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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 34, 38, 42, 46-49, 52, and 55-57 have been amended. Claim 32 has been newly canceled. Claim 63 has been newly added. Claims 31, 34-36, 38-40, 42-44, 46-50, 52, 55-57, and 63 remain pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 31 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 31, Applicant argues that the combination of Takahashi and Saunders fails to teach the method as claimed. Specifically, Applicant asserts that "[t]he claimed method … requires reconfiguring after decelerating based at least partially on both hazard information and clearance information. This integrated analysis is not taught or suggested by the combination. Takahashi's post-stop squatting is performed to enhance stability following an emergency stop. This reconfiguration is not based on any analysis of human hazard information or environmental clearance." Applicant further asserts that "Saunders' teaching are directed to adjusting navigation parameters during ongoing operation, not reconfiguring a robot's pose after an emergency stop. The Examiner cites Saunders for determining hazard and clearance information, but these teaching describe using occupancy grids and uncertainty regions to modify operating parameters like speed and path during navigation. Saunders also teaches that operating parameters may be determined to facilitate clearing of regions from uncertainty, including instructing the mobile robot to operate differently by moving its manipulator arm, moving objects it is manipulating, or driving in particular directions. Saunders, however, does not teach or suggest using this information to inform a reconfiguration after receiving a stop command and decelerating. Nor has the examiner explained how Saunders' navigation-focused monitoring would be adapted to inform post-deceleration reconfiguration decisions.
Further regarding claim 31, Applicant argues that "the Examiner's combination of teaching would actually render Takahashi's emergency stop procedure less effective and potentially unsafe in Takahashi's context. Takahashi's emergency stop is designed to respond quickly to imminent collision threats when acoustic sensors detect an emergency signal. For example, Takahashi states that '[w]hen … a collision occurs or is likely to occur, the robot's operations have to be stopped immediately.' Introducing Saunders' complex analysis after detecting the emergency signal would introduce delay, which Takahashi expressly teaches must be avoided." The examiner disagrees for at least the following reasons.
Regarding Applicant's analyses of the Takahashi and Saunders references, the examiner notes that while Applicant's analysis of Takahashi is accurate (i.e., that Takahashi's post-stop squatting is performed to enhance stability following an emergency stop), the examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's analysis of Saunders. Specifically, the examiner believes that Saunders is directed towards more than "adjusting navigation parameters during ongoing operation…," and rather, is directed towards ensuring the safe operation of a robot in an environment that includes humans. The examiner further notes that Saunders plainly teaches changing operation parameters based on environmental data around a mobile robot (see at least [0117] of Saunders), and asserts that a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize how the ability to change operation parameters would be applicable to the reconfiguration of a humanoid robot, particularly in view of at least [0131] of Saunders, which recites wherein "the robotic device 1600 may be configured to operate autonomously, semi-autonomously, and/or using directions provided by user(s), and may exist in various forms, such as a humanoid robot, biped, quadruped, or other mobile robot, among other examples."
Regarding Applicant's argument that "the Examiner's combination of teaching would actually render Takahashi's emergency stop procedure less effective and potentially unsafe in Takahashi's context…," the examiner notes that the portion of Takahashi cited by Applicant is actually regarding the state of the prior art, rather than the workings of Takahashi itself. In fact, if Takahashi were to operate the way Applicant alleges, that is, if Takahashi were to operate under the consideration that "[w]hen … a collision occurs or is likely to occur, the robot's operations have to be stopped immediately…," Takahashi would render itself inoperable due to the fact that the robot in Takahashi, after receiving the emergency stop signal, reduces speed rather than "stopping immediately." The examiner asserts that the fact that the robot in Takahashi does not immediately stop, and rather, is able to assess its own attitude before completing the stopping procedure and reconfiguring the robot to a more stable attitude, provides an indication that "[i]ntroducing Saunders' complex analysis after detecting the emergency signal," would not, as Applicant asserts, "introduce delay," because Takahashi already discloses that actions are taken after the emergency signal and before completion of the reconfiguration. Hence, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 34-36, 38-40, 42-44, 46-50, 52, and 55-57 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claims 34, 38, 42, 46-50, 52, and 55-57 are improperly dependent on claim 63, which is not a claim “previously set forth” as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), see also MPEP 608.01(n). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 35-36, 39-40, and 43-44 are dependent on their respective improperly dependent base claims, and are similarly rejected.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 5369346 A), hereafter Takahashi, in view of Saunders (US 20240100702 A1, having an effective filing date of at least 21 September 2023), hereafter Saunders.
Regarding claim 31, Takahashi teaches a method comprising:
Receiving, at a computer system operably associated with a mobile robot in an environment, a stop command (Col. 3, Lines 33 - 43, when one of the whistles is blown and the resulting sound is picked up by the acoustic sensor for longer than a given time and is higher than a prescribed intensity, emergency stop operation is conducted);
Decelerating the mobile robot based at least partially on the stop command (Col. 4, Line 49 - Col. 5, Line 29, when it is determined that the emergency stop signal is in the H level, control passes to step S116 in which a determination is made as to whether or not the robot's attitude is stable, in step S116, a discrimination is made as to whether or not the robot's center of gravity falls within the bottom of the supporting foot, if the result of the determination is negative, control passes to step S120 in which the walking speed is reduced and control is then returned to step S116, when the result of the determination is affirmative, control passes to step S118 in which walking or the robot motion is stopped); and
Reconfiguring the mobile robot after decelerating the mobile robot a, wherein reconfiguring the mobile robot includes lowering a center-of-gravity of the mobile robot (Col. 5, Lines 44 - 58, Step S200 following S118 for putting the robot into an attitude such as squatting such that its center of gravity is lowered as shown in Fig. 9, and thus its stability is enhanced following emergency stop, squatting attitude is an example and any other attitude such as sitting, kneeling, or the like will be taken so as to lower the robot's center of gravity).
Takahashi fails to teach, however:
Determining, by the computer system, hazard information about a human in the environment;
Determining, by the computer system, clearance information about a portion of the environment around the mobile robot; and
Wherein the mobile robot is reconfigured based at least partially on the hazard information and the clearance information.
Saunders, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach:
Determining, by the computer system, hazard information about a human in the environment (0117, when a person 1220 is detected in the monitored zone 1214 and the person is moving towards the restricted zone 1212, the safety system of the mobile robot 1200 may cause operation of the robot to slow in anticipation of the person 1220 entering the restricted zone 1212);
Determining, by the computer system, clearance information about a portion of the environment around the mobile robot (0103-0107, in act 902, first sensor data captured by one or more sensors at a first time is received, proceeding to act 904, where a first unobserved portion of a safety field in an environment of a mobile robot is identified based on the first sensor data, proceeding to act 906, each of the plurality of continuous regions within the first unobserved portion of the safety field, e.g., each of the regions of an occupancy grid that includes the first unobserved portion, is assigned an occupancy state, in some embodiments, each region of the occupancy grid may be assigned one of two states, more than two states may be used, some regions that are occupied by a whitelisted entity, a portion of the robot, or an object that the robot is manipulating may be associated with a "muted" state, which indicates the region is occupied, but should be ignored for safety calculations, proceeding to act 910, a plurality of contiguous regions in an occupancy grid assigned an occupied state may be considered as an uncertainty region within which entities of concern, e.g., humans, may be located, a distance between the uncertainty region and the mobile robot may be determined, and one or more operating parameters of the mobile robot may be modified based on the distance to facilitate safe operation of the mobile robot within its local environment); and
Wherein the mobile robot is reconfigured based at least partially on the hazard information and the clearance information (0117, safety field 1210 includes a restricted zone 1212 and a monitored 1214 arranged at a farther distance from robot 1200 than the restricted zone 1212, when an entity is detected within the monitored zone 1214, a safety system of the robot may employ different responses based, at least in part, on a classification and/or identification of the entity in the monitored zone 1214, when a whitelisted entity such as AGV 1230 is detected in the monitored zone 1214, the safety system of the mobile robot 1200 may not change the operation parameters of the robot while continuing to monitor the path of the AGV 1230, by contracts, when a person 1220 is detected in the monitored zone 1214 and the person is moving towards the restricted zone 1212, the safety system of the mobile robot 1200 may cause operation of the robot to slow in anticipation of the person 1220 entering the restricted zone 1212).
Takahashi and Saunders are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the hazard and clearance information determination of Saunders in order to provide further means of determining the operational environment of the mobile robot. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robot is operated as safely as possible given its surroundings.
Claims 34-36, 38, 46, 47, 49, 52, 55, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Saunders, and further in view of Sinyavskiy (US 20180001474 A1), hereafter Sinyavskiy.
Regarding claim 63, the combination of Takahashi and Saunders teaches the method of claim 31, but fails to explicitly teach wherein determining the clearance information includes collecting data on an object in the environment and processing the data to determine a distance between the object and the mobile robot.
Sinyavskiy, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein determining the clearance information includes collecting data on an object in the environment and processing the data to determine a distance between the object and the mobile robot (0060, As a illustrative example, sensor unit 104 can collect data (e.g., sensor data) at a first time and a second time. This data can be a sensor measurement, image, and/or any other form of data generated by sensor unit 104. For example, the data can include data generated by one or more LIDARs, radars, lasers, video cameras, infrared cameras, 3D sensors, 3D cameras and/or any other sensors known in the art, such as those described with reference to FIG. 3A as well as elsewhere throughout this disclosure. The data collected at the first time can include at least a portion of data indicative at least in part of a person, animal, and/or object. In some implementations, the data indicative at least in part of the person, animal, and/or object can also be associated at least in part with a first position in space. The position can include distance measurements, such as absolute distance measurements using standard units, such as inches, feet, meters, or any other unit of measurement (e.g., measurements in the metric, US, or other system of measurement) or distance measurements having relative and/or non-absolute units, such as ticks, pixels, percentage of range of a sensor, and the like.).
Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the explicit object distance detection of Sinyavskiy in order to provide further means of determining the environment of the robot. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robotic system has as much information regarding its environment as possible.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy teaches the method of claim 63, and Saunders further teaches wherein determining the hazard information includes determining a proximity of the human to the mobile robot (0117, when a person 1220 is detected in the monitored zone 1214 and the person is moving towards the restricted zone 1212, the safety system of the mobile robot 1200 may cause operation of the robot to slow in anticipation of the person 1220 entering the restricted zone 1212).
Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the proximity determination of Saunders in order to provide further means of determining the operating environment of the robot. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robot is operated in as safe a manner as possible.
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy teaches the method of claim 34, and Saunders further teaches wherein reconfiguring the mobile robot includes reconfiguring the mobile robot based at least partially on the proximity of the human to the mobile robot being above a threshold (0117, when a person 1220 is detected in the monitored zone 1214 and the person is moving towards the restricted zone 1212, the safety system of the mobile robot 1200 may cause operation of the robot to slow in anticipation of the person 1220 entering the restricted zone 1212).
Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the proximity determination of Saunders in order to provide further means of determining the operating environment of the robot. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robot is operated in as safe a manner as possible.
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy teaches the method of claim 34, and Saunders further teaches wherein reconfiguring the mobile robot includes reconfiguring the mobile robot based at least partially on the proximity of the human to the mobile robot being below a threshold (0118, at the first time 1210a one or more operations of the robot 1300 may be slowed or stopped due to the proximity of the person to the robot 1200, however, even though at the second time 1310b the person is not detected, it may be important to prevent restart of the slowed/stopped robot because the person is still in close proximity to the robot 1300).
Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the proximity determination of Saunders in order to provide further means of determining the operating environment of the robot. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robot is operated in as safe a manner as possible.
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy teaches the method of claim 63, and Saunders further teaches wherein determining the hazard information includes determining a speed of the human (0089, amount of additional area of the safety field added to the uncertainty region 630 from the first frame to the second frames and a speed of an entity, e.g., a human, in the environment of the robot 600).
Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the speed determination of a human of Saunders in order to provide further means of determining the robot’s surroundings. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robot is operated as safely as possible.
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy teaches the method of claim 63, and Takahashi further teaches wherein decelerating the mobile robot includes moving a foot of the mobile robot into contact with a ground surface while another foot of the mobile robot is in contact with the ground surface (Col. 4, Line 49 - Col. 5, Line 29, if the result in step S112 is that the emergency stop signal is in the H level, control passes to step S116 in which a discrimination is made as to whether or not the robot's attitude is stable, attitude of the biped walking robot is particularly unstable during one-leg support period, in step S116, a discrimination is made as to whether or not the robot's center of gravity falls within the bottom of the supporting foot, if the determination is affirmative, control passes directly to step S118 in which walking or the robot motion is stopped, an if it is negative, control passes to step S120 in which the walking speed is reduced and control is then returned to step S116).
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy teaches the method of claim 63, and Takahashi further teaches wherein reconfiguring the mobile robot includes bending a knee joint of the mobile robot (Col. 5, Lines 44 - 58, Step S200 following S118 for putting the robot into an attitude such as squatting such that its center of gravity is lowered as shown in Fig. 9, and thus its stability is enhanced following emergency stop, squatting attitude is an example and any other attitude such as sitting, kneeling, or the like will be taken so as to lower the robot's center of gravity).
Regarding claim 49, the combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy teaches the method of claim 63, and Takahashi further teaches wherein reconfiguring the mobile robot includes crouching the mobile robot (Col. 5, Lines 44 - 58, Step S200 following S118 for putting the robot into an attitude such as squatting such that its center of gravity is lowered as shown in Fig. 9, and thus its stability is enhanced following emergency stop, squatting attitude is an example and any other attitude such as sitting, kneeling, or the like will be taken so as to lower the robot's center of gravity).
Regarding claim 52, the combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy teaches the method of claim 63, and Takahashi further teaches wherein reconfiguring the mobile robot includes kneeling the mobile robot (Col. 5, Lines 44 - 58, Step S200 following S118 for putting the robot into an attitude such as squatting such that its center of gravity is lowered as shown in Fig. 9, and thus its stability is enhanced following emergency stop, squatting attitude is an example and any other attitude such as sitting, kneeling, or the like will be taken so as to lower the robot's center of gravity).
Regarding claim 55, the combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy teaches the method of claim 63, and Takahashi further teaches wherein decelerating the mobile robot includes moving the mobile robot from an ambulating state to an standing state (Col. 5, Lines 11 - 29, in step 116, a discrimination is made as to whether or not the robot's center of gravity falls within the bottom of the supporting foot, whereby it is determined whether or not the robot will be able to maintain its attitude in the stopped state if the emergency stop is executed, if the result of the determination is affirmative, then the control passes directly to step S118 in which walking or the robot motion is stopped).
Claims 39, 40, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Takahashi in view of Saunders and Sinyavskiy.
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy teaches the method of claim 38, and Saunders further teaches wherein reconfiguring the mobile robot includes reconfiguring the mobile robot based at least partially on the speed of the human (0112, process 110 proceeds to act 1108, where a safe operating time limit and one or more operating parameters of the robot are determined based, at least in part, on the approach speed of an entity of concern).
Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the speed based reconfiguration of Saunders in order to provide further means of responding to the environment of the robot. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robot is capable of responding properly to its environment.
The combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the speed of the human is above a threshold.
The examiner asserts, however, that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention have the speed of the human be above a threshold because to do so amounts to mere design choice. Specifically, the examiner notes that Applicant’s specification does not indicate any specific advantage nor unexpected result to having the speed of the human be above a threshold.
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy teaches the method of claim 38, and Saunders further teaches wherein reconfiguring the mobile robot includes reconfiguring the mobile robot based at least partially on the speed of the human (0112, process 110 proceeds to act 1108, where a safe operating time limit and one or more operating parameters of the robot are determined based, at least in part, on the approach speed of an entity of concern).
Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the speed based reconfiguration of Saunders in order to provide further means of responding to the environment of the robot. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robot is capable of responding properly to its environment.
The combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the speed of the human is below a threshold.
The examiner asserts, however, that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention have the speed of the human be below a threshold because to do so amounts to mere design choice. Specifically, the examiner notes that Applicant’s specification does not indicate any specific advantage nor unexpected result to having the speed of the human be above a threshold.
Regarding claim 50, the combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy teaches the method of claim 63, and Takahashi further teaches wherein reconfiguring the mobile robot includes reducing a fault-state fall extent of the mobile robot (Col. 5, Lines 44 - 58, Step S200 following S118 for putting the robot into an attitude such as squatting such that its center of gravity is lowered as shown in Fig. 9, and thus its stability is enhanced following emergency stop, squatting attitude is an example and any other attitude such as sitting, kneeling, or the like will be taken so as to lower the robot's center of gravity, Examiner's note: the robot squatting would reduce the fall extent of the robot because it would necessarily reduce the distance that the robot could fall by reducing the overall height of the robot).
The combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the fault-state fall extent of the mobile robot is reduced by at least 50%.
The examiner asserts, however, that the fault-state fall extent being reduced by at least 50% would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, as choosing the specific reduction of “at least 50%” amounts to routine optimization. The examiner notes that there is both a design need (i.e., to reduce the fall extent of a robot) as well as a finite number of solutions (any % reduction between 0, i.e., no fall extent reduction, and 100, i.e., full fall extent reduction) and as such, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue any % reduction in fall extent (see at least MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B)).
Claims 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Saunders and Sinyavskiy, and further in view of Paulitsch (US 20220118621 A1), hereafter Paulitsch.
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy teaches the method of claim 63, and Saunders further teaches wherein determining the hazard information includes:
Gathering, via the computer system, sensor data on the environment (0103, in act 902, first sensor data captured by one or more sensors at a first time is received).
Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the environmental sensor data of Saunders in order to provide further means of determining the environment of the mobile robot. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robot is able to properly respond to its environment.
The combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy fails to teach, however:
Providing, via the computer system, the sensor data to a machine learning model; and
Receiving, via the computer system, the hazard information as an output from the machine-learning model.
Paulitsch, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach
Providing, via the computer system, the sensor data to a machine learning model (0050, the cognitive assistance services module 530 may analyze the sensor data and/or planned movement information with historical/trained data in the machine learning model); and
Receiving, via the computer system, the hazard information as an output from the machine-learning model (0051, based on received sensor data and the machine learning model, the cognitive assistance services module 530 may determine the expected position and/or trajectory of high risk objects that may impact the planned movement of robot 501).
Takahashi, Saunders, Sinyavskiy, and Paulitsch are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the machine learning model of Paulitsch in order to more accurately ascertain the state of a person in the environment. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robot operates safely in its environment.
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Takahashi, Saunders, Sinyavskiy, and Paulitsch teaches the method of claim 42, and Saunders further teaches wherein:
Receiving the hazard information includes receiving a state of the human (0117, when a person 1220 is detected in the monitored zone 1214 and the person is moving towards the restricted zone 1212, the safety system of the mobile robot 1200 may cause operation of the robot to slow in anticipation of the person 1220 entering the restricted zone 1212); and
Reconfiguring the mobile robot includes reconfiguring the mobile robot based at least partially on the state of the human (0117, when a person 1220 is detected in the monitored zone 1214 and the person is moving towards the restricted zone 1212, the safety system of the mobile robot 1200 may cause operation of the robot to slow in anticipation of the person 1220 entering the restricted zone 1212).
Saunders fails to teach, however, wherein the state of the human is the output from the machine learning model.
Paulitsch, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the state of the human is the output from the machine learning model (0051, based on received sensor data and the machine learning model, the cognitive assistance services module 530 may determine the expected position and/or trajectory of high risk objects that may impact the planned movement of robot 501).
Takahashi, Saunders, Sinyavskiy, and Paulitsch are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the hazard based reconfiguration of Saunders and the machine learning model of Paulitsch in order to both more accurately ascertain the state of a person in the environment and to better respond to the person in the environment. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robot operates safely in its environment.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Saunders, Sinyavskiy, and Paulitsch, and further in view of Cohen (US 10898999 B1), hereafter Cohen.
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Takahashi, Saunders, Sinyavskiy, and Paulitsch teaches the method of claim 43, but fails to teach wherein:
Gathering the sensor data includes gathering the sensor data on a gaze of the human; and
Providing the sensor data includes providing the sensor data on the gaze of the human to the machine-learning model.
Cohen, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach:
Gathering the sensor data includes gathering the sensor data on a gaze of the human (Col. 16, Lines 10-35, scores indicative of properties of the detected person are generated based on the sensor data 406, feature values indicative of the detected person's pose, eye gaze direction may be generated from the sensor data); and
Providing the sensor data includes providing the sensor data on the gaze of the human to the machine-learning model (Col. 16, Lines 10-35, the scores are processed using a machine learning model to obtain one or more outputs indicative of a likelihood of an action of the detected person 408).
Takahashi, Saunders, Sinyavskiy, Paulitsch, and Cohen are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the gaze detection and processing of Cohen in order to provide a means of determining a person’s intent. The motivation to combine is to allow the robotic control system to perform actions based on a potential action in order to minimize the likelihood of harm to a person in the robot’s environment.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Saunders and Sinyavskiy, and further in view of Gillett (US 20240181637 A1, having an effective filing date of 21 July 2022), hereafter Gillett.
Regarding claim 48, the combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy teaches the method of claim 63, but fails to teach wherein reconfiguring the mobile robot includes tilting a torso of the mobile robot anteriorly.
Gillett, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein reconfiguring the mobile robot includes tilting a torso of the mobile robot anteriorly (0141, modular fulcrum torso module 200 of the autonomous humanoid robot 100 offers autonomy for controlling maneuvers of the novel modular fulcrum spine to heterogeneous bend on the flexing at the upper portion 101, actuating waist module 11 providing multi-axis degree movement 113 to bend the upper portion 104 forward or backward, 0149, Fig. 8A, balancing 801 including bending upper portion forward or backward).
Takahashi, Saunders, Saunders, and Gillett are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the anterior torso tilt of Gillett in order to provide further means of stabilizing the robot. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robot remains stable after reconfiguration.
Claims 56 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Saunders and Sinyavskiy, and further in view of Scianca et al. ("A behavior-based framework for safe deployment of humanoid robots"), hereafter Scianca.
Regarding claim 56, the combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy teaches the method of claim 63, but fails to teach wherein:
The method further comprises selecting, by the computer system, a reconfiguration type among a plurality of candidate reconfiguration types based at least partially on the hazard information; and
Reconfiguring the mobile robot includes reconfiguring the mobile robot in accordance with the selected reconfiguration type.
Scianca, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach:
Selecting, by the computer system, a reconfiguration type among a plurality of candidate reconfiguration types based at least partially on the hazard information (Page 447, Cols. 1-2, Section 9.2, when an impending fall is detected, this behavior acts so as to minimize the potential damage to itself and/or the environment, choosing how to fall means assuming a proper configuration for reducing the effect of the impact with the floor); and
Reconfiguring the mobile robot includes reconfiguring the mobile robot in accordance with the selected reconfiguration type (Page 447, Cols. 1-2, Section 9.2, Fujiwara et al. presents a controller that limits the impact force, based on the idea of lowering the center of mass as soon as possible by crouching or knee-bending, Yasin et al. uses a similar approach to manage forward or backward falls, besides how to fall, it is also important to choose where to fall, Yun et al. introduces a controller which changes the fall direction in order to avoid specific objects or parts of the environment, this method was extended to multiple objects by Nagarajan and Goswami).
Takahashi, Saunders, Sinyavskiy, and Scianca are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the configuration choice based on the robot’s environment of Scianca in order to provide a means of properly configuring the robot in an emergency situation. The motivation to combine is to limit the effects of the robot’s reconfiguration on the environment.
Regarding claim 57, the combination of Takahashi, Saunders, and Sinyavskiy teaches the method of claim 63, but fails to teach wherein:
The method further comprises selecting, by the computer system, a reconfiguration type among a plurality of candidate reconfiguration types based at least partially on the clearance information; and
Reconfiguring the mobile robot includes reconfiguring the mobile robot in accordance with the selected reconfiguration type.
Scianca, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach:
Selecting, by the computer system, a reconfiguration type among a plurality of candidate reconfiguration types based at least partially on the clearance information (Page 447, Cols. 1-2, Section 9.2, when an impending fall is detected, this behavior acts so as to minimize the potential damage to itself and/or the environment, choosing how to fall means assuming a proper configuration for reducing the effect of the impact with the floor); and
Reconfiguring the mobile robot includes reconfiguring the mobile robot in accordance with the selected reconfiguration type (Page 447, Cols. 1-2, Section 9.2, Fujiwara et al. presents a controller that limits the impact force, based on the idea of lowering the center of mass as soon as possible by crouching or knee-bending, Yasin et al. uses a similar approach to manage forward or backward falls, besides how to fall, it is also important to choose where to fall, Yun et al. introduces a controller which changes the fall direction in order to avoid specific objects or parts of the environment, this method was extended to multiple objects by Nagarajan and Goswami).
Takahashi, Saunders, Sinyavskiy, and Scianca are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robot control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the configuration choice based on the robot’s environment of Scianca in order to provide a means of properly configuring the robot in an emergency situation. The motivation to combine is to limit the effects of the robot’s reconfiguration on the environment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/B.A.W./ /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 Examiner, Art Unit 3658