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 . 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 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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The instant application is a 371 national stage of PCT/EP2023/060417 with a foreign priority claim to German document DE102022110175.4, which has an effective filing date of 04/27/2022. Examiner has checked and verified that the foreign priority document supports the subject matter of the instant application, and as such, the earlier filed date of 04/27/2022 is granted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2024, was filed before the
mailing of a First Office Action on the Merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37
CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 10/24/2024. Claims 11-23 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 11-23 are not being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because independent claims 11 and 21 recite a control step of the robot navigating along a path.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 11-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sternitzke et al., US 20220331028 A1, herein referred to as Sternitzke.
Regarding claim 11,
Sternitzke discloses the following:
an autonomous robot unit configured to navigate the monitoring device along a navigation path (Paragraph 0328)
an autonomous robot may move on a given path in front of a person to monitor that person for fall prevention/analysis
a radar sensor unit configured to detect a person using radar technology (Paragraphs 0323, 0326)
the robot may include various radar sensors for monitoring the person
at least one processing unit configured to: detect an anomalous situation based on a detection result of the radar sensor unit, and generate a monitoring signal in response to detecting the anomalous situation (Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0139, 0322-0324, 0326-0328)
the robot may include a processor 9 that can allow for the robot to detect if a person is about to fall or has fallen based on data obtained through the radar sensors
the robot may then output a warning or alert if the person is falling or has fallen
Regarding claim 12,
Sternitzke discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Sternitzke further discloses the following:
wherein the radar sensor unit comprises at least one ultra-wideband (UWB) radio sensor (Paragraph 0325, 0328)
*examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean that the radar sensor unit comprises multiple radar sensors, of which at least one is an ultra-wideband (UWB) radio sensor
the robot may include an ultra-wide-band radar as well as other types of radar, including Doppler radar
Regarding claim 13,
Sternitzke discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Sternitzke further discloses the following:
wherein the radar sensor unit is configured to determine at least one of the following: a range at which a movement of a detected person is located, a displacement range of a movement of a detected person, a frequency of a movement of a detected person, an azimuth angle at which a movement of detected person is located, or an elevation angle at which a movement of a detected person is located (Paragraphs 0139, 0322-0324, 0326-0328)
the radar sensor on the robot may be used to detect a person’s movement over time which is both a displacement range of a movement of a detected person (motion over time will result in given movement ranges) and a frequency of movement of a detected person (movement of the person is associated with a given time frame)
Regarding claim 14,
Sternitzke discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Sternitzke further discloses the following:
wherein the radar sensor unit is configured to detect, by Doppler radar detection, a walking movement of a person and/or a breathing movement of a person (Paragraphs 0139, 0322-0324, 0325, 0326-0328)
the radar sensor on the robot may be a Doppler radar and/or a UWB radar
the radar sensor may be used to determine a person’s movement over time which can include walking
Regarding claim 15,
Sternitzke discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Sternitzke further discloses the following:
wherein the autonomous robot unit comprises at least one of the following: a light imaging, detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a depth sensor, an RGB camera, or a positioning sensor (Paragraphs 0139, 0322-0324, 0326-0328)
the robot may include a LIDAR sensor and an RGB camera
Regarding claim 16, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 14 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 13 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 13.
Regarding claim 18, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 13 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 13.
Regarding claim 19,
Sternitzke discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Sternitzke further discloses the following:
a modem configured to send the monitoring signal to a monitoring system (Paragraphs 0140, 0148)
system can include hardware for wireless communications across a network for transmitting and receiving data
this data can be sent to a cloud application which can be accessed by a therapist, etc. and can be considered a monitoring system
Regarding claim 21, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, a portion of the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 14 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 14. Sternitzke additionally discloses performing, by the radar sensor unit, a second scan to detect a breathing movement of the person (Paragraph 0329; the UWB radar may be used to measure a person’s chest movements to determine a breathing movement of the person).
Regarding claim 23,
Sternitzke discloses all the limitations of claim 21. Sternitzke further discloses the following:
receiving, via a modem, a starting signal to perform a monitoring routine (Paragraphs 0139-0140, 0148, 0322-0324, 0325, 0326-0328)
a therapist may initiate a test for a person through a cloud application which may transmit instructions to the robot
this test may be used to evaluate and monitor a person’s movement patterns to determine fall risks, etc.
this can be considered a monitoring routine
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sternitzke and in view of Leach et al., US 20060061504 A1, herein referred to as Leach.
Regarding claim 20, Sterntizke discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Sterntizke further discloses wherein the autonomous robot unit is configured to navigate the monitoring device along the navigation path in an indoor environment (Paragraphs 0139, 0322-0324, 0325, 0326-0328; the robot may move and track a user through an indoor environment; movement of the robot can be along a given trajectory, path, etc.), but fails to disclose wherein the radar sensor unit is configured to detect a person behind a wall and/or a door. However, Leach, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the radar sensor unit is configured to detect a person behind a wall and/or a door (Paragraphs 0007-0008, 0041; UWB radar may be used with a robot to detect people obstructed by objects such as walls, doors, etc.). Therefore, from the teaching of Leach, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Sternitzke to include wherein the radar sensor unit is configured to detect a person behind a wall and/or a door, as taught/suggested by leach. The motivation to do so would be to increase the adaptability of the robotic system. By allowing for detection through obstacles (walls, doors, etc.), the robot can still track a user and determine their movement. This can lead to better fall detection (as seen in Sternitzke) and/or can allow for more accurate detection of a user’s movements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A BUKSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights