CTNF 19/110,116 CTNF 97476 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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/EP2023/081770 filed on 11/14/2023, which claims priority to DE10 2022 212 272.0 filed on 11/17/2022. Information Disclosure Statement 2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 03/10/2025 and 04/25/2025 are being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA 3. Claim 17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 17, the phrase “when at at least one time” should read “when at least one time” or similar language to remove the extra “at” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 5. Claim 20 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 20, the phrase “radii of two first circles corresponding to consecutive time points” is indefinite. It is unclear which radii of which “two first circles” applicant is referring to since there are multiple first circles with multiple radii. Additionally, the phrase “two second corresponding…” is unclear. It is unclear what “two second” is referring to. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted " two second corresponding…” " as “two second circles corresponding…”. 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 § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA 7. Claim s 13, 17-18, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xi et al. (US 20240210958, hereinafter Xi) . Regarding claim 13, Xi teaches a computer-implemented method for ascertaining a control signal of a robot (see at least Figs. 2-4) , the method comprising the following steps: obtaining a position and a movement direction of at least one object in an environment of the robot (see at least Figs. 2-3 and [0043]: “As shown in FIG. 2, in this example, world space W includes robot A, which may be an autonomous robot, and a set of obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5 which are subsets of the world space and form highly dynamic dense environment.”; [0044]: “Accordingly, In this example, robot A is modeled as a disc-shaped holonomic agent having p.sub.A, r.sub.A, and v.sub.A as its position, radius, and velocity, respectively, and each of obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5, which are either static or dynamic, are also modeled as disc-shaped agents having p.sub.B, r.sub.B, and v.sub.B as their positions, radii, and velocities, respectively, in which B is a variable representing the respective obstacle number and static obstacles are shown without a velocity. For robot A and a given obstacle B, the velocity obstacle VO.sub.B.sup.A(v.sub.B) is defined as the set of velocities for robot A that would result in a collision with B at time t≥T in which T is the present time, i.e., at some time in the future.”) ; ascertaining a first set of reachable positions of the object with respect to at least one physical model of a movement of the object and a set of time points, wherein the reachable positions of the first set of reachable positions are characterized by a set of first circles, and the first circles are each assigned to a time point from the set of time points (see at least Fig. 3A and [0044]: “Accordingly, In this example, robot A is modeled as a disc-shaped holonomic agent having p.sub.A, r.sub.A, and v.sub.A as its position, radius, and velocity, respectively, and each of obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5, which are either static or dynamic, are also modeled as disc-shaped agents having p.sub.B , r.sub.B, and v.sub.B as their positions, radii, and velocities, respectively, in which B is a variable representing the respective obstacle number and static obstacles are shown without a velocity. For robot A and a given obstacle B, the velocity obstacle VO.sub.B.sup.A(v.sub.B) is defined as the set of velocities for robot A that would result in a collision with B at time t≥T in which T is the present time, i.e., at some time in the future.”: [0045]: “Concisely, VO.sub.B.sup.A(v.sub.B) is a collision cone having an apex at v.sub.B as shown in FIG. 3A modeling relative positions and velocities of robot A and an obstacle B. In the modeling and while considering the size of obstacles, the radius of the obstacles is their original radius plus the radius of the robot such that in the final model, the robot is a point without sizes.”; [0047]: “A second physical constraint that will be imposed is a road speed limit imposed by the governing law for road vehicles which may be expressed by Eq. 4 as follows: [00004] PNG media_image1.png 52 268 media_image1.png Greyscale wherein x.sub.A and y.sub.A are the respective coordinates of the current location of robot A and V is maximum allowed speed (V.sub.max) for a given time step Δt. A third physical constraint that will be imposed is a maximum reachable acceleration while robot A is seeking a next motion to be made in which the maximum reachable acceleration is expressed by Eq. 5 as follows: [00005] PNG media_image2.png 40 228 media_image2.png Greyscale wherein x.sub.v and y.sub.v are the respective coordinates of the current velocity and a.sub.A is calculated based on a maximum acceleration of the robot a.sub.max as a.sub.A=½a.sub.max×Δt.sup.2.”) ; ascertaining a trajectory of the robot, wherein the trajectory is characterized by positions of the robot at time points from the set of time points, wherein each position is characterized by at least one second circle, which corresponds to the time point of the position (see at least Figs. 3A, 7A, 7B, and [0044]: “Accordingly, In this example, robot A is modeled as a disc-shaped holonomic agent having p.sub.A , r.sub.A, and v.sub.A as its position, radius, and velocity, respectively, and each of obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5, which are either static or dynamic, are also modeled as disc-shaped agents having p.sub.B, r.sub.B, and v.sub.B as their positions, radii, and velocities, respectively, in which B is a variable representing the respective obstacle number and static obstacles are shown without a velocity.”; [0062]: “In the first case, when the robot will collide with one obstacle, the subcases are as follows:”; [0063]: “Subcase-1) there are one or more potential velocities which are intersection point(s) of colliding obstacle collision cone and maximum reachable acceleration constraint:”; [0064]: “1-1) There is one potential reachable velocity (FIG. 7A): If this velocity is safe, this velocity will be considered as the next time step velocity. Otherwise, Subcase-2 will be considered in determining the next time step velocity.”; [0065]: “1-2) There are multiple potential reachable velocities (FIG. 7B): Firstly, any safe candidate(s) is considered. If there is one safe candidate, it will be considered as the next time step velocity. In the situation of having multiple safe potential velocities, firstly the degrees of deviation from the desired velocity toward each of these potential velocities are calculated and then, the next time step velocity is selected as the velocity with minimum deviation from the desired velocity. Otherwise, Subcase-2 will be considered in determining the next time step velocity.”; [0066]: “Subcase-2) There is no intersection point: If there is no potential velocity which is safe (FIG. 8), the speed will be reduced as much as possible in every time step until fully stop.”) ; ascertaining the control signal depending on whether, at a given time point, the second circle corresponding to the given time point intersects with the first circle corresponding to the given time point or touches the first circle corresponding to the given time point (see at least Fig. 3A, 5-11, and [0060]: “Referring now to the particular examples shown FIGS. 5A-11, a robot moving towards a goal designated by an asterisk is shown by the white circle, obstacles to the robot are shown by the gray circles, and the dashed cone shapes are velocity obstacles. In the case of colliding with a single obstacle, the potential motions of the robot are the intersection points of colliding obstacle collision cone and maximum reachable acceleration constraint (Eq. 5) (FIG. 5B). However, if the robot will collide with multiple obstacles, its potential motions are Set-1 corresponding to the intersection points of colliding obstacles collision cones (FIG. 6B) and Set-2 corresponding to the velocities on the common edges of maximum acceleration and maximum velocity constraints (FIG. 6C).”) . Regarding claim 17, Xi teaches the limitations of claim 13. Xi further teaches wherein the trajectory is changed and/or the control signal instructs the robot to carry out a safety maneuver, when at at least one time point, a second circle corresponding to the time point intersects with the first circle corresponding to the time point (see at least Fig. 3A-11, and [0046]: “To avoid obstacles safely, robot A should select a safe motion that avoids of velocity obstacle VO.sub.B.sup.A(v.sub.B). The selected motion should be from a set of reachable and feasible safe motions. Specifically, robot A should move along under certain conditions set by the environment, e.g., road rules, and set by mechanical characteristics of the robot. Where robot A is a simple car-like robot in which (x, y) is a given position of the robot and θ is a given orientation of the robot at time t, the kinematic constraints for navigating the robot are expressed by Eq. 2 as follows: PNG media_image3.png 97 203 media_image3.png Greyscale according to LaValle, S.M., Planning Algorithms, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2006, the entirety of the disclosure of which hereby being incorporated by reference, where θ(t) is the angle between the velocity of the robot and the horizontal axis at time t; v and φ are the controls of the robot, i.e., the speed and rotation angle, respectively, of the robot; and L is the distance between the front and rear wheels of the robot. An expression for the position of the robot at time t under the assumption that the controls remain constant can be calculated by integrating Eq. 2. Based on the controls of the robot, a first physical constraint that will be imposed is the rotation angle φ.”) . Regarding claim 18, Xi teaches the limitations of claim 13. Xi further teaches wherein the set of time points characterizes a period of time required by the robot for performing a safety maneuver (see at least Fig. 3A-11, and [0046]: “To avoid obstacles safely, robot A should select a safe motion that avoids of velocity obstacle VO.sub.B.sup.A(v.sub.B).”; [0055]: “Referring now to FIG. 4, upon initialization or at an arbitrary start time t.sub.0 at a starting step 100A of robot A, at step 101 of process 100 at time t.sub.i, robot A may seek the location and velocity of any obstacles in the sensing range of sensors of the robot, which may be but are not limited to being one or more Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensors to develop respective collision cones and/or collision cone boundaries relating to each of the identified obstacles, such as obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5 in the example of FIG. 2, and within the given physical constraints of the robot…Such desired velocity towards the goal destination of robot A may be based on the current position of the robot and the location of the goal destination, and must be reachable and safe.”; [0058]: “At step 116, robot A updates the location of the robot based on a global positioning unit attached to the robot or via a calculation of the new coordinates of the robot based on the immediately preceding location of the robot and the preceding velocity of the robot over the respective preceding time interval. At step 117 occurs at time t.sub.i+1, robot A determines if its goal has been reached and the current iteration is over. If robot A has reached its goal, at step 120, then robot motion planning and control process 100 ends. Otherwise, robot A again may seek the location and velocity of any obstacles in the sensing range of the robot at step 101 and the remainder of the steps of process 100 are repeated as appropriate for the given conditions at that time and that position and velocity of the robot.”) . Regarding claim 21, Xi teaches a control device (see at least Figs. 2-4) , wherein the control device is configured to: obtain a position and a movement direction of at least one object in an environment of a robot (see at least Figs. 2-3 and [0043]: “As shown in FIG. 2, in this example, world space W includes robot A, which may be an autonomous robot, and a set of obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5 which are subsets of the world space and form highly dynamic dense environment.”; [0044]: “Accordingly, In this example, robot A is modeled as a disc-shaped holonomic agent having p.sub.A, r.sub.A, and v.sub.A as its position, radius, and velocity, respectively, and each of obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5, which are either static or dynamic, are also modeled as disc-shaped agents having p.sub.B, r.sub.B, and v.sub.B as their positions, radii, and velocities, respectively, in which B is a variable representing the respective obstacle number and static obstacles are shown without a velocity. For robot A and a given obstacle B, the velocity obstacle VO.sub.B.sup.A(v.sub.B) is defined as the set of velocities for robot A that would result in a collision with B at time t≥T in which T is the present time, i.e., at some time in the future.”) ; ascertain a first set of reachable positions of the object with respect to at least one physical model of the movement of the object and a set of time points, wherein the reachable positions of the first set are characterized by a set of first circles, and the first circles are each assigned to a time point from the set of time points (see at least Fig. 3A and [0044]: “Accordingly, In this example, robot A is modeled as a disc-shaped holonomic agent having p.sub.A, r.sub.A, and v.sub.A as its position, radius, and velocity, respectively, and each of obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5, which are either static or dynamic, are also modeled as disc-shaped agents having p.sub.B , r.sub.B, and v.sub.B as their positions, radii, and velocities, respectively, in which B is a variable representing the respective obstacle number and static obstacles are shown without a velocity. For robot A and a given obstacle B, the velocity obstacle VO.sub.B.sup.A(v.sub.B) is defined as the set of velocities for robot A that would result in a collision with B at time t≥T in which T is the present time, i.e., at some time in the future.”: [0045]: “Concisely, VO.sub.B.sup.A(v.sub.B) is a collision cone having an apex at v.sub.B as shown in FIG. 3A modeling relative positions and velocities of robot A and an obstacle B. In the modeling and while considering the size of obstacles, the radius of the obstacles is their original radius plus the radius of the robot such that in the final model, the robot is a point without sizes.”; [0047]: “A second physical constraint that will be imposed is a road speed limit imposed by the governing law for road vehicles which may be expressed by Eq. 4 as follows: [00004] PNG media_image1.png 52 268 media_image1.png Greyscale wherein x.sub.A and y.sub.A are the respective coordinates of the current location of robot A and V is maximum allowed speed (V.sub.max) for a given time step Δt. A third physical constraint that will be imposed is a maximum reachable acceleration while robot A is seeking a next motion to be made in which the maximum reachable acceleration is expressed by Eq. 5 as follows: [00005] PNG media_image2.png 40 228 media_image2.png Greyscale wherein x.sub.v and y.sub.v are the respective coordinates of the current velocity and a.sub.A is calculated based on a maximum acceleration of the robot a.sub.max as a.sub.A=½a.sub.max×Δt.sup.2.”) ; ascertain a trajectory of the robot, wherein the trajectory is characterized by positions of the robot at time points from the set of time points, wherein each position is characterized by at least one second circle, which corresponds to the time point of the position (see at least Figs. 3A, 7A, 7B, and [0044]: “Accordingly, In this example, robot A is modeled as a disc-shaped holonomic agent having p.sub.A , r.sub.A, and v.sub.A as its position, radius, and velocity, respectively, and each of obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5, which are either static or dynamic, are also modeled as disc-shaped agents having p.sub.B, r.sub.B, and v.sub.B as their positions, radii, and velocities, respectively, in which B is a variable representing the respective obstacle number and static obstacles are shown without a velocity.”; [0062]: “In the first case, when the robot will collide with one obstacle, the subcases are as follows:”; [0063]: “Subcase-1) there are one or more potential velocities which are intersection point(s) of colliding obstacle collision cone and maximum reachable acceleration constraint:”; [0064]: “1-1) There is one potential reachable velocity (FIG. 7A): If this velocity is safe, this velocity will be considered as the next time step velocity. Otherwise, Subcase-2 will be considered in determining the next time step velocity.”; [0065]: “1-2) There are multiple potential reachable velocities (FIG. 7B): Firstly, any safe candidate(s) is considered. If there is one safe candidate, it will be considered as the next time step velocity. In the situation of having multiple safe potential velocities, firstly the degrees of deviation from the desired velocity toward each of these potential velocities are calculated and then, the next time step velocity is selected as the velocity with minimum deviation from the desired velocity. Otherwise, Subcase-2 will be considered in determining the next time step velocity.”; [0066]: “Subcase-2) There is no intersection point: If there is no potential velocity which is safe (FIG. 8), the speed will be reduced as much as possible in every time step until fully stop.”) ; ascertain the control signal depending on whether, at a given time point, the second circle corresponding to the given time point intersects with the first circle corresponding to the given time point or touches the first circle corresponding to the given time point (see at least Fig. 3A, 5-11, and [0060]: “Referring now to the particular examples shown FIGS. 5A-11, a robot moving towards a goal designated by an asterisk is shown by the white circle, obstacles to the robot are shown by the gray circles, and the dashed cone shapes are velocity obstacles. In the case of colliding with a single obstacle, the potential motions of the robot are the intersection points of colliding obstacle collision cone and maximum reachable acceleration constraint (Eq. 5) (FIG. 5B). However, if the robot will collide with multiple obstacles, its potential motions are Set-1 corresponding to the intersection points of colliding obstacles collision cones (FIG. 6B) and Set-2 corresponding to the velocities on the common edges of maximum acceleration and maximum velocity constraints (FIG. 6C).”) ; and control the robot in accordance with the control signal (see at least Fig. 4 and [0058]: “At step 116, robot A updates the location of the robot based on a global positioning unit attached to the robot or via a calculation of the new coordinates of the robot based on the immediately preceding location of the robot and the preceding velocity of the robot over the respective preceding time interval. At step 117 occurs at time t.sub.i+1, robot A determines if its goal has been reached and the current iteration is over. If robot A has reached its goal, at step 120, then robot motion planning and control process 100 ends”) . Regarding claim 22, Xi teaches a robot (see at least Figs. 2-4) , comprising: control device (see at least [0009]: “In accordance with an aspect of the disclosure, a robot motion planning and control process may be applied to a robot to avoid an ICS…Computations may be made via a microprocessor microcontroller applying an algorithm to generate reachability and safety indices.”) configured to: obtain a position and a movement direction of at least one object in an environment of the robot (see at least Figs. 2-3 and [0043]: “As shown in FIG. 2, in this example, world space W includes robot A, which may be an autonomous robot, and a set of obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5 which are subsets of the world space and form highly dynamic dense environment.”; [0044]: “Accordingly, In this example, robot A is modeled as a disc-shaped holonomic agent having p.sub.A, r.sub.A, and v.sub.A as its position, radius, and velocity, respectively, and each of obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5, which are either static or dynamic, are also modeled as disc-shaped agents having p.sub.B, r.sub.B, and v.sub.B as their positions, radii, and velocities, respectively, in which B is a variable representing the respective obstacle number and static obstacles are shown without a velocity. For robot A and a given obstacle B, the velocity obstacle VO.sub.B.sup.A(v.sub.B) is defined as the set of velocities for robot A that would result in a collision with B at time t≥T in which T is the present time, i.e., at some time in the future.”) ; ascertain a first set of reachable positions of the object with respect to at least one physical model of the movement of the object and a set of time points, wherein the reachable positions of the first set are characterized by a set of first circles, and the first circles are each assigned to a time point from the set of time points (see at least Fig. 3A and [0044]: “Accordingly, In this example, robot A is modeled as a disc-shaped holonomic agent having p.sub.A, r.sub.A, and v.sub.A as its position, radius, and velocity, respectively, and each of obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5, which are either static or dynamic, are also modeled as disc-shaped agents having p.sub.B , r.sub.B, and v.sub.B as their positions, radii, and velocities, respectively, in which B is a variable representing the respective obstacle number and static obstacles are shown without a velocity. For robot A and a given obstacle B, the velocity obstacle VO.sub.B.sup.A(v.sub.B) is defined as the set of velocities for robot A that would result in a collision with B at time t≥T in which T is the present time, i.e., at some time in the future.”: [0045]: “Concisely, VO.sub.B.sup.A(v.sub.B) is a collision cone having an apex at v.sub.B as shown in FIG. 3A modeling relative positions and velocities of robot A and an obstacle B. In the modeling and while considering the size of obstacles, the radius of the obstacles is their original radius plus the radius of the robot such that in the final model, the robot is a point without sizes.”; [0047]: “A second physical constraint that will be imposed is a road speed limit imposed by the governing law for road vehicles which may be expressed by Eq. 4 as follows: [00004] PNG media_image1.png 52 268 media_image1.png Greyscale wherein x.sub.A and y.sub.A are the respective coordinates of the current location of robot A and V is maximum allowed speed (V.sub.max) for a given time step Δt. A third physical constraint that will be imposed is a maximum reachable acceleration while robot A is seeking a next motion to be made in which the maximum reachable acceleration is expressed by Eq. 5 as follows: [00005] PNG media_image2.png 40 228 media_image2.png Greyscale wherein x.sub.v and y.sub.v are the respective coordinates of the current velocity and a.sub.A is calculated based on a maximum acceleration of the robot a.sub.max as a.sub.A=½a.sub.max×Δt.sup.2.”) ; ascertain a trajectory of the robot, wherein the trajectory is characterized by positions of the robot at time points from the set of time points, wherein each position is characterized by at least one second circle, which corresponds to the time point of the position (see at least Figs. 3A, 7A, 7B, and [0044]: “Accordingly, In this example, robot A is modeled as a disc-shaped holonomic agent having p.sub.A , r.sub.A, and v.sub.A as its position, radius, and velocity, respectively, and each of obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5, which are either static or dynamic, are also modeled as disc-shaped agents having p.sub.B, r.sub.B, and v.sub.B as their positions, radii, and velocities, respectively, in which B is a variable representing the respective obstacle number and static obstacles are shown without a velocity.”; [0062]: “In the first case, when the robot will collide with one obstacle, the subcases are as follows:”; [0063]: “Subcase-1) there are one or more potential velocities which are intersection point(s) of colliding obstacle collision cone and maximum reachable acceleration constraint:”; [0064]: “1-1) There is one potential reachable velocity (FIG. 7A): If this velocity is safe, this velocity will be considered as the next time step velocity. Otherwise, Subcase-2 will be considered in determining the next time step velocity.”; [0065]: “1-2) There are multiple potential reachable velocities (FIG. 7B): Firstly, any safe candidate(s) is considered. If there is one safe candidate, it will be considered as the next time step velocity. In the situation of having multiple safe potential velocities, firstly the degrees of deviation from the desired velocity toward each of these potential velocities are calculated and then, the next time step velocity is selected as the velocity with minimum deviation from the desired velocity. Otherwise, Subcase-2 will be considered in determining the next time step velocity.”; [0066]: “Subcase-2) There is no intersection point: If there is no potential velocity which is safe (FIG. 8), the speed will be reduced as much as possible in every time step until fully stop.”) ; ascertain the control signal depending on whether, at a given time point, the second circle corresponding to the given time point intersects with the first circle corresponding to the given time point or touches the first circle corresponding to the given time point (see at least Fig. 3A, 5-11, and [0060]: “Referring now to the particular examples shown FIGS. 5A-11, a robot moving towards a goal designated by an asterisk is shown by the white circle, obstacles to the robot are shown by the gray circles, and the dashed cone shapes are velocity obstacles. In the case of colliding with a single obstacle, the potential motions of the robot are the intersection points of colliding obstacle collision cone and maximum reachable acceleration constraint (Eq. 5) (FIG. 5B). However, if the robot will collide with multiple obstacles, its potential motions are Set-1 corresponding to the intersection points of colliding obstacles collision cones (FIG. 6B) and Set-2 corresponding to the velocities on the common edges of maximum acceleration and maximum velocity constraints (FIG. 6C).”) ; and control the robot in accordance with the control signal (see at least Fig. 4 and [0058]: “At step 116, robot A updates the location of the robot based on a global positioning unit attached to the robot or via a calculation of the new coordinates of the robot based on the immediately preceding location of the robot and the preceding velocity of the robot over the respective preceding time interval. At step 117 occurs at time t.sub.i+1, robot A determines if its goal has been reached and the current iteration is over. If robot A has reached its goal, at step 120, then robot motion planning and control process 100 ends”) . Regarding claim 23, Xi teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for ascertaining a control signal of a robot, the computer program, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to perform the following steps (see at least Figs. 2-4 and [0009]: “In accordance with an aspect of the disclosure, a robot motion planning and control process may be applied to a robot to avoid an ICS…Computations may be made via a microprocessor microcontroller applying an algorithm to generate reachability and safety indices.”) : obtaining a position and a movement direction of at least one object in an environment of the robot (see at least Figs. 2-3 and [0043]: “As shown in FIG. 2, in this example, world space W includes robot A, which may be an autonomous robot, and a set of obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5 which are subsets of the world space and form highly dynamic dense environment.”; [0044]: “Accordingly, In this example, robot A is modeled as a disc-shaped holonomic agent having p.sub.A, r.sub.A, and v.sub.A as its position, radius, and velocity, respectively, and each of obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5, which are either static or dynamic, are also modeled as disc-shaped agents having p.sub.B, r.sub.B, and v.sub.B as their positions, radii, and velocities, respectively, in which B is a variable representing the respective obstacle number and static obstacles are shown without a velocity. For robot A and a given obstacle B, the velocity obstacle VO.sub.B.sup.A(v.sub.B) is defined as the set of velocities for robot A that would result in a collision with B at time t≥T in which T is the present time, i.e., at some time in the future.”) ; ascertaining a first set of reachable positions of the object with respect to at least one physical model of the movement of the object and a set of time points, wherein the reachable positions of the first set are characterized by a set of first circles, and the first circles are each assigned to a time point from the set of time points (see at least Fig. 3A and [0044]: “Accordingly, In this example, robot A is modeled as a disc-shaped holonomic agent having p.sub.A, r.sub.A, and v.sub.A as its position, radius, and velocity, respectively, and each of obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5, which are either static or dynamic, are also modeled as disc-shaped agents having p.sub.B , r.sub.B, and v.sub.B as their positions, radii, and velocities, respectively, in which B is a variable representing the respective obstacle number and static obstacles are shown without a velocity. For robot A and a given obstacle B, the velocity obstacle VO.sub.B.sup.A(v.sub.B) is defined as the set of velocities for robot A that would result in a collision with B at time t≥T in which T is the present time, i.e., at some time in the future.”: [0045]: “Concisely, VO.sub.B.sup.A(v.sub.B) is a collision cone having an apex at v.sub.B as shown in FIG. 3A modeling relative positions and velocities of robot A and an obstacle B. In the modeling and while considering the size of obstacles, the radius of the obstacles is their original radius plus the radius of the robot such that in the final model, the robot is a point without sizes.”; [0047]: “A second physical constraint that will be imposed is a road speed limit imposed by the governing law for road vehicles which may be expressed by Eq. 4 as follows: [00004] PNG media_image1.png 52 268 media_image1.png Greyscale wherein x.sub.A and y.sub.A are the respective coordinates of the current location of robot A and V is maximum allowed speed (V.sub.max) for a given time step Δt. A third physical constraint that will be imposed is a maximum reachable acceleration while robot A is seeking a next motion to be made in which the maximum reachable acceleration is expressed by Eq. 5 as follows: [00005] PNG media_image2.png 40 228 media_image2.png Greyscale wherein x.sub.v and y.sub.v are the respective coordinates of the current velocity and a.sub.A is calculated based on a maximum acceleration of the robot a.sub.max as a.sub.A=½a.sub.max×Δt.sup.2.”) ; ascertaining a trajectory of the robot, wherein the trajectory is characterized by positions of the robot at time points from the set of time points, wherein each position is characterized by at least one second circle, which corresponds to the time point of the position (see at least Figs. 3A, 7A, 7B, and [0044]: “Accordingly, In this example, robot A is modeled as a disc-shaped holonomic agent having p.sub.A , r.sub.A, and v.sub.A as its position, radius, and velocity, respectively, and each of obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5, which are either static or dynamic, are also modeled as disc-shaped agents having p.sub.B, r.sub.B, and v.sub.B as their positions, radii, and velocities, respectively, in which B is a variable representing the respective obstacle number and static obstacles are shown without a velocity.”; [0062]: “In the first case, when the robot will collide with one obstacle, the subcases are as follows:”; [0063]: “Subcase-1) there are one or more potential velocities which are intersection point(s) of colliding obstacle collision cone and maximum reachable acceleration constraint:”; [0064]: “1-1) There is one potential reachable velocity (FIG. 7A): If this velocity is safe, this velocity will be considered as the next time step velocity. Otherwise, Subcase-2 will be considered in determining the next time step velocity.”; [0065]: “1-2) There are multiple potential reachable velocities (FIG. 7B): Firstly, any safe candidate(s) is considered. If there is one safe candidate, it will be considered as the next time step velocity. In the situation of having multiple safe potential velocities, firstly the degrees of deviation from the desired velocity toward each of these potential velocities are calculated and then, the next time step velocity is selected as the velocity with minimum deviation from the desired velocity. Otherwise, Subcase-2 will be considered in determining the next time step velocity.”; [0066]: “Subcase-2) There is no intersection point: If there is no potential velocity which is safe (FIG. 8), the speed will be reduced as much as possible in every time step until fully stop.”) ; and ascertaining the control signal depending on whether, at a given time point, the second circle corresponding to the given time point intersects with the first circle corresponding to the given time point or touches the first circle corresponding to the given time point (see at least Fig. 3A, 5-11, and [0060]: “Referring now to the particular examples shown FIGS. 5A-11, a robot moving towards a goal designated by an asterisk is shown by the white circle, obstacles to the robot are shown by the gray circles, and the dashed cone shapes are velocity obstacles. In the case of colliding with a single obstacle, the potential motions of the robot are the intersection points of colliding obstacle collision cone and maximum reachable acceleration constraint (Eq. 5) (FIG. 5B). However, if the robot will collide with multiple obstacles, its potential motions are Set-1 corresponding to the intersection points of colliding obstacles collision cones (FIG. 6B) and Set-2 corresponding to the velocities on the common edges of maximum acceleration and maximum velocity constraints (FIG. 6C).”) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 8. 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 9. Claim s 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi et al. (US 20240210958, hereinafter Xi) in view of Liu et al. (“Provably Safe Motion of Mobile Robots in Human Environments”, hereinafter Liu) . Regarding claim 14, Xi teaches the limitations of claim 13. Xi further teaches wherein at each time point from the set of time points, a plurality of first circles is ascertained, wherein each first circle of the plurality of first circles is ascertained based on a physical model of the movement of the object (see at least Fig. 2-3A, 5-11, and [0044]: “Accordingly, In this example, robot A is modeled as a disc-shaped holonomic agent having p.sub.A, r.sub.A, and v.sub.A as its position, radius, and velocity, respectively, and each of obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5, which are either static or dynamic, are also modeled as disc-shaped agents having p.sub.B, r.sub.B, and v.sub.B as their positions, radii, and velocities, respectively, in which B is a variable representing the respective obstacle number and static obstacles are shown without a velocity. For robot A and a given obstacle B, the velocity obstacle VO.sub.B.sup.A(v.sub.B) is defined as the set of velocities for robot A that would result in a collision with B at time t≥T in which T is the present time, i.e., at some time in the future.”: [0062]: “In the first case, when the robot will collide with one obstacle, the subcases are as follows:”; [0063]: “Subcase-1) there are one or more potential velocities which are intersection point(s) of colliding obstacle collision cone and maximum reachable acceleration constraint:”; [0064]: “1-1) There is one potential reachable velocity (FIG. 7A): If this velocity is safe, this velocity will be considered as the next time step velocity. Otherwise, Subcase-2 will be considered in determining the next time step velocity.”; [0065]: “1-2) There are multiple potential reachable velocities (FIG. 7B): Firstly, any safe candidate(s) is considered. If there is one safe candidate, it will be considered as the next time step velocity. In the situation of having multiple safe potential velocities, firstly the degrees of deviation from the desired velocity toward each of these potential velocities are calculated and then, the next time step velocity is selected as the velocity with minimum deviation from the desired velocity. Otherwise, Subcase-2 will be considered in determining the next time step velocity.”; [0066]: “Subcase-2) There is no intersection point: If there is no potential velocity which is safe (FIG. 8), the speed will be reduced as much as possible in every time step until fully stop.”) , and the control signal is ascertained depending on whether the second circle corresponding to a respective time point of the set of time points intersects with all first circles of the plurality of circles ascertained for the respective time point (see at least Fig. 3A, 5-11, and [0060]: “Referring now to the particular examples shown FIGS. 5A-11, a robot moving towards a goal designated by an asterisk is shown by the white circle, obstacles to the robot are shown by the gray circles, and the dashed cone shapes are velocity obstacles. In the case of colliding with a single obstacle, the potential motions of the robot are the intersection points of colliding obstacle collision cone and maximum reachable acceleration constraint (Eq. 5) (FIG. 5B). However, if the robot will collide with multiple obstacles, its potential motions are Set-1 corresponding to the intersection points of colliding obstacles collision cones (FIG. 6B) and Set-2 corresponding to the velocities on the common edges of maximum acceleration and maximum velocity constraints (FIG. 6C).”) . Xi fails to explicitly teach a plurality of physical models of the movement of the object. However, Liu teaches a method and system for verifying the safety of robot motions that comprise ascertaining a plurality of first circles based on a physical model of a plurality of physical models of a movement of an object (see at least Figs. 1-2 and page 1352: “We model a single pedestrian as a point on a two dimensional plane. The shape of the pedestrian is then taken into account after the reachable set computation by enlarging the reachable sets accordingly...Therefore, we define the following two models. The acceleration-constrained model PNG media_image4.png 66 430 media_image4.png Greyscale has the two-dimensional position p and velocity v as its state variables. The input trajectory is a time-invariant set representing all possible two-dimensional accelerations and bounded by amax. The velocity-constrained model PNG media_image5.png 68 408 media_image5.png Greyscale has only the two-dimensional position p as its state variables, while the velocity v is instead an input bounded by vmax.”; page 1353: “Fig. 2: Reachable sets according to the acceleration constrained (left) and velocity-constrained (right) model.”) . 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 Xi to incorporate the teachings of Liu and provide means to ascertain a plurality of first circles based on a physical model of a plurality of physical models of a movement of an object, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the selection from multiple models and have more options when making a determination. Regarding claim 15, Xi teaches the limitations of claim 13. Xi further teaches wherein each position of the robot along the trajectory is characterized by a second circle (see at least Figs. 3A, 7A, 7B, and [0044]: “Accordingly, In this example, robot A is modeled as a disc-shaped holonomic agent having p.sub.A, r.sub.A, and v.sub.A as its position, radius, and velocity, respectively, and each of obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5, which are either static or dynamic, are also modeled as disc-shaped agents having p.sub.B, r.sub.B, and v.sub.B as their positions, radii, and velocities, respectively, in which B is a variable representing the respective obstacle number and static obstacles are shown without a velocity.”) . Xi fails to explicitly teach using a plurality of circles to characterized a position. However, Liu teaches a method and system for verifying the safety of robot motions that utilizes a plurality of circles to characterized a position (see at least Figs. 1-2 and 1351: “Specifically, we compute so-called reachable sets that include all possible future occupancies of pedestrians and the robot based on their kinematic models. Based on these sets, we consider a velocity command as verified safe if the robot can stop before entering the reachable set of any pedestrian, i.e., no collision can occur before the robot stops (passive safety [6]). From the example reachable sets shown on the right side of Fig. 1 it is immediately obvious that they leave much more maneuvering space compared to the static approach on the left.”; page 1353: “In the same fashion as for the reachable sets of the pedestrians, we add the shape of the robot to the (px; py)-dimensions of all Rrob(t).”) . 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 Xi to incorporate the teachings of Liu and provide means to use a plurality of circles to characterized a position, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to utilize multiple circles to describe the data to help enhance decision making. Regarding claim 16, Xi teaches the limitations of claim 15. Xi further teaches wherein the control signal is ascertained depending on whether at a given time point from the set of time points, at least one second circle corresponding to the given time point intersects with the first circle corresponding to the given time point (see at least Fig. 3A, 5-11, and [0060]: “Referring now to the particular examples shown FIGS. 5A-11, a robot moving towards a goal designated by an asterisk is shown by the white circle, obstacles to the robot are shown by the gray circles, and the dashed cone shapes are velocity obstacles. In the case of colliding with a single obstacle, the potential motions of the robot are the intersection points of colliding obstacle collision cone and maximum reachable acceleration constraint (Eq. 5) (FIG. 5B). However, if the robot will collide with multiple obstacles, its potential motions are Set-1 corresponding to the intersection points of colliding obstacles collision cones (FIG. 6B) and Set-2 corresponding to the velocities on the common edges of maximum acceleration and maximum velocity constraints (FIG. 6C).”) . Xi fails to explicitly teach a plurality of second circles corresponding to data points. However, Liu teaches a method and system for verifying the safety of robot motions that comprises a plurality of second circles corresponding to data points (see at least Figs. 1-2 and 1351: “Specifically, we compute so-called reachable sets that include all possible future occupancies of pedestrians and the robot based on their kinematic models. Based on these sets, we consider a velocity command as verified safe if the robot can stop before entering the reachable set of any pedestrian, i.e., no collision can occur before the robot stops (passive safety [6]). From the example reachable sets shown on the right side of Fig. 1 it is immediately obvious that they leave much more maneuvering space compared to the static approach on the left.”; page 1353: “In the same fashion as for the reachable sets of the pedestrians, we add the shape of the robot to the (px; py)-dimensions of all Rrob(t).”) . 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 Xi to incorporate the teachings of Liu and provide a plurality of second circles corresponding to data points, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to utilize multiple circles to describe the data to help enhance decision making . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-21-aia AIA 10. Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi et al. (US 20240210958, hereinafter Xi) in view of Tahir et al. (US 20190361452, hereinafter Tahir) . Regarding claim 19, Xi teaches the limitations of claim 13. Xi fails to explicitly teach wherein each first circle and/or each second circle characterizes an uncertainty with respect to the position of the object or the position of the robot. However, Tahir teaches a method and system for controlling a vehicle wherein each first circle and/or each second circle characterizes an uncertainty with respect to a position of the object or a position of a robot (see at least Figs. 1-3 and [0052]: “Representation of the obstacle and/or the vehicle may include uncertainty related to one or more aspects of its identity, dimensional characteristics or motion. The uncertainty is preferably represented by a separate parameter that describes the uncertainty in term relative to one or more of the characteristics or aspects of motion of the obstacle.”) . 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 Xi to incorporate the teachings of Tahir and provide means wherein each first circle and/or each second circle characterizes an uncertainty with respect to a position of the object or a position of a robot, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to take into consideration any uncertainly when making a determination . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-21-aia AIA 11. Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi et al. (US 20240210958, hereinafter Xi) in view of Bhattacharyya et al. (US 20220219325, hereinafter Bhattacharyya) . Regarding claim 20, Xi teaches the limitations of claim 13. Xi further teaches wherein radii of two first circles corresponding to time points, and/or two second corresponding to time points are selected such that the corresponding first and second circles touch or intersect (see at least Figs. 2-3A, 4-11, and [0044]: “Accordingly, In this example, robot A is modeled as a disc-shaped holonomic agent having p.sub.A, r.sub.A, and v.sub.A as its position, radius, and velocity, respectively, and each of obstacles O.sub.1-O.sub.5, which are either static or dynamic, are also modeled as disc-shaped agents having p.sub.B, r.sub.B, and v.sub.B as their positions, radii, and velocities, respectively, in which B is a variable representing the respective obstacle number and static obstacles are shown without a velocity. For robot A and a given obstacle B, the velocity obstacle VO.sub.B.sup.A(v.sub.B) is defined as the set of velocities for robot A that would result in a collision with B at time t≥T in which T is the present time, i.e., at some time in the future.”; [0057]: “If robot A determines that there will be a collision with multiple obstacles, then at step 109, robot A may calculate, e.g., via a microprocessor or microcontroller, intersection points of the developed collision cone boundaries of the identified obstacles to determine a set of potentially acceptable new velocities NewV.sub.i, and at step 110, the robot may determine, via a microprocessor or microcontroller, whether any of the determined potentially acceptable new velocities NewV.sub.i are both safe and reachable by the robot by calculating safety and reachability indices”) . Xi fails to explicitly teach consecutive time points are utilized in making a selection. However, Bhattacharyya teaches a method and apparatus for collision avoidance between a robot and an object that utilizes consecutive time points to model motion of objects (see at least [0074]: “At step 706 of the method (700), estimating the future position of the dynamic object based on the geo centric representation using the motion model.”; [0076]: “Let, [0077] (x.sub.t, y.sub.t)=Centre of the obstacle in 2D space at time t”; [0078]: “θ.sub.t=Angular orientation of the obstacle in 2D space.”; [0079]: “D=Eucledian distance between the two obstacle centers in 2 consecutive time-stamps”; [0080]: “T=Angular displacement between two obstacle orientations in 2 consecutive time-stamps”; [0081]: “r.sub.0=Actual radius of the obstacle in a 2D space at initiation”; [0082]: “r.sub.t+1=Diminished radius of the obstacle at time t+1”; [0083]: “n=Number of diminishing time-stamps (typical value=5).”; [0085]: “M (x.sub.t, y.sub.t, r.sub.t)=Predicted future position of obstacle with diminishing radius at time-stamp t.”; [0086]: “Hence the occupancy of the obstacle as a function of time on the predicted future trajectory can be modeled as: Σ.sub.t=0.sup.n-1 M(x.sub.t, y.sub.t, r.sub.t).”) . 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 Xi to incorporate the teachings of Bhattacharyya and provide a means for utilizing consecutive time points when making a selection, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to see any trends associated with the consecutive data points . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Henke et al. (US 20220379917) teaches a method and system for evaluating autonomous vehicle safety based on occupying points of a trajectory in space time while avoiding collision with an object in an environment. Kario et al. (US 20220371583) teaches a method and system for autonomous vehicle navigation that estimates a collision between a host vehicle and an incoming vehicle using boundaries or radial approximations between the host vehicle and incoming vehicle. 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 Application/Control Number: 19/110,116 Page 2 Art Unit: 3656 Application/Control Number: 19/110,116 Page 3 Art Unit: 3656
Prosecution Insights