DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This action is in response to the filing of the Pre-Appeal Brief on 02/12/2026, this Action is Non-Final.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 refers to the “remote server” as the “remove server.” Claims 21 and 30 spell what the Examiner assumes is “brakes” as “breaks.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 21, 22, 25 – 29 and 30, 31, 34 – 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perrone (US 20160377508) in view of Terrien (WO 2017050358A1).
Claim 21, Perrone discloses a method for implementing a control system in a robot, the method comprising: defining, by a processor, safety functionalities to ensure safe operation of the robot, wherein the safety functionalities include a category one stop functionality and a category two stop functionality, wherein the category one stop functionality comprises at least one of cutting off power to motors of the robot, halting all navigation of the robot, disabling actuators of the robot, or calling for assistance, and transmitting a status update to a remote server [see Perrone p0041 – p0046 - disclosing an integrated automated robotic test system for automated driving systems (“ARTS”); automotive vehicles under test may include advanced driver assistance systems (“ADAS”), collision avoidance technology, partially automated driving functions, or fully automated driving functions; Each of the robotically controlled test vehicles and target robots are individually referred to as a robotic unit (“RU”) in this application. An RU may thus refer to either a robotically controlled test vehicle or a target robot; further disclosing, RUs thus are capable of being equipped with safe cut-off. Here in this E-Stop system description, the term TR applies to TRs in general as well as to TRVs. Here in this E-Stop system description, the term RU applies to DAKs and TRs in general as well as any robot under ARTS control; ARTS RU drive power is capable of fail-safe and controlled cut-off. An ARTS RU is capable of fail-safe and controlled emergency braking. Any RU high source power (e.g. batteries to power a drive system) is capable of fail-safe and controlled cut-off see at lease p0184-p0197; Additionally teaching, ARTS RU state information and test results are communicated from RUs to Command, Control and Intelligence (“C2I”) servers over the ARTS COMS. Other devices on the ARTS COMS network may also listen for information communicated from RUs on a publish/subscribe or broadcast listener basis (or remote servers, remote networks communication paths via wireless communication and transmitting data to and from the computer system and the controller) [see p0075, p0177 – p0183, p0287].
and the category two stop functionality includes actuating breaks [or brakes – see Claim objections above] to slow the robot or pausing movement of the robot momentarily [see p0198 – 0199 - pause mode ARTS is capable of entering a run robot (RR) state. The RR action triggers a run robot state on the RUs under control. An RR state on an RUresults in allowing robotic control of forward motion on the RU (e.g. driving of motors on a TR or control of throttle on a DAK). An RR state on an RU results in allowing robotic control of braking on the RU (e.g. braking of a TR or control of brakes on a DAK). ARTS is capable or pausing the robotic controls of an RU which takes it out of the RR state];
calculating, by the processor, a position of the robot using at least one sensor; continuously monitoring, by the processor, communications connectivity to the remove (remote – see claim language above) server during robot operation; determining, by the processor, robot operational parameters including at least the position of the robot [see p0066, p0074 – p0076 - ARTS provides common sensing and recording of RU data. This data is time stamped using a common reference system-wide time (e.g., use of positioning system timestamp or synchronized times). In some embodiments, ARTS RU positions, velocity, accelerations, headings, roll, pitch, and heading rates are sensed and recorded];
Peronne does not specifically teach defining, by the processor, at least two risk zones including a first risk zone and a second risk zone based on the position of the robot, the first risk zone being closer to the position of the robot than the second risk zone, the second risk zone surrounds at least in part the position of the robot and the first risk zone; generating, by the processor, zone boundary coordinates for the at least two risk zones that change based on real-time position of the robot; performing, by the processor, the category one stop functionality of the robot if an object is detected in the first risk zone by at least one sensor of the robot; and performing, by the processor, the category two stop functionality of the robot if the object is detected in the second risk zone by the at least one sensor of the robot.
Perrone does teach movement plans may define a coordinated movement (e.g., a collision avoidance test procedure) for a robot. These movement plans embodying autonomous driving maneuvers include following a leading vehicle, avoiding a collision with an object, avoiding running into a ditch or hole, merging at an intersection, avoiding a collision while staying in a lane, parking, passing another vehicle, avoiding a collision with a close proximity object, rerouting, following a road, stopping at stop signs or points, U-turns, avoiding a collision with an overhanging object, traversing an open zone, and other concrete autonomous driving maneuvers which may be implemented according to a pre-defined software. This factor will become important to note when used in the combination, see below.
However, Terrien discloses by a method for guarantying a safe navigation of a mobile robot, said mobile robot being configured to be displaced on a path within an environment; dynamically determining an envelope comprising both said variable safety fields and said mobile robot, said envelope being variable if the at least one safety field varies. Further teaching, a zone around the robot is defined as an envelope, that is while the robot is traveling, the envelope is reduced in size as the robot speed is decreased if an obstacle is detected in the zone (envelope) [see Summary].
According to an embodiment, the envelope has a first geometry when the robot is in a portion of the path free from obstacle and the envelope has a second geometry when the robot is approaching an obstacle on the path, said first geometry being superior to said second geometry. At high speed, when the robot is on a portion of the path free from obstacle the geometry envelope is greater than when the robot is approaching an obstacle. A greater envelope allows better anticipation of any obstacle likely to be placed on the path of the robot. For instance, if the robot is displacing on a path and a narrow passage is approaching, the speed of the vehicle will decrease naturally so that the robot will adopt a smaller envelope. As a result the robot will be able to traverse the narrow passage without risking any collision while guarantying the displacement of the robot with the optimal speed along the path [see Terrien p0019, p0014 disclosing two separate zones, one less risky is the first geometry whereby the robot is free from obstacles, and one with decreasing speed due to an obstacle is the smaller zone, higher risk; zones determined in real time]
Although Terrien also teaches that for safety reasons, dynamic conditions of reducing maneuverability of the robot are important. Such as braking, acceleration, slowing, stopping and/or collision avoidance [see Terrien p0048 – p0055]. Terrien does not need to teach each one stop and two stop functionality as recited, because the Examiner uses Perrone for those functions, see above in Perrone.
The Examiner however adopts Terrien to teach this first risk zone and a second risk zone and apply it to Perrone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Perrone to include at least two risk zones including a first risk zone and a second risk zone based on the position of the robot, the first risk zone being closer to the position of the robot than the second risk zone, the second risk zone surrounds at least in part the position of the robot and the first risk zone; generating, by the processor, zone boundary coordinates for the at least two risk zones that change based on real-time position of the robot; performing, by the processor, the category one stop functionality of the robot if an object is detected in the first risk zone by at least one sensor of the robot; and performing, by the processor, the category two stop functionality of the robot if the object is detected in the second risk zone by the at least one sensor of the robot, as suggested and taught by Terrien, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a protection management procedure around the robot, this procedure is adapted to implement the corrections when an unexpected object is placed on the trajectory of the vehicle, thus avoiding collisions and other dangerous activities while robot is in use.
Claim 30 is similarly rejected as Claim 21, see above.
Claim 22, Perrone discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising: receiving, by the processor, a stop command from one or more sensors or the remote server if the robot fails to stop [see p0051, p0056, p0061 teaching critical stop communication across wireless networks];
and transmitting, by the processor, an alert notification via the remote server for human assistance during the category one stop functionality to verify the robot is safe to continue operation [see Perrone, which has constant and continuous commination with the RU’s movement, see Human Machine Interface (HMI) p0051- p0066, p0187 – 0191 - for Emergency stop - and reengagement of high power source to all components after disabling the RU. See [0089], “detection of a sound event (e.g. audible collision avoidance warning), detection of a visible event (e.g. visible collision avoidance warning)”].
Claim 31 is similarly rejected as Claim 22, see above.
Claim 25, Perrone discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to generate data indicative of an environment of the robot and the calculated position of the robot [see Perrone – p0047 – p0050, p0067 and p0092, Common components, hardware and software, are utilized across RU types. For example, ARTS equipped test vehicles may leverage the same positioning sensor or movement planning software as an ARTS target robot].
Claim 34 is similarly rejected as Claim 25, see above.
Claim 26, Perrone discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the actuators are configured to perform a task [see p0071, Perrone’s custom equipped test vehicles are those robotically equipped test vehicles that have custom actuation mechanisms and controls embedded to allow them to participate in ARTS. These custom equipped test vehicles have steering actuators mounted directly to control points (e.g., steering, brake, and accelerator actuators), have communication interfaces to drive by wire controls, or control some auxiliary motivation means such as an electric vehicle drive system and braking].
Claim 35 is similarly rejected as Claim 26, see above.
Claim 27, Perrone discloses the method of claim 21, but not specifically wherein the defining of the at least two risk zones associated with the robot comprises analyzing potential hazards related to operation of the robot, environment, and interactions based on the calculated position and operational parameters of the robot.
However, Terrien discloses that an envelope (or zone around the robot) has a first geometry when the robot is in a portion of the path free from obstacle and the envelope has a second geometry when the robot is approaching an obstacle on the path, said first geometry being superior to said second geometry. At high speed, when the robot is on a portion of the path free from obstacle the geometry envelope is greater than when the robot is approaching an obstacle. A greater envelope allows better anticipation of any obstacle likely to be placed on the path of the robot. For instance, if the robot is displacing on a path and a narrow passage is approaching, the speed of the vehicle will decrease naturally so that the robot will adopt a smaller envelope. As a result, the robot will be able to traverse the narrow passage without risking any collision while guarantying the displacement of the robot with the optimal speed along the path [see Terrien p0019, p0014 disclosing two separate zones, one less risky is the first geometry whereby the robot is free from obstacles, and one with decreasing speed due to an obstacle is the smaller zone, higher risk; zones determined in real time]
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Perrone to include wherein the defining of the at least two risk zones associated with the robot comprises analyzing potential hazards related to operation of the robot, environment, and interactions based on the calculated position and operational parameters of the robot, as suggested and taught by Terrien, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a protection management procedure around the robot, this procedure is adapted to implement the corrections when an unexpected object is placed on the trajectory of the vehicle, thus avoiding collisions and other dangerous activities while robot is in use.
Claim 36 is similarly rejected as Claim 27, see above.
Claim 28, Perrone discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the robot comprises a plurality of exteroceptive sensors [see p0048 – GPS sensors used].
Claim 37 is similarly rejected as Claim 28, see above.
Claim 29, Perrone discloses the method of claim 22, further comprising: attaching a module and the one or more sensors to the robot, wherein the attaching of the module comprises physically integrating the module and the one or more sensors with the robot and establishing communication connectivity between the module and the remote server [see at least p0075, ARTS RU position, velocity, acceleration, heading, heading rates, and other RU state information is also communicated from RUs to HMIs over the ARTS COMS. In some embodiments, ARTS RU state information and test results are communicated from RUs to Command, Control and Intelligence (“C2I”) servers over the ARTS COMS. Other devices on the ARTS COMS network may also listen for information communicated from RUs on a publish/subscribe or broadcast listener basis].
Claim 38 is similarly rejected as Claim 29, see above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 24, 32 and 33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE LAROSE whose telephone number is (313)446-4856. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Renee LaRose/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights