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 .
Priority
1. Acknowledgement is made that the present application is a national phase conversion of PCT/EP2023/067306 filed on 06/26/2023 which claim priority to foreign application DE10 2022 002 715.1 filed on 07/26/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 01/23/2025 and 02/12/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 29 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 26. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 18, 22-23, 28, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase “the arrangement” is unclear. It is unclear if this is referring to a previously introduced “arrangement” or a new “arrangement”. It is also unclear what is meant by “a controller adapted to control the arrangement”. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting this limitation as a controller adapted to control any components to move the vehicle.
Regarding claims 22 (and similarly 23), the term “quotient” is unclear. It is unclear how the quotient is established. The claim indicates that the quotient is from the stay counter and the location counter, however, it is unclear which is the dividend, and which is the divisor. The specification indicates that “[T]he quotient in question describes the probability of the temporary object being at the place in question.” For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting “quotient” as a probability of a temporary object being at a place.
Regarding claim 28, the phrase “comprising transporting, by the autonomous vehicle, by movement of the autonomous vehicle in the technical installation” is unclear. It is unclear what is meant by transporting by movement of the autonomous vehicle in the technical installation. It appears that this is an incomplete statement. It is unclear what is being transported by movement. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting this limitation as “transporting objects, by the autonomous vehicle, by movement…”.
In the art rejection above, the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner. Any claim not explicitly rejected under this heading is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim 15-17, 19-20, 24, 26-32, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US 20120323431, hereinafter Wong) in view of Lee et al. (US 20200089970, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 15, Wong teaches a method for operating a technical installation that includes at least one autonomous vehicle (see at least [0021]: “According to one or more embodiments, the vehicle 102 may be an automated guided vehicle (AGV), such as an automated forklift, which is configured to handle and/or move the plurality of units 114 about the floor 110.”) having at least one sensor adapted to detect items and a map of the technical installation (see at least [0018]: “The sensor array 108 includes various types of sensors, such as encoders, ultrasonic range finders, laser range finders, pressure transducers and/or the like.”), the technical installation including at least one static zone and at least one temporary zone, the map including a static area associated with each static zone in which at least one static object is recorded and a temporary area associated with each temporary zone in which a temporary object is recordable (see at least [0037]: “In some embodiments, the local map module 338 utilizes and maintains the local map data 310 as well as transmits updates to the global map module 326 of the central computer 106. The local map data 310 comprises feature information 312 and landmark data 314. In one embodiment, the feature information includes a dynamic and/or static features representing a physical environment proximate the vehicle, such as a shared use area for human workers and automated industrial vehicles. Static features represent objects that do not change within the environment, e.g., walls, storage racks, and the like. The local map data 310 may be organized to form a vector of known landmarks, static and dynamic features. In some embodiments feature information 312 include: feature geometry (line, corner, arc, etc.); a feature pose in global coordinate system; and a feature pose uncertainty. Static features represent objects that do not change within the environment, e.g., walls, storage racks, and the like. Typically the pose uncertainty for static features is zero.”; [0038]: “In some embodiments, dynamic features represent objects that change within the environment, e.g. temporary obstructions such as broken pallets, objects to be stored, and the like. These features are likely to be stationary for a sufficient amount of time for the system to use them as localization map features. The system does not contain a-priori information about the pose of these features and thus the pose of these dynamic features can only be inferred by superimposing the vehicle centric measurement from sensors onto the estimated pose of the vehicle with respect to the global coordinate system. Because of the noise in sensor data, as well as the uncertainty in the vehicle pose estimation, all dynamic features have a pose uncertainty associated with their pose.”), comprising:
in response to the detector detecting an item a corresponding temporary zone, assigning the detected item to a corresponding temporary object and recoding the corresponding temporary object in the temporary area of the map that is associated with the corresponding temporary zone (see at least [0043]: “The global map module 328 includes software code (e.g., processor-executable instructions) for processing the local map data 310 from at least two industrial vehicles and generating the global map data 334. In some embodiments, the global map module 328 defines the global map data 334 as a vector of vector of known landmarks, which can be used to construct a vector of known features. These features correspond to features expected to be extracted from vehicle sensors. Some of the at least two industrial vehicles may reference different coordinate systems for the local map data 310. As such, one or more landmark positions are transformed into positions of a common coordinate system.”; [0055]: “The feature extraction 506 examines data inputted by sensor devices and extracts observed features (e.g. lines and corners). The data association 508 compares the observed features with known feature information to identify matching features with existing static and/or dynamic map data 424, 422. The EKF 710 is an Extended Kalman Filter that, given measurements associated with the matching features and a previous vehicle pose, provides a most likely current vehicle pose. The map manager 512 maintains an up-to-date dynamic map of features used for localization that are not found in a-priori static map. These updates to the dynamic map data are sent to the central computer for inclusion in the global map data.”); and
