Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/634,171 and the amendments filed on 12/23/2025.
3. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/16/2024, 12/17/2024, and 6/4/2025 have been fully considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments, see page 14, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the objection to claim 12 for minor informalities have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 10/31/2025 has been withdrawn.
6. Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-14, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 1, the Applicant argues that cited reference US 20210331312 A1 to Kim fails to teach the item of a servo circuit, and the servo circuit being connected to the safety control circuit. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner interprets paragraph [0475] of Kim to teach the servo circuit as the travel driver 130, wherein the travel driver 130 is connected to the different recognition/acquisition units of Kim (interpreted to be the safety control circuits). See also Figure 36 of Kim. This paragraph was present within the previous office action to teach the servo circuit in a different section of claim 1. Nonetheless, the Examiner submits that Kim teaches the servo circuit as claimed, in which will also be described further below.
Regarding independent claims 19 and 20, these claims have since been amended to be dependent off of claim 1, and thus, now would inherit all of the limitations of claim 1 and are still rejected, in which will be described later.
Regarding dependent claims 2-4, 6-14, and 17-18, as all of these claims depend from claim 1, are still rejected, in which will be described later.
7. Applicant’s arguments, see page 17, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the objection to claims 5, 15, and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 10/31/2025 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1, 2, 18, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 20210169296 A1 hereinafter Brown) in view of Kim et al. (US 20210331312 A1 hereinafter Kim).
Regarding Claim 1, Brown teaches a safety control system for a mobile robot ([0024] via “FIGS. 1 and 2 illustrate a schematic view of an autonomous floor cleaner, such as a floor cleaning robot 10, also referred to herein as a robot 10.”), ([0029] via “A controller 20 is operably coupled with the various functional systems 30, 40, 50, 70 of the robot 10 for controlling the operation of the robot 10.”);
wherein the mobile robot is arranged with at least one mobile device ([0040] via “The drive system 70 can include drive wheels 71 for driving the robot 10 across a surface to be cleaned.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets at least the drive wheels of Brown as the at least one mobile device.), and the safety control system comprises:
a first monitoring circuit, configured to monitor a movement state of each of the at least one mobile device, for monitoring movement data of the mobile robot ([0030] via “The navigation/mapping system 30 can include a memory 31 that can store any data useful for navigation, mapping or conducting a cycle of operation, including, but not limited to, maps for navigation, inputs from various sensors that are used to guide the movement of the robot 10, etc. For example, wheel encoders 32 can be placed on the drive shafts of wheels coupled to the robot 10 and configured to measure a distance traveled by the robot 10. The distance measurement can be provided as input to the controller 20.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the wheel encoders 32 as the first monitoring circuit.”);
a second monitoring circuit, arranged on an outer wall of the mobile robot, and configured to generate a collision signal in response to the mobile robot colliding with an obstacle ([0053] via “Bump sensors 102 can also be provided in the localization system 100 for determining front or side impacts to the robot 10. The bump sensors 102 may be integrated with the housing 12, such as with a bumper 14 (FIG. 3). Output signals from the bump sensors
102 provide inputs to the controller for selecting an obstacle avoidance algorithm.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the bump sensors 102 as the second monitoring circuit.);
a third monitoring circuit, configured to monitor whether an obstacle exists within a preset range of the mobile robot and to generate an alarm signal in response to the obstacle being monitored to exist ([0052] via “In one non-limiting example, the localization system 100
can include obstacle sensors 101 determining the position of the robot 10, such as a stereo camera in a non-limiting example, for distance and position sensing. The obstacle sensors 101
can be mounted to the housing 12 (FIG. 3) of the robot 10, such as in the front of the housing
12 to determine the distance to obstacles in front of the robot 10. Input from the obstacle sensors 101 can be used to slow down or adjust the course of the robot 10 when objects are detected. In one embodiment, the robot 10 can issue at least one audible warning based on input from the positioning or localization system 100.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the obstacle sensors 101 as the third monitoring circuit.);
a safety control circuit, connected to the first monitoring circuit (See Figure 1 of Brown, wherein controller 20 is connected to wheel encoders 32.), the second monitoring circuit (See Figures 1 and 2 of Brown, wherein controller 20 is connected to bump sensors 102.), the third monitoring circuit (See Figures 1 and 2 of Brown, wherein controller 20 is connected to obstacle sensors 101.), and
configured to generate a first safety instruction based on the movement data (See [0030] of Brown cited above.), ([0040] via “The drive wheels 71 can be operated by a common wheel motor 72 or individual wheel motors coupled with the drive wheels 71 by a transmission, which may include a gear train assembly or another suitable transmission. The drive system 70 can receive inputs from the controller 20 for driving the robot 10 across a floor, based on inputs from the navigation/mapping system 30 for the autonomous mode of operation or based on inputs from a smartphone, tablet, or other remote device for the manual mode of operation.”), a second safety instruction based on the collision signal (See [0053] of Brown cited above.), a third safety instruction based on the alarm signal (See [0052] of Brown cited above.), (Note: The Examiner interprets controller 20 of Brown as the safety control circuit.).
Brown is silent on wherein the safety control circuit is connected to a safety input device of the mobile robot, and configured to generate a fourth safety instruction based on state information of the safety input device; a servo circuit, connected to the safety control circuit, and configured to receive and execute the first safety instruction, the second safety instruction, the third safety instruction, or the fourth safety instruction output by the safety control circuit; and a main control board, connected to the servo circuit, and configured to output a drive control signal to the servo circuit, for causing the servo circuit to control a motor of the mobile robot based on the drive control signal.
However, Kim teaches wherein the safety control circuit is connected to a safety input device of the mobile robot, and configured to generate a fourth safety instruction based on state information of the safety input device ([0546] via “Referring to FIG. 43, when an avoidance object has been founded, the robot cleaner 100 may display a text, that the avoidance object has been founded, through a display unit 152. When an avoidance object has been founded, the robot cleaner 100 may output a message or an alarm, that the avoidance object has been founded, through a voice output unit 151.”), ([0547] via “In a fourth step S240, the robot cleaner 100 prepares to receive a user's instruction while informing of the fact that the avoidance object has been founded. The robot cleaner 100 may be in a stopped state while waiting for the user's instruction. The robot cleaner 100 may receive a user voice signal through a user input unit 140.”), ([0549] via “In a fifth step S250, the robot cleaner 100 reads an instruction from the user as “Avoid the avoidance object” or “Ignore the avoidance object”.”), ([0551] via “In a sixth step S260, the robot cleaner 100 sets a bypass travel path in response to the instruction of “Avoid the avoidance object” from the user.”);
a servo circuit, connected to the safety control circuit ([0475] via “The controller 110
may include a Micom that manages the power supply unit 60 including a battery, etc., the obstacle recognition unit 180 including various sensors, and the travel driver 130 including a plurality of motors and wheels in hardware of the robot cleaner 100.”), and configured to receive and execute the first safety instruction, the second safety instruction, the third safety instruction, or the fourth safety instruction output by the safety control circuit ([0541] via “When the robot cleaner 100 has founded an object Sub decided as the avoidance object, the robot cleaner 100 may perform an operation of informing about the discovery of the avoidance object, in order to efficiently cope with it. A method of processing a discovery area of an avoidance object based on an event while informing about the even for the discovery of the avoidance object is described as follows.”), ([0550] via “The robot cleaner 100 performs an operation of the first step S210 in response to the instruction of “Ignore the avoidance object”. That is, even if the robot cleaner 100 has decided an object Sub of an image as an avoidance object, the robot cleaner 100 preferentially receives a user's instruction, ignores the corresponding object Sub, and maintains an existing travel path PASS.”), ([0551] via “In a sixth step S260, the robot cleaner 100 sets a bypass travel path in response to the instruction of “Avoid the avoidance object” from the user.”); and
a main control board, connected to the servo circuit, and configured to output a drive control signal to the servo circuit, for causing the servo circuit to control a motor of the mobile robot based on the drive control signal ([0475] via “The controller 110 may include a Micom that manages the power supply unit 60 including a battery, etc., the obstacle recognition unit 180 including various sensors, and the travel driver 130 including a plurality of motors and wheels in hardware of the robot cleaner 100.”), ([0476] via “The controller 110 may include an application processor (AP) for entirely managing a hardware module system of the of the robot cleaner 100. The AP may run an application program for travelling using location information obtained through various sensors and transmit input and output information of users to the Micom to drive the motor, etc. Further, the user input unit 140, the image acquisition unit 160, the location recognition unit 170, and the like may be managed by the AP.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim wherein the safety control circuit is connected to a safety input device of the mobile robot, and configured to generate a fourth safety instruction based on state information of the safety input device; a servo circuit, connected to the safety control circuit, and configured to receive and execute the first safety instruction, the second safety instruction, the third safety instruction, or the fourth safety instruction output by the safety control circuit; and a main control board, connected to the servo circuit, and configured to output a drive control signal to the servo circuit, for causing the servo circuit to control a motor of the mobile robot based on the drive control signal. Doing so allows the robot to appropriately and efficiently performs tasks related to its current environment, as stated above by Kim in [0541].
Regarding Claim 2, modified reference Brown teaches the safety control system according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the safety control circuit comprises: an input circuit, connected to the safety input device and configured to obtain the state information of the safety input device; a logic circuit, connected to the input circuit and configured to generate the fourth safety instruction based on the state information of the safety input device; and an output circuit, connected to the logic circuit and the servo circuit, and configured to transmit the fourth safety instruction to the servo circuit.
However, Kim teaches wherein the safety control circuit comprises: an input circuit, connected to the safety input device and configured to obtain the state information of the safety input device ([0513] via “First, in a first step S110, the robot cleaner 100 obtains an image on a travel path while moving along the travel path.”), ([0543] via “Referring to FIG. 42, in a method of managing a robot cleaner according to a second embodiment, a first step S210 corresponds to an operation including the first step S110 to the third step S130 of FIG. 36 according to the first embodiment. A second step S220 according to the second embodiment is substantially the same as the fourth step S140 according to the first embodiment.”);
a logic circuit, connected to the input circuit and configured to generate the fourth safety instruction based on the state information of the safety input device ([0547] via “In a fourth step S240, the robot cleaner 100 prepares to receive a user's instruction while informing of the fact that the avoidance object has been founded. The robot cleaner 100 may be in a stopped state while waiting for the user's instruction. The robot cleaner 100 may receive a user voice signal through a user input unit 140.”), ([0549] via “In a fifth step S250, the robot cleaner 100 reads an instruction from the user as “Avoid the avoidance object” or “Ignore the avoidance object”.”); and
an output circuit, connected to the logic circuit and the servo circuit, and configured to transmit the fourth safety instruction to the servo circuit ([0550] via “The robot cleaner 100
performs an operation of the first step S210 in response to the instruction of “Ignore the avoidance object”. That is, even if the robot cleaner 100 has decided an object Sub of an image as an avoidance object, the robot cleaner 100 preferentially receives a user's instruction, ignores the corresponding object Sub, and maintains an existing travel path PASS.”), ([0551] via “In a sixth step S260, the robot cleaner 100 sets a bypass travel path in response to the instruction of “Avoid the avoidance object” from the user.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim wherein the safety control circuit comprises: an input circuit, connected to the safety input device and configured to obtain the state information of the safety input device; a logic circuit, connected to the input circuit and configured to generate the fourth safety instruction based on the state information of the safety input device; and an output circuit, connected to the logic circuit and the servo circuit, and configured to transmit the fourth safety instruction to the servo circuit. Doing so allows the robot to appropriately and efficiently performs tasks related to its current environment, as stated by Kim ([0541] via “When the robot cleaner 100 has founded an object Sub decided as the avoidance object, the robot cleaner 100 may perform an operation of informing about the discovery of the avoidance object, in order to efficiently cope with it. A method of processing a discovery area of an avoidance object based on an event while informing about the even for the discovery of the avoidance object is described as follows.”).
Regarding Claim 18, modified reference Brown teaches the safety control system according to claim 1, wherein the second monitoring circuit comprises at least one of a touch sensor and a collision bar ([0053] via “Bump sensors 102 can also be provided in the localization system 100 for determining front or side impacts to the robot 10. The bump sensors 102 may be integrated with the housing 12, such as with a bumper 14 (FIG. 3). Output signals from the bump sensors 102 provide inputs to the controller for selecting an obstacle avoidance algorithm.”).
Regarding Claim 19, modified reference Brown teaches a mobile robot ([0024] via “FIGS. 1 and 2 illustrate a schematic view of an autonomous floor cleaner, such as a floor cleaning robot 10, also referred to herein as a robot 10.”), comprising:
a main body ([0029] via “The robot 10 mounts the components various functional systems of the autonomous floor cleaner in an autonomously moveable unit or housing 12
(FIG. 3), optionally including components of a navigation/mapping system 30, a collection system 40, a fluid delivery system 50, a drive system 70, or any combination thereof.”);
at least one mobile device, arranged at a bottom or a top of the main body and configured to drive the mobile robot to move in a horizontal direction or a gravity direction ([0040] via “The drive system 70 can include drive wheels 71 for driving the robot 10 across a surface to be cleaned.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets at least the drive wheels of Brown as the at least one mobile device.); and
the safety control system of claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above.).
Regarding Claim 20, modified reference Brown teaches a robot ([0024] via “FIGS. 1 and 2 illustrate a schematic view of an autonomous floor cleaner, such as a floor cleaning robot 10, also referred to herein as a robot 10.”), comprising:
a carrying body ([0030] via “For example, wheel encoders 32 can be placed on the drive shafts of wheels coupled to the robot 10 and configured to measure a distance traveled by the robot 10.”), ([0040] via “The drive system 70 can include drive wheels 71 for driving the robot 10 across a surface to be cleaned. The drive wheels 71 can be operated by a common wheel motor 72 or individual wheel motors coupled with the drive wheels 71 by a transmission, which may include a gear train assembly or another suitable transmission.”);
a main body, arranged on the carrying body for performing a movement control cooperating with the carrying body ([0029] via “The robot 10 mounts the components various functional systems of the autonomous floor cleaner in an autonomously moveable unit or housing 12 (FIG. 3), optionally including components of a navigation/mapping system 30, a collection system 40, a fluid delivery system 50, a drive system 70, or any combination thereof. A controller 20 is operably coupled with the various functional systems 30, 40, 50, 70
of the robot 10 for controlling the operation of the robot 10.”); and
the safety control system of claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above.).
11. Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 20210169296 A1 hereinafter Brown) in view of Kim et al. (US 20210331312 A1 hereinafter Kim), and further in view of Kinoshita et al. (US 6526324 B1 hereinafter Kinoshita).
Regarding Claim 3, modified reference Brown teaches the safety control system according to claim 2, but is silent on wherein the input circuit is specifically configured to receive input signals of the safety input device through dual channels; the logic circuit comprises a primary circuit and a secondary circuit; the primary circuit is connected to the input circuit for integrating and processing the state information of the safety input device; the secondary circuit is connected to the primary circuit and the output circuit, for generating the fourth safety instruction based on the state information and transmitting the fourth safety instruction to the output circuit.
However, Kinoshita teaches wherein the input circuit is specifically configured to receive input signals of the safety input device through dual channels (Col. 6 line 65 – Col. 7 line 10, where “Referring to FIG. 7, like the configuration example shown in FIG. 3, a receiving system including a receiving circuit 4 inputs an external signal such as machine information from a machine 6 to a control section 1 via an input/output circuit 2. In order to monitor the receiving circuit 4, receiving circuits 5a and 5b (in the figure, an example is shown in which two receiving circuits are added) and first and second monitoring circuits 3a and 3b are added, and signal lines independent of a signal line for the receiving circuit 4 are connected between the machine 6 and the receiving circuits 5a, 5b, whereby the receiving circuits 5a and 5b receive the same machine information as the machine information received by the receiving circuit 4.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets machine 6 as the input circuit. See Figure 7 of Kinoshita wherein the input signals are received via at least two channels.);
the logic circuit comprises a primary circuit and a secondary circuit (Col. 5 lines 9-15, where “A monitoring circuit 3, which is a monitoring means for monitoring the receiving circuit 4, receives an external signal received by the receiving circuit 4, which sends the external signal to the control section 1, and at least one of external signals received by the receiving circuits 5a and 5b provided for monitoring, and makes a comparison between these external signals.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the receiving circuits as the primary circuit and the monitoring circuits as the secondary circuit.);
the primary circuit is connected to the input circuit for integrating and processing the state information of the safety input device (Col. 7 lines 2-12, where “In order to monitor the receiving circuit 4, receiving circuits 5a and 5b (in the figure, an example is shown in which two receiving circuits are added) and first and second monitoring circuits 3a and 3b are added, and signal lines independent of a signal line for the receiving circuit 4 are connected between the machine 6 and the receiving circuits 5a, 5b, whereby the receiving circuits 5a and 5b receive the same machine information as the machine information received by the receiving circuit 4. The machine information received by the receiving circuits 5a and 5b is sent to the monitoring circuits 3a and 3b, respectively.”), (Note: See circuit diagram of Figure 7 of Kinoshita as well.);
the secondary circuit is connected to the primary circuit and the output circuit, for generating the fourth safety instruction based on the state information and transmitting the fourth safety instruction to the output circuit (Col. 7 lines 10-12, where “The machine information received by the receiving circuits 5a and 5b is sent to the monitoring circuits 3a and 3b, respectively.”), (Col. 7 lines 48-62, where “In the comparison in Step S24, if the data on the side of the input/output circuit 2 and the data on the side of the first monitoring circuit 3a disagree with each other, it is judged that a trouble occurs in either the receiving circuit 4 or the receiving circuit 5a. The control section 1 of the numerical controller 10 or the outside of the numerical controller 10 is notified about the disagreement of signals to tell that a trouble has occurred in the receiving circuit (Step S27). In the comparison in Step S24, if the data on the side of the input/output circuit 2 and the data on the side of the first monitoring circuit 3a agree with each other, the data used for the comparison are inputted from the second monitoring circuit 3b to the input/output circuit 2 (Step S25), and a comparison with the data of the input/output circuit 2 is made (Step S26).”), (Note: See circuit diagram of Figure 7 of Kinoshita as well.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kinoshita wherein the input circuit is specifically configured to receive input signals of the safety input device through dual channels; the logic circuit comprises a primary circuit and a secondary circuit; the primary circuit is connected to the input circuit for integrating and processing the state information of the safety input device; the secondary circuit is connected to the primary circuit and the output circuit, for generating the fourth safety instruction based on the state information and transmitting the fourth safety instruction to the output circuit. Doing so allows for cross-checks to be performed on the inputs received via the multiple channels, to determine whether the input signals are abnormal or not based on whether they agree or not, as stated by Kinoshita (Col. 7 lines 12-17, where “The machine information received by the receiving circuit 4 and the machine information received by the receiving circuits 5a and 5b are compared by each circuit of the input/output circuit 2 and the first and second monitoring circuits 3a and 3b to make a cross-check.”), (Col. 7 lines 23-28, where “In the configuration shown in FIG. 7, the receiving circuit is monitored by the cross-check performed by each circuit of the input/output circuit 2 and the monitoring circuits 3a and 3b, by which an abnormal signal can be outputted from each circuit. FIG. 8 is a flowchart for illustrating a comparison operation of the input/output circuit 2.”).
Regarding Claim 6, modified reference Brown teaches the safety control system according to claim 3, but is silent on wherein the secondary circuit comprises two secondary circuits, and each of the two secondary circuits is connected to the primary circuit and the output circuit; the two secondary circuits are connected to each other for cross-verifying the signal output from the primary circuit.
However, Kinoshita teaches wherein the secondary circuit comprises two secondary circuits, and each of the two secondary circuits is connected to the primary circuit and the output circuit; the two secondary circuits are connected to each other for cross-verifying the signal output from the primary circuit (Col. 7 lines 2-17, where “In order to monitor the receiving circuit 4, receiving circuits 5a and 5b (in the figure, an example is shown in which two receiving circuits are added) and first and second monitoring circuits 3a and 3b are added, and signal lines independent of a signal line for the receiving circuit 4 are connected between the machine 6 and the receiving circuits 5a, 5b, whereby the receiving circuits 5a and 5b receive the same machine information as the machine information received by the receiving circuit 4. The machine information received by the receiving circuits 5a and 5b is sent to the monitoring circuits 3a and 3b, respectively. The machine information received by the receiving circuit 4 and the machine information received by the receiving circuits 5a and 5b are compared by each circuit of the input/output circuit 2 and the first and second monitoring circuits 3a and 3b to make a cross-check.”), (Col. 7 lines 23-28, where “In the configuration shown in FIG. 7, the receiving circuit is monitored by the cross-check performed by each circuit of the input/output circuit 2 and the monitoring circuits 3a and 3b, by which an abnormal signal can be outputted from each circuit. FIG. 8 is a flowchart for illustrating a comparison operation of the input/output circuit 2.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the monitoring circuits 3a and 3b as the secondary circuits. See Figure 7 of Kinoshita as well.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kinoshita wherein the secondary circuit comprises two secondary circuits, and each of the two secondary circuits is connected to the primary circuit and the output circuit; the two secondary circuits are connected to each other for cross-verifying the signal output from the primary circuit. Doing so allows for cross-checks to be performed on the inputs received via the multiple channels, to determine whether the input signals are abnormal or not based on whether they agree or not, as stated above by Kinoshita in both citations.
12. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 20210169296 A1 hereinafter Brown) in view of Kim et al. (US 20210331312 A1 hereinafter Kim), further in view of Kinoshita et al. (US 6526324 B1 hereinafter Kinoshita), and further in view of Alagic et al. (US 11762390 B1 hereinafter Alagic).
Regarding Claim 4, modified reference Brown teaches the safety control system according to claim 3, but is silent on wherein the primary circuit is connected to the input circuit through dual channels for receiving and cross-verifying the input signals, or the primary circuit comprises two primary circuits and each of the two primary circuits is separately connected to the input circuit; the two primary circuits are connected to each other for receiving and cross-verifying the input signals.
However, Alagic teaches wherein the primary circuit is connected to the input circuit through dual channels for receiving and cross-verifying the input signals, or the primary circuit comprises two primary circuits and each of the two primary circuits is separately connected to the input circuit; the two primary circuits are connected to each other for receiving and cross-verifying the input signals (Col. 15 lines 13-30, where “In an embodiment, the modular AGV is configured to execute processes to enable safe and reliable obstacle detection by a safety management controller (e.g., safety management controller 108, 208, 308 of FIGS. 1, 2, and 3, respectively). In an embodiment, the safety management controller collects raw data from one or more sensors (e.g., a 3D sensor) and preprocesses the data to include a minimum amount of data needed for the safety controller to generate a safety decision (e.g., generate a safety control command). In an embodiment, multiple sets of sensors can be used and processed independently to enable the safety management controller to cross-validate sensors with each other to detect both faults in sensor hardware as well as errors in pre-processing algorithms. In an embodiment, although the safety management controller is described as a singular device, it is noted that multiple safety management controllers (e.g., as shown in FIG. 4) can be employed and used to cross-check results with each other.”), (Note: See Figure 4 of Alagic as well. Here, the Examiner interprets the two safety management controllers as the two primary circuits.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Alagic wherein the primary circuit is connected to the input circuit through dual channels for receiving and cross-verifying the input signals, or the primary circuit comprises two primary circuits and each of the two primary circuits is separately connected to the input circuit; the two primary circuits are connected to each other for receiving and cross-verifying the input signals. Doing so singles out any system faults or errors within the safety hardware and software when receiving sensor data, as stated above by Alagic.
13. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 20210169296 A1 hereinafter Brown) in view of Kim et al. (US 20210331312 A1 hereinafter Kim), and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20210008723 A1 hereinafter Choi).
Regarding Claim 7, modified reference Brown teaches the safety control system according to claim 2, but is silent on wherein the safety control circuit further comprises: a state monitoring module, configured to an operating state of the mobile robot for generating a mode switching signal based on the operating state of the mobile robot; and a mode switching module, connected to the state monitoring module and the logic circuit, and configured to generate a mode signal based on the mode switching signal; wherein the logic circuit is configured to generate the fourth safety instruction based on the mode signal and the state information of the safety input device.
However, Choi teaches wherein the safety control circuit further comprises: a state monitoring module, configured to an operating state of the mobile robot for generating a mode switching signal based on the operating state of the mobile robot ([0041] via “In operation S200, a mobile robot device 1000 may obtain sensing information obtained by sensing the surrounding environment of the mobile robot device 1000 while the mobile robot device
1000 is traveling. For example, the mobile robot device 1000 may sense the surrounding environment in real time while traveling.”), ([0043] via “In operation S210, the mobile robot device 1000 may change, based on sensing information, a safety operation level of the mobile robot device 1000. The mobile robot device 1000 may change the safety operation level by applying the obtained sensing information to a training model trained using an artificial intelligence algorithm.”); and
a mode switching module, connected to the state monitoring module and the logic circuit, and configured to generate a mode signal based on the mode switching signal ([0043] via “In operation S210, the mobile robot device 1000 may change, based on sensing information, a safety operation level of the mobile robot device 1000. The mobile robot device 1000 may change the safety operation level by applying the obtained sensing information to a training model trained using an artificial intelligence algorithm.”);
wherein the logic circuit is configured to generate the fourth safety instruction based on the mode signal and the state information of the safety input device ([0045] via “In operation S220, the mobile robot device 1000 may control the operation of the mobile robot device 1000 based on the changed safety operation level. In an embodiment, the mobile robot device 1000 may control, based on a safety operation level, a moving speed and a moving direction of the mobile robot device 1000, a moving speed and a moving angle of an arm device included in the mobile robot device 1000, a moving noise of the mobile robot device
1000, a notification output of the mobile robot device 1000, and so on.”), (Note: See [0028] and [0029] of Choi as well.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Choi wherein the safety control circuit further comprises: a state monitoring module, configured to an operating state of the mobile robot for generating a mode switching signal based on the operating state of the mobile robot; and a mode switching module, connected to the state monitoring module and the logic circuit, and configured to generate a mode signal based on the mode switching signal; wherein the logic circuit is configured to generate the fourth safety instruction based on the mode signal and the state information of the safety input device. Doing so optimizes the control of the robot based on the robot’s current situation, as stated by Choi ([0043] via “For example, the mobile robot device 1000 may change the safety operation level in a direction to enhance safety around the mobile robot device 1000. In addition, when it is determined that there is no dangerous situation around the mobile robot device 1000, the mobile robot device 1000 may optimally provide a service providing operation of the mobile robot device 1000 without changing the safety operation level.”).
14. Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 20210169296 A1 hereinafter Brown) in view of Kim et al. (US 20210331312 A1 hereinafter Kim), and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20210347059 A1 hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding Claim 8, modified reference Brown teaches the safety control system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one mobile device comprises a left wheel and a right wheel, and the left wheel and the right wheel are configured to drive the mobile robot to move in a horizontal direction ([0040] via “The drive system 70 can include drive wheels 71 for driving the robot 10 across a surface to be cleaned. The drive wheels 71 can be operated by a common wheel motor 72 or individual wheel motors coupled with the drive wheels 71 by a transmission, which may include a gear train assembly or another suitable transmission.”), (Note: See Figure 5 of Brown wherein the robot comprises a left wheel and a right wheel. The Examiner interprets the surface to be cleaned as at least being in a horizontal direction based on at least Figures 3 and 4 of Brown.);
the first monitoring circuit comprises a first encoder and a second encoder, the first encoder being configured to monitor the left wheel, and the second encoder being configured to monitor the right wheel, for obtaining position information of the mobile robot ([0030] via “The navigation/mapping system 30 can include a memory 31 that can store any data useful for navigation, mapping or conducting a cycle of operation, including, but not limited to, maps for navigation, inputs from various sensors that are used to guide the movement of the robot 10, etc. For example, wheel encoders 32 can be placed on the drive shafts of wheels coupled to the robot 10 and configured to measure a distance traveled by the robot 10. The distance measurement can be provided as input to the controller 20.”).
Brown is silent on wherein the first and second encoders are for obtaining movement speed information and direction information of the mobile robot.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the first and second encoders are for obtaining movement speed information ([0161] via “The base motion controller 101 is programmed in such a manner as to continuously monitor and calculate the speed of the wheels 111 using the signals from the encoder 105 associated with each wheel 111, and can thus determine the difference between the targeted speed and the current speed.”) and direction information of the mobile robot ([0158] via “Each base motor 1101 includes an encoder 105 that is configured to detect an angular position of a rotor of the base motor 1101, and outputs rotor angle information as a rotor position signal to the base motion controller 101.”), ([0163] via “The base motion controller 101 may also perform other functions. In particular the base motion controller 101 may report to the processor 71 the position of the wheels 111, the angular distance moved by the wheels 111, or the speed by calculating this information from information derived from the encoders 105.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhang wherein the first and second encoders are for obtaining movement speed information and direction information of the mobile robot. Doing so monitors the current state of the mobile robot to extract information for use in control, as stated above by Zhang in [0163] and ([0161] via “The base motion controller 101 is programmed in such a manner as to continuously monitor and calculate the speed of the wheels 111 using the signals from the encoder 105 associated with each wheel 111, and can thus determine the difference between the targeted speed and the current speed. The base motion controller 101 can then convert this difference into an instruction to its onboard pulse width modulator (PWM) system to increase or decrease the duty cycle of the PWM signal. This PWM signal is fed through the gate drivers 103 to the transistors 104 and results in a corresponding increase or decrease in the current directed into the coils of the base motors 1101, causing the base motors 1101 to go faster or slower.”).
Regarding Claim 9, modified reference Brown teaches the safety control system according to claim 8, wherein the safety control circuit further comprises a first diagnostic circuit, connected to the first encoder and the second encoder to monitor the movement state of each of the left wheel and the right wheel based on monitoring data of the first encoder and monitoring data of the second encoder ([0030] via “The navigation/mapping system 30 can include a memory 31 that can store any data useful for navigation, mapping or conducting a cycle of operation, including, but not limited to, maps for navigation, inputs from various sensors that are used to guide the movement of the robot 10, etc. For example, wheel encoders 32 can be placed on the drive shafts of wheels coupled to the robot 10 and configured to measure a distance traveled by the robot 10. The distance measurement can be provided as input to the controller 20.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the controller 20 as the first diagnostic circuit, as the first diagnostic circuit is described within paragraphs [0081] – [0084] in the specification of the instant application.).
15. Claim(s) 10, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 20210169296 A1 hereinafter Brown) in view of Kim et al. (US 20210331312 A1 hereinafter Kim), further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20210347059 A1 hereinafter Zhang), and further in view of Dunten et al. (US 20230350408 A1 hereinafter Dunten).
Regarding Claim 10, modified reference Brown teaches the safety control system according to claim 9, but is silent on wherein the first encoder comprises a first encoder I and a first encoder II, and the second encoder comprises a second encoder I and a second encoder II; the first encoder I and the first encoder II have respective independent read heads which are arranged on a same printed circuit board; the second encoder I and the second encoder II have respective independent read heads which are arranged on a same printed circuit board.
However, Dunten teaches wherein the first encoder comprises a first encoder I and a first encoder II, and the second encoder comprises a second encoder I and a second encoder II; the first encoder I and the first encoder II have respective independent read heads which are arranged on a same printed circuit board; the second encoder I and the second encoder II have respective independent read heads which are arranged on a same printed circuit board ([0016] via “An example safety system can include first and second sensors each operatively coupled to a drive assembly of a mobile robot. The first sensor is configured to determine first rotation information of a wheel of the drive assembly, and the second sensor is configured to determine second rotation information of the wheel.”), ([0031] via “The first sensor 112 and the second sensor 114 can each measure kinematic information associated with the motor. Kinematic information may include rotation information. Rotation information may include a number of rotations, a direction of rotation, an amount of time, etc. Each of the sensors 112,
114 can measure the same information of the same motor or portion of motor (e.g., motor shaft).”), (Note: See Figures 2 and 3A of Dunten as well.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dunten wherein the first encoder comprises a first encoder I and a first encoder II, and the second encoder comprises a second encoder I and a second encoder II; the first encoder I and the first encoder II have respective independent read heads which are arranged on a same printed circuit board; the second encoder I and the second encoder II have respective independent read heads which are arranged on a same printed circuit board. Using multiple sensors improves the safety of the mobile robot by decreasing the risk of missing important protocol information, as stated by Dunten ([0035] via “The SPLC 104 may employ redundancy checks using data obtained from the multiple sources of information (e.g., the first and second sensors 112, 114). This redundancy helps improve the monitor and management of safety protocols so that they are less likely to be missed or otherwise omitted.”).
Regarding Claim 11, modified reference Brown teaches the safety control system according to claim 10, but is silent on wherein the first diagnostic circuit is configured to determine a first rotation angle and a first rotation speed of the left wheel based on monitoring data from each of the first encoder I and the first encoder II, and to determine a second rotation angle and a second rotation speed of the right wheel based on monitoring data from each of the second encoder I and the second encoder II.
However, Dunten teaches wherein the first diagnostic circuit is configured to determine a first rotation angle and a first rotation speed of the left wheel based on monitoring data from each of the first encoder I and the first encoder II, and to determine a second rotation angle and a second rotation speed of the right wheel based on monitoring data from each of the second encoder I and the second encoder II ([0031] via “The first sensor 112 and the second sensor 114 can each measure kinematic information associated with the motor. Kinematic information may include rotation information. Rotation information may include a number of rotations, a direction of rotation, an amount of time, etc. Each of the sensors 112, 114 can measure the same information of the same motor or portion of motor (e.g., motor shaft). For example, the sensors 112, 114 may both measure the number of rotations of a motor shaft of the drive assembly 116 over a period of time. This information may be passed to the speed conversion module 108.”), ([0033] via “The speed conversion module 108 can receive the rotation information obtained by the sensors 112, 114 and convert the rotation information to speed information. The speed conversion module 108 may convert the rotation information from each of the sensors 112, 114 separately. For example, the speed conversion module 108 may convert first rotation information received from the first sensor 112 into first speed information, and the speed conversion module 108 may convert second rotation information received from the second sensor 114 into second speed information.”), (Note: See paragraph [0055] of Dunten as well.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dunten wherein the first diagnostic circuit is configured to determine a first rotation angle and a first rotation speed of the left wheel based on monitoring data from each of the first encoder I and the first encoder II, and to determine a second rotation angle and a second rotation speed of the right wheel based on monitoring data from each of the second encoder I and the second encoder II. Using multiple sensors improves the safety of the mobile robot by decreasing the risk of missing important protocol information, as stated by Dunten ([0035] via “The SPLC 104 may employ redundancy checks using data obtained from the multiple sources of information (e.g., the first and second sensors 112, 114). This redundancy helps improve the monitor and management of safety protocols so that they are less likely to be missed or otherwise omitted.”).
Regarding Claim 12, modified reference Brown teaches the safety control system according to claim 11, but is silent on wherein the first diagnostic circuit is further configured to at least one of: compare two of the first rotation angles, determine that both the first encoder I and the first encoder II are normal and that each of the two first rotation angles is an actual rotation angle of the left wheel in response to the two first rotation angles being the same; and determine that the first encoder I or the first encoder II is abnormal in response to the two first rotation angles being different; compare two of the second rotation angles, determines that both the second encoder I and the second encoder II are normal and that each of the two second rotation angles is an actual rotation angle of the right wheel in response to the two second rotation angles being the same, and determine that the second encoder I or the second encoder II is abnormal in response to the two second rotation angles being different; compare two of the first rotation speeds and further calculate a difference between the two first rotation speeds; in response to the difference between the two first rotation speeds being less than a predetermined threshold, determine that both the first encoder I and the first encoder II are normal; and in response to the difference between the two first rotation speeds being greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold, determine that the first encoder I or the first encoder II is abnormal; and compare two of the second rotation speeds and further calculate a difference between the two second rotation speeds; in response to the difference between the two second rotation speeds being less than a predetermined threshold, determine that both the second encoder I and the second encoder II are normal; and in response to the difference between the two second rotation speeds being greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold, determine that the second encoder I or the second encoder II is abnormal.
However, Dunten teaches wherein the first diagnostic circuit is further configured to at least one of: compare two of the first rotation speeds and further calculate a difference between the two first rotation speeds; in response to the difference between the two first rotation speeds being less than a predetermined threshold, determine that both the first encoder I and the first encoder II are normal; and in response to the difference between the two first rotation speeds being greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold, determine that the first encoder I or the first encoder II is abnormal ([0037] via “The SPLC 104
can process the speed information obtained from the speed conversion module 108. The SPLC 104 may compare the first speed information (from the first sensor 112) with the second speed information (from the second sensor 114). The comparison may include determining whether both speed information indicates the same direction. If both speed information does not agree on the same direction, this is likely an indication that one or both of the sensors
112, 114 is not working properly. Such a discrepancy may cause the SPLC 104 to determine that a risk parameter of the safety system 100 has exceeded a threshold. In the event that the SPLC 104 determines that the risk parameter exceeds the threshold, the SPLC 104 can be configured to send instructions to the drive assembly 116 to reduce or stop a flow of power to the drive assembly 116.”), (Note: See paragraph [0055] of Dunten as well.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dunten wherein the first diagnostic circuit is further configured to at least one of: compare two of the first rotation speeds and further calculate a difference between the two first rotation speeds; in response to the difference between the two first rotation speeds being less than a predetermined threshold, determine that both the first encoder I and the first encoder II are normal; and in response to the difference between the two first rotation speeds being greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold, determine that the first encoder I or the first encoder II is abnormal. Doing so determines whether or not at least one of the sensors is working properly, allowing for the control of the robot to a safe operation mode when this situation arises, a stated above by Dunten.
16. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 20210169296 A1 hereinafter Brown) in view of Kim et al. (US 20210331312 A1 hereinafter Kim), further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20210347059 A1 hereinafter Zhang), and further in view of Sadamoto et al. (US 20220080966 A1 hereinafter Sadamoto).
Regarding Claim 13, modified reference Brown teaches the safety control system according to claim 8, but is silent on wherein the safety control circuit further comprises: a decoding circuit, connected to the first encoder and the second encoder, and configured to decode monitoring data of the first encoder for obtaining a speed signal and a direction signal of the left wheel, and to decode monitoring data of the second encoder for obtaining a speed signal and a direction signal of the right wheel; and a second diagnostic circuit, connected to the decoding circuit and configured to determine whether the left wheel is abnormal based on the speed signal and/or the direction signal of the left wheel, determine whether the right wheel is abnormal based on the speed signal and/or the direction signal of the right wheel, and determine whether the mobile robot is over-speeding based on the speed signal of the left wheel and the speed signal of the right wheel.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the safety control circuit further comprises: a decoding circuit, connected to the first encoder and the second encoder, and configured to decode monitoring data of the first encoder for obtaining a speed signal and a direction signal of the left wheel, and to decode monitoring data of the second encoder for obtaining a speed signal and a direction signal of the right wheel ([0158] via “Each base motor 1101 includes an encoder 105 that is configured to detect an angular position of a rotor of the base motor
1101, and outputs rotor angle information as a rotor position signal to the base motion controller 101.”), ([0161] via “The base motion controller 101 is programmed in such a manner as to continuously monitor and calculate the speed of the wheels 111 using the signals from the encoder 105 associated with each wheel 111, and can thus determine the difference between the targeted speed and the current speed.”), ([0163] via “The base motion controller 101 may also perform other functions. In particular the base motion controller 101 may report to the processor 71 the position of the wheels 111, the angular distance moved by the wheels 111, or the speed by calculating this information from information derived from the encoders 105.”).
Further, Sadamoto teaches wherein the safety control circuit further comprises: a second diagnostic circuit, connected to the decoding circuit and configured to determine whether the left wheel is abnormal based on the speed signal and/or the direction signal of the left wheel, determine whether the right wheel is abnormal based on the speed signal and/or the direction signal of the right wheel ([0150] via “Equations (5) and (6) are used for detection of an abnormality in the rotational velocity of each wheel of the mecanum wheel 11.”), ([0151] via “In an ideal state in which there is no abnormality in the rotational velocity detector 13 and there is no slippage between a road surface and the wheels, “|h|” shown in Equation (5) becomes zero. On the other hand, when at least one of the values of ϕ1 to ϕ4 indicates an abnormal value, “|h|” indicates a value other than zero. Therefore, “ξ” is set as an allowable value so that an abnormal value can be determined using Equation (6).”), and
determine whether the mobile robot is over-speeding based on the speed signal of the left wheel and the speed signal of the right wheel ([0076] via “Here, a relationship between the rotational velocity of each mecanum wheel 11 and the movement velocity of the omnidirectional movable body 1 in the omnidirectional movable body 1 including the four mecanum wheels 11 will be described. The rotational velocity of each mecanum wheel 11
and the movement velocity of the omnidirectional movable body 1 can be expressed using Equation (1). That is, the movement velocity of the omnidirectional movable body 1 can be calculated from the rotational velocity of each mecanum wheel 11.”), ([0112] via “The movement velocity V of the omnidirectional movable body 1 can be calculated by using, for example, the result of detecting the rotational velocity of each mecanum wheel 11 and Equation (1).”), ([0113] via “When the current movement velocity V of the omnidirectional movable body 1 is lower than the second threshold value of protective stop velocity (0.3 m/s) (step S1006: NO), the velocity monitoring module 32 proceeds to step S1008. When the current movement velocity V of the omnidirectional movable body 1 is equal to or higher than the second threshold value of protective stop velocity (0.3 m/s) (step S1006: YES), the velocity monitoring module 32 outputs the protective stop signal 43 to the circuit breaker 33 (step S1007). Accordingly, the omnidirectional movable body 1 makes an protective stop.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhang wherein the safety control circuit further comprises: a decoding circuit, connected to the first encoder and the second encoder, and configured to decode monitoring data of the first encoder for obtaining a speed signal and a direction signal of the left wheel, and to decode monitoring data of the second encoder for obtaining a speed signal and a direction signal of the right wheel. Doing so monitors the current state of the mobile robot to extract information for use in control, as stated above by Zhang in [0163] and ([0161] via “The base motion controller 101 is programmed in such a manner as to continuously monitor and calculate the speed of the wheels 111 using the signals from the encoder 105 associated with each wheel 111, and can thus determine the difference between the targeted speed and the current speed. The base motion controller 101 can then convert this difference into an instruction to its onboard pulse width modulator (PWM) system to increase or decrease the duty cycle of the PWM signal. This PWM signal is fed through the gate drivers 103 to the transistors 104 and results in a corresponding increase or decrease in the current directed into the coils of the base motors 1101, causing the base motors 1101 to go faster or slower.”).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sadamoto wherein the safety control circuit further comprises: a second diagnostic circuit, connected to the decoding circuit and configured to determine whether the left wheel is abnormal based on the speed signal and/or the direction signal of the left wheel, determine whether the right wheel is abnormal based on the speed signal and/or the direction signal of the right wheel, and determine whether the mobile robot is over-speeding based on the speed signal of the left wheel and the speed signal of the right wheel. Doing so improves the safety of the mobile robot by monitoring and controlling the robot based on rotational abnormalities, as stated by Sadamoto ([0173] via “Further, according to modification example 5 of the first embodiment, it is possible to stop the omnidirectional movable body 1 when there is a rotation abnormality or when there is an abnormality in the rotational velocity detector 13. Therefore, it is possible to further improve the safety.”).
17. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 20210169296 A1 hereinafter Brown) in view of Kim et al. (US 20210331312 A1 hereinafter Kim), further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20210347059 A1 hereinafter Zhang), and further in view of Armbrust et al. (US 20230286565 A1 hereinafter Armbrust) and Eoh et al. (US 20210405649 A1 hereinafter Eoh).
Regarding Claim 14, modified reference Brown teaches the safety control system according to claim 8, but is silent on wherein the third monitoring circuit comprises a radar, and the safety control circuit further comprises: a decoding circuit, connected to the first encoder and the second encoder, and configured to decode the monitoring data of the first encoder for obtaining a speed signal and a direction signal of the left wheel, and to decode the monitoring data of the second encoder for obtaining a speed signal and a direction signal of the right wheel; and an area determination circuit, connected to the decoding circuit and configured to generate area information based on the speed signal and direction signal of the left wheel and the speed signal and direction signal of the right wheel; wherein the radar is connected to the area determination circuit for switching a preset range of the mobile robot based on the area information.
However, Armbrust teaches wherein the third monitoring circuit comprises a radar ([0153] via “FIGS. 33-35 show a radar sensor 640 version of the RCP 440 and autonomous cart
445. In this radar sensing version, the proximity sensors 150 are replaced by an array 630 of radar input devices 640. The array 630 of radar input devices 640 is located on the cart 445
and oriented in directions to maximize the total field of view (FOV) 631 around the cart so that the largest amount of the environment 260 is sensed by the array.”); and
wherein the radar is connected to the area determination circuit for switching a preset range of the mobile robot based on the area information ([0160] via “Both localization 100,
263 and navigation are aided by sensing fixed structures 262 or obstacles 262a in the environment 260 from which the RCP 440 will triangulate the real-time physical and mapped location 100, 263 (current location data) of the cart 445. This is easily achieved when the cart 445 is in open areas 261 near (in sensor range) 261a of fixed obstacles 262 that its line-of sight or visual sensors 140, 150 or 550 can detect. When the cart 445 is in open areas 261 void of (out of visual sensor range) 261b fixed obstacles 262, the RCP 440 uses the downwardly aimed radar sensors 651-654 to sense ground surface 1a and subsurface 1b composition (e.g., surface and subsurface data), including any subsurface patterns, structural anomalies or markers (e.g., rebaring, pipes, metal markers, etc.) 1c. The varying nature of the ground surface 1a (including grooves, surface markers, undulation patterns in or on the surface), subsurface 1b composition and subsurface patterns or structural anomalies 1c are recorded in the RCP long term memory 103 to provide a map 260′ from which the RCP 440 of the cart 445
will obtain current location data to localize 100, 263 and then navigate to a desired destinations 172, 264.”).
Further, Zhang teaches wherein the safety control circuit further comprises: a decoding circuit, connected to the first encoder and the second encoder, and configured to decode the monitoring data of the first encoder for obtaining a speed signal and a direction signal of the left wheel, and to decode the monitoring data of the second encoder for obtaining a speed signal and a direction signal of the right wheel ([0158] via “Each base motor 1101 includes an encoder 105 that is configured to detect an angular position of a rotor of the base motor
1101, and outputs rotor angle information as a rotor position signal to the base motion controller 101.”), ([0161] via “The base motion controller 101 is programmed in such a manner as to continuously monitor and calculate the speed of the wheels 111 using the signals from the encoder 105 associated with each wheel 111, and can thus determine the difference between the targeted speed and the current speed.”), ([0163] via “The base motion controller 101 may also perform other functions. In particular the base motion controller 101 may report to the processor 71 the position of the wheels 111, the angular distance moved by the wheels 111, or the speed by calculating this information from information derived from the encoders 105.”).
Further, Eoh teaches wherein the safety control circuit further comprises: an area determination circuit, connected to the decoding circuit and configured to generate area information based on the speed signal and direction signal of the left wheel and the speed signal and direction signal of the right wheel ([0110] via “Pieces of information that is required when the robot 1 performs fusion SLAM using multiple sensors are described. Wheel odometry (WO) is information that is calculated based on information on rotations, directions, speeds, and the like of wheels, acquired by the wheel encoder 260.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Armbrust wherein the third monitoring circuit comprises a radar; and wherein the radar is connected to the area determination circuit for switching a preset range of the mobile robot based on the area information. Doing so optimizes sensing of the area by using the radar with the most appropriate range based on the current environment of the robot, as stated above by Armbrust in [0160].
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhang wherein the safety control circuit further comprises: a decoding circuit, connected to the first encoder and the second encoder, and configured to decode the monitoring data of the first encoder for obtaining a speed signal and a direction signal of the left wheel, and to decode the monitoring data of the second encoder for obtaining a speed signal and a direction signal of the right wheel. Doing so monitors the current state of the mobile robot to extract information for use in control, as stated above by Zhang in [0163] and ([0161] via “The base motion controller 101 is programmed in such a manner as to continuously monitor and calculate the speed of the wheels 111 using the signals from the encoder 105 associated with each wheel 111, and can thus determine the difference between the targeted speed and the current speed. The base motion controller 101 can then convert this difference into an instruction to its onboard pulse width modulator (PWM) system to increase or decrease the duty cycle of the PWM signal. This PWM signal is fed through the gate drivers 103 to the transistors 104 and results in a corresponding increase or decrease in the current directed into the coils of the base motors 1101, causing the base motors 1101 to go faster or slower.”).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Eoh wherein the safety control circuit further comprises: an area determination circuit, connected to the decoding circuit and configured to generate area information based on the speed signal and direction signal of the left wheel and the speed signal and direction signal of the right wheel. Doing so localizes the area of the robot by using a sensing method that only requires a short sensing period, as stated by Eoh ([0137] via “In FIG. 5, the WO module may perform odometry calculation in a way of the wheel encoder 260, and may immediately measure information such as frequency of rotations or directions of a wheel at the hardware level. A length of time that it takes to calculate a distance or a direction of movements of the robot 1 is very short on the basis of the measured values. Thus, time taken by the WO module to perform wheel odometry and to generate a map or to estimate a position of the robot is very short.”).
18. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 20210169296 A1 hereinafter Brown) in view of Kim et al. (US 20210331312 A1 hereinafter Kim), and further in view of Meller et al. (US 20230175739 A1 hereinafter Meller).
Regarding Claim 17, modified reference Brown teaches the safety control system according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the at least one mobile device comprises a lifting device, and the lifting device is configured to drive the mobile robot to move in a gravity direction; the first monitoring circuit comprises a third encoder, and the third encoder is configured to monitor the lifting device for obtaining a lifting height and a rotation angle of the lifting device.
However, Meller teaches wherein the at least one mobile device comprises a lifting device, and the lifting device is configured to drive the mobile robot to move in a gravity direction ([0031] via “A scissor mechanism 166 couples main body 162 with platform 164, enabling platform 164 to change its vertical position, as shown by a plurality of arrows 168. Scissor mechanism 166 may be embodied as any type of vertical lift mechanism. Extension portion 172 is coupled with platform 164, which might include at least one motor (not shown) for extending and retracting extension portion 172, as shown by a plurality of arrows 174. Platform 164 and extension portion 172 may be electrically coupled with main body 162 via scissor mechanism 166 such that charge from the power source in main body 162 can be transferred to platform 164 and extension portion 172 or to a designated portion of platform 164 and extension portion 172.”);
the first monitoring circuit comprises a third encoder, and the third encoder is configured to monitor the lifting device for obtaining a lifting height and a rotation angle of the lifting device ([0033] via “Both main body 162 and platform 164 may include encoders (such as position encoders, not shown) for the determining the position and/or orientation of platform 162 and extension portion 172 vis-à-vis a solar table. The encoders can determine the extension of scissor mechanism 166 thus determining the height of platform 164. The encoders can also determine the extension of extension portion 172 thus determining the horizontal position of extension portion 172.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Meller wherein the at least one mobile device comprises a lifting device, and the lifting device is configured to drive the mobile robot to move in a gravity direction; the first monitoring circuit comprises a third encoder, and the third encoder is configured to monitor the lifting device for obtaining a lifting height and a rotation angle of the lifting device. Doing so determines the height and orientation of the lifting device to determine the overall configuration of the lifting device, as stated above by Meller in [0033].
Examiner’s Note
19. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the
references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references
in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the
context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP
2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole,
including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Allowable Subject Matter
20. Claims 5, 15, and 16 are allowed.
21. The following statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
22. Regarding independent claim 5, the prior art fails to disclose the limitation of “wherein the safety input device comprises a plurality of safety input devices; the state information of each safety input device is a pulse signal, and the pulse signals have different waveforms; the primary circuit is further configured to integrate the pulse signals to output a signal containing information of the pulse signals; the secondary circuit is further configured to receive the signal output from the primary circuit, determine whether the signal is the same as a signal formed by integrating pulse signals in a normal state, and generate the fourth safety instruction in response to the signal being different from the signal formed by integrating the pulse signals in the normal state,” recited in lines 39-47 of claim 5. The Examiner notes that the term “integrate” is interpreted to be performing the mathematical process of integrating via an integral, based on the subject matter of claim 5 and paragraphs [0061] – [0065] of the specification of the instant application. These specific limitations in combination with the other limitations are therefore novel over the prior art. US 20210302271 A1 to Ko was deemed to be the closest prior art to this section of the claim. However, Ko fails to disclose multiple concepts that are integral to the scope of the present application, including the step of integrating the pulse signals to output a single signal containing information of the pulse signals. While the invention of Ko uses data from multiple vibration sensors to verify whether the vibration signals are normal or abnormal, each vibration signal of Ko is individually compared to the predetermined normal vibration signal. Ko fails to teach the integration of all input signals into a singular output signal to be used to compare, as claimed in claim 5. Likewise, Ko also fails to teach integrating pulse signals in a normal state to be used in the abnormality comparison. The Examiner notes an additional reference, WO 2019131156 A1 to Kobori, which teaches a robotic arm comprising an abnormal noise inspection device while performing work on a workpiece. While the input signal is integrated to determine abnormality by comparing the integrated input signal with a normal signal, the normal signal itself is not integrated. Also, Kobori fails to teach integrating multiple input pulse signals into a singular signal to be used in the comparison. Thus, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Ko and Kobori for these reasons, nor would there be any other obvious combinations of Ko and Kobori with the previously presented prior art US 20210169296 A1 to Brown, US 20210331312 A1 to Kim, US 6526324 B1 to Kinoshita, and US 11762390 B1 to Alagic, nor any other reference to teach such concepts. As such, claim 5 has been deemed allowable over the prior art of record.
23. Regarding independent Claim 15, the prior art fails to disclose the limitation of “the area determination circuit comprises a first area determination circuit and a second area determination circuit; the first area determination circuit is connected to the first decoding circuit and the third decoding circuit, and configured to generate first area information based on a speed signal and a direction signal of the left wheel decoded from the first decoding circuit and a speed signal and a direction signal of the right wheel decoded from the third decoding circuit; the second area determination circuit is connected to the second decoding circuit and the fourth decoding circuit, and configured to generate second area information based on a speed signal and a direction signal of the left wheel decoded from the second decoding circuit and a speed signal and a direction signal of the right wheel decoded from the fourth decoding circuit,” recited in lines 48-57 of claim 15. These specific limitations in combination with the other limitations are therefore novel over the prior art. US 20210373571 A1 to Jung was deemed to be the closest prior art to this section of the claim. However, Jung fails to disclose multiple concepts that are integral to the scope of the present application, including the use of multiple encoders per wheel to gather information of the wheels to generate the second area information via a second area determination circuit. The invention of Jung teaches a mobile robot that is able to determine its position in an environment based on the rotation speed of its wheels and the rotation direction of the mobile robot. However, as claimed earlier in claim 15, Jung fails to disclose each wheel sensor comprising multiple sensors in a redundant fashion. As such, while Jung may teach the concept of the first area determination circuit, Jung certainly does not teach the second area determination circuit. Further, while Jung teaches determining the rotational direction of the mobile robot, it is unclear whether this is sensed via wheel encoders or a generalized sensor in the main body of the mobile robot. Thus, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Jung for these reasons, nor would there be any other obvious combinations of Jung with the previously presented prior art US 20210169296 A1 to Brown, US 20210331312 A1 to Kim, US 20210347059 A1 to Zhang, US 20230286565 A1 to Armbrust, and US 20210405649 A1 to Eoh, nor any other reference to teach such concepts. As such, claim 15 has been deemed allowable over the prior art of record.
Dependent claim 16 has been deemed allowable for its dependence upon independent claim 15.
24. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
25. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
26. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to BYRON X KASPER whose telephone number is (571)272-3895.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/BYRON XAVIER KASPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657