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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-18 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority application No. DE102016114593.9 and DE102016114 594.7 filed on 08/05/2016.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 of this title, 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 1-5, 7, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2008/0154429).
Regarding claim 1:
Lee teaches A method for controlling an autonomous mobile robot , the method comprising:
navigating of the robot through the area of robot deployment (see at least ¶0026-0028),
detecting a displacement, during which the robot carries out a movement that the robot itself cannot control (determining lift state, see at least ¶0045, ¶0055),
wherein, during the displacement of the robot, information regarding the robot position and/or current movement is detected with the aid of sensors and an estimation of the robot position is determined based on the detected information (see at least Fig. 7, S530, ¶0069).
Lee further teaches that storing and managing at least one map corresponding to an area of robot deployment; and
navigating of the robot through the area of robot deployment, wherein the location of the robot on the map is constantly determined are known in the art of path planning of a mobile robot (see at least ¶0006).
Lee does not explicitly teach utilizing a map during path planning and lift state determination in a single embodiment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to modify the system and method of estimating a pose of a mobile robot as taught by Lee with the well-known technique of building a map while navigating using a SLAM algorithm as further suggested by Lee in order to provide the requisite information for defining a path for a mobile robot (see Lee ¶0006).
Regarding claim 2:
Lee further teaches detecting different states of the robot and estimating a pose of the robot during each state, including detecting parameters indicating a beginning of a lifting state (see at least ¶0055-0058, table 1, Fig. 7). Lee does not explicitly teach detecting the ending of the lift state.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to modify the system and method pose estimation for a mobile robot, including determining a motion state and a movement during a motion state, to determine when a motion state has ended in order to provide an accurate pose estimation, and utilize another, more appropriate estimation method when the state of the robot has changed.
Regarding claim 3:
Lee further teaches wherein the lifting up and/or depositing of the robot is detected by wheel contact sensors, sensors for measuring distance to the ground, sensors for detecting a floor, acceleration sensors, or a combination thereof (see at least ¶0055-0058, table 1, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4:
Lee further teaches wherein the robot determines an estimation of the robot position at an end of the displacement based on information regarding the robot position and/or current movement detected during displacement (see at least ¶0055-0058, table 1, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5:
Lee teaches the limitations as in claim 4 above.
Lee does not explicitly teach self-localization on the stored maps after displacement.
However, the Examiner notes that such a further step is a logical extension of the combination utilizing a SLAM algorithm as described with respect the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, and is therefore at least suggested, if not implicit in said combination.
Regarding claim 7:
Lee further teaches wherein the information regarding the position and/or current movement of the robot that is detected during displacement includes information regarding the acceleration, angular velocity, orientation of the robot or a combination thereof (see at least ¶0060, eq. 2).
Regarding claim 10:
Lee further teaches wherein the estimation of the position of the robot is determined using inertial navigation (see at least ¶0033).
Regarding claim 13:
Lee further teaches wherein the information detected during displacement comprises at least one velocity component that is detected using one or more of the sensors that are also used for the robot navigation (see at least ¶0060, eq. 2).
Regarding claim 14:
Lee further teaches wherein the sensor or sensors that are also used for the navigation of the robot comprise a distance sensor, wherein the at least one velocity component is determined based on the change in distances measured by the distance sensor (see at least ¶0012, ¶0060, eq. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hong et al. (US 2008/0065267).
Regarding claim 6:
Lee teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above.
Lee is silent as to calculating a probability distribution of a location.
Hong teaches a system and method of estimating a pose of mobile robots including wherein determining the estimation of the position of the robot comprises calculating a probability distribution describing a probability of the robot being located on the at least one map (see at least abstract, Fig. 4, ¶0063-0078).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the SLAM-based pose estimation method as taught by Lee with respect to claim 1 with the technique of determining a probabilistic pose estimation as taught by Hong in order to reduce the amount of computation and thus enabling real-time determination of the pose of a mobile robot (Hong ¶0012).
Regarding claim 8:
Lee teaches the limitations as in claim 7 above.
Lee further teaches estimating a pose of the mobile robot during various movement types, and at least suggests real-time tracking via SLAM in the combination as in claim 1.
Lee does not explicitly teach determining a trajectory followed by the robot.
However, the Examiner notes that tracking the real-time estimated pose in a SLAM based localization method is functionally equivalent to determining a trajectory followed during the tracking, therefore, the prior art combination meets at least the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Fukuba et al. (US 2012/0123720).
Regarding claim 9:
Lee teaches the limitations as in claim 7 above.
Lee is silent as to utilizing gravitational force direction and magnetic field to determine orientation.
Fukuba teaches determining an orientation of a mobile robot wherein to determine the orientation of the robot, gravitational force direction and direction of the magnetic field of the earth are used (see at least ¶0059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the robotic localization system and method as taught by Lee with the well-known technique of determining orientation using gravitational and magnetic data as taught by Fukuba in order to select from among a plurality of known methods as taught by Fukuba as a matter of design choice.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 11-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gutmann et al. (US 2013/0138247).
Regarding claims 11-12:
Lee teaches the limitations as above. Lee is silent as to determining whether the robot moved out of a previous area of robot deployment.
Gutmann teaches a system and method of re-localization of a mobile robot, including determining whether a robot has been picked up and moved and determining whether the robot moved during the displacement out of a previous area of robot deployment wherein, in the event that the robot has been moved out of the previous area of robot deployment, it detects, based on the estimated position following displacement, whether this position lies within an area of robot deployment for which a map has been stored and if so, which map this estimated position is located on (see at least ¶0212).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot localization system and method as taught by Lee with the technique of determining if the robot has been relocated to another area as taught by Gutmann in order to allow for rapid re-localization after repositioning of the robot.
Regarding claim 15:
Gutmann further teaches wherein the sensor or sensors that are also used for the navigation of the robot comprise a camera and wherein the at least one velocity component is detected based on a change of the image information captured by the camera (see at least ¶0353-0362).
Regarding claim 16:
Gutmann further teaches wherein, during displacement, image information is detected using a camera and the estimation of the robot position is determined based on this image information (see at least ¶0353-0362).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above in view of Wang et al. (US 2013/0325244)
Regarding claims 16-17:
Lee teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above. Lee is silent as to detecting room numbers in images for map building and localization.
Wang teaches a system and method of robot localization, including wherein, during displacement, image information is detected using a camera and the estimation of the robot position is determined based on this image information, wherein the detected image information comprises room numbers that designate a specific room of the area of robot deployment and that are recorded on the corresponding map as attributes of the map regions corresponding to the rooms (see at least ¶0224-0225).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot localization system and method as taught by Lee with the technique of recognizing room numbers for localization as taught by Want in order to accurately localize a robot in an environment that has similarities to other environments, for example, different floors of a building such as a hospital or office building that have similar or the same architecture.
Regarding claim 18:
Wang further teaches wherein an object recognition of the objects in the environment is carried out based on the image information and
wherein, when an object is recognized, the estimation of the robot position is determined based on the position of the object (see at least Fig. 8, ¶0241-0243).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619