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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 03/20/2024. Claims 1-9 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 01/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to claims 1 and 9 are persuasive and therefore the rejection of claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/09/2025 are herein withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et. al. (W.O. Publication No. 2021/025660)-IDS in view of Hammes et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0232102).
Regarding claim 1 and similarly with respect to claim 9
Johnson discloses “A system for monitoring a hazardous zone of a machine, comprising: at least one sensor having at least one spatial monitored zone for monitoring the hazardous zone;” (See Johnson [0050] disclosing a machine sensor, an optical camera device, and a TOF or LIDAR device, each provided as a part of a personnel safety system for a human within a hazardous environment of a machine, see Johnson [0033].).
Johnson discloses “and a control and evaluation unit,” (See instant application Fig. 1, Char. 6 and specification disclosing the unit as a generic control unit.) (See Johnson [0050] disclosing a personnel safety management device. The personnel safety management device incudes a processor, see Johnson Fig. 2, Char. 262.).
Johnson discloses “wherein the at least one sensor is configured to cyclically transmit 3D data of the monitored zone to the control and evaluation unit” (See Johnson [0055] and [0059] disclosing the optical sensor and TOF or LIDAR device can extract a three-dimensional point cloud of the scene of interest. The sensors communicate the data, over exemplified time periods, to the personnel safety management device via a network, see Johnson [0098]-[0099] & Fig. 2, Chars. 210, 220, 202 and 260.).
Johnson discloses “wherein the sensor is further configured to generate at least one protected zone in the monitored zone” (See instant application specification disclosing the protected zone as a monitored zone to protect a person by initiating a shutdown or a slowdown procedure on the basis of a distance threshold to mitigate a stoppage of work.) (See Johnson [0068] disclosing data from the machine sensor may be used to define virtual zones. A breach of the first or second virtual zone may result in a slow-down or shutdown of the machine, see Johnson [0038].).
Johnson discloses “wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to compare the received 3D data of the monitored zone with known position data of the machine and to check them for agreement;” (See Johnson [0081]-[0083] disclosing the personnel safety management device may compare the position data from a machine sensor with the data from the TOF or LIDAR device to identify a match.).
Johnson discloses “wherein the control and evaluation unit Is configured to localize objects in the monitored zone of the at least one sensor with reference to the 3D data and to determine their distance from the dangerous part of the machine,” (See Johnson [0057]-[0058] disclosing the personnel safety management device may include a neural network, which can be trained to determine or estimate the location of the human with respect to the machine in the hazardous environment based on the images captured by the optical camera device.).
Johnson discloses all the elements of claim 1 except “wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to bridge the at least one sensor having the protected zone as long as there is an agreement of the position data and not to bridge the sensor having the protected zone if there is no agreement of the position data, and”, & “wherein the control and evaluation unit is further configured not to bridge the at least one sensor having the protected zone if the distance of objects from at least one dangerous part of the machine falls below predefined first distance values.”
Hammes discloses “wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to bridge the at least one sensor having the protected zone as long as there is an agreement of the position data and not to bridge the sensor having the protected zone if there is no agreement of the position data, and” (See Hammes [0034]-[0035] & [0039] disclosing muting or bridging a sensor so long as there is an agreement of known position data and a sensor.).
Hammes discloses “wherein the control and evaluation unit is further configured not to bridge the at least one sensor having the protected zone if the distance of objects from at least one dangerous part of the machine falls below predefined first distance values.” (See Hammes [0067] & [0074] disclosing not muting or bridging a sensor which is providing a distance measurement.).
Johnson and Hammes are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotics. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnson, to incorporate the teachings of Hammes to include bridging or muting sensors based on an agreement of position data or a detection of some distance. Doing so provides known techniques in the art for safety and monitoring systems, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as it advantageously provides machine control to optionally make use of the position data of the object or person for the situation based safeguarding of the machine enabling a safe distinction of a permitted person or a permitted object and an unauthorized person or unauthorized object see Hammes [0010] and [0035].
Regarding claim 2
Johnson discloses “The system in accordance with claim 1, wherein a first sensor is configured as a sensor to cyclically deliver 3D data of the monitored zone to the control and evaluation unit and a second sensor is configured as a sensor to generate the protected zone.” (See Johnson [0050] disclosing a machine sensor, an optical camera device, and a TOF or LIDAR device, each provided as a part of a personnel safety system for a human within a hazardous environment of a machine, see Johnson [0033].).
Regarding claim 3
Johnson discloses “The system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to cause at least a part of the machine to carry out an evasive movement if the distance of objects from a dangerous part the machine falls below predefined second distance values.” (See Johnson [0081] disclosing the personnel safety management device may compare the position data from a machine sensor with the data from the TOF or LIDAR device.).
Regarding claim 4
Johnson discloses “The system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to compare the received 3D data of the monitored zone of the at least one sensor with known position data of the environment and to check them for agreement.” (See Johnson [0081]-[0083] disclosing the personnel safety management device may compare the position data from a machine sensor with the data from the TOF or LIDAR device to identify a match.).
Regarding claim 5
Johnson discloses “The system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to compare the received 3D data of the monitored zone of the sensor with position data of further arranged sensors and to check them for agreement.” (See Johnson [0081]-[0083] disclosing the personnel safety management device may compare the position data from a machine sensor with the data from the TOF or LIDAR device to identify a match. The machine sensor corresponds to position data of further arranged sensors.).
Regarding claim 6
Johnson discloses “The system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to activate the protected zone when the dangerous part of the machine is in an unpermitted position.” (See Johnson [0075] disclosing performing a remedial action when detecting or determining an overlap or imminent overlap in the location or motion of personnel such as the human, and that of the machine.).
Regarding claim 7
Johnson discloses “The system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the machine is a mobile machine or a fixed position machine.” (See Johnson Fig. 1, Char. 110 and [0033] disclosing the machine may move along a linear pathway.).
Regarding claim 8
Johnson discloses “The system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the machine is a robot and the hazardous zone of the machine is a hazardous zone of the robot.” (See Johnson Fig. 1, Chars. 110, 114, and 112 and [0018] disclosing the machine as an automated tool subsystem (robot) and [0033] disclosing the virtual boundaries may be disposed, for example, partially about the machine or in any other suitable configuration in relation to the machine.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3656