erasing all temporary objects recorded in the temporary area of the map that is associated with the corresponding temporary zone (see at least [0069]: “Through the use of a global map that is updated using local map data produced by various vehicles, the vehicles can enhance the environment to add navigation landmarks, e.g., position an object to use as a landmark to enhance navigation, then share the feature information with other vehicles via the global map. In other embodiments, obstructions become dynamic feature entries in the local map data such that knowledge of an obstruction is shared by the vehicles through the global map. To enhance the use of features, some embodiments may "sun-down" certain types of features, i.e., a static feature that is repeatedly identified by the vehicles may form a permanent landmark in the global map, while dynamic features that newly appear in the global map may be assigned a sun-down value when they will be removed from the global map unless renewed through being observed another vehicle.”).
Wong fails to explicitly teach in response to the vehicle moving away from the corresponding temporary zone, erasing all temporary objects recorded in the temporary area of the map that is associated with the corresponding temporary zone.
However, Lee teaches a method and system for identifying obstacles on a driving surface of a robot that erases all temporary objects recorded in a temporary area of a map that is associated with a corresponding temporary zone in response to a vehicle moving away from the corresponding temporary zone (see at least [0047]: “Further, the robot may generate a temporary map 220 which indicates whether there is an obstacle within a predetermined range by sensing the surroundings while on the move and may move based on the temporary map 220. After the robot passes the space, the temporary map 220 may be deleted, and a new temporary map 220 may be generated.”; [0053]: “After the robot 1000 moves, the controller 900 may identify whether the obstacle is positioned within the operation range of the robot 1000 and, if the obstacle is positioned out of the operation range of the robot 1000, delete the obstacle from the temporary map 220 in the map storage 200.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wong to incorporate the teachings of Lee and provide a means to erase all temporary objects recorded in a temporary area of a map that is associated with a corresponding temporary zone in response to a vehicle moving away from the corresponding temporary zone, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a trigger to remove objects that are no longer needed when the robot moves away from the area.
Regarding claim 16, modified Wong teaches the limitations of claim 15. Wong further teaches wherein, in response to the detector detecting an item, capturing, by the sensor, a distance and a direction to the detected item (see at least [0035]: “The sensor array 108 is communicably coupled to the mobile computer 104, which is attached to an automated vehicle, such as a forklift (e.g., the forklift 200 of FIG. 2). The sensor array 108 includes a plurality of devices 332 for monitoring a physical environment and capturing various data, which is stored by the mobile computer 104 as the pose measurement data 318. In some embodiments, the sensor array 108 may include any combination of one or more laser scanners and/or one or more cameras. In some embodiments, the plurality of devices 332 may be mounted to the automated vehicle. For example, a laser scanner and a camera may be attached to a lift carriage at a position above the forks. Alternatively, the laser scanner and the camera may be located below the forks.”).
Regarding claim 17, modified Wong teaches the limitations of claim 15. Wong further teaches wherein the detector includes a laser scanner and/or a 3D camera (see at least 0030]: “In some embodiments, a number of sensor devices (e.g., laser scanners, laser range finders, encoders, pressure transducers and/or the like) as well as their position on the forklift 200 are vehicle dependent, and the position at which these sensors are mounted affects the processing of the measurement data.”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Wong teaches the limitations of claim 15. Wong further teaches in response to detection by the sensor of an item in the static zone, determining a location of the autonomous vehicle in the map by comparing the detected item in the static zone with at least one static object that is recorded in the static area assigned to the static zone (see at least [0038]: “In some embodiments, dynamic features represent objects that change within the environment, e.g. temporary obstructions such as broken pallets, objects to be stored, and the like. These features are likely to be stationary for a sufficient amount of time for the system to use them as localization map features. The system does not contain a-priori information about the pose of these features and thus the pose of these dynamic features can only be inferred by superimposing the vehicle centric measurement from sensors onto the estimated pose of the vehicle with respect to the global coordinate system. Because of the noise in sensor data, as well as the uncertainty in the vehicle pose estimation, all dynamic features have a pose uncertainty associated with their pose.”).
Regarding claim 20, modified Wong teaches the limitations of claim 15. Wong further teaches immediately erasing all temporary objects recorded in the temporary area assigned to the temporary zone (see at least [0069]: “Through the use of a global map that is updated using local map data produced by various vehicles, the vehicles can enhance the environment to add navigation landmarks, e.g., position an object to use as a landmark to enhance navigation, then share the feature information with other vehicles via the global map. In other embodiments, obstructions become dynamic feature entries in the local map data such that knowledge of an obstruction is shared by the vehicles through the global map. To enhance the use of features, some embodiments may "sun-down" certain types of features, i.e., a static feature that is repeatedly identified by the vehicles may form a permanent landmark in the global map, while dynamic features that newly appear in the global map may be assigned a sun-down value when they will be removed from the global map unless renewed through being observed another vehicle.”).
Wong fails to explicitly teach erasing all temporary objects recorded in the temporary area assigned to the temporary zone in response to the vehicle moving away from the temporary zone.
However, Lee teaches a method and system for identifying obstacles on a driving surface of a robot that erases all temporary objects recorded in a temporary area assigned to a temporary zone in response to a vehicle moving away from the temporary zone (see at least [0047]: “Further, the robot may generate a temporary map 220 which indicates whether there is an obstacle within a predetermined range by sensing the surroundings while on the move and may move based on the temporary map 220. After the robot passes the space, the temporary map 220 may be deleted, and a new temporary map 220 may be generated.”; [0053]: “After the robot 1000 moves, the controller 900 may identify whether the obstacle is positioned within the operation range of the robot 1000 and, if the obstacle is positioned out of the operation range of the robot 1000, delete the obstacle from the temporary map 220 in the map storage 200.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wong to incorporate the teachings of Lee and provide a means to erase all temporary objects recorded in a temporary area assigned to a temporary zone in response to a vehicle moving away from the temporary zone, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a trigger to remove objects that are no longer needed when the robot moves away from the area.
Regarding claim 24, modified Wong teaches the limitations of claim 15. Wong further teaches in response to detecting, by the sensor, an item located in the temporary zone, determining a location of the autonomous vehicle in the map by comparing the detected item with a corresponding temporary object recorded in the temporary area assigned to the temporary zone (see at least [0053]: “In some embodiments, the local map module 338 processes observed features from the industrial vehicle and generates (or enhances) the local map data 310 (i.e., maintains local map data). Essentially, the map module 338 at the mobile computer 104 updates the dynamic features 422 as well as the map data 310 with features and landmarks that were observed by the industrial vehicle upon which the mobile computer 104 is associated. The observed features (and/or landmarks) are transmitted to the central computer 106 for inclusion in the global map data. As such, the local map data of other vehicles will be updated with information from the global map data. Consequently, the disparate vehicles share their observed features and/or landmarks. The vehicle controller 410, therefore, can now navigate the industrial vehicle associated with the mobile computer 104 using features and/or landmarks that are observed by another vehicle without first observing the landmarks.”).
Regarding claim 26, modified Wong teaches the limitations of claim 15. Wong further teaches transmitting, via a communication network to a server of the technical installation, information relating to the temporary object in response to detection by the sensor of temporary object (see at least Fig. 3 and [0052]: “The local map module 338, for instance, may be executed on a server computer (e.g., the central computer 106 of FIG. 1) over a network (e.g., the network 302 of FIG. 3) to connect with multiple mobile computing devices for the purpose of sharing and updating the map data 310 with a current vehicle position and orientation.”).
Regarding claim 27, modified Wong teaches the limitations of claim 15. Wong further teaches transmitting, via a communication network to at least one other autonomous vehicle of the technical installation, information relating to the temporary object in response to detection by the sensor of temporary object (see at least Fig. 3 and [0052]: “The local map module 338, for instance, may be executed on a server computer (e.g., the central computer 106 of FIG. 1) over a network (e.g., the network 302 of FIG. 3) to connect with multiple mobile computing devices for the purpose of sharing and updating the map data 310 with a current vehicle position and orientation.”).
Regarding claim 28, modified Wong teaches the limitations of claim 15. Wong further teaches transporting, by the autonomous vehicle, by movement of the autonomous vehicle in the technical installation (see at least [0026]: “The forklift 200 (i.e., a lift truck, a high/low, a stacker-truck, trailer loader, sideloader or a fork hoist) is a powered industrial truck having various load capacities and used to lift and transport various objects.”).
Regarding claim 29, modified Wong teaches the limitations of claim 15. Wong further teaches transmitting, via a communication network to a server of the technical installation, information relating to the temporary object in response to detection by the sensor of temporary object (see at least Fig. 3 and [0052]: “The local map module 338, for instance, may be executed on a server computer (e.g., the central computer 106 of FIG. 1) over a network (e.g., the network 302 of FIG. 3) to connect with multiple mobile computing devices for the purpose of sharing and updating the map data 310 with a current vehicle position and orientation.”).
Regarding claim 30, modified Wong teaches the limitations of claim 15. Wong further teaches wherein the static object includes a wall, a pillar, and/or a production machine of the technical installation (see at least Fig. 1 and [0037]: “Static features represent objects that do not change within the environment, e.g., walls, storage racks, and the like.”).
Regarding claim 31, modified Wong teaches the limitations of claim 15. Wong further teaches wherein the temporary object includes a crate, a container, and/or a trolley of the technical installation (see at least Fig. 1 and [0038]: “In some embodiments, dynamic features represent objects that change within the environment, e.g. temporary obstructions such as broken pallets, objects to be stored, and the like.”).
Regarding claim 32, modified Wong teaches the limitations of claim 15. Wong further teaches wherein the temporary zone includes a parking area free of immovable items and/or a parking area adapted for temporary parking of movable items (see at least Fig. 1 and [0019]: “The physical environment 100 further includes a floor 110 supporting a plurality of objects. The plurality of objects include a plurality of pallets 112, a plurality of units 114 and/or the like as explained further below.”; [0037]: “In one embodiment, the feature information includes a dynamic and/or static features representing a physical environment proximate the vehicle, such as a shared use area for human workers and automated industrial vehicles. Static features represent objects that do not change within the environment, e.g., walls, storage racks, and the like.”; [0038]: “In some embodiments, dynamic features represent objects that change within the environment, e.g. temporary obstructions such as broken pallets, objects to be stored, and the like.”).
Regarding claim 34, modified Wong teaches the limitations of claim 15. Wong further teaches a technical installation, comprising:
at least one autonomous vehicle including at least one sensor adapted to detect items and a map of the technical installation (see at least Fig. 1 and [0018]: “The sensor array 108 includes various types of sensors, such as encoders, ultrasonic range finders, laser range finders, pressure transducers and/or the like.”; [0021]: “According to one or more embodiments, the vehicle 102 may be an automated guided vehicle (AGV), such as an automated forklift, which is configured to handle and/or move the plurality of units 114 about the floor 110.”);
wherein the technical installation is adapted to be operated according to the method recited in claim 15 (see at least Figs. 6-7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. Claims 18 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US 20120323431, hereinafter Wong) and Lee et al. (US 20200089970, hereinafter Lee) in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (US 20210089040, hereinafter Ebrahimi).
Regarding claim 18, modified Wong teaches the limitations of claim 15. Wong further teaches wherein the autonomous vehicle includes
a drive (see at least Figs. 2-3 and [0029]: “Exemplary embodiments of the forklift 200 typically includes a camera 202, a planar laser scanner 204 attached to each side and/or an encoder 206 attached to each wheel 208.”),
an electrical energy adapted to supply the drive (see at least [0028]: “The forklift 200 may further include various mechanical, hydraulic and/or electrically operated actuators according to one or more embodiments.”),
a controller adapted to control the arrangement (see at least Figs. 2-3 and [0023]: “In some embodiments, the mobile computer 104 and the central computer 106 are computing devices that control the vehicle 102 and perform various tasks within the physical environment 100.”), and
a wireless communication device adapted to wirelessly communicate via a network (see at least Fig. 3 and [0034]: “The network 302 comprises a communication system that connects computers by wire, cable, fiber optic, and/or wireless links facilitated by various types of well-known network elements, such as hubs, switches, routers, and the like.”).
Wong fails to explicitly teach an electrical energy storage adapted to supply the drive.
However, Ebrahimi teaches a method and apparatus for an autonomous robot that comprises an electrical energy storage adapted to supply a drive (see at least Fig. 2B and
[0240]: “In some embodiments, the robot may include one or more of a casing,…power management such as a rechargeable battery, solar panels, or fuel, and one or more clock or synchronizing devices.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wong to incorporate the teachings of Ebrahimi and provide an electrical energy storage adapted to supply a drive, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a power source that is rechargeable to operate the vehicle [0240].
Regarding claim 33, modified Wong teaches the limitations of claim 18. Wong further teaches wherein the drive includes an electric motor (see at least Fig. 2 and [0028]: “The forklift 200 may further include various mechanical, hydraulic and/or electrically operated actuators according to one or more embodiments.”), and wheels (see at least Figs. 2-3 and [0029]: “Exemplary embodiments of the forklift 200 typically includes a camera 202, a planar laser scanner 204 attached to each side and/or an encoder 206 attached to each wheel 208.”, and the electrical energy (see at least [0028]: “The forklift 200 may further include various mechanical, hydraulic and/or electrically operated actuators according to one or more embodiments.”).
Wong fails to explicitly teach a gearbox and the electrical energy storage includes a rechargeable battery.
However, Ebrahimi teaches a method and apparatus for an autonomous robot that comprises a gearbox (see at least Fig. 13A and [0262] FIG. 13A illustrates an example of a brush compartment of a robotic cleaner including frame 1300, gear box 1301, and brushes 1302. The robotic cleaner includes a motor 1303 and gearbox.”) and an electrical energy storage that includes a rechargeable battery (see at least Fig. 2B and [0240]: “In some embodiments, the robot may include one or more of a casing,…power management such as a rechargeable battery, solar panels, or fuel, and one or more clock or synchronizing devices.”; [0256]: “FIG. 2B illustrates internal components of the robot including sensors 101 of sensor array 104, PCB 105, wheel modules each including suspension 106, battery 107, floor sensor 108, and wheel 109.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wong to incorporate the teachings of Ebrahimi and provide a gearbox and an electrical energy storage that includes a rechargeable battery, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a power source that is rechargeable to operate the vehicle [0246].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. Claims 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US 20120323431, hereinafter Wong) and Lee et al. (US 20200089970, hereinafter Lee) in view of Yang et al. (US 20230200629, hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 21, modified Wong teaches the limitations of claim 15. Wong further teaches erasing all temporary objects recorded in the temporary area assigned to the temporary zone (see at least [0049]: “The vehicle state 418 which is modeled by the filter 414, refers to a current vehicle state, and includes pose information (e.g., coordinates) that indicate vehicle position and orientation. The localization module 402 communicates data associated with the vehicle state 418 to the mapping module 404 while also communicating such data to the vehicle controller 410.”; [0050]: “In addition to the filter 414 for calculating the vehicle state 418, the localization module 414 also includes the feature extraction module 416 for extracting standard features from the corrected sensor data. The map module 338 uses feature selection 420 together with the vehicle state 418 to select from the available the dynamic features 422 and static features 424 available to the localization module 402 by eliminating invisible features from the feature set 422 and 424 thus reducing the number of features that must be examined by feature extraction 416.”; [0069]: “To enhance the use of features, some embodiments may "sun-down" certain types of features, i.e., a static feature that is repeatedly identified by the vehicles may form a permanent landmark in the global map, while dynamic features that newly appear in the global map may be assigned a sun-down value when they will be removed from the global map unless renewed through being observed another vehicle.”).
Wong fails to explicitly teach erasing all temporary objects recorded in the temporary area assigned to the temporary zone in response to the vehicle moving away from the temporary zone
However, Lee teaches a method and system for identifying obstacles on a driving surface of a robot that erases all temporary objects recorded in a temporary area assigned to a temporary zone in response to a vehicle moving away from the temporary zone (see at least [0047]: “Further, the robot may generate a temporary map 220 which indicates whether there is an obstacle within a predetermined range by sensing the surroundings while on the move and may move based on the temporary map 220. After the robot passes the space, the temporary map 220 may be deleted, and a new temporary map 220 may be generated.”; [0053]: “After the robot 1000 moves, the controller 900 may identify whether the obstacle is positioned within the operation range of the robot 1000 and, if the obstacle is positioned out of the operation range of the robot 1000, delete the obstacle from the temporary map 220 in the map storage 200.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wong to incorporate the teachings of Lee and provide a means to erase all temporary objects recorded in a temporary area assigned to a temporary zone in response to a vehicle moving away from the temporary zone, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a trigger to remove objects that are no longer needed when the robot moves away from the area.
The combination of Wong and Lee fails to explicitly teach erasing, after a predetermined period of time, all temporary objects recorded in the temporary area.
However, Yang teaches a method and system for collision avoidance in robotics that erases, after a predetermined period of time, all temporary objects recorded in a temporary area (see at least (see at least Figs. 35D-35E and [0205]: “FIG. 35E illustrates, on the right side, that the map 243 of the medical personnel has been removed. In some implementations, the map 243 of the medical personnel (or any moving object) expires after a certain period of time (e.g., a map of the moving object is removed upon lapse of a preset time period). In some other implementations, the map 243 of the medical personnel (or any moving object) decays over time (e.g., the probability values for the map of the moving object decrease over time). On the other hand, the patient 240 continues to be detected over time at the same location. In some implementations, the probability values for the map of a static object (e.g., the patient 240) increase over time.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wong and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Yang and provide a means to erase, after a predetermined period of time, all temporary objects recorded in a temporary area, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to remove objects after a period of time when it is no longer needed.
Regarding claim 22, modified Wong teaches the limitations of claim 15. Wong further teaches a stay counter and a location counter assigned to the temporary object in response to detection of the temporary object by the sensor (see at least [0069]: “To enhance the use of features, some embodiments may "sun-down" certain types of features, i.e., a static feature that is repeatedly identified by the vehicles may form a permanent landmark in the global map, while dynamic features that newly appear in the global map may be assigned a sun-down value when they will be removed from the global map unless renewed through being observed another vehicle.”).
Wong fails to explicitly teach incrementing a stay counter, incrementing a location counter assigned to the temporary object, and forming a quotient from the stay counter and the location counter.
However, Yang teaches a method and system for collision avoidance in robotics that increments a stay counter, increments a location counter, and forms a quotient from the stay counter and the location counter (see at least Figs. 35D-35E and [0205]: “FIG. 35E illustrates, on the right side, that the map 243 of the medical personnel has been removed. In some implementations, the map 243 of the medical personnel (or any moving object) expires after a certain period of time (e.g., a map of the moving object is removed upon lapse of a preset time period). In some other implementations, the map 243 of the medical personnel (or any moving object) decays over time (e.g., the probability values for the map of the moving object decrease over time). On the other hand, the patient 240 continues to be detected over time at the same location. In some implementations, the probability values for the map of a static object (e.g., the patient 240) increase over time.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wong to incorporate the teachings of Yang and provide a means to increment a stay counter, increment a location counter, and forms a quotient from the stay counter and the location counter, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to remove objects after a period of time when it is no longer needed.
Regarding claim 23, modified Wong teaches the limitations of claim 22. Wong further teaches erasing all temporary objects recorded in the temporary area assigned to the temporary zone (see at least [0069]: “Through the use of a global map that is updated using local map data produced by various vehicles, the vehicles can enhance the environment to add navigation landmarks, e.g., position an object to use as a landmark to enhance navigation, then share the feature information with other vehicles via the global map. In other embodiments, obstructions become dynamic feature entries in the local map data such that knowledge of an obstruction is shared by the vehicles through the global map. To enhance the use of features, some embodiments may "sun-down" certain types of features, i.e., a static feature that is repeatedly identified by the vehicles may form a permanent landmark in the global map, while dynamic features that newly appear in the global map may be assigned a sun-down value when they will be removed from the global map unless renewed through being observed another vehicle.”).
Wong further fails to explicitly teach erasing all temporary objects recorded in the temporary area assigned to the temporary zone in response to the vehicle moving away from the temporary zone.
However, Lee teaches a method and system for identifying obstacles on a driving surface of a robot that erases all temporary objects recorded in a temporary area assigned to a temporary zone in response to a vehicle moving away from the temporary zone (see at least [0047]: “Further, the robot may generate a temporary map 220 which indicates whether there is an obstacle within a predetermined range by sensing the surroundings while on the move and may move based on the temporary map 220. After the robot passes the space, the temporary map 220 may be deleted, and a new temporary map 220 may be generated.”; [0053]: “After the robot 1000 moves, the controller 900 may identify whether the obstacle is positioned within the operation range of the robot 1000 and, if the obstacle is positioned out of the operation range of the robot 1000, delete the obstacle from the temporary map 220 in the map storage 200.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wong to incorporate the teachings of Lee and provide a means to erase all temporary objects recorded in a temporary area assigned to a temporary zone in response to an autonomous vehicle moving away from the temporary zone, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a trigger to remove objects that are no longer needed when the robot moves away from the area.
The combination of Wong and Lee fails to explicitly teach erasing, after a variable period of time, all temporary objects recorded in the temporary area assigned to the temporary zone, the variable period of time depending on the quotient.
However, Yang teaches a method and system for collision avoidance in robotics that erases, after a variable period of time, all temporary objects recorded in a temporary area assigned to a temporary zone, the variable period of time depending on a quotient (see at least Figs. 35D-35E and [0205]: “FIG. 35E illustrates, on the right side, that the map 243 of the medical personnel has been removed. In some implementations, the map 243 of the medical personnel (or any moving object) expires after a certain period of time (e.g., a map of the moving object is removed upon lapse of a preset time period). In some other implementations, the map 243 of the medical personnel (or any moving object) decays over time (e.g., the probability values for the map of the moving object decrease over time). On the other hand, the patient 240 continues to be detected over time at the same location. In some implementations, the probability values for the map of a static object (e.g., the patient 240) increase over time.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wong and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Yang and provide a means to erase, after a variable period of time, all temporary objects recorded in a temporary area assigned to a temporary zone, the variable period of time depending on a quotient, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to remove objects after a period of time when it is no longer needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. Claim 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US 20120323431, hereinafter Wong) and Lee et al. (US 20200089970, hereinafter Lee) and in view of Takahashi et al. (US 20200241554, hereinafter Takahashi).
Regarding claim 25, modified Wong teaches the limitations of claim 15. Wong further teaches erasing all temporary objects recorded in the temporary area assigned to the temporary zone (see at least [0069]: “Through the use of a global map that is updated using local map data produced by various vehicles, the vehicles can enhance the environment to add navigation landmarks, e.g., position an object to use as a landmark to enhance navigation, then share the feature information with other vehicles via the global map. In other embodiments, obstructions become dynamic feature entries in the local map data such that knowledge of an obstruction is shared by the vehicles through the global map. To enhance the use of features, some embodiments may "sun-down" certain types of features, i.e., a static feature that is repeatedly identified by the vehicles may form a permanent landmark in the global map, while dynamic features that newly appear in the global map may be assigned a sun-down value when they will be removed from the global map unless renewed through being observed another vehicle.”).
Wong fails to explicitly teach erasing all temporary objects recorded in the area assigned to the zone before the autonomous vehicle approaches the zone.
However, Takahashi teaches an apparatus and method for updating environmental information around a robot that erases all temporary objects recorded in an area assigned to a zone before a vehicle approaches the zone (see at least [0072]: “Since the mobile robot 100 stores the fact that, a person (dynamic obstacle 210) is at an exit 340 in storage, the mobile robot 100 cannot draw a route 3 to the destination 300. The fact that the person is at the exit 340 is in the past. If the mobile robot 100 continues to store the fact all the time, the obstacle 210 is left in the storage. For this reason, in a case where information, regarding the obstacle region 280, which has been obtained by an old observation and can no longer be trusted and information regarding the obstacle region 280 that is distant and unnecessary in the movement plan are erased, a storage area can be saved.” Takahashi teaches erasing old temporary objects in the past which is before the vehicle approaches a zone again.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wong to incorporate the teachings of Takahashi and provide a means to erases all temporary objects recorded in an area assigned to a zone before a vehicle approaches the zone, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a trigger to remove old observation data to save storage area [0072].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoon et al. (US 20090276092) teaches an apparatus and method for building a map around a robot that removes dynamic objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIEN MINH LE whose telephone number is (571)272-3903. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8:30am-5:30pm eastern time).
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 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.
/T.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights