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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 9/26/24, wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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)1-3, 5-13, 15-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HATTORI (US 2022/0260999) from Applicant’s IDS filed on 6/28/25.
As for claim 1, HATTORI discloses an apparatus for a mobile robot {autonomous forklift truck 2, figures 1, 2A-2C}, the apparatus comprising: a processor {par. 0019} configured to:
identify an intended object to be carried by the mobile robot {see at least par. 0017 discloses the autonomous fork lift 2 travels to lift/carry the pallet 3};
determine whether the intended object is detected based on sensor information from at least one sensor of the mobile robot {see at least figures 1, 3 (step 101), pars. 0022, 0030 discloses e.g. the controller 5 recognizes the pallet 3 based on the detection data of the laser sensor 4. The controller 5 then estimates the position and the posture of the pallet 3 based on the detection data of the laser sensor 4}; and
based on a determination that the intended object is detected, configure a safety zone (area) for the mobile robot based on one or more attributes (position and posture of the pallet 3) of the intended object {see at least figures 3, 4 and pars. 0030-0032 , 0040 discloses e.g. based on the position and the posture of the pallet 3, the controller 5 (i.e., the detection-disallowed-area setter 12) sets an obstacle-detection disallowed area B in which the pallet 3 is undetectable as an obstacle (step S103)……. the controller 5 determines whether the obstacle-detection allowed area A currently has an overlap with the obstacle-detection disallowed area B (step S104). When the controller 5 determines that the current obstacle-detection allowed area A has an overlap with the obstacle-detection disallowed area B (see FIG. 4B), the controller 5 modifies the obstacle-detection allowed area A so that the obstacle-detection allowed area A is not overlapped with the obstacle-detection disallowed area B (step S105). Specifically, the controller 5 removes an overlapping area W of the initial obstacle-detection allowed area A0, which is a part of the initial obstacle-detection allowed area A0 that is overlapped with the obstacle-detection disallowed area B};and
a memory to store information processed by the processor {see at least figure 1 and par. 0019}.
As for dep. claim 2, HATTORI discloses wherein the processor is configured to identify the intended object based on object information from a controller of the mobile robot {see at least pars. 0019, 0022, 0030}.
As for dep. claim 3, HATTORI discloses wherein the object information from the controller of the mobile robot comprises detection criterion information to identify at least one criterion to detect the intended object, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the intended object is detected based on whether the at least one criterion is met with respect to the sensor information {see at least pars. 0022, 0030}.
As for dep. claim 5, HATTORI discloses wherein the processor is configured to process the sensor information to detect one or more predefined object-identification attributes of the intended object, and to determine that the intended object is detected based on a determination that the one or more predefined object-identification attributes are detected {see at least pars. 0022, 0023, 0026}.
As for claim 6, HATTORI discloses wherein the one or more predefined object-identification attributes comprises one or more leg attributes of one or more legs of the intended object {see at least pars. 0018, 0031}.
As for claim 7, HATTORI discloses wherein the one or more predefined object-identification attributes comprises one or more boundary attributes of one or more boundaries of the intended object {see at least pars. 0031, 0032}.
As for claim 8, HATTORI discloses wherein the processor is configured to configure the safety zone based on safety zone information from a controller of the mobile robot, the safety zone information corresponding to the intended object {see at least pars. 0046-0047}.
As for claim 9, HATTORI discloses wherein the processor is configured to configure the safety zone for the mobile robot based on safety requirements corresponding to the one or more attributes of the intended object {see at least pars. 0031-0032}.
As for claim 10, HATTORI discloses wherein the processor is configured to: determine a first safety zone for the mobile robot based on one or more first attributes of a first intended object, based on a determination that the first intended object is detected based on first sensor information {see at least pars. 0025, 0033, 0040, 0041}; and determine a second safety zone for the mobile robot based on one or more second attributes of a second intended object, based on a determination that the second intended object is detected based on second sensor information, wherein the second safety zone is different from the first safety zone, the second intended object is different from the first intended object {see at least pars. 0025, 0033, 0040, 0041}.
As for claim 11, HATTORI discloses wherein the processor is configured to configure one or more dimensions of the safety zone based on the one or more attributes of the intended object {see at least figure 4B, pars. 0026, 0030-0032}.
As for claim 12, HATTORI discloses wherein the processor is configured to configure one or more dimensions of the safety zone based on one or more dimensions of the intended object {see at least figure 4B, pars. 0018, 0024-0025}.
As for claim 13, HATTORI discloses wherein the one or more attributes of the intended object comprises at least one of a dimension of the intended object, a size of the intended object, a shape of the intended object, or a type of the intended object {see at least figures 2A, pars. 0016-0017}.
As for claim 15, HATTORI discloses wherein the intended object comprises a pallet 3 which inherently can be a shelf {see at least figures 2A, pars. 0016-0017}.
As for claim 16, HATTORI discloses a safety sensor for the mobile robot, the safety sensor comprising the processor, the memory, and the at least one sensor {see at least pars. 0016-0019}.
As for claims 17 and 19-20, the limitations of these claims have been noted in the rejection above. They are therefore rejected for the same reason sets forth above.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HATTORI as applied to claims above and in view of YAP ET AL (US 2020/0017317). Herein after YAP.
As for claim 4, HATTORI discloses claimed invention as indicated above except for wherein the processor is configured to provide a detection error to the controller of the mobile robot based on a determination that the intended object is not detected. However, such this limitation is taught in YAP discloses the known technique of when the robotic system cannot recognize an object, then it generates an alert to notify the human assistant as shown in at least in figure 3, pars. 0269. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective of filing date to incorporate the teachings of YAP into the system of HATTORI in order to provide the system with the enhanced capacity of providing a detection error alert for secure purposes.
Claims 14 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HATTORI as applied to claims above and in view of WOFLE (US 2021/0124356)
As for claims 14 and 18, HATTORI discloses claimed invention as indicated above except for monitor the sensor information to detect a hazard in the safety zone during movement of the mobile robot; and generate an alert based on a determination that the hazard is detected in the safety zone. However, WOFLE discloses the known teachings of an autonomous mobile robot may detect an urgent condition (e.g. hazard, spill, roof leak), and may accordingly perform one or more actions, such as alerting personnel to the urgent condition as shown ion at least par. 0021. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective of filing date to incorporate the teachings of WOFLE into the system of HATTORI in order to provide the system with the enhanced capacity of providing an alert to the user for safety purpose when detect hazard/urgent condition during the movement of the robot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oboril et al (US 2022/0105636): systems, devices, and methods of a safety system for analyzing and improving the safety of environments that may be shared between robots and humans;
Watanabe et al (US 2023/0150130): control a mobile robot configured to autonomously move by referring to a map, the robot control system being further configured to: acquire a distance to a nearby object measured by using a range sensor; specify a position of the nearby object on the map according to the distance from a position of the mobile robot to the nearby object;
Reed-Weidner et al (US 2025/0033214): System and method for generating safety zones for autonomous mobile robots.
Bray et al (US 11,883,851): Systems, methods, and apparatuses are disclosed for automated securing and releasing of items on shuttles.
Frederick (US 2023/0333570): A system for and method of fighting fires using a monitoring system in communication with a hazard mitigation robot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kira Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-1614. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoi Tran can be reached on 571-272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656