Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits in response to communications filed by Applicant on June 11, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and examined below.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
In respond to applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of said previous office action have been fully considered; however, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. US2008/0086241 (“Phillips”) in view of Tian et al. US2016/0059416 (“Tian”).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 11. Phillips discloses a system comprising:
a robotic vehicle having a propulsion system configured to propel the robotic vehicle through an external environment and an actuator configured to perform designated operations while in the external environment (fig. 1, );
one or more sensors disposed onboard the robotic vehicle configured to obtain environmental data representative of the external environment; and a local controller disposed onboard the robotic vehicle and configured to receive input signals from an off-board controller (Robot Structure FIGS. 19A, 19B and 20, para. 176-180, To input sensor output to the behaviors 715 and their corresponding routines, the system has a set of virtual sensors 720 in communicative connection with a set of sensors 725.);
wherein, responsive to receiving an input signal from the off-board controller for moving in an autonomous mode for autonomous movements of the robotic vehicle, the local controller is configured to autonomously move the robotic vehicle within the external environment (FIG. 13 illustrates an exemplary use of the control system of the present invention with a remote vehicle; abstract, The system comprises an operator control system receiving input from the operator including instructions for the remote vehicle to execute an autonomous behavior, and a control system on the remote vehicle for receiving the instruction to execute an autonomous behavior from the operator control system. Upon receiving the instruction to execute an autonomous behavior, the remote vehicle executes that autonomous behavior.);
wherein, responsive to receiving an input signal for operating in a tele-operation mode, the local controller is configured to exit the autonomous mode, wherein the input signal for operating in the tele-operation mode includes a remote command that dictates at least one of a movement of the robotic vehicle or a movement of the actuator (abstract, A system and method for allowing an operator to switch between remote vehicle tele-operation and one or more remote vehicle autonomous behaviors, or for implementing remote vehicle autonomous behaviors.).
Phillips does not explicitly disclose: wherein the autonomous movements comprise movement restriction based on a location of one or more additional systems in the external environment.
Tian teaches another system that the autonomous movements comprise movement restriction based on a location of one or more additional systems in the external environment (para. 24, para. 37, a more permissive and time saving avoidance strategy (e.g., a strategy in which the robot 100 keeps moving but modifies a direction or speed of movement to avoid the human) may be employed in open areas, while a more restrictive strategy (e.g., stopping the robot 100 until the human is out of the zone of interest) may be employed to ensure safety in tight quarters where an avoidance strategy may be overly risky or otherwise not practicable. Para. 39, an additional alarm or message may be provided when the robot 100 has stopped either a navigation activity or a manipulation activity due to the presence of a human, thereby alerting the human and prompting the human to move outside of the zone of interest.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Phillips by incorporating the applied teaching of movement restriction as taught by Tian to reduce the risk of robotic collision and improve operational safety and one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim(s) 2, 12. Phillips in view of Tian further teaches discloses wherein the local controller is configured to determine whether the remote command is permissible, based on safe operation of the robotic vehicle to perform the remote command based on the environmental data, wherein the safe operation of the robotic vehicle comprises a determination that the robotic vehicle will not collide with another object (para. 24, para. 37, a more permissive and time saving avoidance strategy (e.g., a strategy in which the robot 100 keeps moving but modifies a direction or speed of movement to avoid the human) may be employed in open areas, while a more restrictive strategy (e.g., stopping the robot 100 until the human is out of the zone of interest) may be employed to ensure safety in tight quarters where an avoidance strategy may be overly risky or otherwise not practicable. Para. 39, an additional alarm or message may be provided when the robot 100 has stopped either a navigation activity or a manipulation activity due to the presence of a human, thereby alerting the human and prompting the human to move outside of the zone of interest.), wherein, responsive to determining that the remote command is permissible, the local controller is configured to generate control signals for performing the remote command (Phillips: para. 176, This practicality can be displayed in a situation where there is a bomb located on a set of stairs, and the behavior system stops the stair climbing behavior 7068 on detection of an obstacle by a sensor, so that the higher priority obstacle avoidance behavior 7059 may control the remote vehicle's drive assembly to drive away from the obstacle which in this case is a bomb. Were the obstacle avoidance behavior 7059 is not a higher priority than the stair climbing behavior 7068, the remote vehicle would have continued to drive toward the bomb, likely hitting it and causing injury to the remote vehicle and those humans present in the surrounding environment.).
Regarding claim(s) 3, 13. Phillips discloses wherein the local controller is configured to withhold issuing the control signals for performing the remote command until the local controller determines that the remote command is permissible (para. 196-197, Other embodiments may make substitutions for the forbidden actions and proceed with the behavior's subsequent steps. In an embodiment of the invention, the screen also relays to the operator the conflicts present in the previous list of chosen actions. Alternatively, the screen may request that the operator change only the actions that are not allowed.).
Regarding claim(s) 4, 14. Phillips discloses wherein the remote command includes at least one of a direction of movement, a speed, or an acceleration that differs from a direction of movement, a speed, or an acceleration of the robotic vehicle when exiting the autonomous mode (para. 215, on-board orientation sensors in any robot element (accelerometers, tilt sensors, gyroscopes, and/or horizon detection), it is possible to produce a frame of reference for each robot element. Each frame of reference is represented by a matrix giving the x, y, z location of the robot element and the rotation vectors for forward, left and up.).
Regarding claim(s) 5, 15. Phillips discloses wherein the local controller is configured to autonomously and repeatedly determine a current location of the robotic vehicle within the external environment based on the environmental data, wherein the local controller is configured to move the robotic vehicle within the external environment based on the current location of the robotic vehicle and a designated destination (para. 279-282, destination point within a global map and adjust its heading to move towards that point;).
Regarding claim(s) 6, 18. Phillips discloses further comprising the off-board controller, the off-board controller including an input device configured to be controlled by a user of the off-board controller (FIG. 21 is a block diagram depicting an embodiment of a mobile robot control system. Included in the control system 1155 is a single board computer (SBC) 1110 such as, for example, a Freescale MPC5200. A microprocessor can be used in lieu of the single board computer 1110. Connected to the single board computer 1110 is a global positioning system (GPS) module 1135, a radio module 1150, and a wireless Ethernet transmitter and receiver 1140. A radio module 1150 is connected to the single board computer 1110 via an Ethernet switch 1190, and is further connected to a radio antenna 1145. The user can control the control system 1155 using a radio communicating over a secure connection created by the radio module 1150 and the radio antenna 1145.).
Regarding claim(s) 7, 20. Phillips discloses wherein the input device includes at least one of a control column, a touch-sensitive screen, or an electronic switch (FIG. 35 illustrates an embodiment of a preset action sequence behavior by which an operator can create a custom action sequence routine that is an aggregation of user-chosen routines and behaviors. An action sequence routine may consist of a combination of available robot behavior routines and events. Alternatively, the operator can include actions and movements available to the mobile robot 10 but not defined by a pre-existing behavior or routine. An exemplary method for constructing the preset action sequence behavior using a console as illustrated in FIG. 35 includes depressing soft keys 253 either by moving a mouse over the button image on the screen 261 and then depressing a mouse button, or by contacting and applying a force to the area on the screen 261 that corresponds to the button image 253.).
Regarding claim(s) 8, 19. Phillips discloses wherein the off-board controller is connected to the local controller via a wired connection and communicates to the local controller through the wired connection (fig. 22).
Regarding claim(s) 9. Phillips discloses further comprising a control device that includes the off-board controller, the control device being a handheld device carried by a user (fig. 13).
Regarding claim(s) 10, 16. Phillips discloses wherein the environmental data includes at least one of image data, light detection and ranging (LIDAR) data, laser guidance data, accelerometer data, gyroscopic data, data from an inertial measurement unit (IMU), data from an attitude and heading reference system (AHRS) (FIGS. 19A and 19B illustrate an embodiment of a remote vehicle of the present invention. A mobile robot 10 has a head 122 that includes a drive camera 127 mounted thereon to provide visual information regarding the environment of the mobile robot 10, an electro-optic infrared (EO/IR) module 4165 which uses LIDAR to map the environment and detect possible obstacles, main drive treads 110 for propelling and steering the mobile robot 10,).
Regarding claim(s) 17. Phillips discloses wherein the current location is based on at least one of location data from a satellite or beacon or a predetermined map representative of at least a portion of the external environment (para. 111, The head-mounted display displays a GUI with views from the robot's camera(s) and information about the robot such as battery life, payloads, communication status, etc., and also displays soft buttons that are mapped to the hand-held controller buttons and allow the user to more intuitively control the robot using the hand-held controller.).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUC M DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5962. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramón Mercado, Ph.D. can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRUC M DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights