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
The amendment filed 8/11/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-20, and 22 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 2/10/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues against the teaching of Lundberg in terms of applicability to the newly amended limitation, particularly with regards to the new distinction that the speed is determined “during a real time process”. Applicant is thanked for clarifying the newly amended feature, but the arguments are not persuasive in terms of allowability in view of the combination of Vu ‘050 and Lundberg.
The teaching of Lundberg requires additional clarification, as Applicant identifies that Lundberg does not teach that the maximum allowable speed is a function of separation distance, robot parameters, and sensor parameters. This particular concept, which is similar to a limitation in previously recited claim 21, was shown to be taught by Vu ‘050. Of even greater significance, the new limitation of determining the maximum allowable speed during a real time process is also taught by Vu ‘050. The teaching of Lundberg is, as described in the rejection below, specifically directed towards the decomposition of a scalar speed value into three component directions.
Therefore, while Lundberg is not concerned with a real time process for updating speed restrictions, Vu ‘050 teaches a real time process for updating speed restrictions, and Lundberg serves primarily to expand on the known methods in the art for decomposing a speed restriction into individual axes of movement. In P [0067] Vu ‘050 makes explicit reference to aiming to improve known methods of “traditional axis- and rate-limitation applications”, the description of which is very reminiscent of the system of Lundberg. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Vu ‘050 with Lundberg to decompose the speed restriction of Vu ‘050, which is updated in real time, with a three dimensional vector as taught by Lundberg.
Ultimately, Applicant' s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the rationale being used in the current rejection.
Note again that although Vu ‘770 is not used in the current rejection, the original reference of Vu ‘050 will continue to be referred to as Vu ‘050 for consistency and clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-20, and 22 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation "the real time process" in regards to "a process" defined in the fourth to last limitation of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The process for determining a maximum allowable speed has not been previously defined as a "real time" process. In the interest of compact prosecution the claims will be understood to include this limitation as the Remarks similarly indicate.
Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-20, and 22 are similarly rejected for their dependency on a rejected independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vu et al., hereinafter Vu '050 (Document ID: US 20180222050 A1) in view of Lundberg (Document ID: WO2018192657A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Vu ‘050 teaches a method for determining and adjusting an allowable machine speed in a shared workspace including a machine and a human, the method comprising:
acquiring, via an analysis module (analysis module 342), a first set of three-dimensional data associated with a position of a human within the workspace and a second set of three-dimensional data associated with a position of a machine within the workspace (see at least P [0020] “a 3D representation of the workspace 100 is obtainable from images or other data obtained by the sensors 102.” See also FIG. 1 for an example of how the controller 108 processes a sample workspace with a human and machinery);
determining, via the analysis module, from a plurality of axes of movement one or more axes of movement for the machine along which movement of the machine decreases a separation distance between the human and the machine based on the first and second sets of three-dimensional data, wherein the plurality of axes of movement include three cartesian axes (see at least P [0069]: “SADM [is able] to project the robot's current state forward in time, project the intrusions toward the robot trajectory, and identify the nearest potential collision.” A ‘nearest potential collision’ would represent a direction of motion that would decrease the separation distance between the human and the machine. SADM is able to identify the robot’s velocity as a 3D vector, which necessarily includes the three cartesian directions for trajectory, see at least P [0069])
Vu ‘050 additionally teaches a safety protocol that includes a maximum allowable speed of the machine for each of the plurality of axes of movement for the machine based on the first and second sets of three-dimensional data in at least P [0068]: “modulate the robot's maximum velocity (by which is meant the velocity of the robot itself or any appendage thereof) proportionally to the minimum distance between any point on the robot and any point in the relevant set of sensed objects to be avoided”)
But Vu ‘050 does not explicitly teach that the maximum speed is represented with a three- dimensional vector (V3D), nor that
the safety protocol decreases the maximum allowable speed of the machine only along the one or more axes of movement for the machine along which movement of the machine decreases the separation distance between the human and the machine while maintaining the maximum allowable speed for the other axes of movement for which the separation distance between the human and the machine are determined to be maintained or increased.
However, the system of Vu ‘050 is capable of projecting its trajectory to a future instance in time, and is able to determine what directions of movement would decrease the separation distance between the human and the machine, and which directions increase or maintain the separation distance. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the maximum speed adjustment of Vu '050 with a specific coordinate system and axes of movement in order to allow “the robot [to] move more quickly away from an obstacle than toward it” (Vu ‘050 P [0069]).
Lundberg, whose invention pertains to controlling collaborative robots with special safety requirements, teaches the three-dimensional vector (V3D) in at least FIG. 1 and Page 13 Line 21 the use of a three axis coordinate system with X, Y, and Z directions. Lundberg also teaches the use of a 3D velocity vector in at least Page 15 Line 1 as “a continuously acting speed restriction Vmax”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the directional awareness and maximum speed adjustment of Vu '050 with the 3D maximum velocity vector of Lundberg in order to provide a detailed speed restriction where "the end effector assembly is moveable by the robot in a plurality of other directions that are not restricted by the speed restriction or speed restrictions", and allowing the end effector to be moved "efficiently in the working space" (Lundberg Page 6, Line 10). The improvement to efficiency by controlling individual directions separately is a relevant goal to both the systems of Vu ‘050 and Lundberg, as the robot’s motion is not overly constrained by applying speed restrictions in excessive directions.
