Robotic Assistant Teleoperation With Privacy and Geofencing

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

The efficient use of robotic assistants in various environments is hindered by the limitations of their operation, particularly in scenarios where direct owner control is not feasible, such as when the owner is not present.

Innovation Solution

A framework that enables robotic assistants to be remotely operated by teleoperations systems, utilizing a management system to assign suitable teleoperations systems and teleoperators to tasks, with features like geofencing and image blurring to ensure privacy and security, and data collection for autonomous training.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Extent of automation

If robotic assistants operate autonomously without remote control, then operational independence is improved, but ability to handle complex or unexpected tasks deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveoperational independenceVSAvoidability to handle complex tasks

Core Design Contradiction:

Extent of automationVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically adjusts the level of autonomy based on task complexity and environmental conditions. The robotic assistant can switch between autonomous operation for routine tasks and teleoperated mode for complex or unexpected situations, optimizing both operational independence and adaptability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

A management system acts as an intermediary between the robotic assistant and human teleoperators. This intermediary coordinates autonomous operations with available teleoperated support, allowing the robot to maintain operational independence while having access to human expertise when needed.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Reliability

If direct owner control is implemented, then security and privacy control are improved, but operational flexibility deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesecurity and privacy controlVSAvoidoperational flexibility

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

Different levels of control access are assigned to different users based on their needs and authorization. Owners have full control over security and privacy settings, while teleoperators have controlled access for task execution. This local differentiation of control quality maintains security while enabling operational flexibility.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The management system serves as an intermediary that mediates between owner control requirements and teleoperator operational needs. It implements privacy-related instructions and geofencing constraints while still allowing teleoperators to perform tasks, thus maintaining both security control and operational flexibility.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Ease of operation

If teleoperations systems are assigned to robotic assistants, then operational flexibility is improved, but system complexity deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveoperational flexibilityVSAvoidsystem complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The management system provides a universal platform that handles multiple functions: task assignment, teleoperator coordination, privacy instruction implementation, and geofencing management. This multi-functional approach consolidates complexity into a single system rather than requiring separate mechanisms for each function.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The system automatically matches teleoperators with robotic assistants based on task requirements and availability, and autonomously implements privacy constraints and geofencing parameters. This self-service capability reduces the burden of manual system configuration and management, offsetting the inherent complexity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

4Reliability

If privacy-related instructions and geofencing are implemented, then privacy protection is improved, but operational capability deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveprivacy protectionVSAvoidoperational capability

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

Privacy-related instructions and geofencing parameters are established in advance before teleoperation begins. These constraints are pre-configured by the owner and automatically enforced by the management system, allowing the robotic assistant to operate within privacy boundaries without real-time intervention, thus maintaining operational capability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The management system acts as an intermediary that translates privacy instructions and geofencing constraints into operational parameters for the robotic assistant. It mediates between privacy protection requirements and task execution needs, ensuring that privacy is maintained while operational capability is preserved within defined boundaries.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentUS12491639B2Framework for robotic assistants

Publication Date: 2025.12.09 NURO INC

AI summary

According to one aspect, a method includes obtaining a request to remotely operate a robotic assistant, the robotic assistant including at least one sensor configured to collect data associated with an environment around the robotic assistant. The method also includes identifying a first teleoperations system to remotely operate the robotic assistant in response to the request, the first teleoperations system being one of a plurality of teleoperations systems, and assigning the first teleoperations system to remotely operate the robotic assistant. At least one privacy-related instruction is implemented with respect to the first teleoperations system.