Safety Guide Robot Path Planning for Human-AMR Coexistence

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional systems for robotics and autonomous environments require extensive safety monitoring or isolation of humans to prevent robot-human accidents, leading to increased costs and reduced efficiency due to the need for additional sensors and restricted access to autonomous environments when humans are present.

Innovation Solution

The implementation of Safety Guide Robots (SGRs) that accompany and guide humans through environments with autonomous mobile robots (AMRs), using sensors and communication to monitor and control AMR operations, ensuring human safety while maintaining operational efficiency by dynamically updating environment models and adjusting AMR paths.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If extensive safety monitoring and additional sensors are deployed to prevent robot-human accidents, then human safety is improved, but system cost and complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvehuman safetyVSAvoidsensor deployment
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

A safety guide robot is introduced as an intermediary agent between humans and autonomous mobile robots. The safety guide robot monitors the environment, detects AMRs, and guides humans through safe paths, thereby reducing the need for extensive sensors on each AMR while maintaining human safety. This mediator approach shifts the safety monitoring burden from multiple AMRs to a dedicated guide robot.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The safety guide robot autonomously performs safety monitoring and path planning functions without requiring extensive sensor deployment across the entire system. It independently detects AMRs, calculates safe paths, and guides humans, making the system self-sufficient in safety management while reducing overall complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

2Reliability

If humans are isolated from autonomous environments or restricted access is enforced, then human safety is improved, but operational efficiency decreases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvehuman safetyVSAvoidoperational efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The safety guide robot acts as a mediator that enables human presence in autonomous environments without compromising safety. By providing real-time path guidance and AMR detection, it allows humans to access restricted areas while maintaining safety, thereby improving operational efficiency without sacrificing human protection.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically adjusts safety measures based on real-time conditions. The safety guide robot continuously monitors the environment and updates path recommendations, allowing flexible human access to autonomous areas when safe, rather than enforcing static restrictions that reduce productivity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

3Reliability

If AMRs are shut down when humans enter the environment, then human safety is ensured, but productivity and operational efficiency are reduced

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvehuman safetyVSAvoidcontinuous operation
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The safety guide robot serves as an intermediary that enables coexistence between humans and AMRs in the same environment. By detecting AMRs and calculating safe paths around them, it allows both humans and AMRs to operate simultaneously without shutdowns, maintaining continuous productivity while ensuring human safety.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically coordinates human and AMR movements in real-time. The safety guide robot continuously updates path recommendations based on current AMR positions and human location, enabling safe simultaneous operation rather than static shutdown protocols that reduce productivity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

4Reliability

If trained workers accompany untrained workers or restricted access is enforced, then human safety is improved, but operational flexibility and ease of operation decrease

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvehuman safetyVSAvoidaccess flexibility
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The safety guide robot provides autonomous safety guidance to untrained workers without requiring accompaniment by trained workers. It independently detects hazards, calculates safe paths, and guides humans through the environment, making safety management self-service rather than requiring human supervision pairs, thereby improving access flexibility.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The safety guide robot acts as an intermediary safety assistant that replaces the need for trained worker accompaniment. It provides real-time path guidance and hazard detection, enabling untrained workers to access autonomous environments independently while maintaining safety, thus improving operational flexibility.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentEP4155860B1System and safety guide robot for accessing automated environments
Publication Date: 2025.01.15 INTEL CORP
  • EP4155860B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4155860B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4155860B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

Techniques are disclosed to facilitate path planning safety guiding robots (SGR) for safely navigating and guiding humans through autonomous environments having other autonomous agents such as stationary and/or mobile robots.