Moreover, Vu ‘050 additionally teaches
communicating, via the analysis module, the safety protocol to a machine controller associated with the machine (see at least P [0025] wherein the system communication, including the analysis module, is described) and
But Vu ‘050 does not explicitly teach that
the safety protocol communicated to the machine controller includes a vector of six values in the form of V3D =[-V x ;-V y ;-V z ;+V x ;+V y ;+V z] representing the maximum allowable speed of the machine in both a positive and a negative direction for each of the three cartesian axes
Instead, Lundberg teaches a positional system using “coordinates… expressed as translations along X, Y, and Z as ±x, ±y, and ±z, respectively” on Page 13 Line 27. Similarly on Page 14 Line 4 a method is described for setting speed restrictions for each of the directions as necessary. See at least Page 15 Line 3 an example wherein a the velocity is limited only in the positive Z direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the directional awareness and maximum speed adjustment of Vu '050 with the 3D maximum velocity vector of Lundberg in order to provide a detailed speed restriction where "the end effector assembly is moveable by the robot in a plurality of other directions that are not restricted by the speed restriction or speed restrictions", and allowing the end effector to be moved "efficiently in the working space" (Lundberg Page 6, Line 10). The improvement to efficiency by controlling individual directions separately is a relevant goal to both the systems of Vu ‘050 and Lundberg, as the robot’s motion is not overly constrained by applying speed restrictions in excessive directions.
In view of the modification, Vu ‘050 then teaches
adjusting, via the machine controller, a movement speed of the machine based on the safety protocol, wherein the maximum allowable speed is determined during a “real time” process including (see at least P [0068]: “If any portion of the person P crosses the threshold of zone 508 but is still outside an interior danger zone 510, robot 504 is signaled to operate at a slower speed.” Note also that Vu ‘050 defines in P [0067] the process as conducted “in real time based on all sensed relevant objects and on the current state of robot 402”)
determining a scalar value of the maximum allowed speed as a function of separation distance, robot parameters, and sensor parameters (see least P [0068]: the creation of a “dynamic slowdown zone” as a function of separation distance, robot parameters and sensor parameters. In P [0069] it can be seen that the scalar value is determined in one embodiment “proportionally to the square root of the minimum distance”);
But Vu ‘050 does not explicitly teach
decomposing the scalar value of the maximum allowed speed into the three cartesian directions for determining positive and negative component vectors for each cartesian direction; and
Instead, Lundberg teaches a process starting on Page 14, line 4 for setting “a continuously acting speed restriction on the end effector assembly movements in the one direction.” See also FIG. 3 for clarification on decomposing the speed value for each direction as needed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the directional awareness and real time maximum speed adjustment of Vu '050 with the 3D maximum velocity vector of Lundberg in order to provide a detailed speed restriction where "the end effector assembly is moveable by the robot in a plurality of other directions that are not restricted by the speed restriction or speed restrictions", and allowing the end effector to be moved "efficiently in the working space" (Lundberg Page 6, Line 10). The improvement to efficiency by controlling individual directions separately is a relevant goal to both the systems of Vu ‘050 and Lundberg, as the robot’s motion is not overly constrained by applying speed restrictions in excessive directions.
Although neither Vu ‘050 nor Lundberg explicitly teach comparing each component vector of V3D in view of values currently stored in V3D and updating a component vector of V3D during the real time process if a lower speed is determined for the respective component vector, Vu ‘050 teaches refined techniques for real time velocity modulation with granular control in P [0069] and Lundberg teaches on Page 14 Line 4 a method for setting speed restrictions for each of the directions as necessary. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the directional awareness and real time maximum speed adjustment and 3D maximum velocity vector of Vu '050 and Lundberg with an update to each component of V3D during the real time process if a lower speed is determined for the respective component in order to modify a collaborative robot's speed only along the directions that increase risk for a collision, allowing for "more efficient, but still equally safe" operation as in Vu '050 P [0069].
Regarding claims 2 and 12, modified Vu ‘050 teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11, and Vu ‘050 further teaches
receiving, via the analysis module, one or more images from each of one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors are arranged to monitor the workspace, and wherein the one or more images include position information for the human in the workspace relative to a position of the respective sensor for each of the one or more sensors, and wherein the analysis module acquires the first set of three-dimensional data from the one or more images (see at least P [0020]: “The mode of operation of the sensors 102 is not critical so long as a 3D representation of the workspace 100 is obtainable from images or other data obtained by the sensors 102.” See also P [0068] discussion on how the person is tracked and mapped within the space)
Regarding claims 3 and 13, modified Vu ‘050 teaches the method of claim 2 and the system of claim 12, and Vu ‘050 further teaches that
the one or more images further include position information for the machine in the workspace relative to a position of the respective sensor for each of the one or more sensors, and wherein the analysis module acquires the second set of three-dimensional data from the one or more images (see again P [0020] for how the robot 106 or auxiliary equipment 110 is mapped in the space. See also P [0030] for a discussion of registration to machinery within the workspace by the sensors.)
Regarding claims 4 and 14, modified Vu ‘050 teaches the method of claim 2 and the system of claim 12, and Vu ‘050 further teaches that
the step of acquiring the second set of three-dimensional data associated with the machine includes communicating, via the analysis module, with the machine controller (see at least FIG. 4 wherein the robot controller is in communication with the sensors through the object monitoring system, wherein “the functions of OMS 410 are performed in a control system 112 by analysis module 342” [0056])
Regarding claims 5 and 15, modified Vu ‘050 teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11, and Vu ‘050 further teaches
determining, via the analysis module, a minimum separation distance between the human and the machine in the workspace based on the first set of three-dimensional data and the second set of three-dimensional data (see at least P [0054]: “protective separation distance is calculated using information including robot and human worker position and movement, robot stopping distance, measurement uncertainty, system latency and system control frequency”) and
comparing, via the analysis module, the minimum separation distance to a threshold distance, wherein the safety protocol further includes instructions to stop movement of the machine when the minimum separation distance is less than the threshold distance (see at least P [0054]: “When the calculated separation distance decreases to a value below the protective separation distance, the robot system is stopped.”)
Regarding claims 7 and 17, modified Vu ‘050 teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11, and Vu ‘050 further teaches that the step of determining the safety protocol further comprises:
determining, via the analysis module, a separation distance between the human and the machine in the workspace based on the first set of three-dimensional data and the second set of three-dimensional data (see at least P [0054]: “protective separation distance is calculated using information including robot and human worker position and movement, robot stopping distance, measurement uncertainty, system latency and system control frequency”)
determining, via the analysis module, a scalar value of the maximum allowable speed of the machine based in part on the separation distance (SADM is able to identify the robot’s max speed distinctly from the trajectory, see at least P [0069]) and
decomposing, via the analysis module, the maximum allowable speed into three cartesian directions based in part on the scalar value, wherein the plurality of axes of movement of the machine include the three cartesian directions (SADM is able to identify the robot’s velocity as a 3D vector, which necessarily includes the three cartesian directions for trajectory, see at least P [0069])
Regarding claims 8 and 18, modified Vu ‘050 teaches the method of claim 7 and the system of claim 17, and Vu ‘050 further teaches
updating, via the analysis module, the maximum allowable speed in the three cartesian directions based on a third set of three-dimensional data associated with the position of the human within the workspace and a fourth set of three-dimensional data associated with the position of the machine within the workspace, wherein the third and fourth sets of three-dimensional data are acquired at a subsequent time relative to the first and second sets of three-dimensional data (see at least P [0068] for a discussion of the speed zones found in FIG. 5 and the real time updates and predictive modeling of the robot and the human in the workspace)
Regarding claims 9 and 19, modified Vu ‘050 teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 18, and Vu ‘050 further teaches
measuring, via the machine controller, a movement speed of the machine along the plurality of axes of movement (see at least P [0073]: “run as usual, with a maximum velocity being sent over the interface,” implying that the movement speed is monitored during usual operation) and
comparing, via the machine controller, the measured movement speed with the corresponding maximum allowable speed in the safety protocol (see at least P [0074]: “SADM 425 may determine the expected speed and position of the robot if the robot is operating in accordance with the safe actions that have been communicated”)
Regarding claims 10 and 20, modified Vu ‘050 teaches the method of claim 9 and the system of claim 19, and Vu ‘050 further teaches
generating, via the machine controller, a stop signal for the robot if the measured movement speed exceeds the maximum allowable speed (see at least P [0074]: “If the robot's actions do not correspond to the expected actions, SADM 425 causes the robot to transition to a safe state, typically using an emergency stop signal.”)
Regarding claim 22, modified Vu ‘050 teaches the method of claim 1, and Vu ‘050 further teaches
the process of determining the maximum allowable speed is repeated until all combinations of human and robot points in the respective first and second sets of three-dimensional data have been computed by the analysis model, and wherein the safety protocol with the results is communicated to from the analysis module to the machine controller for implementation only after all combinations of human and robot points have been computed (see at least P [0069]: a repetition sequence is defined where “SADM 425 may consider all points reachable by robot 402 within a certain reaction time given its current joint positions and velocities, and cause control signals to be issued based on the minimum collision time among any of these states. Yet a further refinement is for SADM 425 to take into account the entire planned trajectory of the robot when making this calculation, rather than simply the instantaneous joint velocities.”).
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.
Additional art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document ID: CN113771031A
Invention pertains to a collaborative robot for adjusting movement speed in real time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dairon Estevez whose telephone number is (703)756-4552. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30AM - 4:00PM.
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 at (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.
/D.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights