DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on November 20th, 2023 and the amendments and response filed September 3rd, 2025 and 2/18/2026, the request for continued examination filed 3/18/2026, and the amendments and response filed 8/13/2026.
Claims 1, 13, 14, and 17-19 are currently amended.
Claims 2, 3-9, 11, and 15-16 have been previously amended.
No claims have been added.
Claims 10 and 12 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 11/20/2023 and 10/01/2025 have been received and considered. Examiner notes that Ito et al cited in both submitted IDSs has not been provided with an English Translation, but has been considered through the previously attached machine translation in order to expedite prosecution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-16, filed 8/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9, 11, and 13-19 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections are maintained in substance but have been revised as follows, as necessitated by amendment.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. The revised rejections showing how the prior art teaches the added elements from the amendments are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11, 13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20190002152, hereinafter referred to as Lee, all citations and excerpts taken from attached machine translation) in view of Kim et al (US 20110035087, hereinafter referred to as Kim) and McCulley et al (US 11694452).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches:
An information processing device, comprising: a plurality of sensors configured to: detect a travel environment of a robot; (Lee Pg 1 ¶ 1 lines 3-5 “the robot to identify an entry restriction area comprises: a sensing module; […] a control unit to generate a traveling path of the robot based on data sensed by the sensing module,”)
and output specific information based on the detected travel environment; a differential obstacle detector configured to detect, based on the specific information, a first differential obstacle, wherein the first differential obstacle is different from a specific obstacle (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 5 lines 1-5 “The robot 1000 includes a fixed object and a moving object disposed around the robot, for example, a sensing module 100 for sensing an external obstacle, […] transmitting / receiving information on the entry restricted area or the changed state of the fixed obstacle or the moving obstacle,” teaching detection of a fixed object (a specific obstacle), a moving object (a first differential obstacle) based on specific sensed information)
on a first map, (Lee Pg 4 ¶ 8 lines 1-2 “3 is a diagram illustrating a configuration of a fixed map according to an embodiment of the present invention”)
the first map includes a specific approach area, and the robot executes a work in the specific approach area (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 8 lines 2-3 “Information on the entry restriction area can also be stored on the fixed map 210,” teaching the restriction area being on the map and Pg 7 ¶ 6 lines 2-4 “The control unit 900 may control the moving unit 300 and the function unit 400 of the robot 1000 such that the robot 1000 operates according to the set motion when the motion of the robot to be performed in a specific region is determined,” teaching that a motion is conducted in a specific region)
based on a user input; (Lee Pg 5 ¶ 3 “The interface unit 600 displays the map of FIG. 3 so that the user can confirm the information on the moving space of the robot.”)
an approach area corrector configured to: […] at a first […] points; determine, based on the […] first […] point, […] determine that the robot does not contact the first differential obstacle […] determine that the work is executable by the robot at the […] position; set, based on the determination that the robot does not contact the first differential obstacle […] and the determination that the work is executable by the robot […] the first […] point inside the specific approach area, wherein the robot executes the work, on the first […] point, […] without the contact with the first differential obstacle; (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 3 “In the space where the robot can not enter (entrance restriction area), […] Obstacle areas, and moving obstacle areas where many moving obstacles such as a person or a cart appear. The robot can store the above three types […] prevent them from colliding with obstacles,” and Pg 5 ¶ 8 “4, the information of the corresponding motion that the robot can perform when it is close to a specific entry-restricted area is previously stored in the entry-restricted area information unit 220. Thus, the robot performs a predetermined corresponding motion in a specific entry- can do. Alternatively, when sensing a new entry-inhibiting area, the controller 900 of the robot refers to the corresponding motion for each category of the previously-stored entry-inhibiting area, stores information about the corresponding [sic.] motion in the entry-restricted area information 220, Can be updated,” describing in the first case checking an entry-restricted area to determine the ability to perform a specific stored motion, and in the second case checking a new entry restricted area (i.e. an area with a differential obstacle) to determine the ability to perform a specific stored motion, and Pg 7 ¶ 6 lines 2-4 “The control unit 900 may control the moving unit 300 and the function unit 400 of the robot 1000 such that the robot 1000 operates according to the set motion when the motion of the robot to be performed in a specific region is determined,” as above teaching that the set motion includes the motion of the function unit, i.e. performing work, together teaching that the robot determines that work is executable at the position)
correct, based on each of the first differential obstacle […] the specific approach area; (Lee Pg 1 ¶ 1 lines 7-8 “The control unit controls the moving or function unit of the robot to allow the robot to perform a preset corresponding motion in the entry restriction area disposed on the traveling path of the robot,”)
and generate a corrected approach area based on each of the corrected specific approach area […] (Lee Pg 7 ¶ 6 lines 2-4 “The control unit 900 may control the moving unit 300 and the function unit 400 of the robot 1000 such that the robot 1000 operates according to the set motion when the motion of the robot to be performed in a specific region is determined.”)
[…] an environment map integrator configured to generate an integrated environment map, wherein the integrated environment map includes the corrected approach area; (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 8 lines 1-5 “In addition, the map storage unit 200 further includes an entry-restricted area information unit 220, which can store information such as dividing the entry-restricted area into categories or setting a location. Information on the entry restriction area can also be stored on the fixed map 210. [ The entry restricted area information unit 220 may store instruction information on the operation of the robot according to the category of the entry restricted area,” the fixed map being updated to contain all of the information)
a path planner configured to generate a movement path of the robot based on the integrated environment map; (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 6 lines 1-2 “The control unit 900 generates a traveling path of the robot based on the data sensed by the sensing module 100 and the data stored in the map storage unit 200.”)
and a moving body control unit configured to control a movement of the robot based on the movement path. (Lee Pg 7 ¶ 5 lines 1-2 “The robot moves according to the set path or the set motion (S30). The robot 1000 can move according to a path preset by the controller 900.”)
Lee does not teach:
[…] rotate the robot [at a first ] sampling point of a plurality of sampling […]
[…] rotation of the robot at the [ the first] sampling [point…]
[…] a first rotational position of the robot at the first sampling point; […]
[…]at the first rotational position; […]
[…] first rotational […]
[…] at the first rotational position […]
[…]at the first rotational position, […]
[…]sampling[…]
[…]sampling[…]
[…]at the first rotational position […]
[…] and the set first sampling point, […]
[…] and the set first sampling point; […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee, Kim teaches:
[…] a first sampling point of a plurality of sampling points; (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 “The path planning generator may randomly sample a certain point in the configuration space,” teaching a random point, acknowledging a set of points in the configuration space)
determine, based on the […] first sampling point, a first rotational position of the robot at the first sampling point; (Kim ¶ 0055 “In the space forming operation, a Configuration Space (C-Space) to generate a collision avoidance path is detected. The term "configuration" refers to a set of variables to represent the position and the direction of the moving manipulator 130, and all spaces occupied by configurations are called the C-Space,” teaching that the configurations being tested include the direction (rotational position) of the moving manipulator)
determine that the robot does not contact the first differential obstacle (Kim ¶ 0007 lines 1-5 “In order to allow the manipulator to perform a given task (e.g., grasp an object), it is important to generate a motion path from an initial position (start point) before the manipulator performs a task to a final position (goal point) where the task may be performed, that is, an object may be grasped,” Kim teaches the determination of the path to get the manipulator to the working point (goal))
at the first rotational position; (Kim ¶ 0055 as above)
determine that the work is executable by the robot at the first rotational position (Kim ¶ 0007 lines 1-5 Kim teaches the determination of the path to get the manipulator to the working point (goal point) to allow the manipulator to perform a given task)
set, based on the determination that the robot does not contact the first differential obstacle at the first rotational position and the determination that the work is executable by the robot at the first rotational position, the first sampling point inside the specific approach area, (Kim ¶ 0055 “In the space forming operation, a Configuration Space (C-Space) to generate a collision avoidance path is detected. The term "configuration" refers to a set of variables to represent the position and the direction of the moving manipulator 130, and all spaces occupied by configurations are called the C-Space,”)
[wherein the robot executes the work,] on the first sampling point, (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 as above)
at the first rotational position (Kim ¶ 0055 as above)
without the contact with the first differential obstacle; […] (Kim ¶ 0061 “As an example of a method of planning a motion path while satisfying constraints, such as obstacle collision avoidance, there is a sampling-based motion planning method.,” as applies to the differential obstacle of Lee)
[…] and the set first sampling point, […] and the set first sampling point; […] (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 “The path planning generator may randomly sample a certain point in the configuration space,”)
Lee and Kim are considered analogous because they both relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previously-stored motion information performed close to a specific entry-restricted area of Lee with the addition of the path planning generator’s sample point in a configuration space to avoid obstacles of Kim, using the sampling point determination of Kim directly on the determination of corresponding motion of Lee. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success by someone of ordinary skill in the art as motivated by improving path planning performance and shortening planning time (Kim ¶ 0021 lines 12-14”).
The combination of Lee and Kim does not teach:
[…] rotate the robot [at a first … point …]
[…] the rotation of the robot at [the first … point…]
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee and Kim, McCulley teaches:
[…] rotate the robot [at a first … point …] the rotation of the robot at [the first … point…] (McCulley Col 17 lines 17-48 “Gripper check logic 344 may determine, for each of the sorted candidate object data, whether any rotation of gripper 170 is necessary to reach the particular candidate object. For instance, in a case that the gripper 170 would, in a nominal position, interfere with a virtual wall or another object, the gripper check logic 344 may determine that the gripper can be rotated (or in some embodiments shifted) away from the nominal position to reach the object without interference […] gripper check logic 344 may itself determine a pick point and rotation angle by executing one or more algorithms to obtain a 3D model of the gripper 170 (taken from gripper data 355), superimpose the obtained model on the candidate object(s) data, and check for any collision or interference between the gripper and one or more virtual walls (from region data 353) or other objects. In an exemplary embodiment, this process may involve one or more iterations of rotations of the 3D model of the gripper, by any determined incremental degree of rotation, after which a recheck for collision is performed. When the check or recheck indicates that the gripper 170 will not collide with any interfering object, then the gripper check logic 344 may determine the degree and/or axis of rotation, and may associate that information with the candidate position data,” teaching a random point, acknowledging a set of points in the configuration space, teaching rotation of the robot in order to determine if work is executable without contacting an obstacle)
Lee, Kim, and McCulley are all considered analogous because they all relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previously-stored motion information performed close to a specific entry-restricted area of Lee and the path planning generator’s sample point in the configuration space to avoid obstacles of Kim with the simple addition of McCulley’s rotational interference check between a gripper and other objects to determine candidate position data. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success by someone of ordinary skill in the art as motivated by preventing rotational collisions by the picker (McCulley Col 17 lines 32-39).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Lee, Kim, and McCulley teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Lee does not teach:
wherein the approach area corrector is further configured to set no sampling point outside the specific approach area
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee, Kim teaches:
wherein the approach area corrector is further configured to set no sampling point outside the specific approach area (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 “The path planning generator may randomly sample a certain point in the configuration space,” not including any spaces outside the configuration space)
Lee and Kim are considered analogous because they both relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previously-stored motion information performed close to a specific entry-restricted area of Lee with the addition of the path planning generator’s sample point selected from the configuration space of Kim. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by improving path planning performance and shortening planning time (Kim ¶ 0021 lines 12-14”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Lee, Kim, and McCulley teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Lee further teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the approach area corrector is further configured to set a specific area […]and the specific area corresponds to the corrected approach area. (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 3 “In the space where the robot can not enter (entrance restriction area), […] Obstacle areas, and moving obstacle areas where many moving obstacles such as a person or a cart appear. The robot can store the above three types […] prevent them from colliding with obstacles.”)
Lee does not teach:
[…] including the first sampling point, […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee, Kim teaches:
[…] including the first sampling point, […] (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 “The path planning generator may randomly sample a certain point in the configuration space,” not including any spaces outside the configuration space)
Lee and Kim are considered analogous because they both relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previously-stored motion information performed close to a specific entry-restricted area of Lee with the addition of the path planning generator’s sample point selected from the configuration space of Kim. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by improving path planning performance and shortening planning time (Kim ¶ 0021 lines 12-14”).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Lee, Kim, and McCulley teaches the elements of Claim 3 as described above. Lee further teaches:
wherein the approach area corrector is further configured to determine an execution of a preset work motion at each of the […] points set inside the specific approach area, the robot performs the preset work motion […] (Lee Pg 1 ¶ 1 lines 7-8 “The control unit controls the moving or function unit of the robot to allow the robot to perform a preset corresponding motion in the entry restriction area disposed on the traveling path of the robot,”)
[…] without the contact with the first differential obstacle. (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 3 “In the space where the robot can not enter (entrance restriction area), […] Obstacle areas, and moving obstacle areas where many moving obstacles such as a person or a cart appear. The robot can store the above three types […] prevent them from colliding with obstacles.”)
Lee does not teach:
[…] plurality of sampling [points …]
[…] on a preset work target object, and the robot performs the preset work motion on the preset work target object […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee, Kim teaches:
[…] plurality of sampling [points…] (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 “The path planning generator may randomly sample a certain point in the configuration space,” not including any spaces outside the configuration space)
[…] on a preset work target object, and the robot performs the preset work motion on the preset work target object […] (Kim ¶ 0053 lines 1-3 “The user interface unit 200 allows a user to input a task command (e.g., a grasping command to grasp an object placed on a table) of the robot”)
Lee and Kim are considered analogous because they both relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the preset corresponding motion of Lee with the addition of the task command relating to an object of Kim. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by improving path planning performance and shortening planning time (Kim ¶ 0021 lines 12-14”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Lee, Kim, and McCulley teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Lee further teaches:
wherein the first map includes a second map, and the second map is generated before the robot starts to travel. (Lee Pg 4 ¶ 8 lines 1-2 “3 is a diagram illustrating a configuration of a fixed map according to an embodiment of the present invention” and Pg 3 ¶ 7 lines 1-3 “In addition, the map storage unit 200 further includes an entry-restricted area information unit 220, which can store information such as dividing the entry-restricted area into categories or setting a location. Information on the entry restriction area can also be stored on the fixed map 210” describing fixed mapped entry restriction areas (a second map))
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Lee, Kim, and McCulley teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Lee does not teach:
further comprising a communication interface configured to receive a second map from an external device, (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 4 lines 3-5 “a communication unit 500 for transmitting / receiving information on the entry restricted area or the changed state of the fixed obstacle or the moving obstacle,” describing receiving map information including entry restricted areas, and Pg 4 ¶ 7 lines 1-2 “In addition, each of the sensing units and the sensing data analysis unit 150 can transmit and receive information sensed through a data link or a wireless signal,” teaching that this can be a wireless transfer from an external source)
wherein the predefined first map includes the second map. (Lee Pg 4 ¶ 8 lines 1-2 “3 is a diagram illustrating a configuration of a fixed map according to an embodiment of the present invention” and Pg 3 ¶ 7 lines 1-3 “In addition, the map storage unit 200 further includes an entry-restricted area information unit 220, which can store information such as dividing the entry-restricted area into categories or setting a location. Information on the entry restriction area can also be stored on the fixed map 210” describing fixed mapped entry restriction areas (a second map))
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Lee, Kim, and McCulley teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Lee further teaches:
further comprising a work definition data manager configured to manage work definition data including the first map, (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 8 lines 2-3 “Information on the entry restriction area can also be stored on the fixed map 210”)
wherein the approach area corrector is further configured to: receive the first map from the work definition data manager; (Lee Pg 7 ¶ 3 “7 to 8 are diagrams illustrating a process of updating information on an entry restricted area stored in a map according to an embodiment of the present invention. When the robot moves to the vicinity of the entry restricted area that was stored on the map in the moving process, or when the robot moves to the entry restricted area, the robot compares the information sensed in the map with the real space, State,” teaching retrieval of a stored map (first map))
receive, from the differential obstacle detector, differential obstacle information that is associated with the first differential obstacle, wherein the first differential obstacle is absent on the first map; (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 9 lines 4-6 “after the controller 900 analyzes the information about the external obstacle sensed by the sensing module 100 and confirms whether the entry restriction area is newly recognized in the traveling direction or a new obstacle appears high, 300, and the like,” teaching the recognition of new (differential) obstacles, as applies to the stored map)
and generate the corrected approach area based on each of the first map and the differential obstacle information. (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 6 lines 1-2 “The control unit 900 generates a traveling path of the robot based on the data sensed by the sensing module 100 and the data stored in the map storage unit 200.”)
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Lee, Kim, and McCulley teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Lee further teaches:
the environment map integrator is further configured to: receive each of the first map and the corrected approach area; and generate the integrated environment map that includes the corrected approach area. (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 8 lines 1-5 “In addition, the map storage unit 200 further includes an entry-restricted area information unit 220, which can store information such as dividing the entry-restricted area into categories or setting a location. Information on the entry restriction area can also be stored on the fixed map 210. [ The entry restricted area information unit 220 may store instruction information on the operation of the robot according to the category of the entry restricted area,” the fixed map being updated to contain all of the information)
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Lee, Kim, and McCulley teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Lee further teaches:
wherein the differential obstacle detector is further configured to detect, based on the specific information, a second differential obstacle that is different from the first differential obstacle, (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 3 “In the space where the robot can not enter (entrance restriction area), […] Obstacle areas, and moving obstacle areas where many moving obstacles such as a person or a cart appear. The robot can store the above three types […] prevent them from colliding with obstacles,” and Pg 13 ¶ 6 “The control unit 900 controls the moving unit 300 or the function unit 400 to perform the corresponding motion in the entry restriction area sensed by the sensing module 100 or in the entry restriction area confirmed in the map storage unit 200 . The corresponding motion that can be performed according to each entry restriction area may be different. For example, in a crash hazard area, the movement mode and function that can lose the robot's center can be stopped. In the fixed or moving obstacle area, it may collide with an external object, so that the protruding function part, for example, a cleaning robot, can move the floor brush into the inside so as not to collide with an external obstacle. Depending on the position, the corresponding motion can be set variously according to the characteristics of the entry-restricted region, and can be variously set according to the characteristics or functions of the robot,” both teaching response to multiple detected obstacles)
and the approach area corrector is further configured to: re-correct the generated corrected approach area based on the second differential obstacle; […] (Lee Pg 8 ¶ 5 lines 1-8 “The controller 900 checks whether the position of the obstacle sensed according to whether the sensed obstacle is a moving obstacle […] is registered as an obstacle area of the map storage unit. If it is not confirmed, the position where the obstacles are sensed in the map storage unit is registered as the obstacle area (S45). In one embodiment, when the moving obstacle is sensed and the map storage unit is not registered as the moving obstacle area with respect to the sensed position, the controller 900 registers the sensed position as the moving obstacle area in the map storage unit 200.”)
[…] set the determined second […] point inside the generated corrected approach area, wherein the robot executes the work, on the determined second […] point, […] without contact with the second differential obstacle, (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 3 “In the space where the robot can not enter (entrance restriction area), […] Obstacle areas, and moving obstacle areas where many moving obstacles such as a person or a cart appear. The robot can store the above three types […] prevent them from colliding with obstacles,” and Pg 5 ¶ 8 “4, the information of the corresponding motion that the robot can perform when it is close to a specific entry-restricted area is previously stored in the entry-restricted area information unit 220. Thus, the robot performs a predetermined corresponding motion in a specific entry- can do. Alternatively, when sensing a new entry-inhibiting area, the controller 900 of the robot refers to the corresponding motion for each category of the previously-stored entry-inhibiting area, stores information about the corresponding corresponding [sic.] motion in the entry-restricted area information 220, Can be updated,” describing in the first case checking an entry-restricted area to determine the ability to perform a specific stored motion, and in the second case checking a new entry restricted area (i.e. an area with a differential obstacle) to determine the ability to perform a specific stored motion, as applies to a different obstacle as previously identified)
the second rotational position is different from the first rotational position, and the second sampling point is different from the first sampling point; and (Lee Pg 13 ¶ 6 lines 3-9 “The corresponding motion that can be performed according to each entry restriction area may be different. For example, in a crash hazard area, the movement mode and function that can lose the robot's center can be stopped. In the fixed or moving obstacle area, it may collide with an external object, so that the protruding function part, for example, a cleaning robot, can move the floor brush into the inside so as not to collide with an external obstacle. Depending on the position, the corresponding motion can be set variously according to the characteristics of the entry-restricted region, and can be variously set according to the characteristics or functions of the robot,” teaching a different response to a different identified obstacle)
generate a re-corrected approach area based on the determined second […] […] sampling […] point. (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 6 lines 1-2 “The control unit 900 generates a traveling path of the robot based on the data sensed by the sensing module 100 and the data stored in the map storage unit 200.”)
Lee does not teach:
[…] determine a second sampling point of the plurality of sampling points; […]
[…] sampling […]
[…] sampling […]
[…] at a second rotational position […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee, Kim teaches:
[…] determine a second sampling point of the plurality of sampling points; […] (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 as applies to the other identified obstacle of Lee)
[…] set the determined second sampling point inside the generated corrected approach area, (Kim ¶ 0055 as applies to the other identified obstacle of Lee)
wherein the robot works, (Kim ¶ 0007 lines 1-5)
[…] sampling […] (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 as above)
[…] at a second rotational position (Kim ¶ 0055 teaching that the configurations being tested include the direction (rotational position) of the moving manipulator, as applies to the other identified obstacle of Lee)
without contact with the second differential obstacle, (Kim ¶ 0061 “As an example of a method of planning a motion path while satisfying constraints, such as obstacle collision avoidance, there is a sampling-based motion planning method.,” as applies to the other differential obstacle of Lee)
Lee and Kim are considered analogous because they both relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previously-stored motion information performed close to an identified different specific entry-restricted area of Lee with the addition of the path planning generator’s sample point in a configuration space to avoid obstacles Kim, using the sampling point determination of Kim directly on the determination of a different corresponding motion of Lee. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success by someone of ordinary skill in the art as motivated by improving path planning performance and shortening planning time (Kim ¶ 0021 lines 12-14”).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee teaches:
An information processing method, comprising: in an information processing device: detecting a travel environment of a robot; (Lee Pg 1 ¶ 1 lines 3-5 “the robot to identify an entry restriction area comprises: a sensing module; […] a control unit to generate a traveling path of the robot based on data sensed by the sensing module,”)
outputting specific information based on the detected travel environment; detecting, based on the specific information, a differential obstacle that is different from a specific obstacle (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 5 lines 1-5 “The robot 1000 includes a fixed object and a moving object disposed around the robot, for example, a sensing module 100 for sensing an external obstacle, […] transmitting / receiving information on the entry restricted area or the changed state of the fixed obstacle or the moving obstacle,” teaching detection of a fixed object (a specific obstacle), a moving object (a first differential obstacle) based on specific sensed information)
on a specific map, (Lee Pg 4 ¶ 8 lines 1-2 “3 is a diagram illustrating a configuration of a fixed map according to an embodiment of the present invention”)
wherein the specific map includes a specific approach area, and the robot executes a work in the specific approach area (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 8 lines 2-3 “Information on the entry restriction area can also be stored on the fixed map 210,” teaching the restriction area being on the map and Pg 7 ¶ 6 lines 2-4 “The control unit 900 may control the moving unit 300 and the function unit 400 of the robot 1000 such that the robot 1000 operates according to the set motion when the motion of the robot to be performed in a specific region is determined,” teaching that a motion is conducted in a specific region)
based on a user input; […] (Lee Pg 5 ¶ 3 “The interface unit 600 displays the map of FIG. 3 so that the user can confirm the information on the moving space of the robot.”)
[…] determining, based on the […] point, […] determining the robot does not contact with the differential obstacle […]; determining that the work is executable by the robot at the […] position; setting, based on the determination that the robot does not contact the differential obstacle […] and the determination that the work is executable by the robot […] , the […] point inside the specific approach area, wherein the robot executes the work, on the […] point, […] without contacting with the differential obstacle; (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 3 “In the space where the robot can not enter (entrance restriction area), […] Obstacle areas, and moving obstacle areas where many moving obstacles such as a person or a cart appear. The robot can store the above three types […] prevent them from colliding with obstacles,” and Pg 5 ¶ 8 “4, the information of the corresponding motion that the robot can perform when it is close to a specific entry-restricted area is previously stored in the entry-restricted area information unit 220. Thus, the robot performs a predetermined corresponding motion in a specific entry- can do. Alternatively, when sensing a new entry-inhibiting area, the controller 900 of the robot refers to the corresponding motion for each category of the previously-stored entry-inhibiting area, stores information about the corresponding [sic.] motion in the entry-restricted area information 220, Can be updated,” describing in the first case checking an entry-restricted area to determine the ability to perform a specific stored motion, and in the second case checking a new entry restricted area (i.e. an area with a differential obstacle) to determine the ability to perform a specific stored motion, and Pg 7 ¶ 6 lines 2-4 “The control unit 900 may control the moving unit 300 and the function unit 400 of the robot 1000 such that the robot 1000 operates according to the set motion when the motion of the robot to be performed in a specific region is determined,” as above teaching that the set motion includes the motion of the function unit, i.e. performing work, together teaching that the robot determines that work is executable at the position)
correcting, based on each of the differential obstacle […] the specific approach area; (Lee Pg 1 ¶ 1 lines 7-8 “The control unit controls the moving or function unit of the robot to allow the robot to perform a preset corresponding motion in the entry restriction area disposed on the traveling path of the robot,”)
generating a corrected approach area based on each of the corrected specific approach area […] (Lee Pg 7 ¶ 6 lines 2-4 “The control unit 900 may control the moving unit 300 and the function unit 400 of the robot 1000 such that the robot 1000 operates according to the set motion when the motion of the robot to be performed in a specific region is determined.”)
[…] generating an integrated environment map, wherein the integrated environment map includes the corrected approach area; (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 8 lines 1-5 “In addition, the map storage unit 200 further includes an entry-restricted area information unit 220, which can store information such as dividing the entry-restricted area into categories or setting a location. Information on the entry restriction area can also be stored on the fixed map 210. [ The entry restricted area information unit 220 may store instruction information on the operation of the robot according to the category of the entry restricted area,” the fixed map being updated to contain all of the information)
generating a movement path of the robot based on the integrated environment map; (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 6 lines 1-2 “The control unit 900 generates a traveling path of the robot based on the data sensed by the sensing module 100 and the data stored in the map storage unit 200.”)
and controlling a movement of the robot based on the movement path. (Lee Pg 7 ¶ 5 lines 1-2 “The robot moves according to the set path or the set motion (S30). The robot 1000 can move according to a path preset by the controller 900.”)
Lee does not teach:
[…] rotating the robot at a sampling point of a plurality of sampling points; […]
[…] rotation of the robot at the sampling […]
[…] a rotational position of the robot at the sampling point; […]
[…] at the rotational position at the sampling point […]
[…] rotational […]
[…] at the rotational position, […]
[…] at the rotational position […]
[…] sampling[…]
[…] sampling […]
[…] at the rotational position […]
[…] and the set sampling point, […]
[…] and the set sampling point; […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee, Kim teaches:
[…] a sampling point of a plurality of sampling points; (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 “The path planning generator may randomly sample a certain point in the configuration space,” teaching a random point, acknowledging a set of points in the configuration space)
determining, based on the […] sampling point, a rotational position of the robot at the sampling point; (Kim ¶ 0055 “In the space forming operation, a Configuration Space (C-Space) to generate a collision avoidance path is detected. The term "configuration" refers to a set of variables to represent the position and the direction of the moving manipulator 130, and all spaces occupied by configurations are called the C-Space,” teaching that the configurations being tested include the direction (rotational position) of the moving manipulator)
determining the robot does not contact with the differential obstacle (Kim ¶ 0007 lines 1-5 “In order to allow the manipulator to perform a given task (e.g., grasp an object), it is important to generate a motion path from an initial position (start point) before the manipulator performs a task to a final position (goal point) where the task may be performed, that is, an object may be grasped,” Kim teaches the determination of the path to get the manipulator to the working point (goal point) but does not teach that the goal point is the first sampling point )
at the rotational position at the sampling point; (Kim ¶ 0055 as above)
determining that the work is executable by the robot at the first rotational position (Kim ¶ 0007 lines 1-5 Kim teaches the determination of the path to get the manipulator to the working point (goal point) to allow the manipulator to perform a given task)
setting, based on the determination that the robot does not contact the differential obstacle at the rotational position and the determination that the work is executable by the robot at the first rotational position, the sampling point inside the specific approach area, (Kim ¶ 0055 as above)
[wherein the robot executes the work,] on the sampling point, (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 as above)
at the rotational position (Kim ¶ 0055 as above)
without contacting with the differential obstacle; […] (Kim ¶ 0061 “As an example of a method of planning a motion path while satisfying constraints, such as obstacle collision avoidance, there is a sampling-based motion planning method.,” as applies to the differential obstacle of Lee)
[…] and the set sampling point, […] and the set sampling point; (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 “The path planning generator may randomly sample a certain point in the configuration space,”)
Lee and Kim are considered analogous because they both relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previously-stored motion information performed close to a specific entry-restricted area of Lee with the addition of the path planning generator’s sample point in a configuration space to avoid obstacles of Kim, using the sampling point determination of Kim directly on the determination of corresponding motion of Lee. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success by someone of ordinary skill in the art as motivated by improving path planning performance and shortening planning time (Kim ¶ 0021 lines 12-14”).
The combination of Lee and Kim does not teach:
[…] rotating the robot [at a … point …]
[…] rotation of the robot at [ the … point …]
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee and Kim, McCulley teaches:
[…] rotating the robot [at a … point …] rotation of the robot at [ the … point …] (McCulley Col 17 lines 17-48 “Gripper check logic 344 may determine, for each of the sorted candidate object data, whether any rotation of gripper 170 is necessary to reach the particular candidate object. For instance, in a case that the gripper 170 would, in a nominal position, interfere with a virtual wall or another object, the gripper check logic 344 may determine that the gripper can be rotated (or in some embodiments shifted) away from the nominal position to reach the object without interference […] gripper check logic 344 may itself determine a pick point and rotation angle by executing one or more algorithms to obtain a 3D model of the gripper 170 (taken from gripper data 355), superimpose the obtained model on the candidate object(s) data, and check for any collision or interference between the gripper and one or more virtual walls (from region data 353) or other objects. In an exemplary embodiment, this process may involve one or more iterations of rotations of the 3D model of the gripper, by any determined incremental degree of rotation, after which a recheck for collision is performed. When the check or recheck indicates that the gripper 170 will not collide with any interfering object, then the gripper check logic 344 may determine the degree and/or axis of rotation, and may associate that information with the candidate position data,” teaching a random point, acknowledging a set of points in the configuration space)
Lee, Kim, and McCulley are all considered analogous because they all relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previously-stored motion information performed close to a specific entry-restricted area of Lee and the path planning generator’s sample point in the configuration space to avoid obstacles of Kim with the simple addition of McCulley’s rotational interference check between a gripper and other objects to determine candidate position data. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success by someone of ordinary skill in the art as motivated by preventing rotational collisions by the picker (McCulley Col 17 lines 32-39).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee teaches:
An information processing method, comprising: in an information processing system: generating a specific map (Lee Pg 4 ¶ 8 lines 1-2 “3 is a diagram illustrating a configuration of a fixed map according to an embodiment of the present invention”)
and a specific approach area, (Lee Pg 1 ¶ 1 lines 7-8 “The control unit controls the moving or function unit of the robot to allow the robot to perform a preset corresponding motion in the entry restriction area disposed on the traveling path of the robot,”)
wherein the specific map includes a location of a specific obstacle in a travel environment of a robot, (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 7 lines 1-2 The map storage unit 200 may store the position of the fixed object in the space that the robot travels and the fixability of the fixed object.”)
and the robot executes a work in the specific approach area without contact with the specific obstacle; (Lee Pg 1 ¶ 1 lines 7-8 “The control unit controls the moving or function unit of the robot to allow the robot to perform a preset corresponding motion in the entry restriction area disposed on the traveling path of the robot,”)
detecting the travel environment of the robot; (Lee Pg 1 ¶ 1 lines 3-5 “the robot to identify an entry restriction area comprises: a sensing module; […] a control unit to generate a traveling path of the robot based on data sensed by the sensing module,”)
outputting specific information based on the detected travel environment; detecting, based on the specific information, a differential obstacle that is different from the specific obstacle on the specific map, (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 5 lines 1-5 “The robot 1000 includes a fixed object and a moving object disposed around the robot, for example, a sensing module 100 for sensing an external obstacle, […] transmitting / receiving information on the entry restricted area or the changed state of the fixed obstacle or the moving obstacle,” teaching detection of a fixed object (a specific obstacle), a moving object (a first differential obstacle) based on specific sensed information)
wherein the specific map includes the specific approach area, and the robot executes the work in the specific approach area (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 8 lines 2-3 “Information on the entry restriction area can also be stored on the fixed map 210,” teaching the restriction area being on the map and Pg 7 ¶ 6 lines 2-4 “The control unit 900 may control the moving unit 300 and the function unit 400 of the robot 1000 such that the robot 1000 operates according to the set motion when the motion of the robot to be performed in a specific region is determined,” teaching that a motion is conducted in a specific region)
based on a user input; […] (Lee Pg 5 ¶ 3 “The interface unit 600 displays the map of FIG. 3 so that the user can confirm the information on the moving space of the robot.”)
[…] determining, based on the […] the […] point, […]; determining that the robot does not contact with the differential obstacle […] at the […] point; determining that the work is executable by the robot at the […] position; setting, based on the determination that the robot does not contact the differential obstacle and the determination that the work is executable by the robot at the […] position, […] the […] point inside the specific approach area, wherein the robot executes the work, on the […] point, […] without contacting with the differential obstacle; (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 3 “In the space where the robot can not enter (entrance restriction area), […] Obstacle areas, and moving obstacle areas where many moving obstacles such as a person or a cart appear. The robot can store the above three types […] prevent them from colliding with obstacles,” and Pg 5 ¶ 8 “4, the information of the corresponding motion that the robot can perform when it is close to a specific entry-restricted area is previously stored in the entry-restricted area information unit 220. Thus, the robot performs a predetermined corresponding motion in a specific entry- can do. Alternatively, when sensing a new entry-inhibiting area, the controller 900 of the robot refers to the corresponding motion for each category of the previously-stored entry-inhibiting area, stores information about the corresponding [sic.] motion in the entry-restricted area information 220, Can be updated,” describing in the first case checking an entry-restricted area to determine the ability to perform a specific stored motion, and in the second case checking a new entry restricted area (i.e. an area with a differential obstacle) to determine the ability to perform a specific stored motion, and Pg 7 ¶ 6 lines 2-4 “The control unit 900 may control the moving unit 300 and the function unit 400 of the robot 1000 such that the robot 1000 operates according to the set motion when the motion of the robot to be performed in a specific region is determined,” as above teaching that the set motion includes the motion of the function unit, i.e. performing work, together teaching that the robot determines that work is executable at the position)
correcting, based on each of the differential obstacle […] the specific approach area; (Lee Pg 1 ¶ 1 lines 7-8 “The control unit controls the moving or function unit of the robot to allow the robot to perform a preset corresponding motion in the entry restriction area disposed on the traveling path of the robot,”)
generating a corrected approach area based on each of the corrected specific approach area […]; (Lee Pg 7 ¶ 6 lines 2-4 “The control unit 900 may control the moving unit 300 and the function unit 400 of the robot 1000 such that the robot 1000 operates according to the set motion when the motion of the robot to be performed in a specific region is determined.”)
generating an integrated environment map, wherein the integrated environment map includes the corrected approach area; (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 8 lines 1-5 “In addition, the map storage unit 200 further includes an entry-restricted area information unit 220, which can store information such as dividing the entry-restricted area into categories or setting a location. Information on the entry restriction area can also be stored on the fixed map 210. [ The entry restricted area information unit 220 may store instruction information on the operation of the robot according to the category of the entry restricted area,” the fixed map being updated to contain all of the information)
generating a movement path of the robot based on the integrated environment map; (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 6 lines 1-2 “The control unit 900 generates a traveling path of the robot based on the data sensed by the sensing module 100 and the data stored in the map storage unit 200.”)
and controlling a movement of the robot based on the movement path. (Lee Pg 7 ¶ 5 lines 1-2 “The robot moves according to the set path or the set motion (S30). The robot 1000 can move according to a path preset by the controller 900.”)
Lee does not teach:
[…] rotating the robot at a sampling point of a plurality of sampling points; […]
[…] rotation of the robot at […]
[…] sampling […]
[…] a rotational position of the robot at the sampling point […]
[…] at the rotational position […]
[…] sampling […]
[…] at the rotational position, […]
[…] rotational […]
[…] rotational […]
[…] sampling […]
[…] sampling […]
[…] at the rotational position […]
[…] and the set sampling point, […]
[…] and the set determined sampling point […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee, Kim teaches:
[…] a sampling point of a plurality of sampling points; (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 “The path planning generator may randomly sample a certain point in the configuration space,” teaching a random point, acknowledging a set of points in the configuration space)
determining, based on the […] sampling point, a rotational position of the robot at the sampling point; (Kim ¶ 0055 “In the space forming operation, a Configuration Space (C-Space) to generate a collision avoidance path is detected. The term "configuration" refers to a set of variables to represent the position and the direction of the moving manipulator 130, and all spaces occupied by configurations are called the C-Space,” teaching that the configurations being tested include the direction (rotational position) of the moving manipulator)
determining the robot does not contact with the differential obstacle (Kim ¶ 0007 lines 1-5 “In order to allow the manipulator to perform a given task (e.g., grasp an object), it is important to generate a motion path from an initial position (start point) before the manipulator performs a task to a final position (goal point) where the task may be performed, that is, an object may be grasped,” Kim teaches the determination of the path to get the manipulator to the working point (goal point) but does not teach that the goal point is the first sampling point )
at the rotational position at the sampling point; (Kim ¶ 0055 as above)
determining that the work is executable by the robot at the first rotational position (Kim ¶ 0007 lines 1-5 Kim teaches the determination of the path to get the manipulator to the working point (goal point) to allow the manipulator to perform a given task)
setting, based on the determination that the robot does not contact the differential obstacle at the rotational position and the determination that the work is executable by the robot at the first rotational position, the sampling point inside the specific approach area, (Kim ¶ 0055 as above)
[wherein the robot executes the work,] on the sampling point, (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 as above)
at the rotational position (Kim ¶ 0055 as above)
without contacting with the differential obstacle; […] (Kim ¶ 0061 “As an example of a method of planning a motion path while satisfying constraints, such as obstacle collision avoidance, there is a sampling-based motion planning method.,” as applies to the differential obstacle of Lee)
[…] and the set sampling point, […] and the set sampling point; (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 “The path planning generator may randomly sample a certain point in the configuration space,”)
Lee and Kim are considered analogous because they both relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previously-stored motion information performed close to a specific entry-restricted area of Lee with the addition of the path planning generator’s sample point in a configuration space to avoid obstacles of Kim, using the sampling point determination of Kim directly on the determination of corresponding motion of Lee. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success by someone of ordinary skill in the art as motivated by improving path planning performance and shortening planning time (Kim ¶ 0021 lines 12-14”).
The combination of Lee and Kim does not teach:
[…] rotating the robot [at a … point …]
[…] rotation of the robot at [ the … point …]
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee and Kim, McCulley teaches:
[…] rotating the robot [at a … point …] rotation of the robot at [ the … point …] (McCulley Col 17 lines 17-48 “Gripper check logic 344 may determine, for each of the sorted candidate object data, whether any rotation of gripper 170 is necessary to reach the particular candidate object. For instance, in a case that the gripper 170 would, in a nominal position, interfere with a virtual wall or another object, the gripper check logic 344 may determine that the gripper can be rotated (or in some embodiments shifted) away from the nominal position to reach the object without interference […] gripper check logic 344 may itself determine a pick point and rotation angle by executing one or more algorithms to obtain a 3D model of the gripper 170 (taken from gripper data 355), superimpose the obtained model on the candidate object(s) data, and check for any collision or interference between the gripper and one or more virtual walls (from region data 353) or other objects. In an exemplary embodiment, this process may involve one or more iterations of rotations of the 3D model of the gripper, by any determined incremental degree of rotation, after which a recheck for collision is performed. When the check or recheck indicates that the gripper 170 will not collide with any interfering object, then the gripper check logic 344 may determine the degree and/or axis of rotation, and may associate that information with the candidate position data,” teaching a random point, acknowledging a set of points in the configuration space)
Lee, Kim, and McCulley are all considered analogous because they all relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previously-stored motion information performed close to a specific entry-restricted area of Lee and the path planning generator’s sample point in the configuration space to avoid obstacles of Kim with the simple addition of McCulley’s rotational interference check between a gripper and other objects to determine candidate position data. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success by someone of ordinary skill in the art as motivated by preventing rotational collisions by the picker (McCulley Col 17 lines 32-39)
Regarding Claim 19, Lee teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon, computer-executable instructions which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations, the operations comprising: (Lee Pg 13 ¶ 9 lines 2-8 “In addition, although all of the components may be implemented as one independent hardware, some or all of the components may be selectively combined to perform a part or all of the functions in one or a plurality of hardware. As shown in FIG. The codes and code segments constituting the computer program may be easily deduced by those skilled in the art. Such a computer program can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium, readable and executed by a computer, thereby realizing an embodiment of the present invention,”)
detecting a travel environment of a robot; (Lee Pg 1 ¶ 1 lines 3-5 “the robot to identify an entry restriction area comprises: a sensing module; […] a control unit to generate a traveling path of the robot based on data sensed by the sensing module,”)
outputting specific information based on the detected travel environment; detecting, based on the specific information, a differential obstacle that is different from a specific obstacle (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 5 lines 1-5 “The robot 1000 includes a fixed object and a moving object disposed around the robot, for example, a sensing module 100 for sensing an external obstacle, […] transmitting / receiving information on the entry restricted area or the changed state of the fixed obstacle or the moving obstacle,” teaching detection of a fixed object (a specific obstacle), a moving object (a first differential obstacle) based on specific sensed information)
on a specific map, (Lee Pg 4 ¶ 8 lines 1-2 “3 is a diagram illustrating a configuration of a fixed map according to an embodiment of the present invention”)
wherein the specific map includes a specific approach area, and the robot executes a work in the specific approach area (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 8 lines 2-3 “Information on the entry restriction area can also be stored on the fixed map 210,” teaching the restriction area being on the map and Pg 7 ¶ 6 lines 2-4 “The control unit 900 may control the moving unit 300 and the function unit 400 of the robot 1000 such that the robot 1000 operates according to the set motion when the motion of the robot to be performed in a specific region is determined,” teaching that a motion is conducted in a specific region)
based on a user input; (Lee Pg 5 ¶ 3 “The interface unit 600 displays the map of FIG. 3 so that the user can confirm the information on the moving space of the robot.”)
[…] determining, based on the […] the […] point, […]; determining that the robot does not contact with the differential obstacle […] at the […] point; determining that the work is executable by the robot at the […] position; setting, based on the determination that the robot does not contact the differential obstacle and the determination that the work is executable by the robot at the […] position, […] the […] point inside the specific approach area, wherein the robot works, on the […] point, […] without contacting with the differential obstacle; (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 3 “In the space where the robot can not enter (entrance restriction area), […] Obstacle areas, and moving obstacle areas where many moving obstacles such as a person or a cart appear. The robot can store the above three types […] prevent them from colliding with obstacles,” and Pg 5 ¶ 8 “4, the information of the corresponding motion that the robot can perform when it is close to a specific entry-restricted area is previously stored in the entry-restricted area information unit 220. Thus, the robot performs a predetermined corresponding motion in a specific entry- can do. Alternatively, when sensing a new entry-inhibiting area, the controller 900 of the robot refers to the corresponding motion for each category of the previously-stored entry-inhibiting area, stores information about the corresponding [sic.] motion in the entry-restricted area information 220, Can be updated,” describing in the first case checking an entry-restricted area to determine the ability to perform a specific stored motion, and in the second case checking a new entry restricted area (i.e. an area with a differential obstacle) to determine the ability to perform a specific stored motion, and Pg 7 ¶ 6 lines 2-4 “The control unit 900 may control the moving unit 300 and the function unit 400 of the robot 1000 such that the robot 1000 operates according to the set motion when the motion of the robot to be performed in a specific region is determined,” as above teaching that the set motion includes the motion of the function unit, i.e. performing work, together teaching that the robot determines that work is executable at the position)
correcting, based on each of the differential obstacle […] the specific approach area; (Lee Pg 1 ¶ 1 lines 7-8 “The control unit controls the moving or function unit of the robot to allow the robot to perform a preset corresponding motion in the entry restriction area disposed on the traveling path of the robot,”)
generating a corrected approach area based on each of the corrected specific approach area […]; (Lee Pg 7 ¶ 6 lines 2-4 “The control unit 900 may control the moving unit 300 and the function unit 400 of the robot 1000 such that the robot 1000 operates according to the set motion when the motion of the robot to be performed in a specific region is determined.”)
generating an integrated environment map, wherein the integrated environment map includes the corrected approach area; (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 8 lines 1-5 “In addition, the map storage unit 200 further includes an entry-restricted area information unit 220, which can store information such as dividing the entry-restricted area into categories or setting a location. Information on the entry restriction area can also be stored on the fixed map 210. [ The entry restricted area information unit 220 may store instruction information on the operation of the robot according to the category of the entry restricted area,” the fixed map being updated to contain all of the information)
generating a movement path of the robot based on the integrated environment map; (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 6 lines 1-2 “The control unit 900 generates a traveling path of the robot based on the data sensed by the sensing module 100 and the data stored in the map storage unit 200.”)
and controlling a movement of the robot based on the movement path. (Lee Pg 7 ¶ 5 lines 1-2 “The robot moves according to the set path or the set motion (S30). The robot 1000 can move according to a path preset by the controller 900.”)
Lee does not teach:
[…] rotating the robot at a sampling point of a plurality of sampling points; […]
[…] rotation of the robot at […]
[…] sampling […]
[…] a rotational position of the robot at the sampling point […]
[…] at the rotational position […]
[…] rotational […]
[…] rotational […]
[…] sampling […]
[…] at the rotational position, […]
[…] sampling […]
[…] sampling […]
[…] at the rotational position […]
[…] and the set sampling point, […]
[…] and the set determined sampling point […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee, Kim teaches:
[…] a sampling point of a plurality of sampling points; (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 “The path planning generator may randomly sample a certain point in the configuration space,” teaching a random point, acknowledging a set of points in the configuration space)
determining, based on the […] sampling point, a rotational position of the robot at the sampling point; (Kim ¶ 0055 “In the space forming operation, a Configuration Space (C-Space) to generate a collision avoidance path is detected. The term "configuration" refers to a set of variables to represent the position and the direction of the moving manipulator 130, and all spaces occupied by configurations are called the C-Space,” teaching that the configurations being tested include the direction (rotational position) of the moving manipulator)
determining the robot does not contact with the differential obstacle (Kim ¶ 0007 lines 1-5 “In order to allow the manipulator to perform a given task (e.g., grasp an object), it is important to generate a motion path from an initial position (start point) before the manipulator performs a task to a final position (goal point) where the task may be performed, that is, an object may be grasped,” Kim teaches the determination of the path to get the manipulator to the working point (goal point) but does not teach that the goal point is the first sampling point )
at the rotational position at the sampling point; (Kim ¶ 0055 as above)
determining that the work is executable by the robot at the first rotational position (Kim ¶ 0007 lines 1-5 Kim teaches the determination of the path to get the manipulator to the working point (goal point) to allow the manipulator to perform a given task)
setting, based on the determination that the robot does not contact the differential obstacle at the rotational position and the determination that the work is executable by the robot at the first rotational position, the sampling point inside the specific approach area, (Kim ¶ 0055 as above)
[wherein the robot executes the work,] on the sampling point, (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 as above)
at the rotational position (Kim ¶ 0055 as above)
without contacting with the differential obstacle; […] (Kim ¶ 0061 “As an example of a method of planning a motion path while satisfying constraints, such as obstacle collision avoidance, there is a sampling-based motion planning method.,” as applies to the differential obstacle of Lee)
[…] and the set sampling point, […] and the set sampling point; (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 “The path planning generator may randomly sample a certain point in the configuration space,”)
Lee and Kim are considered analogous because they both relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previously-stored motion information performed close to a specific entry-restricted area of Lee with the addition of the path planning generator’s sample point in a configuration space to avoid obstacles of Kim, using the sampling point determination of Kim directly on the determination of corresponding motion of Lee. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success by someone of ordinary skill in the art as motivated by improving path planning performance and shortening planning time (Kim ¶ 0021 lines 12-14”).
The combination of Lee and Kim does not teach:
[…] rotating the robot [at a … point …]
[…] rotation of the robot at [ the … point …]
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee and Kim, McCulley teaches:
[…] rotating the robot [at a … point …] rotation of the robot at [ the … point …] (McCulley Col 17 lines 17-48 “Gripper check logic 344 may determine, for each of the sorted candidate object data, whether any rotation of gripper 170 is necessary to reach the particular candidate object. For instance, in a case that the gripper 170 would, in a nominal position, interfere with a virtual wall or another object, the gripper check logic 344 may determine that the gripper can be rotated (or in some embodiments shifted) away from the nominal position to reach the object without interference […] gripper check logic 344 may itself determine a pick point and rotation angle by executing one or more algorithms to obtain a 3D model of the gripper 170 (taken from gripper data 355), superimpose the obtained model on the candidate object(s) data, and check for any collision or interference between the gripper and one or more virtual walls (from region data 353) or other objects. In an exemplary embodiment, this process may involve one or more iterations of rotations of the 3D model of the gripper, by any determined incremental degree of rotation, after which a recheck for collision is performed. When the check or recheck indicates that the gripper 170 will not collide with any interfering object, then the gripper check logic 344 may determine the degree and/or axis of rotation, and may associate that information with the candidate position data,” teaching a random point, acknowledging a set of points in the configuration space)
Lee, Kim, and McCulley are all considered analogous because they all relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previously-stored motion information performed close to a specific entry-restricted area of Lee and the path planning generator’s sample point in the configuration space to avoid obstacles of Kim with the simple addition of McCulley’s rotational interference check between a gripper and other objects to determine candidate position data. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success by someone of ordinary skill in the art as motivated by preventing rotational collisions by the picker (McCulley Col 17 lines 32-39)
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim and McCulley and further in view of Diankov (US 20200171656, hereinafter referred to as Diankov).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Lee, Kim, and McCulley teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Lee further teaches:
further comprising a work definition data manager configured to manage work definition data, wherein the work definition data includes each of the first map, […] (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 6 lines 1-2 “The control unit 900 generates a traveling path of the robot based on the data sensed by the sensing module 100 and the data stored in the map storage unit 200.”)
[…] and work motion information. (Lee Pg 1 ¶ 1 lines 7-8 “The control unit controls the moving or function unit of the robot to allow the robot to perform a preset corresponding motion in the entry restriction area disposed on the traveling path of the robot,”)
Lee does not teach:
[…] work sequence information, […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee, Diankov teaches:
[…] work sequence information, […] (Diankov ¶ 0034 lines 1-6 “The control method includes a trajectory information acquiring step of acquiring N−1 or N pieces of trajectory information respectively indicating N−1 or N trajectories connecting N work regions where the work robot performs a series of work operations in order of the series of work operations,”)
Lee, Kim, and Diankov are all considered analogous because they all relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit of Lee with the addition of the trajectory information for a series of work operations of Diankov. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing work efficiency by the scheduling of multiple operations in sequence by applying a known technique (Diankov’s planning of a trajectory information for a series of work operations) to a known device (Lee’s path planning control unit) ready for improvement (Lee’s device focuses on one task while Diankov schedules a series tasks) to yield predictable results (increased work efficiency) as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(I)(C)).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Lee, Kim, McCulley, and Diankov teaches the elements of Claim 8 as described above. Lee does not teach:
further comprising a sequence control unit configured to: control a motion sequence of the robot; and control a work sequence of the robot based on the work sequence information.
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee, Vogel teaches:
further comprising a sequence control unit configured to: control a motion sequence of the robot; and control a work sequence of the robot based on the work sequence information. (Diankov ¶ 0034 “The control method includes a trajectory information acquiring step of acquiring N−1 or N pieces of trajectory information respectively indicating N−1 or N trajectories connecting N work regions where the work robot performs a series of work operations in order of the series of work operations, for example. The control method includes a classifying step of classifying the N−1 or N trajectories as (i) trajectories that need correction due to a change inside the target region indicated by at least one of the first change information and the second change information or (ii) trajectories that do not need correction even if a change occurs inside the target region indicated by at least one of the first change information and the second change information, for example. The control method includes a trajectory planning step of planning a trajectory of a tip of the manipulator between two work regions relating to respective trajectories, based on at least one of the first model information and the second model information, for each of the one or more trajectories classified as a trajectory that needs correction in the classification step, for example. In the control method, N may be an integer greater than or equal to 2.”)
Lee, Kim, and Diankov are all considered analogous because they all relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit of Lee with the addition of the trajectory information for a series of work operations of Diankov. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing work efficiency by the scheduling of multiple operations in sequence by applying a known technique (Diankov’s planning of a trajectory information for a series of work operations) to a known device (Lee’s path planning control unit) ready for improvement (Lee’s device focuses on one task while Diankov schedules a series tasks) to yield predictable results (increased work efficiency) as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(I)(C)).
Claim(s) 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim and McCulley and further in view of Vogel et al (US 20200319640, hereinafter referred to as Vogel).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee teaches:
An information processing system, comprising: […] an information processing device attached to a robot, (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 5 “The robot 1000 includes […] a control unit 900 for controlling the respective components.”)
wherein […] is configured to: generate a specific map (Lee Pg 4 ¶ 8 lines 1-2 “3 is a diagram illustrating a configuration of a fixed map according to an embodiment of the present invention”)
and a specific approach area, (Lee Pg 1 ¶ 1 lines 7-8 “The control unit controls the moving or function unit of the robot to allow the robot to perform a preset corresponding motion in the entry restriction area disposed on the traveling path of the robot,”)
wherein the specific map includes a location of a specific obstacle in a travel environment, (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 7 lines 1-2 The map storage unit 200 may store the position of the fixed object in the space that the robot travels and the fixability of the fixed object.”)
and the robot executes a work in the specific approach area without contact with the specific obstacle; (Lee Pg 1 ¶ 1 lines 7-8 “The control unit controls the moving or function unit of the robot to allow the robot to perform a preset corresponding motion in the entry restriction area disposed on the traveling path of the robot,”)
and input the specific map to the information processing device, (Lee Pg 2 ¶ 9 line 1 “In this specification, a robot can move while holding a map.”)
and the information processing device includes: a plurality of sensors configured to: detect the travel environment of the robot; (Lee Pg 1 ¶ 1 lines 3-5 “the robot to identify an entry restriction area comprises: a sensing module; […] a control unit to generate a traveling path of the robot based on data sensed by the sensing module,”)
and output specific information based on the detected travel environment; a differential obstacle detector configured to detect, based on the specific information, a differential obstacle that is different from the specific obstacle on the specific map, (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 5 lines 1-5 “The robot 1000 includes a fixed object and a moving object disposed around the robot, for example, a sensing module 100 for sensing an external obstacle, […] transmitting / receiving information on the entry restricted area or the changed state of the fixed obstacle or the moving obstacle,” teaching detection of a fixed object (a specific obstacle), a moving object (a first differential obstacle) based on specific sensed information)
wherein the specific map includes the specific approach area, and the robot executes the work in the specific approach area (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 8 lines 2-3 “Information on the entry restriction area can also be stored on the fixed map 210,” teaching the restriction area being on the map and Pg 7 ¶ 6 lines 2-4 “The control unit 900 may control the moving unit 300 and the function unit 400 of the robot 1000 such that the robot 1000 operates according to the set motion when the motion of the robot to be performed in a specific region is determined,” teaching that a motion is conducted in a specific region)
based on a user input; (Lee Pg 5 ¶ 3 “The interface unit 600 displays the map of FIG. 3 so that the user can confirm the information on the moving space of the robot.”)
an approach area corrector configured to: […] determine, based on the […] point, […] determine that the robot does not contact the differential obstacle […] at the […] point; determine that the work is executable by the robot at the […] position; set, based on the determination that the robot does not contact the differential obstacle and the determination that the work is executable by the robot at the […] position, […], the […] point inside the specific approach area, wherein the robot executes the work, on the […] point, […] without the contact with the differential obstacle; (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 3 “In the space where the robot can not enter (entrance restriction area), […] Obstacle areas, and moving obstacle areas where many moving obstacles such as a person or a cart appear. The robot can store the above three types […] prevent them from colliding with obstacles,” and Pg 5 ¶ 8 “4, the information of the corresponding motion that the robot can perform when it is close to a specific entry-restricted area is previously stored in the entry-restricted area information unit 220. Thus, the robot performs a predetermined corresponding motion in a specific entry- can do. Alternatively, when sensing a new entry-inhibiting area, the controller 900 of the robot refers to the corresponding motion for each category of the previously-stored entry-inhibiting area, stores information about the corresponding [sic.] motion in the entry-restricted area information 220, Can be updated,” describing in the first case checking an entry-restricted area to determine the ability to perform a specific stored motion, and in the second case checking a new entry restricted area (i.e. an area with a differential obstacle) to determine the ability to perform a specific stored motion, and Pg 7 ¶ 6 lines 2-4 “The control unit 900 may control the moving unit 300 and the function unit 400 of the robot 1000 such that the robot 1000 operates according to the set motion when the motion of the robot to be performed in a specific region is determined,” as above teaching that the set motion includes the motion of the function unit, i.e. performing work, together teaching that the robot determines that work is executable at the position)
correct, based on each of the differential obstacle […], the specific approach area; (Lee Pg 1 ¶ 1 lines 7-8 “The control unit controls the moving or function unit of the robot to allow the robot to perform a preset corresponding motion in the entry restriction area disposed on the traveling path of the robot,”)
and generate a corrected approach area based on each of the corrected specific approach area […] (Lee Pg 7 ¶ 6 lines 2-4 “The control unit 900 may control the moving unit 300 and the function unit 400 of the robot 1000 such that the robot 1000 operates according to the set motion when the motion of the robot to be performed in a specific region is determined.”)
an environment map integrator configured to generate an integrated environment map, wherein the integrated environment map includes the corrected approach area; (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 8 lines 1-5 “In addition, the map storage unit 200 further includes an entry-restricted area information unit 220, which can store information such as dividing the entry-restricted area into categories or setting a location. Information on the entry restriction area can also be stored on the fixed map 210. [ The entry restricted area information unit 220 may store instruction information on the operation of the robot according to the category of the entry restricted area,” the fixed map being updated to contain all of the information)
a path planner configured to generate a movement path of the robot based on the integrated environment map; (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 6 lines 1-2 “The control unit 900 generates a traveling path of the robot based on the data sensed by the sensing module 100 and the data stored in the map storage unit 200.”)
and a moving body control unit configured to control a movement of the robot based on the movement path. (Lee Pg 7 ¶ 5 lines 1-2 “The robot moves according to the set path or the set motion (S30). The robot 1000 can move according to a path preset by the controller 900.”)
Lee does not teach:
[…] a user terminal; […]
[…] the user terminal […]
[…] rotate the robot at a sampling point of a plurality of sampling points: […]
[…] rotation of the robot at the sampling […]
[…] a rotational position of the robot at the sampling point; […]
[…] at the rotational position […]
[…] rotational […]
[…] rotational […]
[…] sampling […]
[…] at the rotational position […]
[…] sampling […]
[…] sampling […]
[…] at the rotational position […]
[…] and the set sampling point […]
[…] and the set sampling point; […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee, Vogel teaches:
[…] a user terminal; […] the user terminal […] (Vogel ¶ 0031 “autonomous mobile robot 100 comprises communication unit 140, so as to establish the communication connection of human-machine interface (HMI) 200 and/or other external device 300 145. […] man-machine interface 200 for display to the user information about the autonomous mobile robot 100 (e.g., […] map data (i.e., stored in the map and position-related information) such as cleaning map, etc.) and receiving a work task of the autonomous mobile robot 100 of the user command,” teaching a map and input commands from the external device)
Lee and Vogel are both considered analogous because they both relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the saved fixed map of Lee with the addition of the external device map display and input of Vogel. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing operator convenience by applying a known technique (Vogel’s inputting of task information into a man-machine interface) to a known device (Lee’s path planning control unit) ready for improvement (Lee’s device is vague on specific user control) to yield predictable results (specific input methods offering increased operator convenience) as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(I)(C)).
The combination of Lee and Vogel does not teach:
[…] rotate the robot at a sampling point of a plurality of sampling points: […]
[…] rotation of the robot at the sampling […]
[…] a rotational position of the robot at the sampling point; […]
[…] at the rotational position […]
[…] rotational […]
[…] rotational […]
[…] sampling […]
[…] at the rotational position […]
[…] sampling […]
[…] sampling […]
[…] at the rotational position […]
[…] and the set sampling point […]
[…] and the set sampling point; […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee and Vogel, Kim teaches:
[…] a first sampling point of a plurality of sampling points; (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 “The path planning generator may randomly sample a certain point in the configuration space,” teaching a random point, acknowledging a set of points in the configuration space)
determine, based on the […] first sampling point, a first rotational position of the robot at the first sampling point; (Kim ¶ 0055 “In the space forming operation, a Configuration Space (C-Space) to generate a collision avoidance path is detected. The term "configuration" refers to a set of variables to represent the position and the direction of the moving manipulator 130, and all spaces occupied by configurations are called the C-Space,” teaching that the configurations being tested include the direction (rotational position) of the moving manipulator)
determine that the robot does not contact the first differential obstacle (Kim ¶ 0007 lines 1-5 “In order to allow the manipulator to perform a given task (e.g., grasp an object), it is important to generate a motion path from an initial position (start point) before the manipulator performs a task to a final position (goal point) where the task may be performed, that is, an object may be grasped,” Kim teaches the determination of the path to get the manipulator to the working point (goal point) but does not teach that the goal point is the first sampling point )
at the first rotational position; (Kim ¶ 0055 as above)
determine that the work is executable by the robot at the first rotational position (Kim ¶ 0007 lines 1-5 Kim teaches the determination of the path to get the manipulator to the working point (goal point) to allow the manipulator to perform a given task)
set, based on the determination that the robot does not contact the first differential obstacle at the first rotational position and the determination that the work is executable by the robot at the first rotational position, the first sampling point inside the specific approach area, (Kim ¶ 0055 “In the space forming operation, a Configuration Space (C-Space) to generate a collision avoidance path is detected. The term "configuration" refers to a set of variables to represent the position and the direction of the moving manipulator 130, and all spaces occupied by configurations are called the C-Space,”)
[wherein the robot executes the work,] on the first sampling point, (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 as above)
at the first rotational position (Kim ¶ 0055 as above)
without the contact with the first differential obstacle; […] (Kim ¶ 0061 “As an example of a method of planning a motion path while satisfying constraints, such as obstacle collision avoidance, there is a sampling-based motion planning method.,” as applies to the differential obstacle of Lee)
[…] and the set first sampling point, […] and the set first sampling point; […] (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 “The path planning generator may randomly sample a certain point in the configuration space,”)
Lee, Vogel, and Kim are all considered analogous because they all relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previously-stored motion information performed close to a specific entry-restricted area of Lee with the addition of the path planning generator’s sample point in a configuration space to avoid obstacles of Kim, using the sampling point determination of Kim directly on the determination of corresponding motion of Lee. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success by someone of ordinary skill in the art as motivated by improving path planning performance and shortening planning time (Kim ¶ 0021 lines 12-14”).
The combination of Lee, Vogel, and Kim does not teach:
[…] rotate the robot [at a first … point …]
[…] the rotation of the robot at [the first … point…]
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee, Vogel, and Kim, McCulley teaches:
[…] rotate the robot [at a first … point …] the rotation of the robot at [the first … point…] (McCulley Col 17 lines 17-48 “Gripper check logic 344 may determine, for each of the sorted candidate object data, whether any rotation of gripper 170 is necessary to reach the particular candidate object. For instance, in a case that the gripper 170 would, in a nominal position, interfere with a virtual wall or another object, the gripper check logic 344 may determine that the gripper can be rotated (or in some embodiments shifted) away from the nominal position to reach the object without interference […] gripper check logic 344 may itself determine a pick point and rotation angle by executing one or more algorithms to obtain a 3D model of the gripper 170 (taken from gripper data 355), superimpose the obtained model on the candidate object(s) data, and check for any collision or interference between the gripper and one or more virtual walls (from region data 353) or other objects. In an exemplary embodiment, this process may involve one or more iterations of rotations of the 3D model of the gripper, by any determined incremental degree of rotation, after which a recheck for collision is performed. When the check or recheck indicates that the gripper 170 will not collide with any interfering object, then the gripper check logic 344 may determine the degree and/or axis of rotation, and may associate that information with the candidate position data,” teaching a random point, acknowledging a set of points in the configuration space)
Lee, Vogel, Kim, and McCulley are all considered analogous because they all relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previously-stored motion information performed close to a specific entry-restricted area of Lee and the path planning generator’s sample point in the configuration space to avoid obstacles of Kim with the simple addition of McCulley’s rotational interference check between a gripper and other objects to determine candidate position data. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success by someone of ordinary skill in the art as motivated by preventing rotational collisions by the picker (McCulley Col 17 lines 32-39).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Lee, Vogel, McCulley, and Kim teaches the elements of Claim 14 as described above. Lee does not teach:
wherein the approach area corrector is configured to set no sampling point outside the specific approach area.
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee, Kim teaches:
wherein the approach area corrector is configured to set no sampling point outside the specific approach area. (Kim ¶ 0020 lines 1-2 “The path planning generator may randomly sample a certain point in the configuration space,” not including any spaces outside the configuration space)
Lee, Vogel, and Kim are all considered analogous because they all relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previously-stored motion information performed close to a specific entry-restricted area of Lee with the addition of the path planning generator’s sample point selected from the configuration space of Kim. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by improving path planning performance and shortening planning time (Kim ¶ 0021 lines 12-14”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim, McCulley, Vogel, and Diankov.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Lee, Vogel, McCulley, and Kim teaches the elements of Claim 14 as described above. Lee further teaches:
[…] work definition data to the information processing device, the work definition data includes the specific map, […] (Lee Pg 4 ¶ 8 lines 1-2 “3 is a diagram illustrating a configuration of a fixed map according to an embodiment of the present invention”)
[…] and work motion information, (Lee Pg 1 ¶ 1 lines 7-8 “The control unit controls the moving or function unit of the robot to allow the robot to perform a preset corresponding motion in the entry restriction area disposed on the traveling path of the robot,”)
and the approach area corrector is further configured to generate the corrected approach area based on the work definition data. (Lee Pg 3 ¶ 8 lines 1-5 “In addition, the map storage unit 200 further includes an entry-restricted area information unit 220, which can store information such as dividing the entry-restricted area into categories or setting a location. Information on the entry restriction area can also be stored on the fixed map 210. [ The entry restricted area information unit 220 may store instruction information on the operation of the robot according to the category of the entry restricted area”)
Lee does not teach:
wherein the user terminal is further configured to input […]
[…] work sequence information, […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee, Vogel teaches:
[…] work sequence information, […] (Diankov ¶ 0034 lines 1-6 “The control method includes a trajectory information acquiring step of acquiring N−1 or N pieces of trajectory information respectively indicating N−1 or N trajectories connecting N work regions where the work robot performs a series of work operations in order of the series of work operations,”)
Lee, Kim, and Diankov are all considered analogous because they all relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit of Lee with the addition of the trajectory information for a series of work operations of Diankov. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing work efficiency by the scheduling of multiple operations in sequence by applying a known technique (Diankov’s planning of a trajectory information for a series of work operations) to a known device (Lee’s path planning control unit) ready for improvement (Lee’s device focuses on one task while Diankov schedules a series tasks) to yield predictable results (increased work efficiency) as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(I)(C)).
The combination of Lee, Kim, and Diankov does not teach:
wherein the user terminal is further configured to input […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Lee, Vogel teaches:
wherein the user terminal is further configured to input […] (Vogel ¶ 0031 “autonomous mobile robot 100 comprises communication unit 140, so as to establish the communication connection of human-machine interface (HMI) 200 and/or other external device 300 145. […] man-machine interface 200 for display to the user information about the autonomous mobile robot 100 (e.g., […] map data (i.e., stored in the map and position-related information) such as cleaning map, etc.) and receiving a work task of the autonomous mobile robot 100 of the user command,” teaching a map and input commands from the external device)
Lee, Kim, Diankov, and Vogel are all considered analogous because they all relate to robot obstacle avoidance path planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fixed map and preset corresponding motion of Lee and the series of work operations of Diankov with the substitution of the using those terms as external device inputs in the manner of Vogel. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing operator convenience by applying a known technique (Vogel’s inputting of task information into a man-machine interface) to a known device (Lee’s path planning control unit) ready for improvement (Lee’s device is vague on specific user control) to yield predictable results (specific input methods offering increased operator convenience) as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(I)(C)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200150655 teaches a rotation verification similar to the amended elements of the independent claims in a less directly-analogous vacuum robot application
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY E GLADE whose telephone number is (703)756-1502. The examiner can normally be reached 4-5-9 7:30-16:30.
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 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.
/ZACHARY E. F. GLADE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights