DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination received 12 March 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-4, 6, 12-14, and 16-26 amended 12 March 2026 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “is based at on the at least one” should be “is based on the at least one”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim depends from itself. Amendment to “claim 21” in line 1 is respectfully suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohler (US Pub. No. 2005/0207618) in view of Tyagi (US Pub. No. 2013/0094705).
As per Claim 1, Wohler discloses a method (Figs. 2, 5; ¶44-64) comprising:
obtaining, by a first system (16, 22, 14), first sensor data (70) obtained using one or more first sensors (16, 22), the first sensor data (70) representative of at least a first portion (as per 62 within field of view of camera 16) of an environment (58) that includes equipment (60) (Figs. 4-5; ¶44-64);
determining, by the first system (16, 22, 14) and based at least on the first sensor data (70), whether a first potential safety event (as per yes at 48 via 76, 80) is occurring with regard to the equipment (60) (Figs. 4-5; ¶44-64);
obtaining, by a second system (18, 22, 14), second sensor data (74) obtained using one or more second sensors (18, 22), the second sensor data (74) representative of at least a second portion (as per 62 within field of view of camera 18) of the environment (58) that includes the equipment (60) (Figs. 4-5; ¶44-64);
determining, by the second system (18, 22, 14) and based at least on the second sensor data (74), whether a second potential safety event (as per yes at 48 via 84, 86) is occurring with regard to the equipment (60) (Figs. 4-5; ¶44-64);
determining, by the first system (16, 22, 14) and based at least on communicating (as per 48 via 84, 86) with the second system (18, 22, 14), to cause a reactive safety function (as per “the robot 60 is moved into a safe rest position” in ¶57) associated with the equipment (60) based at least on whether the first potential safety event (as per yes at 48 via 76, 80) is occurring and whether the second potential safety event (as per yes at 48 via 84, 86) is occurring (Figs. 4-5; ¶44-64);
generating, by the first system (16, 22, 14), control data (as per 32 via 48) corresponding to the reactive safety function (as per “the robot 60 is moved into a safe rest position” in ¶57) associated with the equipment (60) (Figs. 4-5; ¶44-64); and
causing, by the first system (16, 22, 14) and using the control data (as per 32 via 48), the equipment (60) to activate the reactive safety function (as per “the robot 60 is moved into a safe rest position” in ¶57) (Figs. 4-5; ¶44-64).
Wohler does not expressly disclose wherein the second system is separate from the first system.
Tyagi discloses a projective volume monitoring apparatus (10) which provides image-based monitoring of a primary monitoring zone (12) for safeguarding against intrusion into the zone (12) (Fig. 1; ¶27). The apparatus (10) includes one or more sensor units (16) each of which includes a plurality of image sensors (18), the one or more sensor units (16) connected to a control unit (20) for disabling or otherwise stopping a hazardous machine responsive to operation of the sensor unit(s) (16) (Fig. 1; ¶30-33). The sensor units (16) each include image processing circuits (36) configured to acquire image data from respective ones of the image sensors (18), process the image data, and respond to the results of processing by notifying the control unit (20) of detected intrusions (Figs. 1-2; ¶30, 38). The image processing circuits (36) include multiple image processor circuits (402-1, 402-2) that provide dual-channel, redundant monitoring of the primary zone (12) using pairs of image sensors (18) (Fig. 4; ¶71-76). In this way, the system mitigates fault conditions in the vision processing circuitry (¶67-71). Like Wohler, Tyagi is concerned with zone monitoring systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Wohler and Tyagi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Tyagi do the system of Wohler since doing so would enhance the system by mitigating fault conditions in the vision processing system. Applying the teachings of Tyagi do the system of Wohler would result in a system that operates “wherein the second system is separate from the first system” in that the system of Wohler would be adapted to perform redundant image analysis as per Tyagi.
As per Claim 2, the combination of Wohler and Tyagi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Wohler further discloses determining one or more configuration parameters (62) associated with one or more potential safety events (as per yes at 48) that may occur with regard to the equipment (60) (Figs. 4-5; ¶44-64),
wherein at least one of the determining whether the first potential safety event (as per yes at 48 via 76, 80) is occurring with regard to the equipment (60) or the determining whether the second potential safety event (as per yes at 48 via 84, 86) is occurring with regard to the equipment (60) is further based at least on the one or more configuration parameters (62) (Figs. 4-5; ¶44-64).
As per Claim 3, the combination of Wohler and Tyagi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Wohler further discloses determining, based at least on the first sensor data (70), at least one of a first location (as per “If a foreign object 66 enters the protective zone 62” in ¶56), associated with a person (as per “protecting persons from automatically operating machines” in ¶6) or a second location (62) associated with at least a part of the equipment (60) (Figs. 4-5; ¶6, 44-64),
wherein the determining whether the first potential safety event (as per yes at 48 via 76, 80) is occurring with regard to the equipment (60) is based at on the at least one of the first location (as per “If a foreign object 66 enters the protective zone 62” in ¶56) or the second location (62) (Figs. 4-5; ¶6, 44-64).
As per Claim 6, the combination of Wohler and Tyagi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Wohler further discloses
generating, based at least on whether the first potential safety event (as per yes at 48 via 76, 80) occurring (as per “If … the protective zone 64 is being violated” in ¶57 determined via 76, 80) or whether the second potential safety event (as per yes at 48 via 84, 86) occurring (as per “If … the protective zone 64 is being violated” in ¶57 determined via 84, 86), second control data (as per “An emergency shutdown of the robot 60 does not occur until violation of the protective zone 64” in ¶56) that causes one or more operations (“as per “emergency shutdown” in ¶56) associated with the equipment (60) (Figs. 4-5; ¶44-64); and
before the causing the equipment (60) to activate the reactive safety function (as per “the robot 60 is moved into a safe rest position” in ¶57; as per operation “following manual restart” in ¶57), causing, using the second control data (as per “An emergency shutdown of the robot 60 does not occur until violation of the protective zone 64” in ¶56), the equipment (60) to perform the one or more operations (“as per “emergency shutdown” in ¶56) (Figs. 4-5; ¶44-64).
As per Claim 23, the combination of Wohler and Tyagi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Wohler further discloses wherein one of:
the first potential safety event (as per yes at 48 via 76, 80) is similar (as per detection of violation of protected space) to the second potential safety event (as per yes at 48 via 84, 86) (Figs. 1, 4-6; ¶41-64); or
{the first potential safety event is different than the second potential safety event}.
As per Claim 26, the combination of Wohler and Tyagi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Wohler further discloses wherein the determining to cause the reactive safety function (as per “the robot 60 is moved into a safe rest position” in ¶57) associated with the equipment (60) is based at least on at least one of the first potential safety event (as per yes at 48 via 76, 80) occurring (Figs. 4-5; ¶44-64) or {the second potential safety event occurring}.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohler (US Pub. No. 2005/0207618) in view of Tyagi (US Pub. No. 2013/0094705), further in view of Burmeister (US Pub. No. 2015/0158178).
As per Claim 4, the combination of Wohler and Tyagi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Wohler does not expressly disclose:
generating, based at least on whether the first potential safety event occurring or whether the second potential safety occurring, second control data that causes one or more devices to provide one or more notifications associated with at least one of the first potential safety event or the second potential safety event; and
causing, using the second control data, the one or more devices to provide the notification.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Tyagi.
Burmeister discloses a safeguarding apparatus (18) for a work region (10) in which a person (12) and a robot arm (16) are situated (Fig. 1; ¶31). The safeguarding apparatus (18) operates to slow or stop the robot arm (16) when the apparatus (18) determines that the person (12) runs the risk of colliding with the moving robot arm (16) (Fig. 1; ¶31). In operation, a camera (22) provides (as per S10) information to an image evaluation (24), a prediction unit (26) checks (as per S12) whether the person (12) is moving too close to the robot arm (16), and the robot arm (16) is controlled (S14) in accordance with appropriate countermeasure (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶31-34, 38-44). Appropriate countermeasures include decelerating the robot arm (16) (¶41, 44) and emitting a warning signal (¶44). Like Wohler, Burmeister is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Wohler, Tyagi, and Burmeister, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Burmeister to the system of Wohler since doing so would enhance the system by: enhance the system by mitigating; and providing an appropriate countermeasure. Applying the teachings of Tyagi and Burmeister to the system of Wohler would result in a system that operates by:
“generating, based at least on whether the first potential safety event occurring or whether the second potential safety occurring, second control data that causes one or more devices to provide one or more notifications associated with at least one of the first potential safety event or the second potential safety event” in that the system of Wohler would be adapted to provide an appropriate countermeasure in the form of an appropriate notification as per Burmeister; and
“causing, using the second control data, the one or more devices to provide the notification” in that the system of Wohler would be adapted to provide an appropriate countermeasure in the form of an appropriate notification as per Burmeister.
Claims 12-14, 16-20, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohler (US Pub. No. 2005/0207618) in view of Denenberg (US Pub. No. 2020/0206928), further in view of Oboril (US Pub. No. 2022/0105636).
As per Claim 12, Wohler discloses a system (Figs. 1, 3; ¶41-58) comprising:
one or more processors (14) (Fig. 1; ¶41-45, 56, 60) to:
obtain sensor data (42) using one or more sensors (12), the sensor data (42) representative of at least a person (66) that located outside of a safety zone (64) associated with equipment (60) located within an environment (58) and approaching (as per “its shape, its direction and speed of movement can be identified and tracked” in ¶58) the equipment (60) (Figs. 2-3; ¶6, 22, 44-58);
generate, based on processing the sensor data (42), data (as per “scene analysis methods 44, 46 preferably include additional algorithms by means of which parameters of the foreign object 66 … can be identified and tracked” in ¶58) regarding the person (66) within the environment (58) and with respect to the equipment (60) (Figs. 2-3; ¶6, 22, 44-58);
detect, data (as per “violation of the protective zone 64” in ¶56) associated with the person (66) entering the safety zone (64) that is associated with the equipment (60) (Figs. 2-3; ¶6, 22, 44-58);
determine, based on the data (as per “violation of the protective zone 64” in ¶56) associated with the person (66) entering the safety zone (64), that a potential safety event (as per yes at 48 via 44, 46) is occurring with respect to the equipment (60) (Figs. 2-3; ¶6, 22, 44-58);
generate, based at least on the potential safety event (as per yes at 48 via 44, 46) occurring, control data (as per 32 via 48) corresponding to one or more operations (as per “outputs of the switching device are switched off” in ¶53; as per “emergency shutdown” in ¶56) associated with the equipment (60) (Figs. 2-3; ¶6, 22, 44-58); and
cause, based at least on the control data (as per 32 via 48), the equipment (60) to perform the one or more operations (as per “outputs of the switching device are switched off” in ¶53; as per “emergency shutdown” in ¶56) (Figs. 2-3; ¶6, 22, 44-58).
Wohler does not expressly disclose:
wherein the processing involves neural networks;
wherein the data involves simulations representing potential paths that the person may navigate; and
wherein the detecting is based at least on the simulations.
Denenberg discloses a workcell (100) monitored by sensors (1021, 1022) in which a robot (106) interacts with a person (P) in the workcell (100) (Fig. 1; ¶46). Information from the sensors (1021, 1022) is provided to a control system (112) that includes an analysis module (342), the analysis module (342) performing operations to identify intruding objects that are unexpected or that may be humans (Figs. 1, 3; ¶48-49, 51-58, 67). The analysis module (342) employs computer-vision techniques including machine learning, convolutional neural networks, and/or recurrent neural networks (¶72). According to Denenberg these techniques enhance reliability of analyzed metrics (¶72). Like Wohler, Denenberg is concerned with robot safety systems.
Oboril discloses a safety system (100) for analyzing and improving the safety of environments in which a robot (101) performs tasks near humans (Fig. 1; ¶27). The safety system (100) includes a simulator (130) to analyze potential hazards and a prediction module (120) that monitors objects within the environment and makes predictions about how the objects may progress along their trajectories (Fig. 1; ¶29-31). The safety system (100) uses a 4D safety envelope based on a detected object (502) in which reachable sets (512a, 512b, 512c) are calculated describing the expected position (510a, 510b, 510c) of the detected object (502) at future times (t0, t1, t2) (Fig. 5; ¶57). The 4D envelope which includes each of the predicted reachable sets (512a, 512b, 512c) accounts for the worst-case reachable set at specified points in time and facilitates safe operation of the robot (101) for each corresponding point in time (¶57-69). Like Wohler, Oboril is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Wohler, Denenberg, and Oboril, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Denenberg and Oboril to the system of Wohler since doing so would: enhance reliability; and facilitate safe operation. Applying the teachings of Denenberg and Oboril to the system of Wohler would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the processing involves neural networks” in that the image analysis system of Wohler would be adapted to operate using a neural network per Denenberg;
“wherein the data involves simulations representing potential paths that the person may navigate” in that the image analysis system of Wohler would be adapted to generate simulations as per Oboril; and
“wherein the detecting is based at least on the simulations” in that in that the image analysis system of Wohler would be adapted to respond to generated simulations as per Oboril.
As per Claim 13, the combination of Wohler, Denenberg, and Oboril teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 12. Wohler further discloses wherein the one or more processors (14) (Fig. 1; ¶41-45, 56, 60) are further to: determine the safety zone (64) associated with the potential safety event (as per yes at 48 via 44, 46) (Figs. 2-3; ¶6, 22, 44-58).
As per Claim 14, the combination of Wohler, Denenberg, and Oboril teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 12. Wohler does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further to cause, based at least on the potential safety event occurring, one or more devices to provide a notification associated with the potential safety event.
See rejection of Claim 12 for discussion of teachings of Denenberg and Oboril. In one embodiment of Denenberg, if safety envelopes approach each other the machinery is slowed down or stopped and the humans in the workcell are alerted with a warning (¶133). If envelopes intersect the machinery is halted and a safety violation alert is sounded (¶133). When the human causing the warning or violation moves out of the way the alarm ceases and the machinery resumes normal operation (¶133).
Therefore, from these teachings of Wohler, Denenberg, and Oboril, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Denenberg and Oboril to the system of Wohler since doing so would: enhance reliability; and facilitate safe operation. Applying the teachings of Denenberg and Oboril to the system of Wohler would result in a system that operates “wherein the one or more processors are further to cause, based at least on the potential safety event occurring, one or more devices to provide a notification associated with the potential safety event” in that the image analysis system of Wohler would be adapted to operate using a neural network and provide an appropriate alert as per Denenberg.
As per Claim 16, the combination of Wohler, Denenberg, and Oboril teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 12. Wohler further discloses wherein the system (Figs. 1, 3; ¶41-58) is at least one of included within a control system (14) associated with the equipment (60) (Figs. 1, 3; ¶41-58) or {remotely located from the control system associated with the equipment}.
As per Claim 17, the combination of Wohler, Denenberg, and Oboril teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 12. Wohler further discloses wherein the system (Figs. 1, 3; ¶41-58) is comprised in at least one of: {a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing one or more simulation operations; a system for performing one or more digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing one or more deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device}; a system (Figs. 1, 3; ¶41-58) implemented using a robot (60) (Fig. 3; ¶44-64); {a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system for performing operations using one or more large language models (LLMs); a system for performing one or more conversational AI operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources}.
As per Claim 18, Wohler discloses one or more processors (14) (Fig. 1; ¶41-45, 56, 60) comprising:
processing circuitry (14, 20) (Fig. 1; ¶41-42) to:
obtain sensor data (42) using one or more sensors (12), the sensor data (42) representative of at least a person (66) that located outside of a safety zone (64) associated with equipment (60) located within an environment (58) (Figs. 2-3; ¶6, 22, 44-58);
generate, based on processing the sensor data (42), data (as per “scene analysis methods 44, 46 preferably include additional algorithms by means of which parameters of the foreign object 66 … can be identified and tracked” in ¶58) regarding a person (66) within the environment (58) (Figs. 2-3; ¶6, 22, 44-58);
detect, data (as per “violation of the protective zone 64” in ¶56) associated with the person (66) entering the safety zone (64) that is associated with the equipment (60) (Figs. 2-3; ¶6, 22, 44-58);
determine, based on data (as per “violation of the protective zone 64” in ¶56) associated with the person (66) entering the safety zone (64), that a potential safety event (as per yes at 48 via 44, 46) is occurring with respect to the equipment (60) (Figs. 2-3; ¶6, 22, 44-58); and
cause, based at least on the potential safety event occurring (as per yes at 48 via 44, 46), the equipment (60) to perform the one or more operations (as per “outputs of the switching device are switched off” in ¶53; as per “emergency shutdown” in ¶56) (Figs. 2-3; ¶6, 22, 44-58).
Wohler does not expressly disclose:
wherein the processing involves at least on one or more neural networks;
wherein the data involves one or more simulations representing one or more potential paths that the person may navigate; and
wherein the detecting is based at least on the one or more simulations.
See rejection of Claim 12 for discussion of teachings of Denenberg and Oboril.
Therefore, from these teachings of Wohler, Denenberg, and Oboril, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Denenberg and Oboril to the system of Wohler since doing so would: enhance reliability; and facilitate safe operation. Applying the teachings of Denenberg and Oboril to the system of Wohler would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the processing involves at least on one or more neural networks” in that the image analysis system of Wohler would be adapted to operate using a neural network per Denenberg;
“wherein the data involves one or more simulations representing one or more potential paths that the person may navigate” in that the image analysis system of Wohler would be adapted to generate simulations as per Oboril; and
“wherein the detecting is based at least on the one or more simulations” in that in that the image analysis system of Wohler would be adapted to respond to generated simulations as per Oboril.
As per Claim 19, the combination of Wohler, Denenberg, and Oboril teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 18. Wohler does not expressly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further to send, based at least on the potential safety event occurring, control data associated with one or more devices providing a notification indicating the potential safety event.
See rejection of Claim 12 for discussion of teachings of Denenberg and Oboril. In one embodiment of Denenberg, if safety envelopes approach each other the machinery is slowed down or stopped and the humans in the workcell are alerted with a warning (¶133). If envelopes intersect the machinery is halted and a safety violation alert is sounded (¶133). When the human causing the warning or violation moves out of the way the alarm ceases and the machinery resumes normal operation (¶133).
Therefore, from these teachings of Wohler, Denenberg, and Oboril, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Denenberg and Oboril to the system of Wohler since doing so would: enhance reliability; and facilitate safe operation. Applying the teachings of Denenberg and Oboril to the system of Wohler would result in a system that operates “wherein the processing circuitry is further to send, based at least on the potential safety event occurring, control data associated with one or more devices providing a notification indicating the potential safety event” in that the image analysis system of Wohler would be adapted to operate using a neural network and provide an appropriate alert as per Denenberg.
As per Claim 20, the combination of Wohler, Denenberg, and Oboril teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 18. Wohler further discloses wherein the one or more processors (14) (Figs. 1, 3; ¶41-58) is comprised in at least one of: {a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing one or more simulation operations; a system for performing one or more digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing one or more deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device}; a system (Figs. 1, 3; ¶41-58) implemented using a robot (60) (Fig. 3; ¶44-64); {a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system for performing operations using one or more large language models (LLMs); a system for performing one or more conversational AI operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources}.
As per Claim 24, the combination of Wohler, Denenberg, and Oboril teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 12. Wohler does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more simulations representing the potential paths include at least:
a first simulation associated with the person moving along a first potential path within the environment and with respect to the equipment, the first potential path starting outside of the safety zone and ending at least partly within the safety zone; and
a second simulation associated with the person moving along a second potential path within the environment and with respect to the equipment.
See rejection of Claim 12 for discussion of teachings of Denenberg and Oboril. Oboril further discloses a perception check (440) that determines whether the expected positions of the object at each predicted time is consistent with the prediction (¶59).
Therefore, from these teachings of Wohler, Denenberg, and Oboril, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Denenberg and Oboril to the system of Wohler since doing so would: enhance reliability; and facilitate safe operation. Applying the teachings of Denenberg and Oboril to the system of Wohler would result in a system that operates wherein the one or more simulations representing the potential paths include at least:
“a first simulation associated with the person moving along a first potential path within the environment and with respect to the equipment, the first potential path starting outside of the safety zone and ending at least partly within the safety zone” in that the system of Wohler would be adapted to respond to generated simulations as per Oboril within the context of zones (62, 64) of Wohler; and
“a second simulation associated with the person moving along a second potential path within the environment and with respect to the equipment” in that the system of Wohler would be adapted to respond to generated simulations as per Oboril within the context of zones (62, 64) of Wohler.
As per Claim 25, the combination of Wohler, Denenberg, and Oboril teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 12. Wohler does not expressly disclose wherein the simulations representing the potential paths include at least:
a first simulation associated with the person moving along a first potential path within the environment and with respect to the equipment, the first potential path starting at a first location that is outside of the safety zone and ending a second location that is within the safety zone; and
a second simulation associated with the person moving along a second potential path within the environment and with respect to the equipment, the second potential path starting at the first location that is outside of the safety zone and ending at a third location that is outside of the safety zone.
See rejection of Claim 12 for discussion of teachings of Denenberg and Oboril. Oboril further discloses a perception check (440) that determines whether the expected positions of the object at each predicted time is consistent with the prediction (¶59).
Therefore, from these teachings of Wohler, Denenberg, and Oboril, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Denenberg and Oboril to the system of Wohler since doing so would: enhance reliability; and facilitate safe operation. Applying the teachings of Denenberg and Oboril to the system of Wohler would result in a system that operates wherein the simulations representing the potential paths include at least:
“a first simulation associated with the person moving along a first potential path within the environment and with respect to the equipment, the first potential path starting at a first location that is outside of the safety zone and ending a second location that is within the safety zone” in that the system of Wohler would be adapted to respond to generated simulations as per Oboril within the context of zones (62, 64) of Wohler; and
“a second simulation associated with the person moving along a second potential path within the environment and with respect to the equipment, the second potential path starting at the first location that is outside of the safety zone and ending at a third location that is outside of the safety zone” in that the system of Wohler would be adapted to respond to generated simulations as per Oboril within the context of zones (62, 64) of Wohler.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohler (US Pub. No. 2005/0207618) in view of Tyagi (US Pub. No. 2013/0094705), further in view of Denenberg (US Pub. No. 2020/0206928), further in view of Oboril (US Pub. No. 2022/0105636).
As per Claim 21, the combination of Wohler and Tyagi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Wohler does not expressly disclose wherein the determining whether the first potential safety event is occurring with regard to the equipment comprises:
generating, by the first system and based at least on one or more neural networks processing the first sensor data, one or more simulations representing a person moving with respect to the equipment; and
determining, by the first system and based at least on the one or more simulations, whether the first potential safety event is occurring.
See rejection of Claim 12 for discussion of teachings of Denenberg and Oboril.
Therefore, from these teachings of Wohler, Denenberg, and Oboril, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Denenberg and Oboril to the system of Wohler since doing so would: enhance reliability; and facilitate safe operation. Applying the teachings of Denenberg and Oboril to the system of Wohler would result in a system that operates wherein the determining whether the first potential safety event is occurring with regard to the equipment comprises:
“generating, by the first system and based at least on one or more neural networks processing the first sensor data, one or more simulations representing a person moving with respect to the equipment” in that the image analysis system of Wohler would be adapted to operate using a neural network per Denenberg and in that the system of Wohler would be adapted to respond to generated simulations as per Oboril; and
“determining, by the first system and based at least on the one or more simulations, whether the first potential safety event is occurring” in that the system of Wohler would be adapted to respond to generated simulations as per Oboril.
As per Claim 22, the combination of Wohler, Tyagi, Denenberg, and Oboril teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim [21]. Wohler does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more simulations include at least:
a first simulation associated with the person moving along a first path with respect to the equipment; and
a second simulation associated with the person moving along a second path with respect to the equipment.
See rejection of Claim 12 for discussion of teachings of Denenberg and Oboril.
Therefore, from these teachings of Wohler, Denenberg, and Oboril, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Denenberg and Oboril to the system of Wohler since doing so would: enhance reliability; and facilitate safe operation. Applying the teachings of Denenberg and Oboril to the system of Wohler would result in a system that operates wherein the one or more simulations include at least:
“a first simulation associated with the person moving along a first path with respect to the equipment” in that the system of Wohler would be adapted to respond to generated simulations as per Oboril; and
“a second simulation associated with the person moving along a second path with respect to the equipment” in that the system of Wohler would be adapted to respond to generated simulations as per Oboril.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 March 2026 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 112 should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 13 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive. Therefore, these rejections are not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “Wohler does not teach or suggest that ‘a first system’ analyzes the first image and a ‘second system that is separate from the first system’ analyzes the second image” (page 15 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of Wohler and the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 102 are not maintained. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “Wohler does not teach or suggest that a ‘first system’ analyzes the first image to detect a foreign object located within a hazardous area and also that a ‘second system’ analyzes the second image to detect the foreign object located within the hazardous area” (page 15 of Amendment). However, no claim recites “a first system analyzes the first image to detect a foreign object located within a hazardous area” and also that “a second system analyzes the second image to detect the foreign object located within the hazardous area”. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not clearly relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “Wohler further does not teach or suggest that a ‘first system’ communicates with a ‘second system’ to cause a function with a robot” (page 15 of Amendment). However, no claim recites “a first system communicates with a second system to cause a function with a robot”. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not clearly relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “Wohler reference fails to teach or suggest each and every feature of independent claim 1” and “the Burmeister reference fails to overcome the deficiencies described above with respect to independent claim 1” (page 16 of Amendment). As discussed above, rejections under 35 USC 102 are not maintained in view of the amended claim language. Further, no rejection involves an assertion that teachings of Burmeister apply to Claim 1. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan, whether taken alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest, at least, ‘generat[ing] …; detect[ing] …, [and] determin[ing] …” as claimed (page 17 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan are not maintained. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “Wohler does not teach or suggest determining whether a ‘potential path’ of a foreign object that is located outside the hazardous area is associated with ‘entering’ the hazardous area” (page 18 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that Wohler discloses a potential path as claimed. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not clearly relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “Wohler does not teach or suggest any type of ‘potential path’ associated with a foreign object” (page 18 of amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that Wohler discloses a potential path as claimed. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not clearly relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “Wohler does not teach or suggest determining whether a foreign object may be ‘entering’ a hazardous area” in that “Wohler merely describes determining whether a location of a foreign object is outside of the hazardous area or within the hazardous area” (page 18 of Amendment). However, no claim recites “may be entering a hazardous zone”. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not clearly relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “Wohler does not teach or suggest ‘generat[ing] …; detect[ing] …, [and] determin[ing] …” as claimed (page 18 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that Wohler individually discloses the limitations at issue. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not clearly relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “Denenberg fails to remedy the deficiencies of Wohler” in that “Denenberg does not teach or suggest ‘one or more simulations’” (page 18-19 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that Denenberg teaches or suggests one or more simulations as claimed. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not clearly relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “Denenberg does not teach or suggest ‘generat[ing] …; detect[ing] …, [and] determin[ing] …” as claimed (page 19 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that Denenberg individually discloses the limitations at issue. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not clearly relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “Hazan does not remedy the deficiencies of Wohler and Denenberg” in that “Hazan does not teach or suggest any type of ‘sensor data,’ let alone ‘sensor data that represents a human” (page 19 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, upon further consideration of the teachings of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan are not maintained. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “Hazan does not teach or suggest a ‘safety zone’ associated with a robot and, as such, sensor data that represents a human being located outside of a ‘safety zone’ associated with a robot while also ‘approaching’ the robot” (page 19 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, upon further consideration of the teachings of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan are not maintained. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “Hazan does not teach or suggest performing the simulation to determine ‘potential paths’ of the human within an environment” in that “in Hazan, the human swept volume is associated with the motion of the upper portion of the human, but the human is stationary such that there is no ‘potential path’” (page 19 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, upon further consideration of the teachings of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan are not maintained. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “Hazan does not teach or suggest determining whether a ‘potential path’ of a human that is located outside of a ‘safety zone’ may be associated with ‘entering’ the ‘safety zone’” and, accordingly, “Hazan does not teach or suggest ‘generat[ing] …; detect[ing] …, [and] determin[ing] …” as claimed (page 20 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, upon further consideration of the teachings of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan are not maintained. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “the combination of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan does not teach or suggest these features” in that “the combination of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan does not teach or suggest ‘potential paths’ of a person within an environment” and “Rather, the combination of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan describes a human swept volume associated with a human” (page 20 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, upon further consideration of the teachings of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan are not maintained. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “the combination of Wohler, Denenberg and Hazan does not teach or suggest that a ‘potential path’ of a person that is outside of a zone is associated with entering the zone” in that “Rather, at best, the combination of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan describes determining if a human is inside a hazardous area or outside of the hazardous area” (page 20 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, upon further consideration of the teachings of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan are not maintained. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “the combination of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan does not teach or suggest ‘generat[ing] …; detect[ing] …, [and] determin[ing] …” as claimed (page 20-21 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, upon further consideration of the teachings of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Wohler, Denenberg, and Hazan are not maintained. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sato (US Pub. No. 2012/0182155) and Ignaczak (US Pub. No. 2015/0348417) disclose robot control systems and/or equipment monitoring systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights