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 .
Priority
The present application’s status as a 371 of PCT/US2023/016565 (filing date 03/28/2023) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement that the submitted substitute drawing sheets correct the previously-raised issues with respect to reference character(s). Accordingly, the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 9-10, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Regarding paragraphs [0047] and [0050], the Examiner is in agreement that the amendments to the paragraphs correct the previously-raised reference character issues.
Regarding the objection to the abstract, the Examiner is in agreement that the amendments to the abstract now satisfy the minimum fifty-word length requirement.
Regarding to the objection to the title of the invention, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments persuasive with respect to the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art of the terms “end effector” and “end effector conditions”.
Accordingly, the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 10, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the objection to claims 1 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement that the amendments to claims 1 and 20 correct the previously-raised informalities. Accordingly, the objection to claims 1 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 10-11, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation of claims 1, 6, and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement that claims 1, 6, and 13 have been amended such that the amended claims do not invoke interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation of claims 1, 6, and 13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 11-13, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 6-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement that the amendments to independent claims 6 and 13 render the claims as not being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In particular, the Examiner is in agreement that the amended limitations directed towards automatically modifying navigation of the robot based on detection of an object within the safety field by the one or more sensors of the safety field system cannot reasonably be performed within the human mind and also provide a practical application. Accordingly, the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 6-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 13-14, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement that the amendments to claims 1-20 correct the previously-raised indefiniteness concerns. Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 14-15, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 102(a)(2) rejection of claims 1-5 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kubotani fails to disclose “a manipulation mechanism comprising an end effector of a robotic tool”. In particular, Applicant alleges that “Kubotani does not disclose the broader scope of manipulation mechanism comprising end effectors of robotic tools that are provided for by amended claim 1”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument and asserts that the cargo handling apparatus 20 of Kubotani does amount to the claimed manipulation mechanism comprising an end effector of a robotic tool. Referring to [0039], the cargo handling apparatus 20 is disclosed as having “a pair of forks 22 being movable up and down with the mast 21, and a lift cylinder 23 causing the mast 21 to move up and down. A cargo is loaded on the forks 22.” Here, the claimed end effector of a robotic tool corresponds to the pair of forks 22, which are used to manipulate the cargo loaded on the forks 22. As admitted by Applicant (see Pgs. 9-10 of Remarks), the specification sets forth in [0084] that forklift mechanisms correspond to “[d]ifferent forms of manipulators” (i.e., end effectors). As such, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that Kubotani fails to disclose “a proprioceptive sensor configured to obtain proprioceptive information about the robot”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that paragraph [0040] of the written description indicates that “proprioceptive sensors measure the state of an AMR itself”. With respect to [0040]-[0050] of Kubotani, the Examiner respectfully asserts that at least the acceleration sensor 34, direction sensor 35, steering angle sensor 36, lifting height sensor 37, weight sensor 38, and rotational speed sensor 42 amount to proprioceptive sensors, as these sensors measure information about the robot. Kubotani uses lifting height sensor 37 to detect a lifting height of the cargo handling apparatus 20 (see at least [0045]); the detected lifting height is used to manipulate the loaded cargo, wherein a vehicle speed upper limit is set depending on the detected lifting height (e.g., lowering the vehicle speed upper limit as the lifting height of the cargo handling apparatus 20 increases) (see at least [0045] and [0218]-[0223]). As the cargo is loaded on the vehicle via cargo handling apparatus 20, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that reducing the vehicle speed upper limit also modifies how the object is being manipulated within the robot’s environment (i.e., by moving the object at a reduced upper speed limit). As such, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Therefore, the 35 USC 102(a)(2) rejection of claims 1-5 has been maintained to account for the modified scope of the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 15-16, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of independent claims 6 and 13 and their respective dependent claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 6 and 13, Applicant argues that Hardegger and Jacobsen fail to teach or suggest “at least one sensor acquiring sensor data based on a state of the robot, the sensor data comprising payload data associated with a payload of the robot; and a safety field adjusting system comprising a safety controller, the safety field adjusting system adjusting a safety field based on the sensor data, wherein the safety controller is configured to automatically modify navigation of the robot based on detection of an object within the safety field by the one or more sensors of the safety field system.” However, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments appear to rely on an interpretation of independent claims 6 and 13 which is not reflected in the claim language. In particular, Applicant argues that Hardegger and Jacobsen fail to teach or suggest the above-recited features because the references allegedly do not provide for maneuvering nor modifying navigation of an AMR based on sensor data. Applicant’s arguments appear to assert that the limitations “based on the sensor data” and “by the one or more sensors of the safety field system” require the use of “sensor data comprising payload data associated with a payload of the robot”. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that the sensor data is claimed as merely comprising payload data associated with a payload of the robot; that is, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the sensor data need not only refer to payload data associated with a payload of the robot and can instead encompass different kinds of sensor data while also requiring the presence of payload data. That is, the limitations “the safety field adjusting system adjusting a safety field based on the sensor data, wherein the safety controller is configured to automatically modify navigation of the robot based on detection of an object within the safety field by the one or more sensors of the safety field system” do not require that the safety field adjustment and the automatic modification of navigation of the robot utilize payload data. The Examiner respectfully asserts that Hardegger teaches limitations “the safety field adjusting system adjusting a safety field based on the sensor data, wherein the safety controller is configured to automatically modify navigation of the robot based on detection of an object within the safety field by the one or more sensors of the safety field system” in at least [0030] and [0045], which utilizes time of flight sensors and a monitoring controller. Jacobsen then provides “the sensor data comprising payload data associated with a payload of the robot” in at least [0019], wherein payload load values are used for selecting different safety fields. As such, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Accordingly, the prior art rejections of independent claims 6 and 13 and their respective dependent claims have been maintained to account for the modified scope of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kubotani et al. (US 2022/0411246 A1), hereinafter Kubotani.
Regarding claim 1, Kubotani discloses an autonomous mobile robot, comprising:
a processor;
Kubotani discloses ([0040]): "As illustrated in FIG. 2, the forklift truck 10 includes a main controller 31…" Kubotani further discloses ([0041]): "The main controller 31 has a processor 32 such as a CPU and a GPU, and a memory 33 including a RAM, a ROM, and the like. The memory 33 stores programs for operating the forklift truck 10. The memory 33 stores program codes or commands configured to cause the processor 32 to execute processes." FIG. 2, included below, depicts the main controller 31.
PNG
media_image1.png
474
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an exteroceptive sensor to obtain exteroceptive information about the robot's environment;
Kubotani discloses ([0040]): "As illustrated in FIG. 2, the forklift truck 10 includes… an object detector 51…" Kubotani further discloses ([0051]): "The object detector 51 includes a stereo camera 52, an obstacle detector 55 detecting an object from an image captured by the stereo camera 52, and an alarm 58. As illustrated in FIG. 1, the stereo camera 52 is disposed in the head guard 15. The stereo camera 52 is disposed so that the road surface on which the forklift truck 10 travels can be seen from above the forklift truck 10. The stereo camera 52 of the present embodiment captures the image of a rear of the forklift truck 10. Thus, the object detected by the obstacle detector 55 corresponds to an object being present behind the forklift truck 10."
a manipulation mechanism comprising an end effector of a robotic tool to manipulate an object within the robot's environment;
Kubotani discloses ([0038]): "As illustrated in FIG. 1, a forklift truck 10 serving as an industrial vehicle includes… a cargo handling apparatus 20." Kubotani further discloses ([0039]): "The cargo handling apparatus 20 has a mast 21 provided in a standing manner at a front part of the vehicle body 11, a pair of forks 22 being movable up and down with the mast 21, and a lift cylinder 23 causing the mast 21 to move up and down. A cargo is loaded on the forks 22."
and a proprioceptive sensor configured to obtain proprioceptive information about the robot,
Kubotani discloses ([0040]): "As illustrated in FIG. 2, the forklift truck 10 includes... an accelerator sensor 34, a direction sensor 35, a steering angle sensor 36, a lifting height sensor 37, a weight sensor 38, a driving motor 41, a rotational speed sensor 42..." Paragraphs [0042]-[0050] provide further detail regarding the capturing of proprioceptive information by these proprioceptive sensors.
wherein the processor is configured to employ the exteroceptive information to guide the robot
Kubotani discloses ([0066]): "The vehicle speed of the forklift truck 10 is controlled by the main controller 31 depending on a position of an object and a type of the object detected by the object detector 51. The type of the object means that the object is a person or an obstacle other than a person. In the following description, the obstacle corresponds to an object other than a person. The vehicle speed control includes an automatic deceleration control and a travel start limitation control."
and the proprioceptive information to manipulate the object within the robot's environment.
Kubotani discloses ([0045]): "The lifting height sensor 37 detects a lifting height of the cargo handling apparatus 20. The lifting height of the cargo handling apparatus 20 is the height of the forks 22 from a road surface. The lifting height sensor 37 is a reel sensor, for example. The lifting height sensor 37 outputs an electric signal depending on the lifting height to the main controller 31. The main controller 31 can recognize the lifting height of the cargo handling apparatus 20 based on the electric signal from the lifting height sensor 37." Kubotani further discloses ([0101]): "As illustrated in FIG. 10, the forced operation state S4 is a state in which a speed limit is imposed on the forklift truck 10 by the vehicle speed upper limit being set at VS1 [km/h]. The VS1 is higher than zero and lower than the maximum reachable speed of the forklift truck 10. It can be said that the main controller 31 allows the forklift truck 10 to travel at the VS1 or less." Kubotani even further discloses ([0218]): "The forklift truck 10 includes the cargo handling apparatus 20 on which a cargo is loaded. For loading the cargo, stability is required for the forklift truck 10 on which the cargo is loaded. The stability of the forklift truck 10 can be improved by the vehicle speed upper limit being set." Kubotani still further discloses ([0223]): "Similarly, the vehicle speed upper limit that is set in the limitation start state S23 may be lowered as the lifting height of the cargo handling apparatus 20 increases. The vehicle speed upper limit that is set in the limitation start state S23 is set depending on the distance to the object and the lifting height. The value of the vehicle speed upper limit is lowered as the distance to the object becomes short. The value of the vehicle speed upper limit is lowered as the lifting height of the cargo handling apparatus 20 increases."
Regarding claim 2, Kubotani discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Kubotani further discloses:
the manipulation mechanism comprises a fork-lift mechanism.
Kubotani discloses ([0039]): "The cargo handling apparatus 20 has a mast 21 provided in a standing manner at a front part of the vehicle body 11, a pair of forks 22 being movable up and down with the mast 21, and a lift cylinder 23 causing the mast 21 to move up and down. A cargo is loaded on the forks 22."
Regarding claim 3, Kubotani discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Kubotani further discloses:
the processor is configured to establish a safety field to guide the robot.
Kubotani discloses ([0066]): "The vehicle speed of the forklift truck 10 is controlled by the main controller 31 depending on a position of an object and a type of the object detected by the object detector 51. The type of the object means that the object is a person or an obstacle other than a person. In the following description, the obstacle corresponds to an object other than a person. The vehicle speed control includes an automatic deceleration control and a travel start limitation control." Kubotani further discloses ([0067]) "As illustrated in FIG. 4, an automatic deceleration area AA2 used for the automatic deceleration control and a travel start limitation area AA1 used for the travel start limitation control are set within an object detectable range of the object detector 51. The object detectable range of the object detector 51 may be a range that can be captured by the stereo camera 52. In the present embodiment, the automatic deceleration area AA2 is the same area as the object detectable range of the object detector 51."
Regarding claim 4, Kubotani discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 2. Kubotani further discloses:
the proprioceptive information includes information about the status of the fork-lift mechanism.
Kubotani discloses ([0045]): "The lifting height sensor 37 detects a lifting height of the cargo handling apparatus 20. The lifting height of the cargo handling apparatus 20 is the height of the forks 22 from a road surface. The lifting height sensor 37 is a reel sensor, for example. The lifting height sensor 37 outputs an electric signal depending on the lifting height to the main controller 31. The main controller 31 can recognize the lifting height of the cargo handling apparatus 20 based on the electric signal from the lifting height sensor 37."
Regarding claim 5, Kubotani discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Kubotani further discloses:
the proprioceptive information includes information about the status of the robot's manipulation operation.
Kubotani discloses ([0045]): "The lifting height sensor 37 detects a lifting height of the cargo handling apparatus 20. The lifting height of the cargo handling apparatus 20 is the height of the forks 22 from a road surface. The lifting height sensor 37 is a reel sensor, for example. The lifting height sensor 37 outputs an electric signal depending on the lifting height to the main controller 31. The main controller 31 can recognize the lifting height of the cargo handling apparatus 20 based on the electric signal from the lifting height sensor 37."
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardegger et al. (US 2011/0298579 A1), hereinafter Hardegger, in view of Jacobsen et al. (US 2022/0043452 A1), hereinafter Jacobsen.
Regarding claim 6, Hardegger teaches an autonomous mobile robot, comprising:
at least one processor in communication with at least one computer memory device;
Hardegger teaches ([0025]): "Referring initially to FIG. 1, a system 100 illustrates a dynamically adjustable safety zone 110 for an industrial control environment. The system 100 includes a controller 120 that monitors an operating zone via one or more time of flight (TOF) sensors 140... Equipment 150 within the operating zone 130 is also operated by the controller 120..." Hardegger further teaches ([0044]): "The techniques processes described herein may be implemented by various means. For example, these techniques may be implemented in hardware, software, or a combination thereof... With software, implementation can be through modules (e.g., procedures, functions, and so on) that perform the functions described herein. The software codes may be stored in memory unit and executed by the processors."
a safety field system having one or more sensors configured to generate a safety field;
Hardegger teaches ([0030]): "In another aspect, an industrial control system 100 is employed to monitor and control a safety zone 110. This includes the controller 120 that monitors objects 160 that approach an operating zone 130 where equipment 150 is controlled within the operating zone. A time of flight sensor 140 determines the speed or direction that the objects 160 approach the operating zone 130. A logic component 170 associated with the controller 120 is employed to automatically adjust a safety region 110 in view of the determined speed or direction of the objects 160." Hardegger further teaches ([0045]): " FIG. 7 is an alternative system 700 that applies dynamically adjustable safety zones to moving components of a machine. At machine 710 operates a robotic arm 720 that provides various degrees of movements. As shown, the arm 720 includes a head 730 where multiple sensors may be employed to define a dynamically adjustable safety zone 740 over the travel of the arm. "
at least one sensor configured to acquire sensor data based on a state of the robot,
Hardegger teaches ([0030]): "In another aspect, an industrial control system 100 is employed to monitor and control a safety zone 110. This includes the controller 120 that monitors objects 160 that approach an operating zone 130 where equipment 150 is controlled within the operating zone. A time of flight sensor 140 determines the speed or direction that the objects 160 approach the operating zone 130. A logic component 170 associated with the controller 120 is employed to automatically adjust a safety region 110 in view of the determined speed or direction of the objects 160. The controller 120 enables or disables the equipment 150 within the operating zone 130 based in part on the object entering the safety region 110... The controller 120 can also monitor motion of a portion of the equipment 150 to dynamically adjust safety regions 110 within the operating zone 130 based on speed or direction of the portion of the equipment 150... The controller 120 can also monitor moving equipment and dynamically adjusts the safety zone 110 as the moving equipment approaches other objects." Hardegger further teaches ([0045]): " FIG. 7 is an alternative system 700 that applies dynamically adjustable safety zones to moving components of a machine. At machine 710 operates a robotic arm 720 that provides various degrees of movements. As shown, the arm 720 includes a head 730 where multiple sensors may be employed to define a dynamically adjustable safety zone 740 over the travel of the arm. As can be appreciated, substantially any type of machine, appendage, or movement can be tracked via one or more TOF sensors. Thus, as noted previously, safety regions 740 can be monitored and adjusted based on detected movements of the machine 710 or in relation to portions of a machine 720. "
and a safety field adjusting system comprising a safety controller, the safety field adjusting system configured to adjust the safety field based on the sensor data,
Hardegger teaches ([0030]): "In another aspect, an industrial control system 100 is employed to monitor and control a safety zone 110. This includes the controller 120 that monitors objects 160 that approach an operating zone 130 where equipment 150 is controlled within the operating zone. A time of flight sensor 140 determines the speed or direction that the objects 160 approach the operating zone 130. A logic component 170 associated with the controller 120 is employed to automatically adjust a safety region 110 in view of the determined speed or direction of the objects 160. The controller 120 enables or disables the equipment 150 within the operating zone 130 based in part on the object entering the safety region 110... The controller 120 can also monitor motion of a portion of the equipment 150 to dynamically adjust safety regions 110 within the operating zone 130 based on speed or direction of the portion of the equipment 150... The controller 120 can also monitor moving equipment and dynamically adjusts the safety zone 110 as the moving equipment approaches other objects." Hardegger further teaches ([0045]): " FIG. 7 is an alternative system 700 that applies dynamically adjustable safety zones to moving components of a machine. At machine 710 operates a robotic arm 720 that provides various degrees of movements. As shown, the arm 720 includes a head 730 where multiple sensors may be employed to define a dynamically adjustable safety zone 740 over the travel of the arm. As can be appreciated, substantially any type of machine, appendage, or movement can be tracked via one or more TOF sensors. Thus, as noted previously, safety regions 740 can be monitored and adjusted based on detected movements of the machine 710 or in relation to portions of a machine 720. Thus, if a machine part such as the robotic arm 720 was moving in a faster motion, the zone around the arm can be dynamically increased. Thus, it is possible to eliminate or minimize the use of traditional monitoring and protective equipment by creating a dynamic, adjustable safety zone which depends on the position and the operating mode of the machine... The result can be achieved by applying optoelectric sensing devices based on TOF technology which is coupled to an integrated speed monitoring device..."
wherein the safety controller is configured to automatically modify navigation of the robot based on detection of an object within the safety field by the one or more sensors of the safety field system.
Hardegger teaches ([0030]): "In another aspect, an industrial control system 100 is employed to monitor and control a safety zone 110. This includes the controller 120 that monitors objects 160 that approach an operating zone 130 where equipment 150 is controlled within the operating zone. A time of flight sensor 140 determines the speed or direction that the objects 160 approach the operating zone 130. A logic component 170 associated with the controller 120 is employed to automatically adjust a safety region 110 in view of the determined speed or direction of the objects 160. The controller 120 enables or disables the equipment 150 within the operating zone 130 based in part on the object entering the safety region 110... The controller 120 can also monitor motion of a portion of the equipment 150 to dynamically adjust safety regions 110 within the operating zone 130 based on speed or direction of the portion of the equipment 150... The controller 120 can also monitor moving equipment and dynamically adjusts the safety zone 110 as the moving equipment approaches other objects." Hardegger further teaches ([0045]): " FIG. 7 is an alternative system 700 that applies dynamically adjustable safety zones to moving components of a machine. At machine 710 operates a robotic arm 720 that provides various degrees of movements. As shown, the arm 720 includes a head 730 where multiple sensors may be employed to define a dynamically adjustable safety zone 740 over the travel of the arm. As can be appreciated, substantially any type of machine, appendage, or movement can be tracked via one or more TOF sensors. Thus, as noted previously, safety regions 740 can be monitored and adjusted based on detected movements of the machine 710 or in relation to portions of a machine 720. Thus, if a machine part such as the robotic arm 720 was moving in a faster motion, the zone around the arm can be dynamically increased." The Examiner has interpreted the disabling of the equipment within the operating zone based in part on the object entering the safety region as automatically modifying navigation of the robot (i.e., by disabling the robot). With respect to the example of FIG. 7, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that disabling the equipment 150 (i.e., the machine 710 including robotic arm 720) would result in disabling of movement (i.e., navigation) of the robotic arm.
However, Hardegger does not outright teach that the sensor data comprises payload data associated with a payload of the robot. Jacobsen teaches an AGV having a dynamic safety zone, comprising:
the sensor data comprising payload data associated with a payload of the robot;
Jacobsen teaches ([0019]): "Another aspect of the invention solves the problem of higher braking distances when the vehicle has a heavy payload. This is achieved by utilizing a load sensor in the payload area of the vehicle or on the wheel suspension area, which detects the mass of the payload or total mass of the vehicle. The load values can then be used for selecting different safety zones from a number of different tables of braking distance for different speeds or be calculated via Newtonian rules, each table representing a different payload range."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hardegger to incorporate the teachings of Jacobsen to provide that the sensor data comprises payload data associated with a payload of the robot. Hardegger and Jacobsen are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of safety field generation for industrial robots. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the payload-based safety field adjustment of Jacobsen, as doing so allows for the selection of an appropriate safety zone based on the detected mass of the payload, as recognized by Jacobsen (see at least [0019]).
Regarding claim 7, Hardegger and Jacobsen teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 6. Hardegger further teaches:
the safety field adjusting system is configured to adjust an area, depth, footprint, or direction of the safety field.
Hardegger teaches ([0045]): "Thus, if a machine part such as the robotic arm 720 was moving in a faster motion, the zone around the arm can be dynamically increased. Thus, it is possible to eliminate or minimize the use of traditional monitoring and protective equipment by creating a dynamic, adjustable safety zone which depends on the position and the operating mode of the machine... If the mobile part of a machine is moving in any direction the sensing device will move along and adjust the safety zone 740. If the mobile part is moving fast, the safety zone can be automatically expanded, if the mobile part is moving slower, the safety zone can be decreased."
Regarding claim 8, Hardegger and Jacobsen teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 6. Hardegger further teaches:
the safety field adjusting system is configured to adjust the safety field in a travel direction of the robot.
Hardegger teaches ([0045]): "Thus, if a machine part such as the robotic arm 720 was moving in a faster motion, the zone around the arm can be dynamically increased. Thus, it is possible to eliminate or minimize the use of traditional monitoring and protective equipment by creating a dynamic, adjustable safety zone which depends on the position and the operating mode of the machine... If the mobile part of a machine is moving in any direction the sensing device will move along and adjust the safety zone 740."
Regarding claim 9, Hardegger and Jacobsen teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 6. However, Hardegger does not outright teach that the safety field adjusting system is configured to adjust the safety field relative to the payload of the robot. Jacobsen further teaches:
the safety field adjusting system is configured to adjust the safety field relative to the payload of the robot.
Jacobsen teaches ([0019]): "Another aspect of the invention solves the problem of higher braking distances when the vehicle has a heavy payload. This is achieved by utilizing a load sensor in the payload area of the vehicle or on the wheel suspension area, which detects the mass of the payload or total mass of the vehicle. The load values can then be used for selecting different safety zones from a number of different tables of braking distance for different speeds or be calculated via Newtonian rules, each table representing a different payload range."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hardegger and Jacobsen to further incorporate the teachings of Jacobsen to provide that the safety field adjusting system is configured to adjust the safety field relative to the payload of the robot. Hardegger and Jacobsen are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of safety field generation for industrial robots. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the payload-based safety field adjustment of Jacobsen, as doing so allows for the selection of an appropriate safety zone based on the detected mass of the payload, as recognized by Jacobsen (see at least [0019]).
Regarding claim 10, Hardegger and Jacobsen teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 6. Hardegger further teaches:
the state of the robot comprises or indicates at least one of: a lift, a tilt, a reach, and a side-shift of the robot or a portion of the robot.
Hardegger teaches ([0045]): "At machine 710 operates a robotic arm 720 that provides various degrees of movements. As shown, the arm 720 includes a head 730 where multiple sensors may be employed to define a dynamically adjustable safety zone 740 over the travel of the arm... Thus, if a machine part such as the robotic arm 720 was moving in a faster motion, the zone around the arm can be dynamically increased. Thus, it is possible to eliminate or minimize the use of traditional monitoring and protective equipment by creating a dynamic, adjustable safety zone which depends on the position and the operating mode of the machine... If the mobile part of a machine is moving in any direction the sensing device will move along and adjust the safety zone 740. If the mobile part is moving fast, the safety zone can be automatically expanded, if the mobile part is moving slower, the safety zone can be decreased." The Examiner has interpreted the use of multiple sensors to define a dynamically adjustable safety zone over the travel of the arm as determining an indication of a reach of the robot or portion of the robot (i.e., the reach of the arm).
Regarding claim 11, Hardegger and Jacobsen teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 6. However, Hardegger does not outright teach a signal configured to indicate load interaction. Jacobsen further teaches:
further comprising computer program code executable by the at least one processor to provide a signal configured to indicate load interaction.
Jacobsen teaches ([0019]): "Another aspect of the invention solves the problem of higher braking distances when the vehicle has a heavy payload. This is achieved by utilizing a load sensor in the payload area of the vehicle or on the wheel suspension area, which detects the mass of the payload or total mass of the vehicle. The load values can then be used for selecting different safety zones from a number of different tables of braking distance for different speeds or be calculated via Newtonian rules, each table representing a different payload range." Claim 20 indicates that a controller is configured to perform "determining a payload" and automatically adjusting a size of the safety zone.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hardegger to incorporate the teachings of Jacobsen to provide a signal configured to indicate load interaction. Hardegger and Jacobsen are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of safety field generation for industrial robots. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the payload-based safety field adjustment of Jacobsen, as doing so allows for the selection of an appropriate safety zone based on the detected mass of the payload, as recognized by Jacobsen (see at least [0019]).
Regarding claim 12, Hardegger and Jacobsen teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 11. However, Hardegger does not outright teach a signal configured to indicate load interaction. Jacobsen further teaches:
the safety field adjusting system is configured to adjust the safety field based on the load interaction signal.
Jacobsen teaches ([0019]): "Another aspect of the invention solves the problem of higher braking distances when the vehicle has a heavy payload. This is achieved by utilizing a load sensor in the payload area of the vehicle or on the wheel suspension area, which detects the mass of the payload or total mass of the vehicle. The load values can then be used for selecting different safety zones from a number of different tables of braking distance for different speeds or be calculated via Newtonian rules, each table representing a different payload range."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hardegger to incorporate the teachings of Jacobsen to provide that the safety field adjusting system is configured to adjust the safety field based on the load interaction signal. Hardegger and Jacobsen are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of safety field generation for industrial robots. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the payload-based safety field adjustment of Jacobsen, as doing so allows for the selection of an appropriate safety zone based on the detected mass of the payload, as recognized by Jacobsen (see at least [0019]).
Regarding claim 13, Hardegger teaches a method of dynamically adjusting or augmenting a safety field of an autonomous mobile robot, comprising:
establishing a safety field relative to the robot with one or more detectors;
Hardegger teaches ([0030]): "In another aspect, an industrial control system 100 is employed to monitor and control a safety zone 110. This includes the controller 120 that monitors objects 160 that approach an operating zone 130 where equipment 150 is controlled within the operating zone. A time of flight sensor 140 determines the speed or direction that the objects 160 approach the operating zone 130. A logic component 170 associated with the controller 120 is employed to automatically adjust a safety region 110 in view of the determined speed or direction of the objects 160." Hardegger further teaches ([0045]): " FIG. 7 is an alternative system 700 that applies dynamically adjustable safety zones to moving components of a machine. At machine 710 operates a robotic arm 720 that provides various degrees of movements. As shown, the arm 720 includes a head 730 where multiple sensors may be employed to define a dynamically adjustable safety zone 740 over the travel of the arm. "
at least one sensor acquiring sensor data based on a state of the robot,
Hardegger teaches ([0030]): "In another aspect, an industrial control system 100 is employed to monitor and control a safety zone 110. This includes the controller 120 that monitors objects 160 that approach an operating zone 130 where equipment 150 is controlled within the operating zone. A time of flight sensor 140 determines the speed or direction that the objects 160 approach the operating zone 130. A logic component 170 associated with the controller 120 is employed to automatically adjust a safety region 110 in view of the determined speed or direction of the objects 160. The controller 120 enables or disables the equipment 150 within the operating zone 130 based in part on the object entering the safety region 110... The controller 120 can also monitor motion of a portion of the equipment 150 to dynamically adjust safety regions 110 within the operating zone 130 based on speed or direction of the portion of the equipment 150... The controller 120 can also monitor moving equipment and dynamically adjusts the safety zone 110 as the moving equipment approaches other objects." Hardegger further teaches ([0045]): " FIG. 7 is an alternative system 700 that applies dynamically adjustable safety zones to moving components of a machine. At machine 710 operates a robotic arm 720 that provides various degrees of movements. As shown, the arm 720 includes a head 730 where multiple sensors may be employed to define a dynamically adjustable safety zone 740 over the travel of the arm. As can be appreciated, substantially any type of machine, appendage, or movement can be tracked via one or more TOF sensors. Thus, as noted previously, safety regions 740 can be monitored and adjusted based on detected movements of the machine 710 or in relation to portions of a machine 720. "
and a safety field adjusting system comprising a safety controller, the safety field adjusting system adjusting a safety field based on the sensor data,
Hardegger teaches ([0030]): "In another aspect, an industrial control system 100 is employed to monitor and control a safety zone 110. This includes the controller 120 that monitors objects 160 that approach an operating zone 130 where equipment 150 is controlled within the operating zone. A time of flight sensor 140 determines the speed or direction that the objects 160 approach the operating zone 130. A logic component 170 associated with the controller 120 is employed to automatically adjust a safety region 110 in view of the determined speed or direction of the objects 160. The controller 120 enables or disables the equipment 150 within the operating zone 130 based in part on the object entering the safety region 110... The controller 120 can also monitor motion of a portion of the equipment 150 to dynamically adjust safety regions 110 within the operating zone 130 based on speed or direction of the portion of the equipment 150... The controller 120 can also monitor moving equipment and dynamically adjusts the safety zone 110 as the moving equipment approaches other objects." Hardegger further teaches ([0045]): " FIG. 7 is an alternative system 700 that applies dynamically adjustable safety zones to moving components of a machine. At machine 710 operates a robotic arm 720 that provides various degrees of movements. As shown, the arm 720 includes a head 730 where multiple sensors may be employed to define a dynamically adjustable safety zone 740 over the travel of the arm. As can be appreciated, substantially any type of machine, appendage, or movement can be tracked via one or more TOF sensors. Thus, as noted previously, safety regions 740 can be monitored and adjusted based on detected movements of the machine 710 or in relation to portions of a machine 720. Thus, if a machine part such as the robotic arm 720 was moving in a faster motion, the zone around the arm can be dynamically increased. Thus, it is possible to eliminate or minimize the use of traditional monitoring and protective equipment by creating a dynamic, adjustable safety zone which depends on the position and the operating mode of the machine... The result can be achieved by applying optoelectric sensing devices based on TOF technology which is coupled to an integrated speed monitoring device..."
wherein the safety controller is configured to automatically modify navigation of the robot based on detection of an object within the safety field by the one or more sensors of the safety field system.
Hardegger teaches ([0030]): "In another aspect, an industrial control system 100 is employed to monitor and control a safety zone 110. This includes the controller 120 that monitors objects 160 that approach an operating zone 130 where equipment 150 is controlled within the operating zone. A time of flight sensor 140 determines the speed or direction that the objects 160 approach the operating zone 130. A logic component 170 associated with the controller 120 is employed to automatically adjust a safety region 110 in view of the determined speed or direction of the objects 160. The controller 120 enables or disables the equipment 150 within the operating zone 130 based in part on the object entering the safety region 110... The controller 120 can also monitor motion of a portion of the equipment 150 to dynamically adjust safety regions 110 within the operating zone 130 based on speed or direction of the portion of the equipment 150... The controller 120 can also monitor moving equipment and dynamically adjusts the safety zone 110 as the moving equipment approaches other objects." Hardegger further teaches ([0045]): " FIG. 7 is an alternative system 700 that applies dynamically adjustable safety zones to moving components of a machine. At machine 710 operates a robotic arm 720 that provides various degrees of movements. As shown, the arm 720 includes a head 730 where multiple sensors may be employed to define a dynamically adjustable safety zone 740 over the travel of the arm. As can be appreciated, substantially any type of machine, appendage, or movement can be tracked via one or more TOF sensors. Thus, as noted previously, safety regions 740 can be monitored and adjusted based on detected movements of the machine 710 or in relation to portions of a machine 720. Thus, if a machine part such as the robotic arm 720 was moving in a faster motion, the zone around the arm can be dynamically increased." The Examiner has interpreted the disabling of the equipment within the operating zone based in part on the object entering the safety region as automatically modifying navigation of the robot (i.e., by disabling the robot). With respect to the example of FIG. 7, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that disabling the equipment 150 (i.e., the machine 710 including robotic arm 720) would result in disabling of movement (i.e., navigation) of the robotic arm.
However, Hardegger does not outright teach that the sensor data comprises payload data associated with a payload of the robot. Jacobsen teaches an AGV having a dynamic safety zone, comprising:
the sensor data comprising payload data associated with a payload of the robot;
Jacobsen teaches ([0019]): "Another aspect of the invention solves the problem of higher braking distances when the vehicle has a heavy payload. This is achieved by utilizing a load sensor in the payload area of the vehicle or on the wheel suspension area, which detects the mass of the payload or total mass of the vehicle. The load values can then be used for selecting different safety zones from a number of different tables of braking distance for different speeds or be calculated via Newtonian rules, each table representing a different payload range."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hardegger to incorporate the teachings of Jacobsen to provide that the sensor data comprises payload data associated with a payload of the robot. Hardegger and Jacobsen are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of safety field generation for industrial robots. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the payload-based safety field adjustment of Jacobsen, as doing so allows for the selection of an appropriate safety zone based on the detected mass of the payload, as recognized by Jacobsen (see at least [0019]).
Regarding claim 14, Hardegger and Jacobsen teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 13. Hardegger further teaches:
adjusting the safety field includes adjusting an area, depth, footprint, or direction of the safety field.
Hardegger teaches ([0045]): "Thus, if a machine part such as the robotic arm 720 was moving in a faster motion, the zone around the arm can be dynamically increased. Thus, it is possible to eliminate or minimize the use of traditional monitoring and protective equipment by creating a dynamic, adjustable safety zone which depends on the position and the operating mode of the machine... If the mobile part of a machine is moving in any direction the sensing device will move along and adjust the safety zone 740. If the mobile part is moving fast, the safety zone can be automatically expanded, if the mobile part is moving slower, the safety zone can be decreased."
Regarding claim 15, Hardegger and Jacobsen teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 13. Hardegger further teaches:
adjusting the safety field includes adjusting the safety field in a travel direction of the robot.
Hardegger teaches ([0045]): "Thus, if a machine part such as the robotic arm 720 was moving in a faster motion, the zone around the arm can be dynamically increased. Thus, it is possible to eliminate or minimize the use of traditional monitoring and protective equipment by creating a dynamic, adjustable safety zone which depends on the position and the operating mode of the machine... If the mobile part of a machine is moving in any direction the sensing device will move along and adjust the safety zone 740."
Regarding claim 16, Hardegger and Jacobsen teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 13. However, Hardegger does not outright teach that adjusting the safety field includes adjusting the safety field relative to a payload of the robot. Jacobsen further teaches:
adjusting the safety field includes adjusting the safety field relative to the payload of the robot.
Jacobsen teaches ([0019]): "Another aspect of the invention solves the problem of higher braking distances when the vehicle has a heavy payload. This is achieved by utilizing a load sensor in the payload area of the vehicle or on the wheel suspension area, which detects the mass of the payload or total mass of the vehicle. The load values can then be used for selecting different safety zones from a number of different tables of braking distance for different speeds or be calculated via Newtonian rules, each table representing a different payload range."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hardegger and Jacobsen to further incorporate the teachings of Jacobsen to provide that adjusting the safety field includes adjusting the safety field relative to a payload of the robot. Hardegger and Jacobsen are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of safety field generation for industrial robots. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the payload-based safety field adjustment of Jacobsen, as doing so allows for the selection of an appropriate safety zone based on the detected mass of the payload, as recognized by Jacobsen (see at least [0019]).
Regarding claim 17, Hardegger and Jacobsen teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 13. Hardegger further teaches:
the state of the robot comprises or indicates at least one of a lift, a tilt, a reach, and a side-shift of the robot or a portion of the robot.
Hardegger teaches ([0045]): "At machine 710 operates a robotic arm 720 that provides various degrees of movements. As shown, the arm 720 includes a head 730 where multiple sensors may be employed to define a dynamically adjustable safety zone 740 over the travel of the arm... Thus, if a machine part such as the robotic arm 720 was moving in a faster motion, the zone around the arm can be dynamically increased. Thus, it is possible to eliminate or minimize the use of traditional monitoring and protective equipment by creating a dynamic, adjustable safety zone which depends on the position and the operating mode of the machine... If the mobile part of a machine is moving in any direction the sensing device will move along and adjust the safety zone 740. If the mobile part is moving fast, the safety zone can be automatically expanded, if the mobile part is moving slower, the safety zone can be decreased." The Examiner has interpreted the use of multiple sensors to define a dynamically adjustable safety zone over the travel of the arm as determining an indication of a reach of the robot or portion of the robot (i.e., the reach of the arm).
Regarding claim 18, Hardegger and Jacobsen teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 13. However, Hardegger does not outright teach that the method includes the at least one sensor acquiring payload engagement data based on a state of payload engagement. Jacobsen further teaches:
the method includes the at least one sensor acquiring payload engagement data based on a state of payload engagement.
Jacobsen teaches ([0019]): "Another aspect of the invention solves the problem of higher braking distances when the vehicle has a heavy payload. This is achieved by utilizing a load sensor in the payload area of the vehicle or on the wheel suspension area, which detects the mass of the payload or total mass of the vehicle. The load values can then be used for selecting different safety zones from a number of different tables of braking distance for different speeds or be calculated via Newtonian rules, each table representing a different payload range."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hardegger and Jacobsen to further incorporate the teachings of Jacobsen to provide that the method includes the at least one sensor acquiring payload engagement data based on a state of payload engagement. Hardegger and Jacobsen are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of safety field generation for industrial robots. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the payload-based safety field adjustment of Jacobsen, as doing so allows for the selection of an appropriate safety zone based on the detected mass of the payload, as recognized by Jacobsen (see at least [0019]).
Regarding claim 19, Hardegger and Jacobsen teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 18. However, Hardegger does not outright teach that the method includes the safety field adjusting system adjusting the safety field based on the payload engagement sensor data. Jacobsen further teaches:
the method includes the safety field adjusting system adjusting the safety field based on the payload engagement sensor data.
Jacobsen teaches ([0019]): "Another aspect of the invention solves the problem of higher braking distances when the vehicle has a heavy payload. This is achieved by utilizing a load sensor in the payload area of the vehicle or on the wheel suspension area, which detects the mass of the payload or total mass of the vehicle. The load values can then be used for selecting different safety zones from a number of different tables of braking distance for different speeds or be calculated via Newtonian rules, each table representing a different payload range."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hardegger and Jacobsen to further incorporate the teachings of Jacobsen to provide that the method includes the safety field adjusting system adjusting the safety field based on the payload engagement sensor data. Hardegger and Jacobsen are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of safety field generation for industrial robots. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the payload-based safety field adjustment of Jacobsen, as doing so allows for the selection of an appropriate safety zone based on the detected mass of the payload, as recognized by Jacobsen (see at least [0019]).
Regarding claim 20, Hardegger and Jacobsen teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 13. However, Hardegger does not outright teach a signal configured to indicate load interaction, and that the safety field adjusting system adjusts the safety field based on the load interaction signal. Jacobsen further teaches:
the method further comprises computer program code executable by the at least one processor providing a signal configured to indicate load interaction
Jacobsen teaches ([0019]): "Another aspect of the invention solves the problem of higher braking distances when the vehicle has a heavy payload. This is achieved by utilizing a load sensor in the payload area of the vehicle or on the wheel suspension area, which detects the mass of the payload or total mass of the vehicle. The load values can then be used for selecting different safety zones from a number of different tables of braking distance for different speeds or be calculated via Newtonian rules, each table representing a different payload range." Claim 20 indicates that a controller is configured to perform "determining a payload" and automatically adjusting a size of the safety zone.
and the safety field adjusting system adjusts the safety field based on the load interaction signal.
Jacobsen teaches ([0019]): "Another aspect of the invention solves the problem of higher braking distances when the vehicle has a heavy payload. This is achieved by utilizing a load sensor in the payload area of the vehicle or on the wheel suspension area, which detects the mass of the payload or total mass of the vehicle. The load values can then be used for selecting different safety zones from a number of different tables of braking distance for different speeds or be calculated via Newtonian rules, each table representing a different payload range."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hardegger to incorporate the teachings of Jacobsen to provide a signal configured to indicate load interaction, and that the safety field adjusting system adjusts the safety field based on the load interaction signal. Hardegger and Jacobsen are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of safety field generation for industrial robots. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the payload-based safety field adjustment of Jacobsen, as doing so allows for the selection of an appropriate safety zone based on the detected mass of the payload, as recognized by Jacobsen (see at least [0019]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Glatfelter et al. (US 2017/0337820 A1) teaches systems and methods for collision avoidance, including the use of safety zones around objects/individuals and providing alerts if an object is within a predetermined distance (see at least [0053]). Gauger et al. (US 2011/0279261 A1) teaches an event warning system, including generating a warning signal when an object (e.g., a human operator) enters within a designated dangerous zone proximate to machinery or vehicles (see at least [0031]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK T GLENN III whose telephone number is (571)272-5078. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM - 4:30PM 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/F.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights