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 .
Response to Arguments
This office action is in response to amendments filed 02/24/2025. Claims 1-24 are pending.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that Burmeister, Vu and Einav fail to teach a first potential occupancy envelope for the robot that is updated in response to an elapsed time, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Burmeister makes clear throughout the reference that the movable part refers to the robot. In par. 0021 Burmeister discloses the following “When taking account of the movement of the robot itself, i.e. the movable part thereof, the prediction unit can consider the programming of the robot in order to obtain an even more precise risk analysis. Thus, in particular, provision is made in this case for the action range of the movable part as a function of time to underlie the checking of the intersection. Since the trajectory of the part can be established very precisely on the basis of the programming, it is possible, for example, thus to predict that the part will have moved away from a specific location when the person reaches said location. Therefore, there is no need to deactivate the work mode in such a case.” This paragraph clarifies that the action range 60 is a function of time and changes over the course of the time intervals, otherwise the work mode would always be deactivated and safety mode triggered any time a person enters anywhere in the radius of the robot.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Einav fails to teach collision prediction based on paths associated with a specific task, examiner respectfully disagrees. Einav clarifies in par. 0190 that the paths displayed or not just displayed, but are candidate paths for arriving at the robot performing the same task, and one is selected based on the space occupied by the human collaborator as a function of time.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11396099 (hereinafter ‘099) in view of Burmeister et al (US 20150158178, hereinafter Burmeister)
Regarding Claim 1, ‘099 claims teaches a system for spatially modeling a workspace containing machinery (see “A system for spatially modeling a workspace in a human-robot collaborative application” in Claim 1), the system comprising:
a controller for the machinery, the controller having a safety-rated component and a non- safety-rated component (see at least “a robot controller having a safety-rated component and a non-safety-rated component” in Claim 1 );
an object-monitoring system configured to computationally generate a first potential occupancy envelope for the machinery corresponding to movements performable by the machinery during performance of a task thereby and a second potential occupancy envelope for a human encompassing movements performable by the human operator during performance of the task (see “an object-monitoring system configured to computationally generate a first potential occupancy envelope for a robot and a second potential occupancy envelope for a human operator when performing a task in the workspace, the first and second potential occupancy envelopes spatially encompassing movements performable by the robot and the human operator, respectively, during performance of the task;” in Claim 1),
wherein (i) the non-safety-rated component of the controller is configured to establish a velocity of the machinery (see “issue commands (i) to the non-safety-rated component of the controller to increase a speed of the robot in accordance with an enlarged potential occupancy envelope” in Claim 1) and
‘099 does not appear to explicitly claim all of the following, but Burmeister does teach:
(ii) the object-monitoring system is configured to update the first potential occupancy envelope in response to a safety-rated signal from the controller or an elapsed time (see at least “The time interval underlying the establishment of the action range 58 is set to the value corresponding to the time duration required to put the robot into a non-dangerous state, i.e., for example, to bring the robot arm 16 to rest. In the following, the time interval is referred to as an observation interval.” in par. 0039).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by ‘099 to incorporate the teachings of Burmeister wherein the object monitoring system updates the robot’s occupancy envelope at predetermined time intervals. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Burmeister would be to make the system responsive within a time duration required to put the robot in a non-dangerous state (see par. 0039), which improves safety.
Due to the similarity of the claim language, a detailed mapping beyond the independent claims is omitted and the table below is provided to map the claims
Claims 16, 24 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. (11396099, hereinafter ‘099). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of ‘099 recites each and every limitation of Claims 16 and 24 of the present application with additional limitations that make the claim in ‘099 narrower than that of the present application.
Regarding Claim 16, ‘099 claims a system for enforcing safety in a workspace containing machinery (see “A system for spatially modeling a workspace in a human-robot collaborative application” in Claim 1), the system comprising:
a controller for the machinery, the controller having a safety-rated component and a non- safety-rated component (see at least “a robot controller having a safety-rated component and a non-safety-rated component” in Claim 1 );
an object-monitoring system configured to computationally generate a first potential occupancy envelope for the machinery corresponding to movements performable by the machinery during performance of a task thereby and a second potential occupancy envelope for a human operator encompassing movements performable by the human operator during performance of the task (see “an object-monitoring system configured to computationally generate a first potential occupancy envelope for a robot and a second potential occupancy envelope for a human operator when performing a task in the workspace, the first and second potential occupancy envelopes spatially encompassing movements performable by the robot and the human operator, respectively, during performance of the task;” in Claim 1),
wherein the object-monitoring system is configured to detect an unsafe condition based on the first and second potential occupancy envelopes, and thereupon signal the safety-rated component of the controller to enforce a safety condition (see at least " wherein the object-monitoring system is configured to computationally detect a predetermined degree of proximity between the first and second potential occupancy envelopes and to thereupon cause the controller to put the robot in a safe state, and also to issue commands … (ii) to the safety-rated component of the controller to enforce robot operation at or below the increased speed." in Claim 1 ) .
Due to the similarity of the claim language, a detailed mapping beyond the independent claims is omitted and the following table is provided to map the claims:
17709298 Claim Number
US Patent 11396099 Claim Number
1
1
2
1
3
2
15
1
16
1
24
1
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 1-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burmeister et al (US 20150158178) in view of Vu et al (US20180222052) and Einav et al (US 20190105779, Einav).
Regarding Claim 1, Burmeister teaches a system for spatially modeling a workspace containing machinery (see at least par. 0031-0032 and Fig. 1), the system comprising:
a controller for the machinery (see at least safeguarding apparatus 18 having monitoring computer 30 which performs collision monitoring and actuates the robot accordingly in par. 0032), the controller having a safety component (see at least safety mode in par. 0022-0023) and a non- safety component (see at least work mode in par. 0022-0023);
an object-monitoring system (see at least sensor system 20 in par. 0032 and fig. 1 ) configured to computationally generate
a first potential occupancy envelope for the machinery (see at least action range 60 of robot in par. 0040 and Fig. 1) and
a second potential occupancy envelope for a human operator (see at least action range 58 of the person 12 in par. 0038 and Fig. 1), (see at least action ranges determined for the robot and person encompassing all possible movements for the robot and person in par. 0038-0040),
wherein (i) the non-safety component of the controller is configured to establish a velocity of the machinery (see at least work mode of the robot in which the robot is controlled to perform its tasks at a highest possible speed in par. 0003) and
(ii) the object-monitoring system is configured to update the first potential occupancy envelope (see at least "Here, the action range of the part means the set of those locations which potentially can be arrived at by the part within a predetermined time interval." in par. 0007)
in response to a safety-rated signal from the controller
Or in response to an elapsed time (see at least “Here, the action range of the part means the set of those locations which potentially can be arrived at by the part within a predetermined time interval." in par. 0007 and “When taking account of the movement of the robot itself, i.e. the movable part thereof, the prediction unit can consider the programming of the robot in order to obtain an even more precise risk analysis. Thus, in particular, provision is made in this case for the action range of the movable part as a function of time to underlie the checking of the intersection. Since the trajectory of the part can be established very precisely on the basis of the programming, it is possible, for example, thus to predict that the part will have moved away from a specific location when the person reaches said location. Therefore, there is no need to deactivate the work mode in such a case.” in par. 0021 and “The collision monitoring 28 identifies that there is an intersection region 62 between the action range 58 of the person and the action range 60 of the robot 13. Thus, the risk class RK1 is present, namely a possible collision. Accordingly, the collision monitoring 28 e.g. blocks movements 64 of the robot arm 16 in the direction of the intersection region 62 in the present example. By contrast, the robot arm 16 can perform the remaining movements 66 without hindrance. This results in a minimal intervention into the freedom of movement of the robot arm 16.” In par. 0047).
Burmeister does not appear to discuss the different control modes being safety-rated, but Vu does teach the control device having a safety-rated component (see at least the SADM using a safety-rated stopping mechanism when needed in par. 0071) and non-safety-rated component (see at least RSDM using non-safety rated interface to produce data in par. 0059).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Burmeister to incorporate the teachings of Vu wherein the controller of the robot has both safety rated and non-safety rated components. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Vu would be to implement “a real-time safety-rated control scheme without requiring a real-time safety-rated interface beyond a safety-rated stopping mechanism” (see par. 0071-0072), which improves safety. Note hereinafter the combination of Burmeister and Vu teaches the safety-rated component and non-safety rated component and applies to each instance of the claim elements below. Repeat explanations are omitted.
While Burmeister teaches a first potential occupancy envelope (see par. 0040), Burmeister and Vu do not appear to explicitly teach a potential occupancy envelope limited specifically to movements of the machinery during performance of a specific task. However, Einav does teach:
a first potential occupancy envelope for the machinery corresponding to movements performable by the machinery during performance of a task thereby (see at least " Optionally, display 161 shows currently planned and/or anticipated robotic motions and/or currently anticipated human motions, e.g., as superimposed annotations to a simulated and/or actually imaged view of the task cell 100. Optionally, the display indicates what operation the robotic system is currently carrying out and/or primed to carry out based on prediction " in par. 0138 )
a second potential occupancy envelop for a human operator, encompassing movements performable by the human operator during performance of the task (see at least " Task prediction envelope 902, in some embodiments, provides a safety envelope which is based on a type of overall task and/or task operation “awareness”. Robotic motions are planned based in part on where a human operator's 150 body members are expected to be during the robotic motion. The expectation of human operator 150 body member positions is based, in some embodiments, on previous task operation definition and/or simulation. In some embodiments, the expectation is based on previous automatic observations of human operators (optionally, the specific human operator 150 currently performing the task) performing the task operation. " in par. 0161)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Burmeister as modified by Vu to incorporate the teachings of Einav wherein occupancy envelopes are predicted for the robot and a human collaborating with the robot based on the current/future tasks each are expected to perform. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Einav would be to improve safety during human-robot collaboration while maintaining robotic efficiency (see par. 0110)
Regarding Claim 2, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 1 (see Claim 1 analysis).
wherein object-monitoring system is further configured to computationally detect a predetermined degree of proximity between the second potential occupancy envelope and the updated first potential occupancy envelope and to thereupon cause the controller to put the machinery in a safe state (see at least “he collision monitoring 28 identifies that there is an intersection region 62 between the action range 58 of the person and the action range 60 of the robot 13. Thus, the risk class RK1 is present, namely a possible collision. Accordingly, the collision monitoring 28 e.g. blocks movements 64 of the robot arm 16 in the direction of the intersection region 62 in the present example.” in par. 0047).
Regarding Claim 3, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 2 (see Claim 2 analysis).
Burmeister does not appear to teach all of the following, but Vu does teach: wherein the predetermined degree of proximity corresponds to a protective separation distance (see at least protective separation distance calculated based on robot and human worker position and movement, robot stopping distance, measurement uncertainty, system latency and system control frequency in par. 0051).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav to incorporate the teachings of Vu wherein the robot is put in a safe state when protective separation distance threshold based on the robot and human worker position and movement is violated. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Vu would be to reduce the chances of a person being put in danger when they approach the robot too closely (see par. 0052)
Regarding Claim 4, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 2 (see Claim 2 analysis).
Burmeister further teaches wherein the object-monitoring system is configured to (i) detect a current state of the machinery (see at least "Here, the action range of the part means the set of those locations which potentially can be arrived at by the part within a predetermined time interval." in par. 0007),
(ii) compute parameters for putting the machinery in the safe state from the current state (see at least "Possible countermeasures that can be adopted in step S14 lie in delimiting the speed and the forces generated by the robot arm 16. It is also possible to emit warning signals. For the reduction in speed, it is also possible to derive admissible limit values for the current movement trajectory of the robot arm 16." in par. 0044) , and
(iii) communicate the parameters to the controller when the predetermined degree of proximity is detected (see at least “The collision monitoring 28 identifies that there is an intersection region 62 between the action range 58 of the person and the action range 60 of the robot 13. Thus, the risk class RK1 is present, namely a possible collision. Accordingly, the collision monitoring 28 e.g. blocks movements 64 of the robot arm 16 in the direction of the intersection region 62 in the present example.” in par. 0044).
