DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on04/19/2026 remain pending in the application. 1-6, 8-20 remain pending in the application. the amendment overcomes the 101 and 112b rejections on record.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application EP23194104 filed on 08/29/2023.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kuka (US20220219323) in view of Iida (US20170326734) and Andreoni (US20230202037).
Regarding claim 1, Kuka teaches a method for contactless safeguarding at a cooperation zone of a machine, wherein an access zone for a worker is arranged at a first side of the cooperation zone and a working zone of the machine is arranged at a second side different from the first side, wherein a plurality of protected fields configured in the environment of the cooperation zone are monitored for protected field intrusions by at least one optoelectronic sensor and at least two of the protected fields are arranged in a first sequence starting from the first side such that a worker sequentially intrudes into these protected fields when approaching the cooperation zone, wherein the protected field intrusions are evaluated to safeguard the machine in the case of an unpermitted combination of protected field intrusions ([0077] disclosing the camera sensor. Fig. 1 disclosing the person entering from an access zone at one side and the robot working at another zone. [0010]-[0022] disclosing the cooperation between a robot and a human wherein as the distance between the robot and the human is decreased, the speed is slowed more and more, this successive reduction in speed as stated in [0022] is a combination of a series of fields. See further in [0023] defining a cooperative region when the distance reaches the fourth limit for example as the cooperative region where the speed is reduced for cooperation thus that is the cooperative zone and at least the first, second, third regions to reach that would be the side where the person is moving in that direction towards the fourth region, i.e., protective regions. [0040]-[0046] further defines the minimum distance as being determined based on the sequential fields of areas, thus from the citations it is interpreted that the robot is controlled to be safeguarded to slow down or stop based on the sequence combination of fields that both robot and the human cooperate in… for instance in figure 1, if the minimum distance is shown based on the safety regions shown in the image as the empty space between the robot 2 and the person F6,1 , then that empty space that is not greyed out would be the space falling below the fourth region and would be the cooperative zone between the side of the human and the working side of the machine.. in at least [0020] disclosing the stopping in when the when the distance falls below a fourth limit for instance, thus that would be considered the unpermitted combination sequence, or in [0021] disclosing the combination of reducing the speed as the distance decreases and only stops when the robot comes in contact with an obstacle),
and wherein at least two of the protected fields are arranged in a second sequence starting from the second side ([0040]-[0046] and at least figure 1 shows the robot operated within the plurality of zones sequentially from the other side opposite to the person).
Wherein a permitted combination of protected field intrusions is determined by sequential infringement of the at least two first protected fields and/or the at least two second protected fields from an outside to an inside, the inside designating the cooperation zone, (Kuka [0010]-[0046] disclosing the person moving sequentially in a permitted sequence including between a first and second and third distance wherein the fourth distance remaining between the cooperative zone and the sequence. Here a permitted field is defined to be longer than threshold minimum distances wherein the minimum distances are measured as seen in figure 1 to allow a lot of combinations of sequences into the spatial fields as long as the minimum distances measured by the spatial area between robots is maintained over thresholds. [0040]-[0046] discloses the minimum distance is based on the spatial zones).
Since the cooperative zone in Kuka is defined based on the minimum distance with respect to the person approaching the robot, Kuka does not explicitly teach that the machine sequentially intrudes the protected fields when approaching the cooperation zone.
Iida teaches that the machine sequentially intrudes the protected fields when approaching the cooperation zone ([0145-[0154] disclosing the protective fields containing at least two fields to enable reduction of speed of the machine as it approaches a zone where a human is cooperating with the machine).
The combination of Iida with Kuka improves safety by incorporating the motion of the machine into zones to further avoid colliding with the human at high speeds and avoiding injuries as taught by Iida [0045]-[0054].
Andreoni teaches the permitted combination of protected field intrusions being further defined by a minimum number of protected fields not having a protected field intrusion between the at least two first protected fields and the at least two second protected fields ([0050]-[0051] disclosing multiple zones wherein the permitted zone for instance 410 does not cause any change in robot behavior since it includes at least another two regions closer to the robot as protective regions).
Wherein the control and evaluation unit if further configured to control the machine to prevent contacting the worker when the unpermitted combination of protected fields is determined to exist ([0050]-[0051] disclosing when the unpermitted region is accessed thus not allowing more than a predetermined regions between, the robot is slowed and stopped).
Wherein the control and evaluation does not adjust the operation of the machine when the permitted combination of protected field intrusion is determined to exist (at least [0040]-[0070] disclosing not cause change in the behavior since it includes at least another two regions closer to the robot as protective regions).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Andreoni yielding predictable results in order to suppress unnecessary control of the robot when a collision is not expected with a person based on the regions as taught by Andreoni [0050]-[0052], the combination of the zones of Andreoni enables quick adjustment when a zone is penetrated. The substitution of the zones of Andreoni with the distance of Kuka is also obvious yielding predictable results since Kuka teaches distances based on zones and even the teaching of Andreoni teaches the zones based on distances which is the obvious reason for determining zones to keep a safe distance.
Regarding claim 2, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni teaches the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the machine comprises at least one robot (Kuka [0010]-[0023], figure 1 disclosing at least one robot).
Regarding claim 5, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni teaches the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein at least one optoelectronic sensor comprises at least two optoelectronic sensors, wherein each of the at least two optoelectronic sensors monitors some of the protected fields; and wherein at least one of the protected field is monitored by the at least two optoelectronic sensors and is therefore monitored at an elevated safety level (Kuka [0077] disclosing the at least two sensors monitoring each field).
Regarding claim 6, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni teaches the method in accordance with claim 5, wherein one of the protected field comprises the cooperation zone and the one of the protected fields is monitored by the at least two optoelectronic sensors (Kuka [0010]-[0055] disclosing the cooperative zone is amongst the zones that are monitored and where speed is slowed for cooperation, [0077] disclosing the sensors monitor all zones including the cooperation zone).
Regarding claim 9, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni teaches the method in accordance with claim 1,
Specifically, Andreoni teaches wherein the machine continues to work without any restriction of a work speed thereof when a minimum number is two ([0050]-[0051] disclosing multiple zones wherein the permitted zone for instance 410 does not cause any change in robot behavior since it includes at least another two regions closer to the robot as protective regions).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Andreoni yielding predictable results in order to suppress unnecessary control of the robot when a collision is not expected with a person based on the regions as taught by Andreoni [0050]-[0052].
Regarding claim 11, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni further teaches the method in accordance with claim 7, wherein the machine is safeguarded when a number of the protected fields not having a protected field intrusion is less than the minimum number.
Specifically, Andreoni teaches wherein the machine is safeguarded when a number of the protected fields not having a protected field intrusion is less than the minimum number ([0050]-[0051] disclosing when no more zones are available and the robot is in immediate proximity to the robot at 404 to stop the robot).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Andreoni yielding predictable results in order to progressively slow down the robot until the danger is great thus improving the efficiency of the robot work and unnecessarily stopping the robot when there is no danger of collision.
Regarding claim 14, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni teaches the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the first sequence comprises, from the outside to the inside with respect to the cooperation zone, a first protected field , a second protected field, and a third protected field y , the cooperation zone being monitored by a fourth protected field and the second sequence, ([Kuka [0010]-[0046] disclosing a plurality of the fields including a first distance, second distance, third distance and fourth distance from one side).
Iida further teaches starting from the inside to the outside of the cooperation zone, comprises a fifth protected field and a sixth protected field ([0145-[0154] disclosing the protective fields containing at least two fields to enable reduction of speed of the machine as it approaches a zone where a human is cooperating with the machine).
The combination of Iida with Kuka improves safety by incorporating the motion of the machine into zones to further avoid colliding with the human at high speeds and avoiding injuries as taught by Iida [0045]-[0054].
Regarding claim 18, Kuka teaches monitoring device for contactless safeguarding at a cooperation zone of a machine, comprising: at least one optoelectronic sensor having a light receiver for generating a received signal, wherein an access zone for a worker is arranged at a first side of the cooperation zone and a working zone of the machine is arranged at a second side of the cooperation zone, and has a control and evaluation unit that is configured to monitor a plurality of protected fields configured in the environment of the cooperation zone for protected field intrusions with reference to the received signal, wherein the protected fields are configured such that at least two of the protected fields are arranged in a first sequence starting from the first side such that a worker sequentially intrudes into these protected fields when approaching the cooperation zone, and wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the protected field intrusions to safeguard the machine in the case of an unpermitted combination of protected field intrusions ([0077] disclosing the camera sensor. Fig. 1 disclosing the person entering from an access zone at one side and the robot working at another zone. [0010]-[0022] disclosing the cooperation between a robot and a human wherein as the distance between the robot and the human is decreased, the speed is slowed more and more, this successive reduction in speed as stated in [0022] is a combination of a series of fields. See further in [0023] defining a cooperative region when the distance reaches the fourth limit for example as the cooperative region where the speed is reduced for cooperation thus that is the cooperative zone and at least the first, second, third regions to reach that would be the side where the person is moving in that direction towards the fourth region, i.e., protective regions. [0040]-[0046] further defines the minimum distance as being determined based on the sequential fields of areas, thus from the citations it is interpreted that the robot is controlled to be safeguarded to slow down or stop based on the sequence combination of fields that both robot and the human cooperate in… for instance in figure 1, if the minimum distance is shown based on the safety regions shown in the image as the empty space between the robot 2 and the person F6,1 , then that empty space that is not greyed out would be the space falling below the fourth region and would be the cooperative zone between the side of the human and the working side of the machine.. in at least [0020] disclosing the stopping in when the when the distance falls below a fourth limit for instance, thus that would be considered the unpermitted combination sequence, or in [0021] disclosing the combination of reducing the speed as the distance decreases and only stops when the robot comes in contact with an obstacle. [0030]-[0035] disclosing the sensors being camera or a laser device for sending signals),,
and wherein the protected fields are configured such that at least two of the protected fields are arranged in a second sequence starting from the second side ([0040]-[0046] and at least figure 1 shows the robot operated within the plurality of zones sequentially from the other side opposite to the person).
Since the cooperative zone in Kuka is defined based on the minimum distance with respect to the person approaching the robot, Kuka does not explicitly teach that the machine sequentially intrudes the protected fields when approaching the cooperation zone.
Iida teaches that the machine sequentially intrudes the protected fields when approaching the cooperation zone ([0145-[0154] disclosing the protective fields containing at least two fields to enable reduction of speed of the machine as it approaches a zone where a human is cooperating with the machine).
The combination of Iida with Kuka improves safety by incorporating the motion of the machine into zones to further avoid colliding with the human at high speeds and avoiding injuries as taught by Iida [0045]-[0054].
Andreoni teaches the permitted combination of protected field intrusions being further defined by a minimum number of protected fields not having a protected field intrusion between the at least two first protected fields and the at least two second protected fields ([0050]-[0051] disclosing multiple zones wherein the permitted zone for instance 410 does not cause any change in robot behavior since it includes at least another two regions closer to the robot as protective regions).
Wherein the control and evaluation unit if further configured to control the machine to prevent contacting the worker when the unpermitted combination of protected fields is determined to exist ([0050]-[0051] disclosing when the unpermitted region is accessed thus not allowing more than a predetermined regions between, the robot is slowed and stopped).
Wherein the control and evaluation does not adjust the operation of the machine when the permitted combination of protected field intrusion is determined to exist (at least [0040]-[0070] disclosing not cause change in the behavior since it includes at least another two regions closer to the robot as protective regions).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Andreoni yielding predictable results in order to suppress unnecessary control of the robot when a collision is not expected with a person based on the regions as taught by Andreoni [0050]-[0052], the combination of the zones of Andreoni enables quick adjustment when a zone is penetrated. The substitution of the zones of Andreoni with the distance of Kuka is also obvious yielding predictable results since Kuka teaches distances based on zones and even the teaching of Andreoni teaches the zones based on distances which is the obvious reason for determining zones to keep a safe distance.
Regarding claim 15, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni teaches the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the at least one optoelectronic sensor comprises two optoelectronic sensors for monitoring five protected fields W, A, B, C, D, wherein one of the optoelectronic sensors is in the access zone monitors an outer first protected field W, a second protected field A enclosing a zone between the first protected field W and the cooperation zone, and a fourth protected field C adjoining in the working zone and comprising the cooperation zone and the other one of the optoelectronic sensor in the working zone and monitors an outer fifth protected field D and a third protected field B comprising the cooperation zone and projecting into the access zone ([0030]-[0035] disclosing the two sensors monitoring all the areas thus the first sensor monitors the first and second and forth fields and the second sensors monitors all the fields).
Lida further teaches the plurality of zones for the robot side ([0145-[0154] disclosing the protective fields containing at least two fields to enable reduction of speed of the machine as it approaches a zone where a human is cooperating with the machine).
The combination of Iida with Kuka improves safety by incorporating the motion of the machine into zones to further avoid colliding with the human at high speeds and avoiding injuries as taught by Iida [0045]-[0054]. It would be obvious to utilize the sensors of Kuda with the zones of Iida yielding predictable results and monitoring the robot movement into zones improving safety.
Regarding claim 16, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni teaches the method in accordance with claim 15, wherein the monitoring by the two optoelectronic sensors overlap at least in the fourth protected field C so that a higher safety level achieved in at least the fourth protected field C ([0030]-[0035] disclosing the two sensors monitors all the fields in an overlapping manner, indicative of a higher safety level where redundancy occurs and no missed areas).
Regarding claim 17, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni teaches the method in accordance with claim 15, wherein the first protected field W is monitored as a functional first protected field a, the second protected field A without the third protected field B is monitored as a second functional protected field β, the third protected field B without the fourth protected field C is monitored as a functional third protected field y, an overlap zone of the third protected field B with the fourth protected field C is monitored as a functional fourth protected field δ, the fourth protected field C without the third protected field B is monitored as a functional fifth protected field Σ, and the fifth protected field D without the fourth protected field C as a sixth protected field ζ (Kuka [0010]-[0047] disclosing the plurality of zones).
Iida further teaches the plurality of zones for the robot side Iada further teaches the plurality of zones for the robot side ([0145-[0154] disclosing the protective fields containing at least two fields to enable reduction of speed of the machine as it approaches a zone where a human is cooperating with the machine).
The combination of Iida with Kuka improves safety by incorporating the motion of the machine into zones to further avoid colliding with the human at high speeds and avoiding injuries as taught by Iida [0045]-[0054]. It would be obvious to utilize the sensors of Kuda with the zones of Iida yielding predictable results and monitoring the robot movement into zones improving safety.
Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2, see above rejection.
Claims 3, 4, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kuka (US20220219323) in view of Iida (US20170326734) and Andreoni (US20230202037) and Braune (US20190378264).
Regarding claim 3, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni teaches the method in accordance with claim 1, and wherein the plurality of protected fields are three-dimensional protected fields ([0040] disclosing three dimensional fields).
Kuka as modified by Iida does not teach wherein the at least one optoelectronic sensor is a 3D sensor.
Braun teaches wherein the optoelectronic sensor is a 3D sensor ([0021] disclosing the 3d camera).
The combination/substitution of the 3d camera of Braune with the camera of Kuka yielding predictable results in order to detect the distance of an object in all dimensions to avoid colliding with the robot thus improving safety.
Regarding claim 4, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni and Braune teaches the method in accordance with claim 3, wherein the optoelectronic sensor is a time of flight camera.
Specifically, Braune teaches the optoelectronic sensor is a time of flight camera ([0021], [0045] disclosing the time of flight camera as the 3d sensor).
It would be obvious to combine/substitute the time of flight camera as the 3d sensor yielding predictable results as it would be preferred to use technique of time of flight principle with direct time of flight measurement of light signals as taught by Braune [0021] and as an obvious design choice of a 3d camera.
Regarding claim 20, Regarding claim 4, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni teaches the method in accordance with claim 3, but does not teach wherein the at least one optoelectronic sensor is a 3d camera.
Specifically, Braune teaches the at least one optoelectronic sensor is a 3d camera ([0021], [0045] disclosing the time of flight camera as the 3d sensor).
It would be obvious to combine/substitute the time of flight camera as the 3d sensor yielding predictable results as it would be preferred to use technique of time of flight principle with direct time of flight measurement of light signals as taught by Braune [0021] and as an obvious design choice of a 3d camera.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kuka (US20220219323) in view of Iida (US20170326734) and Andreoni (US20230202037) and Ooshima (US20240165811) and Moriyama (US20220288784).
Regarding claim 8, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni teaches the method in accordance with claim 1, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni teach wherein, when one of the at least two first protected fields is infringed, (Andreoni [0050]-[0052] disclosing the first sequence of infringement).
Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni does not teach the machine is prevented from intruding into one or more of the first protected fields corresponding to the minimum number and the machine retreats from the one or more protective fields.
Ooshima teaches the machine is prevented from intruding into one or more of the first protected fields ([0062]-[0063] disclosing the machine does not enter into a protected field with a human being intruding ).
The combination of Ooshima is obvious yielding predictable results thus avoiding the motion of the robot into an occupied area avoiding collision and improving human safety.
Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni does not teach and the machine retreats from the one or more protective fields.
Moriyama teaches and the machine retreats from the one or more protective fields ([0033]-[0034] disclosing retreating from the work area in response to a person entering).
The combination of Moriyama is obvious yielding predictable results in order to retreat the robot until a person exits the area thus improving the safety of a person.
Claims 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kuka (US20220219323) in view of Iida (US20170326734) and Andreoni (US20230202037) and Takai (US20210157326).
Regarding claim 10, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni teaches the method in accordance with claim 7, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni does not teach wherein the worker receives a warning not to further approach the cooperation zone when the minimum number is one.
Takai teaches wherein the worker receives a warning not to further approach the cooperation zone when the minimum number is one ([0061]-[0062] disclosing the warning when there is still a prohibition zone after a restriction zone).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Takai yielding predictable results in order to warn a person so that the robot is not unnecessarily stopped if the person moves away [0061].
Regarding claim 12, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni teaches the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the machine restarts automatically when a number of the protected fields not having a protected field intrusion equals or is greater than the minimum number.
Specifically, Takai teaches wherein the machine restarts automatically when a number of the protected fields not having a protected field intrusion equals or is greater than the minimum number ([0061]-[0069] disclosing the resuming of the normal speed when the human is no longer in the protected field, i.e., indicative of a minimum number of one area in between them).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Takai yielding predictable results in order to warn a person so that the robot is not unnecessarily stopped if the person moves away [0061].
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kuka (US20220219323) in view of Iida (US20170326734) and Andreoni (US20230202037) and Kim (US20100057252) and Moriyama (US20220288784).
Regarding claim 13, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni teaches the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein, the evaluating of the protected field intrusions, transitions thereof being determined by an additional intrusion of the one of the first or second protected fields or ending of an intrusion into one of the first or the second protected fields, (Kuka [0010]-[0051] disclosing the transition of the machine into a limited speed based on a first intrusion into a first zone by a person and an additional second intrusion into a protected field and third additional intrusion and fourth additional intrusion);
While Kuka does not teach the finite state machine.
Kim teaches uses a finite transition machine ([0070] disclosing the sequence of control based on the finite state machine).
the combination/substitution of transitioning of the robot based on FSM is obvious yielding predictable result in order to save computational power as taught by Kim [0070].
Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni and Kim does not teach and wherein measures to be taken in the event of the unpermitted combination of protected field intrusions include one or more of a moving the machine away from the cooperation zone in a direction towards the second side of the cooperation zone, a prohibition of intrusion into one of the protected fields by the machine and cancelling a prohibition of intrusions into one of the protected fields.
Moriyama teaches and wherein measures to be taken in the event of the unpermitted combination of protected field intrusions include one or more of a moving the machine away from the cooperation zone in a direction towards the second side of the cooperation zone, a prohibition of intrusion into one of the protected fields by the machine and cancelling a prohibition of intrusions into one of the protected fields ([0033]-[0034] disclosing retreating from the work area in response to a person entering).
The combination of Moriyama is obvious yielding predictable results in order to retreat the robot until a person exits the area thus improving the safety of a person.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicants arguments regarding the 112b rejection and 101 rejection, the amendment overcomes the rejections on record.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding amendment claim 1, that “neither Wuensch nor Lida teach the minimum number of protective fields not having a detected intrusion”, neither Wuensch nor Lida were cited for that rejection. Instead, Andreoni was cited to teach the minimum number of protective fields not having detected intrusion, thus, arguments regarding Andreoni with respect to the amended subject matter will be addressed below.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that the determination of permitted and unpermitted combinations are based on considerations of the intrusions made both in the first sequence and also in the second sequence, examiner respectfully disagrees since the amended claim still recites that the “permitted combination of protected field intrusion is determined by sequential infringement of the at least two first protected fields and/or the at least two second protected fields” thus requiring only one of the sequences to be infringed. It is noted that Wuensch allows such a permitted combination in the spatial zones as long as a minimum distance measured between the spatial zones is maintained. While Wuensch does not explicitly disclose the minimum number of fields, the distances and the control in Wuensch relies on the zones, thus the combination with Andreoni and or the substitution of the fields of Andreoni is obvious yielding predictable results for controlling the robot based on distances, it is also noted that the zones are always based on distances in the monitoring areas to secure the robot and the person from collisions as in the case of Andreoni.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that “paragraphs [0050]-[0051] makes it clear that the control over the robot is based solely on movement by the human”, however, Wuensch as modified by Lida already teaches the control based on movement of robot and human and sequences of robot movement, thus the combination of the teaching of Andreoni to allow permitted movements when distances are still too large as in two regions between them still exists is obvious to add to the distance teaching of Wuensch and Lida thus allowing to permit movement and not unnecessarily stop the robot which would lead to inefficiencies in control when two regions are still available.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that there is no motivation of monitoring zones since Wuensch already monitors distances, examiner respectfully disagrees, the combination of the fields is obvious since the fields are based on distances, see Andreoni [0050]-[0051] and the monitoring of zones further enhances the efficiency of the calculations as it reduces the unnecessary calculations required for each spatial zone as done by Wuensch thus saving resources and making quicker decisions. Also Wuensch is not solely based on distance but also on the spatial zones. And thus since the measurement of Andreoni and Lida is based on the zones which are based on distances thus there is compatibility with the distance of Wuensch.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20100191372 disclosing a robot zone, a worker zone and a cooperative zone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B
Prosecution Insights