DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
Status of Claims
Claims 1-23 of U.S. Application No. 19/189018 filed on 04/24/2025 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 –
(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.
Claim 1-3, 9, 10, 13, 14, 20 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tessier et al. [FR 3048406 A1], hereinafter referred to as Tessier.
As to Claim 1 and 13, Tessier discloses a robot capable of autonomous motion responsive to contactless pushing by a leader, the robot being a self-powered vehicle ([see at least 0001 and Fig 1B]) comprising: a motorized drive ([see at least 0036]); a controller coupled to the motorized drive ([see at least 0044]); and a set of sensors coupled to the controller, so as to support autonomous motion of the vehicle ([see at least 0038]); wherein the controller is configured to: sense, based on a set of signals from the set of sensors, movement of the leader in a leader trajectory ([see at least 0047]); and operate the motorized drive so as to move the vehicle, based on the leader trajectory, in a manner wherein the vehicle is positioned substantially in front of the leader ([see at least 0048]).
As to Claim 2 and 13, Tessier discloses a robot, wherein the controller is further configured to operate the motorized drive in a manner so as to achieve and maintain a separation distance of the vehicle in front of the leader ([see at least 0048]).
As to Claim 3 and 14, Tessier discloses a robot, wherein the controller is further configured to operate the motorized drive so as to maintain the separation distance as a function of a linear velocity of the leader in a direction toward the vehicle ([see at least 0048]).
As to Claim 9 and 20, Tessier discloses a robot, wherein: the controller is further configured to determine presence of a rotational condition in which (i) the leader trajectory includes a component that is transverse to a line segment between the leader and the vehicle, so that there is angular motion of the leader, relative to the vehicle, and (ii) the angular motion of the leader is at an angular speed exceeding a threshold; and under the rotational condition, the controller is further configured to operate the motorized drive to rotate the vehicle about a rotational axis so as to be aimed in a direction defined by the line segment ([see at least Fig. 2, Fig.3 and 0049]).
As to Claim 10 and 21, Tessier discloses a robot, wherein the controller is further configured to operate the motorized drive to rotate the vehicle about the rotational axis with a rotational speed based on the angular speed of the leader ([see at least Fig. 2, Fig.3 and 0049]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5, 8, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tessier et al. [FR 3048406 A1], hereinafter referred to as Tessier, in view of Kuno [US 2019/0064838 A1], hereinafter referred to as Kuno.
As to claims 5, Tessier discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Tessier does not explicitly disclose, wherein the controller is further configured to operate the motorized drive to maintain the separation distance in a set of tiers as a function of the linear velocity of the leader in a direction toward the vehicle, wherein the separation distance is maintained at distance d1 when the linear velocity of the leader in a direction toward the vehicle exceeds a first threshold linear velocity v1 above zero and at a distance d2, d2 < d1, when the linear velocity of the leader in a direction toward the vehicle exceeds a second threshold velocity v2, v2 > v1. However Kuno discloses, wherein the controller is further configured to operate the motorized drive to maintain the separation distance in a set of tiers as a function of the linear velocity of the leader in a direction toward the vehicle, wherein the separation distance is maintained at distance d1 when the linear velocity of the leader in a direction toward the vehicle exceeds a first threshold linear velocity v1 above zero and at a distance d2, d2 < d1, when the linear velocity of the leader in a direction toward the vehicle exceeds a second threshold velocity v2, v2 > v1 ([see at least 0081], “On the other hand, during the period of starting to walk, in a case that it continues the state in which the third predetermined value is added to the moving speed, the distance between the moving body 10 and the user 20 exceeds the distance L to be secured (FIG. 7(f)). That is, the moving body 10 becomes too far away from the user 20. Thus, in a case that the user 20 is in the walking state and the distance between the user 20 and the moving body 10 exceeds the distance L to be secured (S11: Yes), the moving speed of the moving body 10 is subtracted by the first predetermined value (S12). Walking speed of the user 20 does not change. Thereby, the distance between the moving body 10 and the user 20 gets smaller little by little. Therefore, the moving body 10 can be brought closer to the position of the distance L to be secured against the user 20 and the moving body 10 can be smoothly followed in front of the user 20 while substantially retaining the distance L to be secured. Here, as the first predetermined value, for example, it can be exemplified a value inversely calculated from deceleration according to which the moving body 10 is stopped after 0.5 seconds.”). Both Tessier and Kuno illustrate similar methods in manage and control robot. Kuno teaches maintain the separation distance in a set of tiers as a function of the linear velocity of the leader in a direction toward the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified Tessier so as to include maintain the separation distance in a set of tiers as a function of the linear velocity of the leader in a direction toward the vehicle of Kuno. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that dynamic routing is based upon customer holiday usage of collection services in Kuno, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Tessier and Kuno because user detection means detects the walking of the user in a case that the differential value of position deviation of the torso and the leg of the user exceeds a predetermined second threshold value for a predetermined period. Therefore, there is an effect that it can be exactly detected the walking state of the user and movement of the moving body in the walking state of the user can be smoothly conducted [0018].
As to Claim 8 and 19, Tessier discloses a robot, wherein the controller is further configured to operate the motorized drive to stop movement of the vehicle under a condition in which the linear velocity of the leader in a direction toward the vehicle has just fallen below v1 ([see at least 0081], “On the other hand, during the period of starting to walk, in a case that it continues the state in which the third predetermined value is added to the moving speed, the distance between the moving body 10 and the user 20 exceeds the distance L to be secured (FIG. 7(f)). That is, the moving body 10 becomes too far away from the user 20. Thus, in a case that the user 20 is in the walking state and the distance between the user 20 and the moving body 10 exceeds the distance L to be secured (S11: Yes), the moving speed of the moving body 10 is subtracted by the first predetermined value (S12). Walking speed of the user 20 does not change. Thereby, the distance between the moving body 10 and the user 20 gets smaller little by little. Therefore, the moving body 10 can be brought closer to the position of the distance L to be secured against the user 20 and the moving body 10 can be smoothly followed in front of the user 20 while substantially retaining the distance L to be secured. Here, as the first predetermined value, for example, it can be exemplified a value inversely calculated from deceleration according to which the moving body 10 is stopped after 0.5 seconds.”)
Claims 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tessier in view of Kuno, in view of official notice.
As to claims 4 and 15,Tessier in view of Kuno discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Tessier in view of Kuno does not explicitly disclose wherein the separation distance is maintained at distance d1 when the linear velocity of the leader in a direction toward the vehicle exceeds a first threshold linear velocity v1 above zero, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made define of minimum detected velocity for activating the push mode operation of the robot, well known in the art for avoiding unintended activation of the system by small inadvertent movements of the operator.
As to claims 6 and 17,Tessier in view of Kuno discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Tessier in view of Kuno does not explicitly disclose wherein v1 is about 0.2 m/s, v2 is about 0.6 m/s, d1 is about 900 mm, and d2 is about 700 mm, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to define conventional values for the separation distances, the operator velocities and the deceleration rate, well known in the art these value lie within the usual range that the skilled person would consider for a robot following a walking human.
As to claims 7 and 8,Tessier in view of Kuno discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Tessier in view of Kuno does not explicitly disclose controller is further configured to operate the motorized drive to decrease the separation distance from d1 to d2 at a rate between about 10 and 100 mm/s, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to define conventional values for the separation distances, the operator velocities and the deceleration rate, well known in the art these value lie within the usual range that the skilled person would consider for a robot following a walking human.
As to claims 11 and 12,Tessier in view of Kuno discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Tessier in view of Kuno does not explicitly disclose wherein under the rotational condition the controller is further configured to determine angular acceleration of the leader and to operate the motorized drive to rotate the robot about the rotational axis with an angular acceleration based on the determined angular acceleration of the leader, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to define the operation of the robot with an angular acceleration that is based on and bigger than a determined angular acceleration of the operator, well known in the art these features are required in order to achieve a quick reaction of the robot to a change of course of the operator.
As to claims 12 and 23,Tessier in view of Kuno discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Tessier in view of Kuno does not explicitly disclose controller is further configured to operate the motorized drive to rotate the robot about the rotational axis with an angular acceleration that is at least 1.5 times the determined angular acceleration of the leader., however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to define the operation of the robot with an angular acceleration that is based on and bigger than a determined angular acceleration of the operator, well known in the art these features are required in order to achieve a quick reaction of the robot to a change of course of the operator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAZAN A SOOFI whose telephone number is (469)295-9189. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex schedule.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached on 572-272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YAZAN A SOOFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights