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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on December 3, 2024. Claims 1-19 are pending and examined below.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0041163 by Lynn et al. (herein after “Lynn”), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0281598 by Pescaru et al. (herein after “Pescaru”).
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application. Text written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 1, Lynn discloses a method of operating a robot, configured to follow, in a standard trajectory of the robot, a trajectory of a leader (Lynn ¶ [0066]: in pair mode, an etiquette-based vehicle is configured to follow, with hysteresis dynamics, a trajectory of a user), in a manner to avoid an obstacle, the obstacle having a trajectory that intersects with the standard trajectory of the robot (Lynn ¶ [0069]: an obstacle avoidance tuck (to avoid the pedestrian in position 21); Lynn ¶ [0113]: the vehicle can use sensors to determine whether obstacles are in the known path. In such embodiments, the vehicle can stop and wait for the obstacles to clear, send an alarm, and find pathways around the obstacles), the method comprising:
detecting the obstacle using a set of sensors of the robot (Lynn ¶ [0009]: a set of sensors; Lynn ¶ [0057]: A “sensor” in an etiquette-based vehicle is a device configured to provide optical, radio, or other information about a set of objects in the environment of the vehicle, wherein the information is provided as a set of electrical signals for processing by a controller to manage movement of the vehicle; Lynn ¶ [0113]: the vehicle can use sensors to determine whether obstacles are in the known path);
determining, by a controller of the robot coupled to the set of sensors (Lynn ¶ [0104]: a smart-follow module fitted with a set of sensors and a controller configured to manage movement of an autonomous host self-powered vehicle), using data from the set of sensors, a set of parameters characterizing motion of the obstacle relative to the robot (Lynn ¶ [0069]: The tuck behavior during the transition period can be represented by a cubic spline curve based on the following parameters: distance and angle between the vehicle and the user; velocity of the user; velocity of the obstacle; distance from the vehicle to the obstacle; Lynn ¶ [0113]: the vehicle can use sensors to determine whether obstacles are in the known path);
after implementation of the obstacle avoidance protocol, causing, by the controller, the robot to return to following the trajectory of the leader (Lynn ¶ [0070]: The vehicle is configured to return to heel following position under appropriate circumstances).
It is noted that Lynn discloses determining whether obstacles are in a known path of a vehicle and avoiding an obstacle if one exists but fails to explicitly disclose evaluating, by the controller, a risk of a collision between the obstacle and the robot; and under a circumstance wherein the evaluated risk exceeds a predetermined threshold, causing, by the controller, implementation of an obstacle avoidance protocol.
However, Pescaru, in the same field of endeavor, teaches evaluating, by the controller, a risk of a collision between the obstacle and the robot; and under a circumstance wherein the evaluated risk exceeds a predetermined threshold, causing, by the controller, implementation of an obstacle avoidance protocol (Pescaru ¶ [0103]: when the distance d.sub.ARD,Obji.sup.t.sup.q+n is found to be shorter than the ARD-object clearance distance, then the corresponding object may collide with the ARD 702. Thus, at step 822, collision avoidance is started. At step 824, it is ascertained whether the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the left-hand side to avoid collision. In the event the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the left-hand side to avoid collision, at step 826, the trajectory of the ARD 702 is modified to enable it to overtake the object on the left-hand side; and step 818 is performed; Pescaru ¶ [0104]: In the event the ARD 702 does not have enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the left-hand side, at step 828, it is ascertained whether the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the right-hand side to avoid collision. In the event the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the right-hand side to avoid collision, at step 830, the trajectory of the ARD 702 is modified to enable it to overtake the object on the right-hand side, and step 818 is performed). Examiner interprets the system and method of Pescaru to teach a system for implementing collision avoidance by determining a risk of collision between an obstacle and ARD based on a distance between the obstacle and an ARD and a comparison of a time it would take an ARD to overtake an obstacle and a time a collision will occur which implicitly includes a time threshold.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method that allow a following vehicle to avoid obstacles of Lynn to include the risk assessment and thresholds for determining when to begin obstacle avoidance of Pescaru with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to enable a robotic device to avoid moving obstacles in its path as it moved from a first location to a second location (Pescaru ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lynn and Pescaru discloses wherein the obstacle avoidance protocol includes causing the robot to have a lateral offset from the standard trajectory (Lynn ¶ [0069]: While performing obstacle avoidance, the paired vehicle executes a tuck behavior—a transition defined by a cubic spline curve. Specifically, when the vehicle encounters an obstacle, such as pedestrian 21, it tucks behind the user 22, transitioning to a 0° angle, measured from the centerline of the user 22 at point 221; Lynn: heel-following positions 13A-C and tuck positions 23A-C in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lynn and Pescaru discloses wherein the obstacle avoidance protocol is selected from the group consisting of a cross and a duck (Pescaru ¶ [0103]: At step 824, it is ascertained whether the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the left-hand side to avoid collision. In the event the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the left-hand side to avoid collision, at step 826, the trajectory of the ARD 702 is modified to enable it to overtake the object on the left-hand side; and step 818 is performed; Pescaru ¶ [0104]: In the event the ARD 702 does not have enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the left-hand side, at step 828, it is ascertained whether the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the right-hand side to avoid collision. In the event the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the right-hand side to avoid collision, at step 830, the trajectory of the ARD 702 is modified to enable it to overtake the object on the right-hand side, and step 818 is performed). Examiner interprets the left or right overtaking of Pescaru to be analogous to a cross or duck maneuver as defined in the specification of the instant application (¶ [0047]-[0048]). Depending on the trajectories of the robot and obstacle, overtaking an obstacle on the left or right can be interpreted as a cross or duck.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method that allow a following vehicle to avoid obstacles of Lynn modified by the risk assessment and thresholds for determining when to begin obstacle avoidance of Pescaru to explicitly include the obstacle avoidance that entails overtaking an obstacle on the left or right of Pescaru with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to enable a robotic device to avoid moving obstacles in its path as it moved from a first location to a second location (Pescaru ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lynn and Pescaru discloses wherein the robot performs the method autonomously (Lynn ¶ [0066]: Since the user and the vehicle are both self-powered and constitute a dynamic combination of components, the vehicle's controller is programmed to cause the vehicle to behave, i.e., to move, in accordance with these principles, in a range of distinct dynamic contexts; Lynn ¶ [0104]: a smart-follow module fitted with a set of sensors and a controller configured to manage movement of an autonomous host self-powered vehicle).
Regarding claim 11, Lynn discloses a robot configured to follow a trajectory of a leader (Lynn ¶ [0066]: in pair mode, an etiquette-based vehicle is configured to follow, with hysteresis dynamics, a trajectory of a user) in a manner to avoid an obstacle (Lynn ¶ [0069]: an obstacle avoidance tuck (to avoid the pedestrian in position 21); Lynn ¶ [0113]: the vehicle can use sensors to determine whether obstacles are in the known path. In such embodiments, the vehicle can stop and wait for the obstacles to clear, send an alarm, and find pathways around the obstacles), comprising:
a body (Lynn: etiquette-based vehicle in Figs. 1-2, 5-9 and 12-20) including a set of sensors (Lynn ¶ [0009]: a set of sensors; Lynn ¶ [0057]: A “sensor” in an etiquette-based vehicle is a device configured to provide optical, radio, or other information about a set of objects in the environment of the vehicle, wherein the information is provided as a set of electrical signals for processing by a controller to manage movement of the vehicle; Lynn ¶ [0113]: the vehicle can use sensors to determine whether obstacles are in the known path) and a drive mechanism (Lynn ¶ [0008]: a mechanical drive system to cause movement of such vehicle);
a controller disposed in the body and coupled to the set of sensors and the drive mechanism (Lynn ¶ [0010]: a controller, coupled to the mechanical drive system, to manage movement of such vehicle; Lynn ¶ [0104]: a smart-follow module fitted with a set of sensors and a controller configured to manage movement of an autonomous host self-powered vehicle);
wherein the controller is configured to:
detect the obstacle using the set of sensors (Lynn ¶ [0009]: a set of sensors; Lynn ¶ [0057]: A “sensor” in an etiquette-based vehicle is a device configured to provide optical, radio, or other information about a set of objects in the environment of the vehicle, wherein the information is provided as a set of electrical signals for processing by a controller to manage movement of the vehicle; Lynn ¶ [0113]: the vehicle can use sensors to determine whether obstacles are in the known path);
determine, using data from the set of sensors, a set of parameters characterizing motion of the obstacle relative to the robot (Lynn ¶ [0069]: The tuck behavior during the transition period can be represented by a cubic spline curve based on the following parameters: distance and angle between the vehicle and the user; velocity of the user; velocity of the obstacle; distance from the vehicle to the obstacle; Lynn ¶ [0113]: the vehicle can use sensors to determine whether obstacles are in the known path);
cause, after implementation of the obstacle avoidance protocol, the robot to return to following the trajectory of the leader (Lynn ¶ [0070]: The vehicle is configured to return to heel following position under appropriate circumstances).
It is noted that Lynn discloses determining whether obstacles are in a known path of a vehicle and avoiding an obstacle if one exists but fails to explicitly disclose evaluate a risk of a collision between the obstacle and the robot; and cause, under a circumstance wherein the evaluated risk exceeds a predetermined threshold, implementation of an obstacle avoidance protocol.
However, Pescaru, in the same field of endeavor, teaches evaluate a risk of a collision between the obstacle and the robot; and cause, under a circumstance wherein the evaluated risk exceeds a predetermined threshold, implementation of an obstacle avoidance protocol (Pescaru ¶ [0103]: when the distance d.sub.ARD,Obji.sup.t.sup.q+n is found to be shorter than the ARD-object clearance distance, then the corresponding object may collide with the ARD 702. Thus, at step 822, collision avoidance is started. At step 824, it is ascertained whether the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the left-hand side to avoid collision. In the event the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the left-hand side to avoid collision, at step 826, the trajectory of the ARD 702 is modified to enable it to overtake the object on the left-hand side; and step 818 is performed; Pescaru ¶ [0104]: In the event the ARD 702 does not have enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the left-hand side, at step 828, it is ascertained whether the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the right-hand side to avoid collision. In the event the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the right-hand side to avoid collision, at step 830, the trajectory of the ARD 702 is modified to enable it to overtake the object on the right-hand side, and step 818 is performed). Examiner interprets the system and method of Pescaru to teach a system for implementing collision avoidance by determining a risk of collision between an obstacle and ARD based on a distance between the obstacle and an ARD and a comparison of a time it would take an ARD to overtake an obstacle and a time a collision will occur which implicitly includes a time threshold.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method that allow a following vehicle to avoid obstacles of Lynn to include the risk assessment and thresholds for determining when to begin obstacle avoidance of Pescaru with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to enable a robotic device to avoid moving obstacles in its path as it moved from a first location to a second location (Pescaru ¶ [0003]).
Claim 12 recites analogous limitations to claim 2, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 13 recites analogous limitations to claim 3, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 4-9 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0041163 by Lynn et al. (herein after “Lynn”), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0281598 by Pescaru et al. (herein after “Pescaru”), further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0153735 by Clarke et al. (herein after “Clarke”).
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application. Text written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lynn and Pescaru discloses determining a risk of collision between an obstacle and an ARD based on a comparison of a time it would take an ARD to overtake an obstacle and a time a collision will occur, which implicitly includes a time threshold, but the combination of Lynn and Pescaru fails to explicitly disclose wherein evaluating risk of a collision includes evaluating a collision time and wherein the predetermined threshold is a value of the collision time.
However, Clarke, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein evaluating risk of a collision includes evaluating a collision time and wherein the predetermined threshold is a value of the collision time (Clarke ¶ [0308]: System 100 may provide driver assist functionality that monitors the vicinity around vehicle 200 and responds to the presence of another vehicle encroaching upon vehicle 200. Monitoring the vicinity around vehicle 200 may include monitoring a collision threshold. For example a collision threshold may include a time to collision or a minimum predetermined distance between vehicle 200 and other traffic. System 100 may further cause vehicle 200 to take evasive action to avoid encroaching traffic. For example, evasive action may include braking, changing lanes, or otherwise altering the course of vehicle 200; Clarke ¶ [0316]: A collision threshold based on a time to collision may be set to allow enough time for system 100 to effectively conduct evasive action to avoid collision).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method that allow a following vehicle to avoid obstacles of Lynn modified by the risk assessment and thresholds for determining when to begin obstacle avoidance of Pescaru to further include the comparison of a time to collision to a collision threshold as a condition for initiating an evasive action of Clarke with a reasonable expectation of success. The combination of Lynn, Pescaru and Clarke would result in a system that first determines if a collision time exceeds a collision threshold and then determines in which direction to execute an evasive action based on a comparison of a collision time with a time an evasive action would take to complete. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to allow an autonomous vehicle enough time to effectively conduct an evasive action to avoid collision (Clarke ¶ [0316]).
Regarding claim 5, Lynn discloses returning a vehicle to a heel following position under appropriate circumstances (Lynn ¶ [0070]) and Pescaru teaches determining which direction to overtake an obstacle by determining a risk of collision between an obstacle and a robot based on a comparison of a time it would take the robot to overtake an obstacle and a time a collision will occur which implicitly includes a time threshold. Pescaru further teaches comparing a time it would take the robot to overtake an obstacle continually at specific time intervals (Pescaru ¶ [0103]-[0104]).
It is noted the combination of Lynn and Pescaru fails to explicitly disclose wherein implementation of the obstacle avoidance protocol is deemed completed based on the collision time being above a return threshold.
However, Clarke, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein implementation of the obstacle avoidance protocol is deemed completed based on the collision time being above a return threshold (Clarke ¶ [0308]: System 100 may provide driver assist functionality that monitors the vicinity around vehicle 200 and responds to the presence of another vehicle encroaching upon vehicle 200. Monitoring the vicinity around vehicle 200 may include monitoring a collision threshold. For example a collision threshold may include a time to collision or a minimum predetermined distance between vehicle 200 and other traffic. System 100 may further cause vehicle 200 to take evasive action to avoid encroaching traffic. For example, evasive action may include braking, changing lanes, or otherwise altering the course of vehicle 200; Clarke ¶ [0316]: A collision threshold based on a time to collision may be set to allow enough time for system 100 to effectively conduct evasive action to avoid collision).
Examiner interprets Lynn to disclose a system and method for returning a following robot to a standard trajectory under appropriate circumstances. Pescaru teaches determining which direction to overtake an obstacle to avoid a collision based on a risk assessment that includes determining a time that it will take to overtake an obstacle in each direction. Clarke teaches initiating an evasive action to avoid a collision based on comparing a time to collision to a collision threshold. The combination of Lynn, Pescaru and Clarke teaches a system and method that will control a robot to follow a trajectory of a user and initiate an evasive action when a time to collision with a detected obstacle exceeds a collision threshold. When a time to collision does not exceed a collision threshold an evasive action is not performed and the robot will return to following a trajectory of the user.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method that allow a following vehicle to avoid obstacles of Lynn modified by the risk assessment and thresholds for determining when to begin obstacle avoidance of Pescaru and the comparison of a time to collision to a collision threshold as a condition for initiating an evasive action of Clarke to explicitly include not performing an evasive action when a time to collision is greater than a collision threshold of Clarke with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to allow an autonomous vehicle enough time to effectively conduct an evasive action to avoid collision (Clarke ¶ [0316]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lynn, Pescaru and Clarke discloses wherein the obstacle avoidance protocol is selected from the group consisting of a cross and a duck (Pescaru ¶ [0103]: At step 824, it is ascertained whether the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the left-hand side to avoid collision. In the event the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the left-hand side to avoid collision, at step 826, the trajectory of the ARD 702 is modified to enable it to overtake the object on the left-hand side; and step 818 is performed; Pescaru ¶ [0104]: In the event the ARD 702 does not have enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the left-hand side, at step 828, it is ascertained whether the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the right-hand side to avoid collision. In the event the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the right-hand side to avoid collision, at step 830, the trajectory of the ARD 702 is modified to enable it to overtake the object on the right-hand side, and step 818 is performed), and wherein implementation of the duck is deemed completed based on the collision time being above a duck return threshold of the duck and implementation of the cross is deemed completed based on the collision time being above a cross return threshold that is different from the duck return threshold (Clarke ¶ [0308]: System 100 may provide driver assist functionality that monitors the vicinity around vehicle 200 and responds to the presence of another vehicle encroaching upon vehicle 200. Monitoring the vicinity around vehicle 200 may include monitoring a collision threshold. For example a collision threshold may include a time to collision or a minimum predetermined distance between vehicle 200 and other traffic. System 100 may further cause vehicle 200 to take evasive action to avoid encroaching traffic. For example, evasive action may include braking, changing lanes, or otherwise altering the course of vehicle 200; Clarke ¶ [0316]: A collision threshold based on a time to collision may be set to allow enough time for system 100 to effectively conduct evasive action to avoid collision).
Examiner interprets Lynn to disclose a system and method for returning a following robot to a standard trajectory under appropriate circumstances. Pescaru teaches determining which direction to overtake an obstacle by determining a risk of collision between an obstacle and a robot based on a comparison of a time it would take the robot to overtake an obstacle and a time a collision will occur which implicitly includes a time threshold. Pescaru further teaches comparing a time it would take the robot to overtake an obstacle and a time of a collision will occur continually at specific time intervals. Clarke teaches initiating an evasive action to avoid a collision based on comparing a time to collision to a collision threshold. The combination of Lynn, Pescaru and Clarke teaches a system and method that will control a robot to follow a trajectory of a user and initiate an evasive action when a time to collision with a detected obstacle exceeds a collision threshold that is defined continually at specific time intervals. If the collision threshold is exceeded the robot executes an evasive action in the right or left direction based on a comparison of a time it would take the robot to overtake an obstacle and a time a collision will occur. As the robot executes an evasive action the positional relationship between the robot and the obstacle will change and the time a collision occurs will also change. The collision threshold and time a collision will occur can together be interpreted as a return threshold. The time a collision will occur is used by Pescaru to determine whether an evasive action is taken to the right or left and the return threshold associated with each direction will be different depending on the current position of the obstacle and the robot. When an evasive action in either direction is completed, a time to collision will not exceed a collision threshold and an evasive action will no longer be performed. At this time the robot will return to following a trajectory of the user.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method that allow a following vehicle to avoid obstacles of Lynn modified by the risk assessment and thresholds for determining when to begin obstacle avoidance of Pescaru and the comparison of a time to collision to a collision threshold as a condition for initiating an evasive action including not performing an evasive action when a time to collision is greater than a collision threshold of Clarke to explicitly include executing an evasive action based on a comparison of a collision time with a time an evasive action would take to complete of Pescaru with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to enable a robotic device to avoid moving obstacles in its path as it moved from a first location to a second location (Pescaru ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 7, Lynn discloses further comprising:
evaluating, by the controller, (i) a (Lynn ¶ [0069]: The tuck behavior during the transition period can be represented by a cubic spline curve based on the following parameters: distance and angle between the vehicle and the user; velocity of the user; velocity of the obstacle; distance from the vehicle to the obstacle; Lynn ¶ [0113]: the vehicle can use sensors to determine whether obstacles are in the known path); and
calculating an obstacle navigation decision factor based on the (Lynn ¶ [0113]: the vehicle can use sensors to determine whether obstacles are in the known path. In such embodiments, the vehicle can stop and wait for the obstacles to clear, send an alarm, and find pathways around the obstacles). Examiner interprets the system and method of Lynn to determine or decide whether an obstacle is in a known path and find a pathway around an obstacle that is in a known path or to continue on a known path if an obstacle is not in a known path.
It is noted Lynn fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: evaluating, by the controller, (i) a convergence speed of the obstacle and the robot.
However, Clarke, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: evaluating, by the controller, (i) a convergence speed of the obstacle and the robot (Clarke ¶ [0158]: processing unit 110 may construct a set of measurements for the detected objects. Such measurements may include, for example, position, velocity, and acceleration values (relative to vehicle 200) associated with the detected objects).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method that allow a following vehicle to avoid obstacles of Lynn modified by the risk assessment and thresholds for determining when to begin obstacle avoidance of Pescaru to explicitly include the determination of a relative velocity or convergence speed of an detected object and vehicle of Clarke with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to enable a robotic device to allow an autonomous vehicle enough time to effectively conduct an evasive action to avoid collision (Clarke ¶ [0316]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lynn, Pescaru and Clarke discloses wherein the obstacle navigation decision factor is compared to a decision threshold to determine a type of obstacle avoidance protocol to be implemented by the robot (Pescaru ¶ [0103]: At step 824, it is ascertained whether the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the left-hand side to avoid collision. In the event the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the left-hand side to avoid collision, at step 826, the trajectory of the ARD 702 is modified to enable it to overtake the object on the left-hand side; and step 818 is performed; Pescaru ¶ [0104]: In the event the ARD 702 does not have enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the left-hand side, at step 828, it is ascertained whether the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the right-hand side to avoid collision. In the event the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the right-hand side to avoid collision, at step 830, the trajectory of the ARD 702 is modified to enable it to overtake the object on the right-hand side, and step 818 is performed). Examiner interprets Pescaru to teach determining which direction to overtake an obstacle by determining a risk of collision between an obstacle and a robot based on a comparison of a time it would take the robot to overtake an obstacle and a time a collision will occur which implicitly includes a time threshold. The time it will take the robot to overtake an obstacle can be interpreted as a decision factor and the time threshold before a collision will occur can be interpreted as a decision threshold.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method that allow a following vehicle to avoid obstacles of Lynn modified by the risk assessment and thresholds for determining when to begin obstacle avoidance of Pescaru and the determination of a relative velocity or convergence speed of an detected object and vehicle of Clarke to explicitly include determining which direction to overtake an obstacle based on a comparison of a time it would take the robot to overtake an obstacle and a time a collision will occur of Pescaru with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to enable a robotic device to avoid moving obstacles in its path as it moved from a first location to a second location (Pescaru ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lynn, Pescaru and Clarke discloses wherein the type of obstacle avoidance protocol is selected from the group consisting of a cross and a duck (Pescaru ¶ [0103]: At step 824, it is ascertained whether the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the left-hand side to avoid collision. In the event the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the left-hand side to avoid collision, at step 826, the trajectory of the ARD 702 is modified to enable it to overtake the object on the left-hand side; and step 818 is performed; Pescaru ¶ [0104]: In the event the ARD 702 does not have enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the left-hand side, at step 828, it is ascertained whether the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the right-hand side to avoid collision. In the event the ARD 702 has enough time to overtake the corresponding object on the right-hand side to avoid collision, at step 830, the trajectory of the ARD 702 is modified to enable it to overtake the object on the right-hand side, and step 818 is performed). Examiner interprets the left or right overtaking of Pescaru to be analogous to a cross or duck maneuver as defined in the specification of the instant application (¶ [0047]-[0048]). Depending on the trajectories of the robot and obstacle, overtaking an obstacle on the left or right can be interpreted as a cross or duck.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method that allow a following vehicle to avoid obstacles of Lynn modified by the risk assessment and thresholds for determining when to begin obstacle avoidance including determining which direction to overtake an obstacle based on a comparison of a time it would take the robot to overtake an obstacle and a time a collision will occur of Pescaru and the determination of a relative velocity or convergence speed of an detected object and vehicle of Clarke to explicitly include the obstacle avoidance that entails overtaking an obstacle on the left or right of Pescaru with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to enable a robotic device to avoid moving obstacles in its path as it moved from a first location to a second location (Pescaru ¶ [0003]).
Claim 14 recites analogous limitations to claim 4, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 15 recites analogous limitations to claim 5, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 16 recites analogous limitations to claim 6, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 17 recites analogous limitations to claim 7, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 18 recites analogous limitations to claim 8, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 19 recites analogous limitations to claim 9, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
US 2023/0356391 discloses a moveable robot that determines whether an obstacle exists in a path to a goal. If an obstacle exists in the path the movable robot determines whether to take a path around the obstacle to the goal by moving left or right (¶ [0072]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P LANGHORNE whose telephone number is (571)272-5670. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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.
/N.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666