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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed on the information disclosure statement filed on 11/25/2024, 05/09/2025 and 02/06/2026 have been 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, 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) 1, 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (Design and control of a robotic system based on mobile robots and manipulator arms for picking in logistics warehouses) in view of Munich et al. (US 11249482 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 16, Khan teaches a robot device comprising: memory (page 89 “robot” “own knowledgebase (map)”, i.e., map matching with a stored map; also, page 93 “global map”); a first LiDAR sensor configured to detect obstacles in a first direction (page 68 “Lidars” “Front Lidar” “almost a 360° view of obstacles around the robot”); a second LiDAR sensor configured to detect obstacles in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction (page 68 “Lidars” “Rear Lidar” “almost a 360° view of obstacles around the robot”); and at least one processor configured to: obtain bottom information about a bottom of a space where the robot device is located based on first sensing data received from the first LiDAR sensor and second sensing data received from the second LiDAR sensor (page 98, section 4.2.6, “point cloud was processed to obtain a semantic map of the environment to record the main infrastructure elements (doors and racks etc)” and “two laser sensors are used”).
Khan does not explicitly teach identify a plurality of sub spaces included in the space based on the bottom information, obtain driving level information, wherein the driving level information comprises driving levels associated with each of the plurality of sub spaces and store the driving level information in the memory, and control a movement of the robot device based on a driving level of a sub space corresponding to a location of the robot device, the sub space being among the plurality of sub spaces, and wherein the driving level is obtained from the driving level information stored in the memory. However, Munich discloses mapping for autonomous mobile robots and teaches identify a plurality of sub spaces included in the space based on the bottom information (Col. 3, lines 7-18, “portion of the floor surface in the region”, i.e., there are multiple portions of the floor surface (i.e., sub spaces); Col. 4, line 57 to col. 5, line 12, “first region” “second region”), obtain driving level information, wherein the driving level information comprises driving levels associated with each of the plurality of sub spaces (Col. 3, lines 7-18, “autonomous mobile robot can select a navigational behavior in a region of the room based on a feature along a portion of the floor surface in the region” “robot can select a navigational behavior, e.g., an angle or a speed”) and store the driving level information in the memory (Col. 13, lines 3-40, “in addition to storing the software for causing the robot 100 to perform its behaviors, the memory storage element 144 stores sensor data or data resulting from processing of the sensor data for access by the controller 109 from one mission to another mission”), and control a movement of the robot device based on a driving level of a sub space corresponding to a location of the robot device, the sub space being among the plurality of sub spaces (Col. 3, lines 7-18, “autonomous mobile robot can select a navigational behavior in a region of the room based on a feature along a portion of the floor surface in the region” “robot can select a navigational behavior, e.g., an angle or a speed”), and wherein the driving level is obtained from the driving level information stored in the memory (Col. 13, lines 3-40, “the memory storage element 144 stores sensor data or data resulting from processing of the sensor data for access by the controller 109 from one mission to another mission”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the robotic system of Khan to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, identify a plurality of sub spaces included in the space based on the bottom information, obtain driving level information, wherein the driving level information comprises driving levels associated with each of the plurality of sub spaces and store the driving level information in the memory, and control a movement of the robot device based on a driving level of a sub space corresponding to a location of the robot device, the sub space being among the plurality of sub spaces, and wherein the driving level is obtained from the driving level information stored in the memory, as taught by Munich, to provide improving the reliability of autonomous mobile robots in traversing environments without encountering error conditions and with improved task performance. (Munich at Col. 1, lines 45-48)
Claim(s) 2-3, 6, 9, 12-13 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (Design and control of a robotic system based on mobile robots and manipulator arms for picking in logistics warehouses) in view of Munich et al. (US 11249482 B2), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of Whitman et al. (US 11287826 B2).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, while Munich discloses mapping locations of traversable and nontraversable space in an environment (see Col. 13, lines 3-23), the combination of Khan and Munich does not explicitly teach the robot device of claim 1, wherein the bottom information comprises: information related to a flat area and a non-flat area in the space, and the at least one processor is further configured to: identify the plurality of sub spaces by dividing the space into the flat area or the non-flat area based on the bottom information. However, Whitman discloses a terrain aware step planning system and teaches the robot device of claim 1, wherein the bottom information comprises: information related to a flat area and a non-flat area in the space (Col. 2, line 63 to Col. 3, line 37, “ground height map” “voxel may be classified as either a ground surface or an obstacle”), and the at least one processor is further configured to: identify the plurality of sub spaces by dividing the space into the flat area or the non-flat area based on the bottom information (Col. 2, line 63 to Col. 3, line 37, “ground height map” “voxel may be classified as either a ground surface or an obstacle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the robotic system of Khan as modified by Munich to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the bottom information comprises: information related to a flat area and a non-flat area in the space, and the at least one processor is further configured to: identify the plurality of sub spaces by dividing the space into the flat area or the non-flat area based on the bottom information, as taught by Whitman, to provide avoiding contact with obstacles while maintaining balance and speed. (Whitman at Col. 1, lines 27-28)
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the combination of Khan and Munich does not explicitly teach the robot device of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: based on a bottom of a first sub space among the plurality of sub spaces corresponding to the flat area, identify the driving level of the first sub space as a first driving level, and based on a bottom of a second sub space among the plurality of sub spaces corresponding to the non-flat area, identify the driving level of the second sub space as a second driving level, and wherein a driving speed of the robot device at the second driving level is slower than the driving speed of the robot device at the first driving level. However, Whitman discloses a terrain aware step planning system and teaches the robot device of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: based on a bottom of a first sub space among the plurality of sub spaces corresponding to the flat area, identify the driving level of the first sub space as a first driving level (Col. 2, line 63 to Col. 3, line 37, “ground height map” “voxel may be classified as either a ground surface or an obstacle”; and Col. 10, line 51 to Col. 11, line 9, “step obstacle map” and “speed constraint” or “cadence”, i.e., higher cadence may be weighted more where there are no obstacles in the environment), and based on a bottom of a second sub space among the plurality of sub spaces corresponding to the non-flat area, identify the driving level of the second sub space as a second driving level (Col. 2, line 63 to Col. 3, line 37, “ground height map” “voxel may be classified as either a ground surface or an obstacle”; and Col. 10, line 51 to Col. 11, line 9, “step obstacle map” and “speed constraint” or “cadence”, i.e., lower cadence may be weighted more where there are obstacles in the environment), and wherein a driving speed of the robot device at the second driving level is slower than the driving speed of the robot device at the first driving level (Col. 2, line 63 to Col. 3, line 37, “ground height map” “voxel may be classified as either a ground surface or an obstacle”; and Col. 10, line 51 to Col. 11, line 9, “step obstacle map” and “speed constraint” or “cadence”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the robotic system of Khan as modified by Munich to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: based on a bottom of a first sub space among the plurality of sub spaces corresponding to the flat area, identify the driving level of the first sub space as a first driving level, and based on a bottom of a second sub space among the plurality of sub spaces corresponding to the non-flat area, identify the driving level of the second sub space as a second driving level, and wherein a driving speed of the robot device at the second driving level is slower than the driving speed of the robot device at the first driving level, as taught by Whitman, to provide avoiding contact with obstacles while maintaining balance and speed. (Whitman at Col. 1, lines 27-28)
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Khan teaches the robot device of claim 1, further comprising: a depth camera (see page 213 “RGB depth cameras”).
The combination of Khan and Munich does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: obtain a plurality of depth images using the depth camera to capture the bottom corresponding to the location of the robot device at a predetermined time interval, identify a change of a height of a bottom of a sub space corresponding to a non-flat area among the plurality of sub spaces based on the plurality of depth images, and control the movement of the robot device based on the change of the height. However, Whitman discloses a terrain aware step planning system and teaches the robot device of claim 1, further comprising: a depth camera (Col. 5, line 53 to Col. 6, line 16, “RGBD stereo camera”), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: obtain a plurality of depth images using the depth camera to capture the bottom corresponding to the location of the robot device at a predetermined time interval (Col. 5, line 53 to Col. 6, line 16, “RGBD stereo camera” and “use image data 17 captured by the vision system 30 to generate a 3D point cloud. The point cloud is a set of data points representing surfaces of objects in the environment 8 surrounding the robot”), identify a change of a height of a bottom of a sub space corresponding to a non-flat area among the plurality of sub spaces based on the plurality of depth images (Col. 13, lines 39-62, “stereo camera” ”generating… ground height map”), and control the movement of the robot device based on the change of the height (Col. 13, lines 39-62, “stereo camera”, ”generating… ground height map” and “generating, by the data processing hardware 36, a step path 350 for the legs 12 of the robot 10 while maneuvering in the environment 8 based on the body path 510, the body-obstacle map 112, the step-obstacle map 114, and the ground height map 116”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the robotic system of Khan as modified by Munich to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: obtain a plurality of depth images using the depth camera to capture the bottom corresponding to the location of the robot device at a predetermined time interval, identify a change of a height of a bottom of a sub space corresponding to a non-flat area among the plurality of sub spaces based on the plurality of depth images, and control the movement of the robot device based on the change of the height, as taught by Whitman, to provide avoiding contact with obstacles while maintaining balance and speed. (Whitman at Col. 1, lines 27-28)
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Khan teaches the robot device of claim 1, further comprising: a camera (see page 213 “RGB depth cameras”).
The combination of Khan and Munich does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: obtain an image using the camera to capture the bottom corresponding to the location of the robot device, obtain material information of the bottom based on the image, and control the movement of the robot device based on the material information. However, Whitman discloses a terrain aware step planning system and teaches the robot device of claim 1, further comprising: a camera (Col. 5, line 53 to Col. 6, line 16, “RGBD stereo camera”), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: obtain an image using the camera to capture the bottom corresponding to the location of the robot device (Col. 5, line 53 to Col. 6, line 16, “RGBD stereo camera” and “use image data 17 captured by the vision system 30 to generate a 3D point cloud. The point cloud is a set of data points representing surfaces of objects in the environment 8 surrounding the robot”), obtain material information of the bottom based on the image (Col. 5, line 53 to Col. 6, line 16, “RGBD stereo camera” and “use image data 17 captured by the vision system 30 to generate a 3D point cloud. The point cloud is a set of data points representing surfaces of objects in the environment 8 surrounding the robot”), and control the movement of the robot device based on the material information (Col. 13, lines 39-62, “stereo camera”, ”generating… ground height map” and “generating, by the data processing hardware 36, a step path 350 for the legs 12 of the robot 10 while maneuvering in the environment 8 based on the body path 510, the body-obstacle map 112, the step-obstacle map 114, and the ground height map 116”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the robotic system of Khan as modified by Munich to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: obtain an image using the camera to capture the bottom corresponding to the location of the robot device, obtain material information of the bottom based on the image, and control the movement of the robot device based on the material information, as taught by Whitman, to provide avoiding contact with obstacles while maintaining balance and speed. (Whitman at Col. 1, lines 27-28)
Claim(s) 4-5 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (Design and control of a robotic system based on mobile robots and manipulator arms for picking in logistics warehouses) in view of Munich et al. (US 11249482 B2), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of Hu et al. (US 20240377826 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combination of Khan and Munich does not explicitly teach the robot device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: based on a fluctuation in a first distance and a second distance, identifying an area wherein the robot device is located as a non-flat area, wherein the first distance is between the first LiDAR sensor and the bottom on which the robot device is located, and the second distance is between the second LiDAR sensor and the bottom. However, Hu discloses systems and methods for raised floor automated sensor vehicles and teaches the robot device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: based on a fluctuation in a first distance and a second distance, identifying an area wherein the robot device is located as a non-flat area (¶[0067]-[0068] “detect the vertical obstacle as a variation in depth”), wherein the first distance is between the first LiDAR sensor and the bottom on which the robot device is located, and the second distance is between the second LiDAR sensor and the bottom (¶[0067]-[0069] “detect the vertical obstacle as a variation in depth” “the automated sensor vehicle may move in a particular direction but have multiple depth sensors active”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the robotic system of Khan as modified by Munich to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: based on a fluctuation in a first distance and a second distance, identifying an area wherein the robot device is located as a non-flat area, wherein the first distance is between the first LiDAR sensor and the bottom on which the robot device is located, and the second distance is between the second LiDAR sensor and the bottom, as taught by Hu, to provide avoiding vertical inconsistencies. (Hu at ¶[0025])
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the combination of Khan and Munich does not explicitly teach the robot device of claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: identify the area wherein the robot device is located in a first time section as the non-flat area, based on the first sensing data and the second sensing data, if a first pattern of increase and decrease of the first distance to the bottom detected in the first direction does not correspond to a driving speed of the robot device, or a second pattern of increase and decrease of the second distance to the bottom detected in the second direction does not correspond to the driving speed of the robot device in the first time section. However, Hu discloses systems and methods for raised floor automated sensor vehicles and teaches the robot device of claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: identify the area wherein the robot device is located in a first time section as the non-flat area (¶[0067]-[0069] “detect the vertical obstacle”), based on the first sensing data and the second sensing data, if a first pattern of increase and decrease of the first distance to the bottom detected in the first direction does not correspond to a driving speed of the robot device, or a second pattern of increase and decrease of the second distance to the bottom detected in the second direction does not correspond to the driving speed of the robot device in the first time section (¶[0067]-[0069] “detect the vertical obstacle as a variation in depth” “the automated sensor vehicle may move in a particular direction but have multiple depth sensors active”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the robotic system of Khan as modified by Munich to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: identify the area wherein the robot device is located in a first time section as the non-flat area, based on the first sensing data and the second sensing data, if a first pattern of increase and decrease of the first distance to the bottom detected in the first direction does not correspond to a driving speed of the robot device, or a second pattern of increase and decrease of the second distance to the bottom detected in the second direction does not correspond to the driving speed of the robot device in the first time section, as taught by Hu, to provide avoiding vertical inconsistencies. (Hu at ¶[0025])
Claim(s) 7-8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (Design and control of a robotic system based on mobile robots and manipulator arms for picking in logistics warehouses) in view of Munich et al. (US 11249482 B2), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of Blankespoor et al. (US 9804600 B1).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, the combination of Khan and Munich does not explicitly teach the robot device of claim 1, further comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: detect a pose of the robot device based on third sensing data received from the IMU, and identify the plurality of sub spaces based on the detected pose and the bottom information, wherein the third sensing data comprises: at least one of a roll, a pitch, or a yaw indicating the pose of the robot device. However, Blankespoor discloses systems and methods for ground plane estimation and teaches the robot device of claim 1, further comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (Col. 3, lines 5-19, “IMU”), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: detect a pose of the robot device based on third sensing data received from the IMU (Col. 3, lines 5-19, “robotic pose”), and identify the plurality of sub spaces based on the detected pose and the bottom information (Col. 3, lines 5-19, “ground plane estimation”), wherein the third sensing data comprises: at least one of a roll, a pitch, or a yaw indicating the pose of the robot device (Col. 6, lines 49-64, “pitch, roll, and yaw”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the robotic system of Khan as modified by Munich to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, further comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: detect a pose of the robot device based on third sensing data received from the IMU, and identify the plurality of sub spaces based on the detected pose and the bottom information, wherein the third sensing data comprises: at least one of a roll, a pitch, or a yaw indicating the pose of the robot device, as taught by Blankespoor, to provide estimating a flat-plane approximation of the shape of the ground on which the robotic devices are walking in order to move across such terrains. (Blankespoor at Col. 1, lines 30-32)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Khan and Munich does not explicitly teach the robot device of claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: based on at least one of the roll, the pitch, or the yaw being greater than or equal to a threshold angle, identify the pose of the robot device as a tilt, and identify an area that was identified by the tilt as a non-flat area. However, Blankespoor discloses systems and methods for ground plane estimation and teaches the robot device of claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: based on at least one of the roll, the pitch, or the yaw being greater than or equal to a threshold angle, identify the pose of the robot device as a tilt, and identify an area that was identified by the tilt as a non-flat area (Col. 1, line 59 to Col. 2, line 36, “flat-plane approximation” “determining a distance between the body of the robotic device and the determined ground plane estimation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the robotic system of Khan as modified by Munich to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: based on at least one of the roll, the pitch, or the yaw being greater than or equal to a threshold angle, identify the pose of the robot device as a tilt, and identify an area that was identified by the tilt as a non-flat area, as taught by Blankespoor, to provide estimating a flat-plane approximation of the shape of the ground on which the robotic devices are walking in order to move across such terrains. (Blankespoor at Col. 1, lines 30-32)
Claim(s) 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (Design and control of a robotic system based on mobile robots and manipulator arms for picking in logistics warehouses) in view of Munich et al. (US 11249482 B2), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of Hong et al. (US 20230173675 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the combination of Khan and Munich does not explicitly teach the robot device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: detect a weight of an object loaded on the robot device, based on the detected weight being greater than or equal to a threshold value, control the movement of the robot device by identifying the driving level of the sub space corresponding to the location of the robot device, and based on the detected weight being smaller than the threshold value, control the movement of the robot device without changing the driving level. However, Hong discloses modular autonomous robot distributed control and teaches the robot device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: detect a weight of an object loaded on the robot device (¶[0090] “determining a cargo weight”), based on the detected weight being greater than or equal to a threshold value, control the movement of the robot device by identifying the driving level of the sub space corresponding to the location of the robot device (¶[0090] “changing, via the bottom module controller, a travel speed of the AMR vehicle based on the cargo weight”), and based on the detected weight being smaller than the threshold value, control the movement of the robot device without changing the driving level (¶[0090] “changing, via the bottom module controller, a travel speed of the AMR vehicle based on the cargo weight”, i.e., which could include no change of speed if cargo weight is low).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the robotic system of Khan as modified by Munich to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: detect a weight of an object loaded on the robot device, based on the detected weight being greater than or equal to a threshold value, control the movement of the robot device by identifying the driving level of the sub space corresponding to the location of the robot device, and based on the detected weight being smaller than the threshold value, control the movement of the robot device without changing the driving level, as taught by Hong, to provide changing a robot speed based on cargo weight. (Hong at ¶[0090])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Janekovic et al. (US 20250128924 A1) is pertinent because it is a method implemented at an autonomous mobile robot equipped with a fork to carry a pallet. The robot transitions between a first and second piecewise flat floor segments with differing geometries.
Impola et al. (US 20210278502 A1) is pertinent because it is a system for increasing lidar coverage for use by a vehicle.
Sabe et al. (US 7865267 B2) is pertinent because it is an environment recognizing device and an environment recognizing method can draw an environment map for judging if it is possible to move through a region.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor L Knight whose telephone number is (571)272-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/C.L.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights