Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-10 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non Final Office Action on the on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 3/29/2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification recites numerous instances of the phrase "AGV vehicle" but the term AGV refers to an "automated guided vehicle", making this term redundant. .
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the steps for acquiring a mobile robot height and obstacle height to make a comparison and determination about whether the obstacle is in the detection planar region must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from claim 7. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: in accordance with the prior objection, the specification does make reference to the claimed subject matter of claim 7 beginning in paragraph [0068]. The specification makes reference to steps 150 and 160, but they are not found in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: detection region determination module, shortest-distance calculation module, and obstacle determination module in claim 8.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, see processor in P [0081] "used for executing executable modules stored in the memory" for each module of FIG. 4.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an obstacle detection method and obstacle detection apparatus for a mobile robot.
Claim 1: An obstacle detection method, comprising:
determining a detection planar region according to a mobile robot and a target position, wherein a distance from a point in the detection planar region to a connecting line between the mobile robot and the target position does not exceed a detection fixed value;
determining a shortest distance from an obstacle to the connecting line between the mobile robot and the target position based on a vector distance method; and
determining whether the obstacle is present in the detection planar region according to a result of comparison of the shortest distance with the detection fixed value.
Claim 8. ) An obstacle detection apparatus, comprising:
a detection region determination module, configured for determining a detection planar region according to a mobile robot and a target position, wherein a distance from a point in the detection planar region to a connecting line between the mobile robot and the target position does not exceed a detection fixed value;
a shortest-distance calculation module, configured for determining a shortest distance from an obstacle to the connecting line between the mobile robot and the target position based on a vector distance method; and
an obstacle determination module, configured for determining whether the obstacle is present in the detection planar region according to a result of comparison of the shortest distance with the detection fixed value.
101 ANALYSIS - STEP 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter)?
Yes, the claims are directed to an apparatus and method.
STEP 2A - Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)?
Independent claims 1 and 8 recite steps for detecting an obstacle in proximity to a mobile robot. Moving forward, claim 8 will be focused on as representative of the independent claims. The detection region determination module, shortest-distance calculation module, and obstacle determination module are described with a high level of generality within the claim, and are understood to generally indicate the use of a computer processor.
The components claimed in claim 8 are thus directed to generic computer components that are applied to determining a detection planar region, determining a shortest distance from an obstacle to the connecting line between the mobile robot and the target position, and determining whether an obstacle is present in a detection planar region, wherein the detection planar region is determined by the generic computer elements. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, and one of ordinary skill in the art could mentally determine a region defined by a reference value called the “detection fixed value”. Using this defined region one could check whether an object is present within the region. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea in the form of a mental process.
STEP 2A - Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception?
Claim 8 recites only a set of "modules" with a high level of generality. The modules perform a series of steps that organize(s) detection in an obstacle detection and interference scenario. The underlined modules are used for determining a detection planar region and determining the shortest distance from the line that connects a mobile robot and its target position. From here a determination is made for final bolded limitation on whether the obstacle is present within the detection planar region. This/These additional elements does/do not implement the abstract idea into a practical application and does/do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to step 2B, in which any additional element or combination of elements is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, prong 2 is re-evaluated, to see if re- evaluation finds that the recited elements are unconventional or otherwise more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art. The examiner finds that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. More specifically, obstacle detection within a specified range of a robot and its target destination is considered well-understood, routine, convention activity in the field. In this particular case, the field of invention is directed to known methods of obstacle detection. Thus, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims additionally fail to recite more than the abstract idea recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, determining that the shortest distance is lesser or greater than the detection fixed value is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 3, utilizing a current position of the obstacle and decomposing a positional relationship into vector components is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 4, determining the position of the obstacle in relation to the connecting line and determining the shortest distance accordingly is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 5, determining the position of the obstacle in relation to the connecting line and determining the shortest distance accordingly is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 6, determining the position of the obstacle in relation to the connecting line and determining the shortest distance accordingly is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 7, acquiring and comparing a mobile robot height with an obstacle height is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 9, the specification of including a processor and memory storing machine-readable instructions executable by the processor in the system does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application of the exception.
Regarding claim 10, the specification of including a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in the system does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application of the exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al., hereinafter Zhou (Document ID: US 20210078173 A1) in view of Dai et al., hereinafter Dai (Document ID: CN112130574A).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Zhou teaches an obstacle detection method and obstacle detection apparatus, comprising:
determining a detection planar region according to a mobile robot and a target position (see at least P [0039]: “predetermined moving region”. See also FIG. 4 for a planar region of detection), wherein a distance from a point in the detection planar region to a connecting line between the mobile robot and the target position does not exceed a detection fixed value (see at least P [0039]: “determines whether an obstacle, which is spaced from a current position at a distance shorter than a preset distance, exists in a path from the current position to a target position”);
Zhou additionally teaches in FIG. 3D, FIG. 4, and at least P [0075] a “calculation of a shortest distance vector” while also establishing a connecting line J as a line between the mobile robot and the target position. But Zhou does not explicitly teach that the shortest distance is necessarily from the obstacle to the connecting line.
Instead, Dai, whose invention pertains to determining obstacle interference when a mobile robot attempts to enter or exit an elevator, teaches in at least FIG. 2 and P [0068] the establishment of a target path BC with constant radius of detection around the connecting line for the target path BC. The connecting line is then used for detecting a shortest distance to an obstacle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vector distance decomposition and shortest distance analysis of Zhou with the connecting line target path for detecting obstacles within a known region of Dai in order to allow for robotic navigation in a densely populated area such as an elevator in P [0071] of Dai.
Finally, in view of the modification Zhou teaches
determining whether the obstacle is present in the detection planar region according to a result of comparison of the shortest distance with the detection fixed value (see at least P [0077]: “if the calculated shortest distance is greater than a preset distance threshold value, the system determines that no obstacle avoidance is needed, or if the calculated shortest distance is less than or equal to the preset distance threshold value, the system determines that obstacle avoidance is needed.”).
Regarding claim 8 specifically, Zhou teaches a detection region determination module, a shortest-distance calculation module, and an obstacle determination module in at least P [0098], FIG. 5, and FIG. 6 through a processor 12 with modules for determination, calculation, and control.
Regarding claim 2, modified Zhou teaches the method of claim 1, and Zhou further teaches that determining whether the obstacle is present in the detection planar region according to a result of comparison of the shortest distance with the detection fixed value comprises:
determining that the obstacle is present in the detection planar region if the shortest distance is less than the detection fixed value (see at least P [0077] wherein “if the calculated shortest distance is less than or equal to the preset distance threshold value, the system determines that obstacle avoidance is needed”, this means that the obstacle is within the planar detection region that requires avoidance maneuvers); and
determining that the obstacle is not present in the detection planar region if the shortest distance is greater than the detection fixed value (see at least P [0077]: “if the calculated shortest distance is greater than a preset distance threshold value, the system determines that no obstacle avoidance is needed”. If the obstacle is outside of the preset distance, no collision avoidance is needed and the obstacle is not in the detection planar region).
Regarding claim 3, modified Zhou teaches the method of claim 1, and Zhou further teaches that determining a shortest distance from an obstacle to the connecting line between the mobile robot and the target position based on a vector distance method comprises:
determining a positional relationship of the obstacle to the mobile robot and the target position according to a current position of the obstacle (see at least P [0008] which establishes that the determination model is “used for acquiring… current positioning data and position data of all obstacles in a predetermined moving region”. The determination is additionally made for the current position of the robot and the target position); and
Zhou additionally teaches determining, according to the positional relationship, the shortest distance from the obstacle to the mobile robot by means of the vector distance method in at least P [0012] as well as FIG. 4 which computes the shortest distance vector, but not explicitly that it is from the obstacle to the connecting line between the mobile robot and the target position.
Instead, Dai teaches in at least FIG. 2 and P [0068] the establishment of a target path BC with constant radius of detection around the connecting line for the target path BC. The connecting line is then used for detecting a shortest distance to an obstacle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vector distance decomposition and shortest distance analysis of Zhou with the connecting line target path for detecting obstacles within a known region of Dai in order to allow for robotic navigation in a densely populated area such as an elevator in P [0071] of Dai.
Regarding claim 4, modified Zhou teaches the method of claim 3, and Zhou teaches a shortest distance vector in at least FIG. 4 and the associated description, but Zhou does not explicitly teach that determining, according to the positional relationship, the shortest distance from the obstacle to the connecting line between the mobile robot and the target position by means of the vector distance method comprises:
determining, if the obstacle is located in an inner region between the mobile robot and the target position, the magnitude of a vertical line segment from the obstacle to the connecting line between the mobile robot and the target position as the shortest distance.
Instead, Dai teaches in P [0101] and FIG. 2 the determination of minimum distances from an obstacle and a particular path point.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shortest distance vector determination of Zhou with the sampled point and distance of an obstacle from a target path line of Dai in order to allow for robotic navigation in a densely populated area such as an elevator in P [0071] of Dai.
Regarding claim 5, modified Zhou teaches the method of claim 3, and Zhou teaches a shortest distance vector in at least FIG. 4 and the associated description; Dai additionally teaches in P [0101] and FIG. 2 the determination of minimum distances from an obstacle and a particular path point.
But Zhou and Dai do not explicitly teach that determining, according to the positional relationship, the shortest distance from the obstacle to the connecting line between the mobile robot and the target position by means of the vector distance method comprises:
determining, if the obstacle is located in an outer region of the mobile robot far from the target position, the magnitude of a straight-line distance from the obstacle to the mobile robot as the shortest distance.
It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shortest distance vector and path sampling method of Zhou and Dai with a determination of the straight-line distance from the obstacle to the mobile robot as the shortest distance in order to execute a design choice for utilizing known methods of ascertaining the direction of a minimum distance between an obstacle and a point of interest.
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhou teaches the method of claim 3, a and Zhou teaches a shortest distance vector in at least FIG. 4 and the associated description; Dai additionally teaches in P [0101] and FIG. 2 the determination of minimum distances from an obstacle and a particular path point.
But Zhou and Dai do not explicitly teach that determining, according to the positional relationship, the shortest distance from the obstacle to the connecting line between the mobile robot and the target position by means of the vector distance method comprises:
determining, if the obstacle is located in an outer region of the target position far from the mobile robot, the magnitude of a straight-line distance from the obstacle to the target position as the shortest distance.
It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shortest distance vector and path sampling method of Zhou and Dai with a determination of the straight-line distance from the obstacle to the target position as the shortest distance in order to execute a design choice for utilizing known methods of ascertaining the direction of a minimum distance between an obstacle and a point of interest.
Regarding claim 7, modified Zhou teaches the method of claim 1, and Zhou further teaches
acquiring a mobile robot height and an obstacle height (see at least P [0105]: “an obstacle may be detected at a height plane where the sensor of the robot is located”); and
determining whether the obstacle is present in the detection planar region in a vertical direction according to a result of comparison of the mobile robot height with the obstacle height (see at least P [0105]: “realizing that an obstacle may be detected at a height plane where the sensor of the robot is located, and a potential obstacle in the three-dimensional space may be also detected”. See also P [0004] which identifies existing issues in the prior solutions that show a measurement of robot height and obstacle height, but fall short of proper detection).
Regarding claim 9, modified Zhou teaches the method of claim 1, and Zhou further teaches
a processor and a memory storing machine-readable instructions executable by the processor, wherein when the electronic device is in operation, the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, perform the steps of the method of claim 1. (processor 12 and memory 11)
Regarding claim 10, modified Zhou teaches the method of claim 1, and Zhou further teaches
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the steps of the method of claim 1. (see at least P [0099]: “readable storage medium”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document ID: US 20090069938 A1
Invention pertains to detecting the position of a planar obstacle in the path of an autonomous vehicle.
Document ID: CN111679677A
Invention pertains to generating a feasible path for an AGV to reach a target site.
Document ID: US 20240126299 A1
Invention pertains to a robot obstacle avoidance method for bypassing obstacles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dairon Estevez whose telephone number is (703)756-4552. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30AM - 4:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656