the local planning paths that it generates to avoid obstacles or objects in the facility,” and further teaches, capability to, (Paragraph [0029], Lines 17-19) “plan the autonomous mobile robots trajectory accounting for the human obstacles and their potential future locations.”
Therefore, the system of Paschall II manages a movable area around an autonomous vehicle to avoid collision with, for example, a human bystander as the vehicle navigates a planned path. One again however, Paschall II does not teach an explicit management of a movable area around a person during said person’s pathing.
“… and wherein the exclusion management unit further allocates a preferential area for each respective moving body that surrounds each respective moveable area of each respective moving body, wherein no moving body may allocate or enter a respective preferential area of another moving body;”
Figure 1 of Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0026], Lines 1-8) “a buffer zone or hazard zone 114 around the autonomous mobile robot 102. The buffer zone 114 may be increased based on the physical dimensions associated with a payload that the autonomous mobile robot is moving through the facility. The buffer zone 114 may be generated and maintained by the safety verification system and utilize safety sensors or separate sensors to detect breaches of the buffer zone 114,” and further teaches that, “FIG. 1 depicts an autonomous mobile robot 102 with … a safety zone 106.”
The Examiner is mapping the “buffer zone” to the “movable area” and the “safety zone” to the “preferential area,” in relation to the Applicant’s claims.
Examiner additionally wishes to state that the “safety zone” does not completely surround that “buffer zone” of Figure 1 in the exact same manner in which the “preferential area” surrounds the “moving area” in the preceding portion of the claims. However, the “safety zone” does expand upon/surround the front facing portion of the “buffer zone in Figure 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
317
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Paschall II additionally teaches that, (Paragraph [0072], Lines 4-8) “As described herein, the size and shape of the second bounded area (e.g., the safety zone) of the autonomous mobile robot may dynamically update based on the speed of the autonomous mobile robot as controlled by the navigation computer,” the added buffer giving the autonomous vehicle the ability to have a greater stopping distance to avoid collision should it speed up. As Paschall II describes, (Paragraph [0057], Lines 11-16) “the navigation computer of the autonomous mobile robot 524 is able to utilize a higher speed thereby increasing the size and shape of the safety zone 526 thereby allowing an appropriate standoff distance for the autonomous mobile robot to come to a complete stop should an object penetrate the safety zone 526.”
Paschall II additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0069], Lines 24-27) “The autonomous mobile robot may include a safety verification computer that is configured to generate and maintain a second bounded area around the autonomous mobile robot.” Therefore, the second bounded area/safety zone which extends beyond the buffer zone as shown in Figure 1 may also surround the vehicle.
“and wherein the exclusion management unit performs continuous overlap determination between the moving bodies including predicting overlap between the moving bodies in future intervals.”
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0066], Lines 21-33) “The autonomous mobile robot 1014 is illustrated as navigating in a second direction 1018 in passage 1020 between safe walls or barriers 1006 and 1022. The autonomous mobile robot 1014 also has a buffer zone 1024. As illustrated in FIG. 10, the safety zones 1008 and 1016 are of a similar size and shape as both autonomous mobile robots are utilizing speed lane modes and are navigating through passages that include two safety walls 1004/1006 or 1006/1022. As such, the size and shape of safety zones 1008 and 1016 do not intersect and allow for safe and continuous travel of autonomous mobile robots 1000 and 1014 in proximity to each other but in opposite or similar directions.”
Glatfelter, which will be formally introduced with the next set of limitations, also teaches the preceding limitations.
Glatfelter teaches an (Paragraph [0037]) “anticipatory collision avoidance system 200 … In operation, the sensor devices 302 capture location information, which in some embodiments, is provided by continuous monitoring of the location of the objects to which the sensor devices 302 are coupled and which information may be used to determine where the objects are likely going to be in the future,” and that, (Paragraph [0039], Lines 5-12) “For example, interface/collision rules may be managed by the anticipatory collision avoidance system 200 and alerts determined by the server 308 and used to provide corresponding warnings. In some embodiments, one or more threshold rules may be defined to determine the distance at which a warning should be issued, which may be based on a number of different factors as discussed herein.”
Secondary reference Glatfelter provides the necessary teachings for a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the remaining preceding claimed limitations, specially managing movable areas and preferred areas for both an unmanned machine and a person.
“exclusively manage[[s]] respective movable areas of a person and an unmanned machine capable … wherein the exclusion management unit further allocates a preferential area for each respective moving body that surrounds each respective movable area of each respective moving body”
Glatfelter is not explicitly related to autonomous systems, however, Glatfelter does teach, (Paragraph [0002], Lines 1-4) “Cranes, forklift trucks, automated equipment, robots, and other hazards within a building, such as a factory, can have a direct impact on the health and safety of individuals within the building,” and therefore one or ordinary skill in the art would have easily contemplated the disclosure of Glatfelter applying to autonomously moving vehicles.
Glatfelter teaches, (Paragraph [0024], Lines 1-8) “As illustrated in FIG. 1, a collision avoidance system 100 is configured as a dynamic collision avoidance system. In the illustrated embodiment, the collision avoidance system 100 operates to provide dynamic warnings within one or more areas 102 and 104 of potential collision between a moving object 106 (illustrated as an engine being moved by an overhead crane 108) and one or more individuals 110 moving/operating equipment.”
Additionally, Figure 7 of Glatfelter portrays a scenario wherein an manned machine 702 is ensured not to collide with a person 704, each with their own respective keep out areas.
PNG
media_image2.png
241
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the collision prevention system for autonomous vehicles which is capable of avoiding collisions between autonomous vehicles and bystanders as taught by Paschall II, with the explicit creation of a mobile keep-out zone which is applied to humans in the vicinity of the working machine as taught by Glatfelter, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the well-known safety benefits by avoiding collision between a machine and human using an, (Paragraph [0053]) “anticipatory collision avoidance system 200,” which relies upon, “radial safety zones around each object, etc,” the overlap of which can be continuously monitored. As Glatfelter further describes, (Paragraph [0037], Lines 9-15) “In operation, the sensor devices 302 capture location information, which in some embodiments, is provided by continuous monitoring of the location of the objects to which the sensor devices 302 are coupled and which information may be used to determine where the objects are likely going to be in the future.”
It would have been additionally obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply the “buffer zone” and “safety zone” which are applied to autonomous vehicles as taught by Paschall II to the human safety zones taught by Glatfelter, in order to yield predictable results.
Paschall II relays that, (Paragraph [0072], Lines 4-8) “As described herein, the size and shape of the second bounded area (e.g., the safety zone) of the autonomous mobile robot may dynamically update based on the speed of the autonomous mobile robot as controlled by the navigation computer,” the added buffer giving the autonomous vehicle the ability to have a greater stopping distance to avoid collision should it speed up. As Paschall II describes, (Paragraph [0057], Lines 11-16) “the navigation computer of the autonomous mobile robot 524 is able to utilize a higher speed thereby increasing the size and shape of the safety zone 526 thereby allowing an appropriate standoff distance for the autonomous mobile robot to come to a complete stop should an object penetrate the safety zone 526.”
Combining the references would yield the benefits of applying additional stopping distance to a human, which is capable of exhibiting movement, and therefore has a corresponding stopping distance as well. As Paschall II describes, (Paragraph [0019], Lines 22-25) “In embodiments, during the course of navigating a facility or workspace, the autonomous mobile robot may encounter unexpected static/stationary or mobile/dynamic obstacles, including human bystanders,” and that, (Paragraph [0055], Lines 21-24) “the safety zone 508 is shaped and sized to respond to an erratic collision course by the object 510 or human 512 into the path of the autonomous mobile robot 50.” Therefore, expanded tolerance on the keep zone gives time and space to respond to unusual situations. As Glatfelter additionally describes, (Paragraph [0003]) “Human reaction time is limited by the human speed to process the warnings and complexity of things known and things that can be seen and heard. This process is challenging, for example, in a factory environment due to noise reduction devices (e.g., ear plugs, music headphones, etc.) and also limited by line-of-sight threats,” therefore the expansion of a keep out zone into a preferential area would also yield the benefits of allowing more time for a human to become aware of a potential collision situation and avoid the danger.
“and an information presentation unit that presents, to a target person, movable area information for a person among movable areas of moving bodies planned by the exclusion management unit;”
Paschall II does not explicitly teach the preceding limitations. However, Paschall II does teach the following.
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0031], Lines 1-3) “the user devices 304 may be configured for communicating with an autonomous mobile robot 312 via networks 308,” and that, (Paragraph [0026], Lines 8-17) “When the autonomous mobile robot 102 is operating within a space that causes obstacles to breach the buffer zone 114, the safety verification system enforces a minimal speed for the autonomous mobile robot 102 to utilize and also generates a signal such as an audible warning, a visible warning (e.g., an update to a user interface associated with the autonomous mobile robot 102 or a user interface of a computing device of a user and/or associated with a facility) regarding the breach of the buffer zone 114,”
PNG
media_image3.png
96
179
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Top Right Portion of FIG. 3
Glatfelter does explicitly teach the preceding limitations.
Glatfelter teaches, (Paragraph [0061]) “The process 500 includes determining a collision count at 530. For example, based on threshold values and the comparisons at 522, if no potential collisions are determined, then at 532 an output is generated to display an indication that there are no potential collisions. This displayed information may be used by an operator of equipment moving the object 106 to confirm that continued movement of the object 106 is in a safe movement zone. If one or more potential collisions are determined, then at 534 an output (e.g., output signal) is generated and a warning is provided as described herein (e.g., a tactile, visual or audible warning) to all objects 106 and individuals 110 in the potential collision area as stored in the database 524.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Paschall II with the information display system of Glatfelter, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the well-known benefits of providing machine operators an indication on whether a dangerous collision is probable so they can potentially avoid the situation if presented. As Glatfelter describes, (Paragraph [0061]) “If one or more potential collisions are determined, then at 534 an output (e.g., output signal) is generated and a warning is provided as described herein (e.g., a tactile, visual or audible warning) to all objects 106 and individuals 110 in the potential collision area as stored in the database 524.”
“wherein the exclusion management unit divides an exclusion management target area in a lattice shape comprising divided areas having a predetermined size, and determines the movable areas of the respective moving bodies so that the movable areas of the moving bodies do not overlap each other, for each of the divided areas in a minimum unit;”
Pachall II and Glatfelter do not teach the preceding limitations.
However, Zhang does teach the preceding limitations.
Zhang teaches, (Paragraph [0320], Lines 23-45) “The planner initiates generating the collision map based upon the occupancy grid map with an adjustable collision radius. Preferably, the adjustable collision radius is set large enough to permit the robot to bypass obstacles in the occupancy grid without colliding, as will be described in further detail herein below with reference to FIGS. 27A and 27B. FIG. 27A illustrates an example collision map 2700 for an area coverage application in one implementation. Collision map 2700 is generated by planner to determine a “safe” path around an obstacle 2702 that lies at the center cell of the collision map 2700. When finding a path about an obstacle, the planner can build the collision map 2700 with cells representing the cell size in the occupancy grid and plot known obstacles in the collision map. Now with reference to FIG. 27B, illustrating again collision map 2700 and obstacle 2702 at the center cell. Here, the planner has set an adjustable collision radius to 1 cell and marked all cells 2703 that fall within the collision radius (1 cell) and surround obstacle 2702 as obstacles as well. The planner can now determine waypoints to move the robot through the collision map and that do not fall within any of cells 2703, thereby avoiding collision with obstacle 2702 in one implementation.”
Zhang additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0371], Lines 5-22) “The collision map is generated based upon an occupancy grid map with an adjustable collision radius. The adjustable collision radius is set large enough to permit the robot to bypass obstacles in the occupancy grid without colliding. In some implementations, setting the collision radius large enough includes the collision map being used in generating the path to a target point, and generated waypoints will be far from obstacles to avoid collision, by generating the collision map as an occupancy grid map; and in the collision map generated, enlarging obstacles in the map by the collision radius, thereby marking as obstacles cells adjacent to an actual obstacle lying within the collision radius. In some implementations the collision radius is at least the size of one cell in the collision map. In some implementations the collision radius in the collision map is at least 40 cm. In some implementations collision radius in the collision map is at least 50 cm.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the dynamic collision avoidance system of Paschall II and Glatfelter and which are capable of creating safety radiuses around a plurality of moving vehicles, with the ability to define an overlap of a radius of an obstacle within an occupancy grid indicating a potential collision as taught by Zhang, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the benefit of being able to expand the conservatism of a collision radius by relating it to the coverage of sized cells with an occupancy grid, in order to avoid collisions and improve safety. As Zhang describes, (Paragraph [0371], Lines 7-22) “The adjustable collision radius is set large enough to permit the robot to bypass obstacles in the occupancy grid without colliding … [by] enlarging obstacles in the map by the collision radius, thereby marking as obstacles cells adjacent to an actual obstacle lying within the collision radius. In some implementations the collision radius is at least the size of one cell in the collision map. In some implementations the collision radius in the collision map is at least 40 cm. In some implementations collision radius in the collision map is at least 50 cm.”
“
Zhang does not explicitly teach the divided area’s size being determined based on calculation performance of the one or more processors, work efficiency, safety, and a number of moving bodies in the work area.
However, it would be obvious to determine the size in this manner in light of the Beggs reference.
Beggs teaches, (Page 25, Column 5, Lines 49-52) “FIG. 1 shows an unmodulated warning zone 10 that has a circular cross section since the transmitter generates a field that radiates in all directions.”
PNG
media_image4.png
413
381
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Beggs additionally teaches, (Page 29, Column 13, Lines 52-55) “As mentioned, several of these example systems included the ability to take the route to be traveled into account in creating the shape and size of the warning zone.”
Beggs additionally teaches, (Page 41, Column 37, Lines 41-46) “The example system 1700 of FIG. 17 includes a processor 1712. For example, the processor 1712 can be implemented by one or more Intel® microprocessors from the Pentium® family, the Itanium® family or the XScale® family. Of course, other processors from other families are also appropriate,” and additionally teaches that, (Page 29, Column 14, Lines 4-10) “Better still is the ability to give more accurate information about the direction and imminence of the threat. Providing this, however, could require enhanced processing capability being carried with the recipient of the signal, which could be undesirable given size and power limitations. Compensating for those requirements while still giving the desired functionality is desirable.”
“work efficiency,”
Beggs teaches, (Page 23, Column, 2, Lines 52-54) “, an imprecise and/or constant apprehension of danger may result in the loss of productivity of the affected personnel.”
“safety, and a number of moving bodies in the work area;”
Beggs teaches, (Page 28, Column 11, Lines 62-67 and Page 28, Column 12, Lines 1-5) “Other ways of determining “zones” of different threat levels can also be employed. For example, one zone may be considered more dangerous than another based on population or traffic density—a higher density arguably representing a greater threat. Creating zones based on population density can be done statistically (such as by monitoring areas over time and assigning densities to various areas based on the results), or dynamically such that the area of a more dangerous “high density” zone can change over time to reflect changed circumstances in a given parameter like population density.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the Zhang reference to adjust the size of its divided areas based upon on calculation performance of the one or more processors, work efficiency, safety, and a number of moving bodies in the work area, in light of the Beggs reference, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references with Beggs once more would yield the benefits of balancing, safety, efficiency, and performance of the system depending on the presented situation. As Beggs describes, (Page 28, Column 11, Lines 62-67 and Page 28, Column 12, Lines 1-5) “ways of determining “zones” of different threat levels can also be employed. For example, one zone may be considered more dangerous than another based on population or traffic density,” and that, (Page 23, Column, 2, Lines 52-54) “, an imprecise and/or constant apprehension of danger may result in the loss of productivity of the affected personnel,” as well as, (Page 29, Column 14, Lines 4-10) “Better still is the ability to give more accurate information about the direction and imminence of the threat. Providing this, however, could require enhanced processing capability being carried with the recipient of the signal, which could be undesirable given size and power limitations. Compensating for those requirements while still giving the desired functionality is desirable.”
Claim 2 Discloses: (Original)
“The human-machine cooperative control system according to claim 1, wherein an area deviation prevention function of transmitting, to a target unmanned machine, movable area information for an unmanned machine among the movable areas of the moving bodies planned by the exclusion management unit,”
Paschall II does teach the preceding limitation.
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0026], Lines 8-17) “When the autonomous mobile robot 102 is operating within a space that causes obstacles to breach the buffer zone 114, the safety verification system enforces a minimal speed for the autonomous mobile robot 102 to utilize and also generates a signal such as an audible warning, a visible warning (e.g., an update to a user interface associated with the autonomous mobile robot 102 or a user interface of a computing device of a user and/or associated with a facility) regarding the breach of the buffer zone 114,” and that, (Paragraph [0028], Lines 10-14) “a facility or workspace may include a number of sensors similar to the object detection sensors 206 that capture sensor data and wirelessly communicate the data to the navigation computer 200 for local route planning and object detection.”
Glatfelter also teaches the preceding limitation.
Glatfelter teaches, (Paragraph [0050]) “In operation, the wireless sensor network 300 provides for communication of location and movement information of one or more of the objects 106 and individuals 110, which is processed by the anticipatory collision avoidance system 200 to identify potential collision locations. For example, interface/collision rules may be managed by the anticipatory collision avoidance system 200 and alerts determined by the server 308 and used to provide corresponding warnings. In some embodiments, one or more threshold rules may be defined to determine the distance at which a warning should be issued, which may be based on a number of different factors as discussed herein.”
“and limiting traveling of the unmanned machine so as not to enter an area other than the movable area is provided.”
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0025], Lines 5-13) “If the obstacle 110 moves or the instructions cause the autonomous mobile robot 102 to move within a certain distance of the obstacle 110 which causes the obstacle to breach the safety zone 106, then the safety verification system would override or veto any instructions from the navigation computer to propulsion mechanisms of the autonomous mobile robot 102 to cease propulsion and safely stop the autonomous mobile robot 102.”
Claim 3 Discloses: (Original)
“The human-machine cooperative control system according to claim 1, wherein the exclusion management unit plans the movable area of each moving body based on the planned route and/or the moving body prediction motion for a predetermined time length with respect to the planned route of the unmanned machine and the moving body prediction motion obtained from the moving body motion prediction unit.”
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0029], Lines 1-19) “With this configuration, the navigation computer 200 can optimize path and velocity plans given the detected obstacles detected by the obstacle detection sensors 206. For example, the navigation computer 200 would evaluate a minimum time to complete a task comparing a direct route through tight clutter or multiple obstacles (that would mandate slow speeds to fit the safety zone generated by the safety computer 202) versus a longer, more open route around the clutter or multiple obstacles (which would allow for faster speeds). This configuration of components enables the navigation computer 200 to utilize sophisticated algorithms to generate complex navigation paths in a given environment. For example, the navigation computer 200 might attempt to identify objects as humans and estimate their direction and speed of travel using the data captured by the object detection sensors 206 and/or external sensors 212 to better plan the autonomous mobile robots trajectory accounting for the human obstacles and their potential future locations.”
Claim 6 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The human-machine cooperative control system according to claim 1, wherein, in a first case where the planned route and/or the moving body prediction motion overlaps in the same division area, and in a second case where the division area has already been allocated as a movable area of any unmanned machine or moving body,”
Pachall II, Glatfelter, and Beggs do not teach all the preceding limitations.
Zhang does teach the preceding limitations.
Zhang teaches (Paragraph [0320], Lines 6-17) “A planner can determine for each unknown space candidate that the unknown space candidate is accessible via an entrance having a size large enough to permit the robot to pass through. For example, one criterion is whether an entrance has a size larger than four times a cell size for cells in an occupancy grid map. Taking an example robot implementation having a 33 cm. lengthwise dimension and a cell size of 10 cm., four times the cell size (40 cm.) for cells in the occupancy grid map provides entrance that is at least 40 cm. and at least 50 cm. for a larger cell size. Candidate unknown spaces having entrances too small to accommodate the robot can be marked inaccessible.”
“the exclusion management unit continuously determines the division area as the movable area with respect to the unmanned machine or the moving body.”
Zhang teaches, (Paragraph [0318], Lines 13-16) “Information from the robot's sensors is continuously updated and reflected in the 3D map and occupancy grid.”
Zhang additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0314], Lines 4-9) “In cases where the robot finds itself in an unmapped environment, the occupancy grid and path planning can be used without a previously built map by using the SLAM system described herein above to build a map in real-time, thereby enabling the robot to localize itself in the unmapped environment.”
Zhang additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0316], Lines 16-22) “As the robot moves, a process gathers sensory information from the camera(s), tactile and non-tactile sensors of the robot platform and wheel odometry information from one or more wheel sensors, from which the robot's position in its environment and the positions and locations of obstacles are updated in an occupancy grid map (OGM),”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the structure of Paschall II, Glatfelter, and Beggs, particularly the structure of Glatfelter which identifies overlapping areas amongst a plurality of moving machines, with the structure of Zhang which explicitly can continually update the status of an occupancy grid with regards to obstacles in the environment, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the safety benefits of more accurate collision avoidance by being up to date on exactly which grids of a space are occupied and alter plans accordingly. As Zhang describes, (Paragraph [0320], Lines 31-34) “Collision map 2700 is generated by planner to determine a “safe” path around an obstacle 2702 that lies at the center cell of the collision map 2700,” and that (Paragraph [0007], Lines 10-13) “solutions in the field of task planning fail to include sensory data captured in real time, and thus are incapable of conducting planning or altering plans based upon changing conditions sensed in real time.”
Claim 7 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The human-machine cooperative control system according to claim 1, wherein the exclusion management unit changes a size of a division area allocated as the movable area of for each moving body based on an attribute and action history information of the moving body.”
Pachall II teaches, (Paragraph [0024], Lines 13-22) “The size and shape of the safety zone 106 is determined based at least in part on current speed of the autonomous mobile robot 102 which in turn is determined by the navigation computer of the autonomous mobile robot. In accordance with at least one embodiment, the navigation computer system independently controls the speed and direction of the autonomous mobile robot 102 while generating a new local plan or local obstacle avoidance plan 112 but considers the safety zone 106 size and shape when generating the new local plan 112.”
Claim 9 Discloses: (Original)
“The human-machine cooperative control system according to claim 1, wherein the information presentation unit displays information by projecting an image or a video onto a ground by a projector.”
Paschall II does not teach the preceding limitation; however, Glatfelter does teach the preceding limitations.
Glatfelter teaches, (Paragraph [0019], Lines 13-15) “In some embodiments, the system provides the capability for dynamic alerts, such as illuminated projections onto the factory floor.”
Glatfelter additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0026]) “In various embodiments, a projection device 114 (e.g., a projector or illuminating device) is configured to project the messages (and/or other indicia or symbols) regarding the potential collision conditions in the areas 102 and 104. For example, the projection device 114 may be mounted to a wall or ceiling in the building and tracks or is caused to move the projection 116 as the object 106 moves. It should be noted that the size and shape of the areas 102 and 104 in which the projection 112 is provided may change, such as based one or more factors of the moving object 106 and the individuals 110, such as the mass and speed of each. Thus, the individuals 110 in the illustrated embodiment are able to view the moving projection 116 (e.g., moving floor marking) that provides a dynamic warning of a potential collision condition with the object 106.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Paschall II with the illumination projector of Glatfelter, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the reference would yield the well-known benefits of providing a visual indicator for humans to understand a keep-out zone to and be safe by avoiding potential collisions. As Glatfelter describes, (Paragraph [0026], Lines 12-15) “the individuals 110 in the illustrated embodiment are able to view the moving projection 116 (e.g., moving floor marking) that provides a dynamic warning of a potential collision condition with the object 106.”
Claim 10 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The human-machine cooperative control system according to claim 1, wherein the information presentation unit displays information by switching light-emitting of a light-emittance object buried in a ground.”
Paschall II, Glatfelter, and Zhang do not teach the preceding limitations. However, Beggs does teach the preceding limitation.
Beggs teaches, (Page 26, Column 8, Lines 4-41) “Another example of a proximity based detection system for hazards uses visual light to create a warning field that can be detected by sensors, but that is also visible to the eye. As depicted in FIGS. 6A and 6B, a forktruck FT is fitted with one or more light sources 40 … The projection and ability to perceive these “light signal” may be enhanced by painting the floor of the facility with a reflective paint, or by adding reflective grit to the concrete floor when poured.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the light emittance of the grit in the ground is switched depending on whether the light source of the fortruck in currently beaming on it.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Paschall II, Glatfelter, and Zhang, with the machine light sources and reflective contents of the ground as taught by Beggs, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the safety benefits of illuminating the ground to notify machine operators and/or pedestrians the relative safety of the area around a machine. As Beggs describes, (Page 26, Column 9, Lines 31-38) “The green illumination (either only in the forward direction, or surrounding the forktruck, or taking other shapes) serves as a visual indication to the forktruck driver that the path he is pursuing is “safe” (no pedestrian interactions have been detected), and also as a visual indication to surrounding pedestrians that the path of the forktruck is “safe” insofar as close-proximity pedestrians have not been detected.”
Claim 11 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The human-machine cooperative control system according to claim 1, wherein the information presentation unit displays information by displaying an image or a video on a display device of a person.”
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0031], Lines 1-3) “the user devices 304 may be configured for communicating with an autonomous mobile robot 312 via networks 308,” and that, (Paragraph [0026], Lines 8-17) “When the autonomous mobile robot 102 is operating within a space that causes obstacles to breach the buffer zone 114, the safety verification system enforces a minimal speed for the autonomous mobile robot 102 to utilize and also generates a signal such as an audible warning, a visible warning (e.g., an update to a user interface associated with the autonomous mobile robot 102 or a user interface of a computing device of a user and/or associated with a facility) regarding the breach of the buffer zone 114.” Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0031], Lines 1-3) “the user devices 304 may be configured for communicating with an autonomous mobile robot 312 via networks 308,” and that, (Paragraph [0026], Lines 8-17) “When the autonomous mobile robot 102 is operating within a space that causes obstacles to breach the buffer zone 114, the safety verification system enforces a minimal speed for the autonomous mobile robot 102 to utilize and also generates a signal such as an audible warning, a visible warning (e.g., an update to a user interface associated with the autonomous mobile robot 102 or a user interface of a computing device of a user and/or associated with a facility) regarding the breach of the buffer zone 114.” A person or ordinary skill in the art would understand a visible warning would comprise some form of an image.
Claim 12 Discloses: (Currently Amended)
“A human-machine cooperative control method for exclusively managing each movable area such that a person and an unmanned machine capable of autonomously moving do not collide with each other in a shared area,”
Paschall II teaches that the, (Abstract, Lines 1-6) “Disclosed autonomous mobile robot systems can be used to safely and efficiently navigate through a facility while avoiding objects in the path of the autonomous mobile robot during completion of a task. Specifically, a safety zone of a first size may be generated around an autonomous mobile robot,” and further that, (Paragraph [0019], Lines 24-28) “the autonomous mobile robot may encounter unexpected static/stationary or mobile/dynamic obstacles, including human bystanders, which require the autonomous mobile robot to safely and efficiently negotiate around the obstacle to complete its task.”
Therefore, the system of Paschall II manages a movable area around an autonomous vehicle to avoid collision with, for example, a human bystander. Paschall II, however, does not teach an explicit management of a movable area around a person as relayed in the preceding limitation.
“the human-machine cooperative control method comprising: measuring a position of a moving body including the person and the unmanned machine; predicting a future motion of a target moving body from the position of the moving body;”
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0029], Lines 13-19) “the navigation computer 200 might attempt to identify objects as humans and estimate their direction and speed of travel using the data captured by the object detection sensors 206 and/or external sensors 212 to better plan the autonomous mobile robots trajectory accounting for the human obstacles and their potential future locations,” and additionally that, (Paragraph [0037], Lines 1-9) “The autonomous mobile robot 312 may also include geo-location devices (e.g., a global positioning system (GPS) device or the like) for providing and/or recording geographic location information associated with the autonomous mobile robot 312 … the autonomous mobile robot 312 may also utilize other sensor technologies for determining location information.”
Paschall II additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0029], Lines 10-19) “This configuration of components enables the navigation computer 200 to utilize sophisticated algorithms to generate complex navigation paths in a given environment. For example, the navigation computer 200 might attempt to identify objects as humans and estimate their direction and speed of travel using the data captured by the object detection sensors 206 and/or external sensors 212 to better plan the autonomous mobile robots trajectory accounting for the human obstacles and their potential future locations.”
“planning a movable area of each moving body based on a planned route and a moving body prediction motion of the unmanned machine;”
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0036], Lines 23-27) “By updating the size of the safety zone, the safety module 328 provides a certified fail safe for the navigation module 328 and the local planning paths that it generates to avoid obstacles or objects in the facility,” and further teaches, capability to, (Paragraph [0029], Lines 17-19) “plan the autonomous mobile robots trajectory accounting for the human obstacles and their potential future locations.”
Therefore, the system of Paschall II manages a movable area around an autonomous vehicle to avoid collision with, for example, a human bystander as the vehicle navigates a planned path. One again, however, Paschall II does not teach an explicit management of a movable area around a person during said person’s pathing.
“… wherein the respective movable areas include respective occupied areas set along a course of each respective moving body and respective preferential areas set around each respective occupied area such that no moving body may allocate or enter a respective preferential area of another moving body,”
Figure 1 of Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0026], Lines 1-8) “a buffer zone or hazard zone 114 around the autonomous mobile robot 102. The buffer zone 114 may be increased based on the physical dimensions associated with a payload that the autonomous mobile robot is moving through the facility. The buffer zone 114 may be generated and maintained by the safety verification system and utilize safety sensors or separate sensors to detect breaches of the buffer zone 114,” and further teaches that, “FIG. 1 depicts an autonomous mobile robot 102 with … a safety zone 106.”
The Examiner is mapping the “buffer zone” to the “occupied area” and the “safety zone” to the “preferential area,” in relation to the Applicant’s claims.
Examiner additionally wishes to state that the “safety zone” does not completely surround that “buffer zone” of Figure 1 in the exact same manner in which the “preferential area” surrounds the “occupied area” in the preceding portion of the claims. However, the “safety zone” does expand upon/surround the front facing portion of the “buffer zone in Figure 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
317
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Paschall II additionally teaches that, (Paragraph [0072], Lines 4-8) “As described herein, the size and shape of the second bounded area (e.g., the safety zone) of the autonomous mobile robot may dynamically update based on the speed of the autonomous mobile robot as controlled by the navigation computer,” the added buffer giving the autonomous vehicle the ability to have a greater stopping distance to avoid collision should it speed up. As Paschall II describes, (Paragraph [0057], Lines 11-16) “the navigation computer of the autonomous mobile robot 524 is able to utilize a higher speed thereby increasing the size and shape of the safety zone 526 thereby allowing an appropriate standoff distance for the autonomous mobile robot to come to a complete stop should an object penetrate the safety zone 526.”
Paschall II additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0069], Lines 24-27) “The autonomous mobile robot may include a safety verification computer that is configured to generate and maintain a second bounded area around the autonomous mobile robot.” Therefore, the second bounded area/safety zone which extends beyond the buffer zone as shown in Figure 1 may also surround the vehicle.
“and performing continuous overlap determination between the moving bodies including predicting overlap between the moving bodies in future intervals.”
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0066], Lines 21-33) “The autonomous mobile robot 1014 is illustrated as navigating in a second direction 1018 in passage 1020 between safe walls or barriers 1006 and 1022. The autonomous mobile robot 1014 also has a buffer zone 1024. As illustrated in FIG. 10, the safety zones 1008 and 1016 are of a similar size and shape as both autonomous mobile robots are utilizing speed lane modes and are navigating through passages that include two safety walls 1004/1006 or 1006/1022. As such, the size and shape of safety zones 1008 and 1016 do not intersect and allow for safe and continuous travel of autonomous mobile robots 1000 and 1014 in proximity to each other but in opposite or similar directions.”
Glatfelter, which will be formally introduced with the next set of limitations, also teaches the preceding limitations.
Glatfelter teaches an (Paragraph [0037]) “anticipatory collision avoidance system 200 … In operation, the sensor devices 302 capture location information, which in some embodiments, is provided by continuous monitoring of the location of the objects to which the sensor devices 302 are coupled and which information may be used to determine where the objects are likely going to be in the future,” and that, (Paragraph [0039], Lines 5-12) “For example, interface/collision rules may be managed by the anticipatory collision avoidance system 200 and alerts determined by the server 308 and used to provide corresponding warnings. In some embodiments, one or more threshold rules may be defined to determine the distance at which a warning should be issued, which may be based on a number of different factors as discussed herein.”
Secondary reference Glatfelter provides the necessary teachings for a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the remaining preceding claimed limitations, specially managing movable areas and preferred areas for both an unmanned machine and a person.
“exclusively manage[[s]] respective movable areas of a person and an unmanned machine capable … wherein the exclusion management unit further allocates a preferential area for each respective moving body that surrounds each respective movable area of each respective moving body”
Glatfelter is not explicitly related to autonomous systems, however, Glatfelter does teach, (Paragraph [0002], Lines 1-4) “Cranes, forklift trucks, automated equipment, robots, and other hazards within a building, such as a factory, can have a direct impact on the health and safety of individuals within the building,” and therefore one or ordinary skill in the art would have easily contemplated the disclosure of Glatfelter applying to autonomously moving vehicles.
Glatfelter teaches, (Paragraph [0024], Lines 1-8) “As illustrated in FIG. 1, a collision avoidance system 100 is configured as a dynamic collision avoidance system. In the illustrated embodiment, the collision avoidance system 100 operates to provide dynamic warnings within one or more areas 102 and 104 of potential collision between a moving object 106 (illustrated as an engine being moved by an overhead crane 108) and one or more individuals 110 moving/operating equipment.”
Additionally, Figure 7 of Glatfelter portrays a scenario wherein an manned machine 702 is ensured not to collide with a person 704, each with their own respective keep out areas.
PNG
media_image2.png
241
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the collision prevention system for autonomous vehicles which is capable of avoiding collisions between autonomous vehicles and bystanders as taught by Paschall II, with the explicit creation of a mobile keep-out zone which is applied to humans in the vicinity of the working machine as taught by Glatfelter, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the well-known safety benefits by avoiding collision between a machine and human using an, (Paragraph [0053]) “anticipatory collision avoidance system 200,” which relies upon, “radial safety zones around each object, etc,” the overlap of which can be continuously monitored. As Glatfelter further describes, (Paragraph [0037], Lines 9-15) “In operation, the sensor devices 302 capture location information, which in some embodiments, is provided by continuous monitoring of the location of the objects to which the sensor devices 302 are coupled and which information may be used to determine where the objects are likely going to be in the future.”
It would have been additionally obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply the “buffer zone” and “safety zone” which are applied to autonomous vehicles as taught by Paschall II to the human safety zones taught by Glatfelter, in order to yield predictable results.
Paschall II relays that, (Paragraph [0072], Lines 4-8) “As described herein, the size and shape of the second bounded area (e.g., the safety zone) of the autonomous mobile robot may dynamically update based on the speed of the autonomous mobile robot as controlled by the navigation computer,” the added buffer giving the autonomous vehicle the ability to have a greater stopping distance to avoid collision should it speed up. As Paschall II describes, (Paragraph [0057], Lines 11-16) “the navigation computer of the autonomous mobile robot 524 is able to utilize a higher speed thereby increasing the size and shape of the safety zone 526 thereby allowing an appropriate standoff distance for the autonomous mobile robot to come to a complete stop should an object penetrate the safety zone 526.”
Combining the references would yield the benefits of applying additional stopping distance to a human, which is capable of exhibiting movement, and therefore has a corresponding stopping distance as well. As Paschall II describes, (Paragraph [0019], Lines 22-25) “In embodiments, during the course of navigating a facility or workspace, the autonomous mobile robot may encounter unexpected static/stationary or mobile/dynamic obstacles, including human bystanders,” and that, (Paragraph [0055], Lines 21-24) “the safety zone 508 is shaped and sized to respond to an erratic collision course by the object 510 or human 512 into the path of the autonomous mobile robot 50.” Therefore, expanded tolerance on the keep zone gives time and space to respond to unusual situations. As Glatfelter additionally describes, (Paragraph [0003]) “Human reaction time is limited by the human speed to process the warnings and complexity of things known and things that can be seen and heard. This process is challenging, for example, in a factory environment due to noise reduction devices (e.g., ear plugs, music headphones, etc.) and also limited by line-of-sight threats,” therefore the expansion of a keep out zone into a preferential area would also yield the benefits of allowing more time for a human to become aware of a potential collision situation and avoid the danger.
“presenting, to a target person, movable area information for a person among movable areas of moving bodies;”
Paschall II does not explicitly teach the preceding limitations. However, Paschall II does teach the following.
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0031], Lines 1-3) “the user devices 304 may be configured for communicating with an autonomous mobile robot 312 via networks 308,” and that, (Paragraph [0026], Lines 8-17) “When the autonomous mobile robot 102 is operating within a space that causes obstacles to breach the buffer zone 114, the safety verification system enforces a minimal speed for the autonomous mobile robot 102 to utilize and also generates a signal such as an audible warning, a visible warning (e.g., an update to a user interface associated with the autonomous mobile robot 102 or a user interface of a computing device of a user and/or associated with a facility) regarding the breach of the buffer zone 114,”
PNG
media_image3.png
96
179
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Top Right Portion of FIG. 3
Glatfelter does explicitly teach the preceding limitations.
“The process 500 includes, for each object, deriving all center locations of the object(s) 106 and/or individual(s) 110 and a defined radius there around at 520. This step at 520 defines an anticipatory collision avoidance area around the object(s) 106 and/or individual(s) 110 (safety zone or radius), which if another object 106 and/or individual 110 is detected therein, a warning may be provided. For example, at 522, the radiuses of the object(s) 106 and/or individual(s) 110 are compared at 522 to determine if a predefined distance is less than the radius of one of the object(s) 106 and/or individual(s) 110 and another one of the object(s) 106 and/or individual(s) 110 in proximity thereto.”
Glatfelter teaches, (Paragraph [0061]) “The process 500 includes determining a collision count at 530. For example, based on threshold values and the comparisons at 522, if no potential collisions are determined, then at 532 an output is generated to display an indication that there are no potential collisions. This displayed information may be used by an operator of equipment moving the object 106 to confirm that continued movement of the object 106 is in a safe movement zone. If one or more potential collisions are determined, then at 534 an output (e.g., output signal) is generated and a warning is provided as described herein (e.g., a tactile, visual or audible warning) to all objects 106 and individuals 110 in the potential collision area as stored in the database 524.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Paschall II with the information display system and movable area present around humans as taught by Glatfelter, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the well-known benefits of providing machine operators an indication on whether a dangerous collision is probable so they can potentially avoid the situation if presented. As Glatfelter describes, (Paragraph [0061]) “If one or more potential collisions are determined, then at 534 an output (e.g., output signal) is generated and a warning is provided as described herein (e.g., a tactile, visual or audible warning) to all objects 106 and individuals 110 in the potential collision area as stored in the database 524.”
“dividing an exclusion management target area into a lattice shape comprising division areas having a predetermined size, and determining the movable areas of the respective moving bodies so that the movable areas of the moving bodies do not overlap each other, for each of the divided areas in a minimum unit;”
Paschall II and Glatfelter do not teach the preceding limitations.
However, Zhang does teach the preceding limitations.
Zhang teaches, (Paragraph [0320], Lines 23-45) “The planner initiates generating the collision map based upon the occupancy grid map with an adjustable collision radius. Preferably, the adjustable collision radius is set large enough to permit the robot to bypass obstacles in the occupancy grid without colliding, as will be described in further detail herein below with reference to FIGS. 27A and 27B. FIG. 27A illustrates an example collision map 2700 for an area coverage application in one implementation. Collision map 2700 is generated by planner to determine a “safe” path around an obstacle 2702 that lies at the center cell of the collision map 2700. When finding a path about an obstacle, the planner can build the collision map 2700 with cells representing the cell size in the occupancy grid and plot known obstacles in the collision map. Now with reference to FIG. 27B, illustrating again collision map 2700 and obstacle 2702 at the center cell. Here, the planner has set an adjustable collision radius to 1 cell and marked all cells 2703 that fall within the collision radius (1 cell) and surround obstacle 2702 as obstacles as well. The planner can now determine waypoints to move the robot through the collision map and that do not fall within any of cells 2703, thereby avoiding collision with obstacle 2702 in one implementation.”
Zhang additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0371], Lines 5-22) “The collision map is generated based upon an occupancy grid map with an adjustable collision radius. The adjustable collision radius is set large enough to permit the robot to bypass obstacles in the occupancy grid without colliding. In some implementations, setting the collision radius large enough includes the collision map being used in generating the path to a target point, and generated waypoints will be far from obstacles to avoid collision, by generating the collision map as an occupancy grid map; and in the collision map generated, enlarging obstacles in the map by the collision radius, thereby marking as obstacles cells adjacent to an actual obstacle lying within the collision radius. In some implementations the collision radius is at least the size of one cell in the collision map. In some implementations the collision radius in the collision map is at least 40 cm. In some implementations collision radius in the collision map is at least 50 cm.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the dynamic collision avoidance system of Glatfelter and Beggs which are capable of creating safety radiuses around a plurality of moving vehicles, with the ability to define an overlap of a radius of an obstacle within an occupancy grid indicating a potential collision as taught by Zhang, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the benefit of being able to expand the conservatism of a collision radius by relating it to the coverage of sized cells with an occupancy grid, in order to avoid collisions and improve safety. As Zhang describes, (Paragraph [0371], Lines 7-22) “The adjustable collision radius is set large enough to permit the robot to bypass obstacles in the occupancy grid without colliding … [by] enlarging obstacles in the map by the collision radius, thereby marking as obstacles cells adjacent to an actual obstacle lying within the collision radius. In some implementations the collision radius is at least the size of one cell in the collision map. In some implementations the collision radius in the collision map is at least 40 cm. In some implementations collision radius in the collision map is at least 50 cm.”
“and basing the predetermined size of the divided areas on calculation performance of a processor performing the method,”
Zhang does not explicitly teach the divided area’s size being determined based on calculation performance of the one or more processors, work efficiency, safety, and a number of moving bodies in the work area.
However, it would be obvious to determine the size in this manner in light of the Beggs reference.
Beggs teaches, (Page 25, Column 5, Lines 49-52) “FIG. 1 shows an unmodulated warning zone 10 that has a circular cross section since the transmitter generates a field that radiates in all directions.”
PNG
media_image4.png
413
381
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Beggs additionally teaches, (Page 29, Column 13, Lines 52-55) “As mentioned, several of these example systems included the ability to take the route to be traveled into account in creating the shape and size of the warning zone.”
Beggs teaches, (Page 41, Column 37, Lines 41-46) “The example system 1700 of FIG. 17 includes a processor 1712. For example, the processor 1712 can be implemented by one or more Intel® microprocessors from the Pentium® family, the Itanium® family or the XScale® family. Of course, other processors from other families are also appropriate,” and additionally teaches that, (Page 29, Column 14, Lines 4-10) “Better still is the ability to give more accurate information about the direction and imminence of the threat. Providing this, however, could require enhanced processing capability being carried with the recipient of the signal, which could be undesirable given size and power limitations. Compensating for those requirements while still giving the desired functionality is desirable.”
“work efficiency,”
Beggs teaches, (Page 23, Column, 2, Lines 52-54) “, an imprecise and/or constant apprehension of danger may result in the loss of productivity of the affected personnel.”
“safety, and a number of moving bodies in the work area;”
Beggs teaches, (Page 28, Column 11, Lines 62-67 and Page 28, Column 12, Lines 1-5) “Other ways of determining “zones” of different threat levels can also be employed. For example, one zone may be considered more dangerous than another based on population or traffic density—a higher density arguably representing a greater threat. Creating zones based on population density can be done statistically (such as by monitoring areas over time and assigning densities to various areas based on the results), or dynamically such that the area of a more dangerous “high density” zone can change over time to reflect changed circumstances in a given parameter like population density.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the Zhang reference to adjust the size of its divided areas based upon on calculation performance of the one or more processors, work efficiency, safety, and a number of moving bodies in the work area, in light of the Beggs reference, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references with Beggs once more would yield the benefits of balancing, safety, efficiency, and performance of the system depending on the presented situation. As Beggs describes, (Page 28, Column 11, Lines 62-67 and Page 28, Column 12, Lines 1-5) “ways of determining “zones” of different threat levels can also be employed. For example, one zone may be considered more dangerous than another based on population or traffic density,” and that, (Page 23, Column, 2, Lines 52-54) “, an imprecise and/or constant apprehension of danger may result in the loss of productivity of the affected personnel,” as well as, (Page 29, Column 14, Lines 4-10) “Better still is the ability to give more accurate information about the direction and imminence of the threat. Providing this, however, could require enhanced processing capability being carried with the recipient of the signal, which could be undesirable given size and power limitations. Compensating for those requirements while still giving the desired functionality is desirable.”
Claim 13 Discloses: (Currently Amended)
“The human-machine cooperative control method according to claim 12,
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0066], Lines 21-33) “The autonomous mobile robot 1014 is illustrated as navigating in a second direction 1018 in passage 1020 between safe walls or barriers 1006 and 1022. The autonomous mobile robot 1014 also has a buffer zone 1024. As illustrated in FIG. 10, the safety zones 1008 and 1016 are of a similar size and shape as both autonomous mobile robots are utilizing speed lane modes and are navigating through passages that include two safety walls 1004/1006 or 1006/1022. As such, the size and shape of safety zones 1008 and 1016 do not intersect and allow for safe and continuous travel of autonomous mobile robots 1000 and 1014 in proximity to each other but in opposite or similar directions.”
Claim 15 Discloses: (Original)
“The human-machine cooperative control method according to claim 13, wherein, when occupied areas for the plurality of moving bodies overlap each other, the unmanned machine is stopped.”
Paschall II does not explicitly teach the plurality of moving bodies overlapping one another; however, Paschall II does teach the following.
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0025], Lines 5-13) “If the obstacle 110 moves or the instructions cause the autonomous mobile robot 102 to move within a certain distance of the obstacle 110 which causes the obstacle to breach the safety zone 106, then the safety verification system would override or veto any instructions from the navigation computer to propulsion mechanisms of the autonomous mobile robot 102 to cease propulsion and safely stop the autonomous mobile robot 102.”
Glatfelter does explicitly teach the preceding limitations.
Glatfelter teaches an, (Paragraph [0053]) “anticipatory collision avoidance system 200,” which relies upon, “radial safety zones around each object, etc,”and that, (Paragraph [0051], Lines 1-6) “The alerts may be delivered to the object 106 or individual 110 in various different ways, including, but not limited to by vibration, projection of sound and/or lights as described herein. Additionally, the alert may result in the complete shutdown (or stopping) or slowing down of one or more of the objects 106.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Paschall II and Glatfelter which are capable of stopping when their respective areas have been breached, with the specific vehicle overlap determination of Glatfelter, in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the well-known safety benefits by avoiding collision between a machine and human. As Glatfelter describes, (Paragraph [0062], Lines 11-14) “a determination may be made as to whether there is an overlap of the safety regions of each of the objects 106 and individuals 110 defined by the safety radius (illustrated as r1 and r2).”
Claim 16 Discloses: (New)
“The human-machine cooperative control system of claim 1, wherein the exclusion management unit executes a first avoidance action in a case where the respective moving areas of the respective moving bodies overlap “
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0026], Lines 8-17) “When the autonomous mobile robot 102 is operating within a space that causes obstacles to breach the buffer zone 114, the safety verification system enforces a minimal speed for the autonomous mobile robot 102 to utilize and also generates a signal such as an audible warning, a visible warning (e.g., an update to a user interface associated with the autonomous mobile robot 102 or a user interface of a computing device of a user and/or associated with a facility) regarding the breach of the buffer zone 114.”
“and executes a second avoidance action in a case where the respective preferential areas of the respective moving bodies overlap.”
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0053], Lines 14-24) “The safety computer may, upon identifying a breach of the safety zone 402, provide instructions to the propulsion components of the autonomous mobile robot 400 which causes the autonomous mobile robot 400 to stop before colliding with the detected object. With this configuration the autonomous mobile robot 400 will be stationary upon an incoming object 404 colliding with it. In embodiments, the safety zone 402 is shaped to accommodate the idea that the objects 404 are on a collision course with the autonomous mobile robot 400 but just out of view or hiding behind an obstacle.”
Claim 17 Discloses: (New)
“The human-machine cooperative control method according to claim 12, further comprising executing a first avoidance action in a case where the respective moving areas of the respective moving bodies overlap”
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0026], Lines 8-17) “When the autonomous mobile robot 102 is operating within a space that causes obstacles to breach the buffer zone 114, the safety verification system enforces a minimal speed for the autonomous mobile robot 102 to utilize and also generates a signal such as an audible warning, a visible warning (e.g., an update to a user interface associated with the autonomous mobile robot 102 or a user interface of a computing device of a user and/or associated with a facility) regarding the breach of the buffer zone 114.”
“and executing a second avoidance action in a case where the respective preferential areas of the respective moving bodies overlap.”
Paschall II teaches, (Paragraph [0053], Lines 14-24) “The safety computer may, upon identifying a breach of the safety zone 402, provide instructions to the propulsion components of the autonomous mobile robot 400 which causes the autonomous mobile robot 400 to stop before colliding with the detected object. With this configuration the autonomous mobile robot 400 will be stationary upon an incoming object 404 colliding with it. In embodiments, the safety zone 402 is shaped to accommodate the idea that the objects 404 are on a collision course with the autonomous mobile robot 400 but just out of view or hiding behind an obstacle.”
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paschall II in view of Glatfelter, further in view of Zhang, further in view of Beggs, further in view of Ito et al., (WO 2020/189702 A1, hereinafter Ito).
Claim 5 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The human-machine cooperative control system according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the planned route and/or the moving body prediction motion overlaps in the same division area, the exclusion management unit determines the division area as the movable area for one unmanned machine or moving body based on a predetermined priority order.”
Paschall II, Glatfelter, Zhang, and Beggs do not teach the preceding limitation. However, quaternary reference Ito does teach the preceding limitation.
Ito teaches, (Paragraph [0005]) “A management system according to one aspect of the present invention is a management system having a mobility management unit that communicates with a plurality of moving bodies, including an autonomous moving body equipped with an autonomous control unit for moving autonomously, via a communication device and manages the movement of the plurality of moving bodies, wherein the autonomous moving body is characterized in that it has a superiority/inferiority acquisition unit that acquires a priority/inferiority relationship regarding the movement of the autonomous moving body and other moving bodies among the plurality of moving bodies that are different from the autonomous moving body, and a proximity suppression unit that suppresses the approach of the autonomous moving body to the current position of the other moving bodies or the future positions of the other moving bodies when the superiority/inferiority acquisition unit acquires that the autonomous moving body is inferior to the other moving bodies.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the structure of Paschall II, Glatfelter, Zhang, and Beggs, with the structure of Ito “wherein, in a case where the planned route and/or the moving body prediction motion overlaps in the same division area, the exclusion management unit determines the division area as the movable area for one unmanned machine or moving body based on a predetermined priority order,” in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for combining with Ito would be to have a manner in which to select one vehicle to move through an area where multiple vehicles would not be able to simultaneously exist. This provides the safety benefits of allowing only one vehicle to move through an area based on its greater priority. As Ito describes, (Paragraph [0194], Lines 2035-2039) “When the superiority/inferiority acquisition unit acquires that the autonomous moving body is inferior to the other moving body, the proximity suppression unit may control the autonomous control unit so that the autonomous moving body moves away from the current position of the other moving body or the future position of the other moving body. Such a configuration can contribute to further improving safety.”
Claim 14 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The human-machine cooperative control method according to claim 13, wherein, when priority areas for the plurality of moving bodies overlap each other, the plurality of moving bodies are set to be movable in the shared area according to the preferential area set in advance.”
Paschall II, Glatfelter, Zhang, and Beggs do not teach the preceding limitation. However, quaternary reference Ito does teach the preceding limitation.
Ito teaches, (Paragraph [0005]) “A management system according to one aspect of the present invention is a management system having a mobility management unit that communicates with a plurality of moving bodies, including an autonomous moving body equipped with an autonomous control unit for moving autonomously, via a communication device and manages the movement of the plurality of moving bodies, wherein the autonomous moving body is characterized in that it has a superiority/inferiority acquisition unit that acquires a priority/inferiority relationship regarding the movement of the autonomous moving body and other moving bodies among the plurality of moving bodies that are different from the autonomous moving body, and a proximity suppression unit that suppresses the approach of the autonomous moving body to the current position of the other moving bodies or the future positions of the other moving bodies when the superiority/inferiority acquisition unit acquires that the autonomous moving body is inferior to the other moving bodies.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the structure of Paschall II, Glatfelter, Zhang, and Beggs, with the structure of Ito “wherein, in a case where the planned route and/or the moving body prediction motion overlaps in the same division area, the exclusion management unit determines the division area as the movable area for one unmanned machine or moving body based on a predetermined priority order,” in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for combining with Ito would be to have a manner in which to select one vehicle to move through an area where multiple vehicles would not be able to simultaneously exist. This provides the safety benefits of allowing only one vehicle to move through an area based on its greater priority. As Ito describes, (Paragraph [0194], Lines 2035-2039) “When the superiority/inferiority acquisition unit acquires that the autonomous moving body is inferior to the other moving body, the proximity suppression unit may control the autonomous control unit so that the autonomous moving body moves away from the current position of the other moving body or the future position of the other moving body. Such a configuration can contribute to further improving safety.”
RELEVANT, BUT NOT CITED PRIOR ART
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Yamazaki et al. (US 2017/0116487 A1) teaches, (Abstract, Lines 1-3) “An apparatus for generating an occupancy grid map constituted with a two-dimension grid.”
Pilz et al. (US 2019/0105788 A1) teaches, (Paragraph [0068]) “Fig. 4 illustrates a schematic representation of a preferred exemplary embodiment of the new safety system”
PNG
media_image5.png
394
562
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER V. GENTILE whose telephone number is (703)756-1501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Kito R. Robinson can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
/ALEXANDER V GENTILE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664