DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12, 14 and 16-18 are presented for examination.
Claims 1, 17, and 18 have been amended.
Claim 15 has been cancelled.
This office action is in response to the amendment submitted on 28-Jan-2026.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed Application No. EP21162021.6, filed on 03/11/2021.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29-AUG-2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC 101
On pgs. 6-9 of the Applicant/Arguments Remarks (hereinafter ‘Remarks’), Applicant argues the amended claims have overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 101 rejection have been considered, and are not persuasive. The rejection under 101 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC 102
On pgs. 9-11 of the Applicant/Arguments Remarks (hereinafter ‘Remarks’), Applicant argues the amended claims have overcome the rejection under 35 USC 102.
The examiner, without conceding the arguments, has withdrawn the rejection under 35 USC 102. However, upon further consideration, new rejection grounds have been found as presented in the 35 USC 103 rejection below.
Moreover, the examiner comments on the applicant’s argument on page 10 that “Cartesian pose discrepancies are not the same as error values of the respective axes”.
The examiner points to Oleynik’s [0501] “Before any execution of minimanipulation/action primitive, system should check status of environment. In case of no changes, the system will get jointspace trajectory associated with given minimanipulation/action primitive and execute it. In case of changed environment, the calibration procedure should be performed with measuring the actual positions of placements and objects in the kitchen and then providing this data to the system. After this, joint values in joint state trajectory will modified based on updated environment state in order to shift joints and get new robot joint configuration for the whole trajectory along with usage of additional joints for compensation of the movement in all axes (x-y-z) including rotational movements around each axis and then executed.”
Oleynik explicitly compensates for the errors at the axis level. Using a Cartesian system to calculate the error is a standard method of measurement. The difference between the new and old joint states based on the compensation is the error value.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejection have been considered, and accordingly, the rejection under 102 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-12, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oleynik (US20210069910A1) in view of Beck et al. (US20220184810A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Oleynik teaches a method for setting up a safe operation of a multi-axis kinematic system, wherein the safe operation comprises a safety function (Fig 2B and Fig 2C show the safety function and its interaction with the operation of the kinematic system. “[0008] FIG. 2B is a flow diagram illustrating robotic task-execution via one or more minimanipulation library data sets to execute recipes … in a collaborative mode with a safety function.” Fig 3C shows a sample kinematic setup with multiple axes).
Configuring the multi-axis kinematic system prior to operation thereof, the configuration comprising: ([0500] “Before any execution of minimanipulation/action primitive, system should check status of environment. In case of no changes, the system will get cartesian trajectory associated with given minimanipulation/action primitive and plan it. In case of changed environment, the calibration procedure should be performed with measuring the actual state of the system (such as positions of placements and objects in the kitchen) using multiple sensors and then providing this data to the system. After this, cartesian trajectory will be re-planned based on updated environment state. The output from planning is joint state trajectory which can be saved as a new version for current or changed environment. After this, joint state trajectory can be executed.”)
Providing, error values of respective axes of the multi-axis kinematic system: ([0272] “FIG. 16B depicts calibration of the robot automatic error tracking procedure, this time there is a planned position and orientation shift. The robot is approaching a certain cartesian point in space 108, (X Y Z; R P Y) and physical reference acquired by the probe 86 is saved” [0328] “FIG. 64A is a flow diagram illustrating the repositioning a robotic apparatus by using actuators for compensating the difference of an environment in accordance with the present disclosure; FIG. 64B is a flow diagram illustrating the recalculation each robotic apparatus joint state for trajectory execution with x-y-z and rotational axes for compensating the difference of an environment in accordance with the present disclosure;” Also see [0500] where the calibration/configuration is described in detail pre-operation).
ascertaining a compensation value for at least one variable of the safety function on the basis of the error values, on the basis of geometric parameters of the multi-axis kinematic system and on the basis of axis values of the respective axes that are obtained from trajectories of the multi-axis kinematic system. ([0328] “FIG. 64A is a flow diagram illustrating the repositioning a robotic apparatus by using actuators for compensating the difference of an environment... FIG. 64B is a flow diagram illustrating the recalculation each robotic apparatus joint state for trajectory execution with x-y-z and rotational axes for compensating the difference of an environment in accordance with the present disclosure.” [0139] “system calibration service: identifies and calculates calibration variables for given physical model, checks, validates and corrects kitchen virtual world model based on provided calibration data”
Figs 64A, 64B, 64C illustrate the error calibration under different scenarios including compensating for multi-axis trajectories).
PNG
media_image1.png
559
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Storing the ascertained compensation value in association with one or more trajectories or attitudes of the multi-axis kinematic system ([0272] “FIG. 16B depicts calibration of the robot automatic error tracking procedure, this time there is a planned position and orientation shift. The robot is approaching a certain cartesian point in space 108, (X Y Z; R P Y) and physical reference acquired by the probe 86 is saved,” [0461] “For each misplaced-pose, a JST should be created and saved in cache,” and [0500] “Calibration with cartesian trajectory diagram description: Before any execution of minimanipulation/action primitive, system should check status of environment. In case of no changes, the system will get cartesian trajectory associated with given minimanipulation/action primitive and plan it. In case of changed environment, the calibration procedure should be performed with measuring the actual state of the system (such as positions of placements and objects in the kitchen) using multiple sensors and then providing this data to the system. After this, cartesian trajectory will be re-planned based on updated environment state. The output from planning is joint state trajectory which can be saved as a new version for current or changed environment. After this, joint state trajectory can be executed” EN: Also see a complete scenario in a Kitchen example in [0139] “kitchen world model: stores and updates kitchen environment status such as object locations and states, provides environment status to other modules”).
Operating the multi-axis kinematic system after the configuration phase, the operating comprising: ([0500])
However, Oleynik is not relied on for:
adapting the safety function on the basis of the stored compensation value corresponding to the current attitude or trajectory of the multi-axis kinematic system
Beck teaches adapting the safety function on the basis of the stored compensation value corresponding to the current attitude or trajectory of the multi-axis kinematic system ([0022] “The process controller is configured to bring the robot arm into the violation stop mode if the evaluation of one or more operation parameter made by the robot process controller results in a violation of the more restrictive of the normal value minus an offset and the process value minus an offset of the at least one safety limit. This is advantageous in that it has the effect, that both the robot safety and process controllers are able to bring the robot arm in to violation stop mode. The offset should be understood as a value subtracted from the nominal value of the safety limit. In this way the robot process controller and the robot safety controller have different values for the same safety limit and therefore no conflicts occur between the two controllers on which to activate a stop mode such as the violation stop first. The value of the offset scan be set as close to the nominal value of the safety limit as possible to ensure the full window of operation for the robot arm. With this said factors such as hysteresis of sensors, contactors, transistors and the like in practice defines the offset value. Accordingly, the offset value could be a predetermined percentage of the nominal value of the safety limit or it could be individually determined for one or more safety limits.” [0088] “The offset depends on the type of safety limit and may be provided as a fixed value or as a percentage of the safety limit. For instance, in connection with joint angular speed the safety limit offset may be a fixed value of 12.5 rad/seconds where the safety limit may be to 192 rad/seconds This leaves an appropriate offset in the range of 1-15% of the value of the safety limit”).
Oleynik and Beck are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in robot automation accounting for error calibration and safety zoning. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine Oleynik and Beck to benefit from Beck’s more explicit treatment of some of the compensation aspects of safely operating the robot with expected results. “the basic control software is associated with a set of safety limits each having normal values limiting operation of the robot arm when controlled by the robot process controller according to the basic control software, wherein the process control software is associated with at least one safety limit of the set of safety limits having a process value which is different from the normal value, wherein the process value of at least one safety limit is configured to be changed while the robot system is in run-time mode, and wherein the robot safety controller is configured to bring the robot arm into a violation stop mode if an evaluation of one or more operation parameter made results in a violation of the more restrictive of the normal value and the process value of the at least one safety limit. This is advantageous in that it has the effect, that the safety limits can be changed and evaluated while the robot process and robot safety controllers are in run-time mode i.e. during operation of the robot arm. This is furthermore advantageously in that it has the effect, that the value of safety limits can be updated, without compromising the safety of the robot system in that it is always the more restrictive of the normal value and the process value which is limiting the operation of the robot arm. Therefore, additional certification or recertification of the robot system can be avoided. This is furthermore advantageous in that it has the effect, that users of the robot arm and/or providers of process control software are allowed to change the safety limits and thereby provide additional flexibility to the control and operation of the robot arm.” (Beck, [0010])
Regarding Claim 2, Oleynik in view of Beck further teaches sensor resolutions are provided as the error values of respective axes ([0221] “The positioner system 1313 reacts to repositioning movement commands to its Cartesian XYZ positioner 1313 a, where (a)… processor-based controller executes said commands by controlling actuators in a high-speed closed loop based on feedback data from its integral sensors, allowing for the repositioning of the entire robotic system to the required workspace location. The repositioning single kinematic chain system 1312 attached to the positioner system 1313, with the appendage system 1314 attached to the repositioning single kinematic chain system 1312 and the wrist system 1315 attached to the ends of the arms articulation system 1314 a, … command their respective actuators and ensure proper command-following through monitoring built-in integral sensors to ensure tracking fidelity.” Fidelity indicates fine resolution, [0213] “The macro-/micro-distinctions provide differentiations on the types of minimanipulation libraries and their relative descriptors and improved and higher-fidelity learning results based on more localized and higher-accuracy sensory elements contained within the end effectors, rather than relying on sensors that are typically part of (and mounted on) the articulated base (for larger FoV, but thereby also lower resolution and fidelity)”).
Regarding Claim 3, Oleynik in view of Beck further teaches axial run-on distances are provided as the error values of respective axes (“The physical position and orientation of the probe tip 103 (XI Y1 Zl; R1 PI Yl) is acquired from the sensors is then compared with the desired positions and orientation in case offset is present, the robot is not accurate.” The X,Y,Z axes run on error/distance is computed as the offset).
Regarding Claim 4, Oleynik in view of Beck further teaches the geometric parameters of the multi-axis kinematic system are further provided for the setup ([0263] “Then vision system would recognize grasped object and its exact position in relation to the hand 22. System acknowledges geometry of the grasp and cartesian position and orientation of the objects tip, which is crucial for the execution”).
Regarding Claim 5, Oleynik in view of Beck further teaches the trajectories are deduced from a set of trajectories that are predefinable for the multi-axis kinematic system ([0416] “The Robotic Kitchen can execute an AP in several different planning modes: … and pre-planned JST, a pre-planned JST, which was previously tested multiple times and saved inside a cache, and then it can be retrieved and executed when required.” JST is Joint State Trajectory).
Regarding Claim 6, Oleynik in view of Beck further teaches the trajectories are deduced from maximum value ranges for the respective axes ([0190] “A fourth database (database 4) contains information about the user interaction with the robot system. Data about safe operational space while the user is present in certain operational cooking zone, how robot has to behave around user in certain listed scenarios velocity data, acceleration data, maximum safe operational space volume data, tools that are allowed to operate by the robot in collaborative mode, potential hazardous situations that robot has to avoid or mitigate while operating in collaborative mode, operational restrictions is collaborative mode, collaborative mode environmental parameters, smart appliances data, safety sensory data (environment scanners, zoning sensors, vision system along more sensors)”).
Regarding Claim 7, Oleynik in view of Beck further teaches the trajectories describe a combination of axis values of all axes over a time and are formed on the basis of a trace ([0416] discusses 6 possible planning modes for trajectories. “in some cases the robotic system can work with a pre-planned JST, which was previously tested multiple times and saved inside a cache, and then it can be retrieved and executed when required”).
or a simulation ( [0242] “in the case of the a-priori method 1020, the decision could be based on design constraints 1021…in addition to basing a decision on design constraints 1021, the decision could be reached through a simulation system, which would allow the study of its constraints 1022 off-line and beforehand, in order to decide on the macro-vs-micro boundaries location based on the capabilities of various inverse kinematic (IK) solvers or algorithms and their associated complexity 1022 a”).
or an observation of live data during a movement of the multi-axis kinematic system ([0244] “Real-time operations 1031 could be based on a software module looking ahead one or more time-steps or even at the sub-task or complete-task level, to evaluate which logical macro-/micro boundary configuration is capable to run in real-time and specifically, which boundary configuration or dynamically configured boundary lines minimize real-time computations and guarantee real-time operations”).
Regarding Claim 8, Oleynik in view of Beck further teaches the safety function comprises at least one of a safe zone monitoring, a safe orientation, or a safe Cartesian speed ([0255] “FIG. 4C depicts light curtains safety scanning system 52 53 which are enabling the system to zone operations between human user 40 and robots 20 26,” [0191] “ Database 4 is queried whenever the robot needs to update object parameters (e.g. locations, orientations), or needs to navigate within the environment. It is updated frequently, as objects are moved, consumed, or new objects brought in from the outside (e.g. when the human returns form the store or supermarket)” and [0190] “For instance, limit the velocities while the user is in a certain position in the kitchen regarding the robot. Prevent from using certain tools or perform certain hazardous operations while the user is in a certain position in the kitchen (using a knife, moving a pot with hot water along other potential hazardous situations in the kitchen environment”).
Regarding Claim 9, Oleynik in view of Beck further teaches at least one of a position error absolute value, an angle error absolute value, or a speed error absolute value are ascertained as the compensation value ([0269] “Probe 86 is represented on the physical model measuring robotic system geometry. The geometry observed on the drawing is the reference geometry from the physical model. It is acquiring data from the sensors to determine what is the offset between physical system position in relation to the point from the virtual model, the result is then compared with the virtual model data. The probe is approaching the certain point in physical model kitchen 87, which is the first comparison point. After that it is moving to point 88, and point 89. Then cartesian position and orientation of probing points is compared with virtual model points 82, 83, 84. Several points are measured on one plane, in such a way, displacement patterns can be observed, torsion, bending, displacement are fed back to the system, assumption about the model 85 can be cross checked with reality 90. Physical model column 90 is flawed, virtual model column 85, has to be adapted to match the reality. Adaptation is done using the offset data from the probe 86.” The position and orientation mark the position and angle errors respectively. They are absolute and not relative as described above).
Regarding Claim 10, Oleynik in view of Beck further teaches a timing error for scanning of respective axis sensors over time is further provided ([0176] “All task-specific datasets 3172 are fed to the robot controller 3173. A command sequencer 3174 creates the proper sequential/parallel motion sequences … allowing the controllers for each of these systems to ensure motion-profiles with required position/velocity and force/torque profiles are correctly executed as a function of time. Sensory feedback data … is used by the profile-following function to ensure actual values track desired/commanded values as close as possible”).
Regarding Claim 11, Oleynik in view of Beck further teaches maximum dynamic values of the respective axes are further provided ([0190] “A fourth database (database 4) contains information about the user interaction with the robot system. Data about safe operational space while the user is present in certain operational cooking zone, how robot has to behave around user in certain listed scenarios velocity data, acceleration data, maximum safe operational space volume data…Essentially, all information about the environment and operations that are potential hazard for the user are cross checked with the sensory data from the system, hazard mitigation libraries. Robotic systems can make operational parameters decisions based on this data. For instance, limit the velocities while the user is in a certain position in the kitchen regarding the robot. Prevent from using certain tools or perform certain hazardous operations while the user is in a certain position in the kitchen (using a knife, moving a pot with hot water along other potential hazardous situations in the kitchen environment”).
Regarding Claim 12, Oleynik teaches further parameters or the maximum dynamic values are ascertained during operation of the multi-axis kinematic system (See Claim 11. Both the measurements and the system decisions are made dynamically at run time).
Regarding Claim 14, Oleynik in view of Beck further teaches the compensation value for the at least one variable is ascertained and stored on the basis of an adoptable attitude or position of the multi-axis kinematic system ( [0263] “System acknowledges geometry of the grasp and cartesian position and orientation of the objects tip, which is crucial for the execution. In this scenario the system could recalculate the motion planning in cartesian library based on this data, and get rid of possible error, cause by slight grasp inaccuracy. It could also add the offset point to execution commands in joint state library execution. Shift on different axis and orientation would be compensated on different actuated axis” and [0416] “in some cases the robotic system can work with a pre-planned JST, which was previously tested multiple times and saved inside a cache, and then it can be retrieved and executed when required”).
Regarding Claim 16, Oleynik in view of Beck further teaches during operation the safety function resorts to the ascertained compensation values ([0172] “The first step before each robot execution is analysis of sensory real-time data and risk mitigation 1035. Only when environment is safe for the user, each motion command can be enabled 1036” and [0271] “FIG. 16A depicts calibration of the robot automatic error tracking procedure. Every manufactured system can be flawed. The risk of inaccuracies in execution are eliminated using the following procedure. The robot is approaching a certain cartesian point in space 105 (X Y Z; R P Y), which is the robot configuration reference point, with certain robot joint state configuration 104. The feedback about the physical point positioning inside cartesian space comes from the probe 86. Then it is commanding different joint state values to all joints of the system to reconfigure robot joint state to the first probing robot configuration 101, with the certain probe position 102.” [0271] proceeds to detail the technical details of the re-configuration).
Regarding Claim 17, Oleynik in view of Beck further teaches an HMI-based input configured to input error values of respective axes ([0249] “GUI touchscreen 41 is central part of user interaction with robotic kitchen, he is enabled to control and observe virtual kitchen model, program the recipes and more” and [0200] “ The processing of the sensory data 218 involves its filtering-step 216 and grouping it through an association engine 220, where the data is associated with the physical system elements as well as manipulation-phases, potentially even allowing for user input 222, after which they are processed through two MM software engines”).
an output configured to output a compensation value for at least one variable of the safety function based on the error values, geometric parameters of the multi-axis kinematic system, and axis values of the respective axes that are obtained from trajectories of the multi-axis kinematic system ([0500] “In case of changed environment, the calibration procedure should be performed with measuring the actual positions of placements and objects in the kitchen and then providing this data to the system. After this, cartesian trajectory will be re-planned based on updated environment state and then executed”).
Regarding Claim 18, Oleynik in view of Beck further teaches a non-transitory computer implemented storage medium that stores machine-readable instructions executable by at least one processor ([0509] “Such a computer program may be stored in a computer readable storage medium, such as, but not limited to, any type of disk including floppy disks, optical disks, CD-ROMs, magnetic-optical disks, read-only memories (ROMs), random access memories (RAMs), erasable programmable ROMs (EPROMs), electrically erasable and programmable ROMs (EEPROMs), magnetic or optical cards, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, and each coupled to a computer system bus. Furthermore, the computers and/or other electronic devices referred to in the specification may include a single processor or may be architectures employing multiple processor designs for increased computing capability”).
The remaining limitations are similar to claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al (US-6892153-B2): Discloses adaptation and error compensation in the context of robots.
Cole et al (US-11014240-B2): Discloses safety zones in the context of robots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR DARWISH whose telephone number is (571)272-4779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Thurs.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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.
/A.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199