Regarding Claim 5, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 2 (see Claim 2 analysis),
Burmeister further teaches: wherein the object-monitoring system is configured to, prior to operation of the machinery, compute default parameters for putting the machinery in a safe state, the parameters comprising a safe velocity (see at least " Therefore, a safeguarding apparatus 18 is provided, the latter reducing the moving speed of the robot arm 16 or even stopping it, or else modifying the movement direction of the robot arm 16, whenever said safeguarding apparatus 18 identifies that the person 12 runs the risk of colliding with the quickly moving robot arm 16. " in par. 0031) and
Burmeister does not appear to teach all of the following, but Vu does teach:
spatially defining a keep-in zone (see at least “If desired, this static analysis may include “background” subtraction. During an initial startup period, when it may be safely assumed there no objects intruding into the workspace 100, analysis module 342 identifies all voxels occupied by the static elements. Those elements can then be subtracted from future measurements and not considered as potential intruding objects. Nonetheless, continuous monitoring is performed to ensure that the observed background image is consistent with the space map 345 stored during the startup period. Background can also be updated if stationary objects are removed or are added to the workspace” in par. 0029 and “While not necessarily a safety violation, collisions with static elements of the workspace are generally not desirable. The set of relevant objects can include all objects in the workspace, including both static background such as walls and tables, and moving objects such as workpieces and human workers. Either from prior configuration or run-time detection, sensors 102 and analysis module 342 may be able to infer which objects could possibly be moving. In this case, any of the algorithms described above can be refined to leave additional margins to account for objects that might be moving, but to eliminate those margins for objects that are known to be static” in par. 0067).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Burmeister to as modified by Vu and Einav to incorporate the teachings of Vu wherein the robot is by default restricted from colliding with static obstacles in the workspace. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Vu would be to increase throughput while simultaneously avoiding collisions with static parts of the workspace (see par. 0067)
Regarding Claim 6, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 5 (see Claim 5 analysis),
Burmeister further teaches: wherein the object-monitoring system is configured to send a trigger signal to the controller to put the machinery into the safe state in accordance with the default parameters when the predetermined degree of proximity is detected (see at least “A risk class RK2 states that the person is already situated too close to the robot, i.e., for example, in the action range 60 in this case, and so there is an acute risk of collision. The robot must be brought into safe mode as quickly as possible, that is to say e.g. decelerated or even stopped, when the risk class RK2 is identified.” in par. 0042).
Regarding Claim 7, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 2 (see Claim 2 analysis).
Burmeister does not appear to teach all of the following, but Vu does teach:
wherein the safety-rated component of the controller is further configured to report when the machinery is in a safe state (see at least “Control routines 350, responsive to analysis module 342, may generate control signals to operating machinery, such as robots, within workspace 100 when certain conditions are detected. This control can be binary, indicating either safe or unsafe conditions, or can be more complex, such as an indication of what actions are safe and unsafe. The simplest type of control signal is a binary signal indicating whether an intrusion of either occupied or potentially occupied volume is detected in a particular zone.” in par. 0049 and “if robot 402 supports a safety-rated protocol that provides real-time access to the relevant safety-rated control inputs, this may be sufficient. However, a safety-rated protocol is not available, additional safety-rated software on the system can be used to ensure that the entire system remains safe. For example, 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. SADM 425 then determines the robot's actual state as described above.” In par. 0071).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav to incorporate the teachings of Vu wherein the SADM reports whether the current state of the robot is safe. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Vu would be to implement “implements a real-time safety-rated control scheme without requiring a real-time safety-rated interface beyond a safety-rated stopping mechanism.” (see par. 0071)
Regarding Claim 8, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 7 (see Claim 7 analysis).
Burmeister further teaches: wherein the safe state corresponds to a safe reduction in velocity (see at least “Possible countermeasures that can be adopted in step S14 lie in delimiting the speed and the forces generated by the robot arm 16. It is also possible to emit warning signals. For the reduction in speed, it is also possible to derive admissible limit values for the current movement trajectory of the robot arm 16.” in par. 0044 ).
Regarding Claim 9, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 7 (see Claim 7 analysis).
Burmeister further teaches: wherein the safe state corresponds to cessation of operation (see at least “The robot must be brought into safe mode as quickly as possible, that is to say e.g. decelerated or even stopped, when the risk class RK2 is identified.” in par. 0042).
Regarding Claim 10, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 1 (see Claim 1 analysis),
Burmeister further teaches: further comprising a computer vision system for monitoring the machinery and the human operator (see at least see at least monitoring computer 30 performing image evaluation for collision monitoring in par. 0032 and Figs. 1-2), the object-monitoring system being configured to reduce or enlarge a size of the first potential occupancy envelope in response to movement of the operator detected by the computer vision system (see at least the collision monitoring blocking movements 64 of the robot arm in the direction of the intersection region 62 in response to detecting that the person has moved into a leap position par. 0045-0047 and Fig 2 interpreted as reducing the potential occupancy envelope of the robot).
Regarding Claim 11, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches the system of claim 4 (see Claim 4 analysis).
Burmeister does not appear to teach all of the following, but Vu does teach:
wherein the parameters are communicated to the non-safety-rated component of the controller (see at least “For example, 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.” in par. 0071).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav to incorporate the teachings of Vu wherein the SADM communicates safe actions to the robot controller. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Vu would be to implement “implements a real-time safety-rated control scheme without requiring a real-time safety-rated interface beyond a safety-rated stopping mechanism.” (see par. 0071)
Regarding Claim 12, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 4 (see Claim 4 analysis).
Burmeister further teachers: wherein the object-monitoring system is further configured to communicate to the controller that the machinery may be taken out of the safe state in accordance with an enlarged potential occupancy envelope (see at least “This is identified by virtue of the action ranges 58, 60 not intersecting. Therefore, the robot 14 can operate undisturbed, i.e. there is no need to reduce the movement speed of its robot arm 16 for as long as the person 12 maintains their body posture and does not change their action range 58.” in par. 0043).
Regarding Claim 13, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 12 (see Claim 12 analysis).
Burmeister further teaches: wherein the safety component of the controller is configured to enforce the reduced or enlarged first potential occupancy envelope as a keep-in zone (see at least blocking movements 64 of the robot arm in the direction of the intersection region but allowing movements 66 without hindrance in par. 0047 interpreted as reducing the potential occupancy envelope only to the space occupied by movements 66 and enforcing the space occupied by movements 66 as a keep-in zone).
Regarding Claim 14, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 1 (see Claim 1 analysis).
Burmeister further teaches: wherein the object-monitoring system is configured to update the first potential occupancy envelope in response to an elapsed time corresponding to an expected time for the machinery to reach a predetermined velocity (see at least “It is particularly expedient in this case for the time interval to correspond to a transition duration which the robot requires to change from the work mode into the safety mode. Thus, for example, this can be the time duration required for braking the movable part to a speed at which a collision with the person no longer harbors a risk of injury.” in par. 0022).
Regarding Claim 15, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 1 (see Claim 1 analysis),
Burmeister further teaches: wherein the machinery is a robot (see at least “robot 14” in par. 0031).
Regarding Claim 16, Burmeister teaches A system for enforcing safety in a workspace containing machinery, the system comprising:
a controller for the machinery (see at least safeguarding apparatus 18 having monitoring computer 30 which performs collision monitoring and actuates the robot accordingly in par. 0032), the controller having a safety component (see at least safety mode in par. 0022-0023) and a non- safety component (see at least work mode in par. 0022-0023);
an object-monitoring system (see at least sensor system 20 in par. 0032 and fig. 1 ) configured to computationally generate
a first potential occupancy envelope for the machinery (see at least action range 60 of robot in par. 0040 and Fig. 1) and
a second potential occupancy envelope for a human operator (see at least action range 58 of the person 12 in par. 0038 and Fig. 1), the first and second potential occupancy envelopes spatially encompassing movements performable by the machinery and the human operator, respectively, during performance of the task (see at least action ranges determined for the robot and person encompassing all possible movements for the robot and person in par. 0038-0040),
wherein the object-monitoring system is configured to detect an unsafe condition based on the first and second potential occupancy envelopes, and thereupon signal the safety component of the controller to enforce a safety condition (see at least “risk class RK2 states that the person is already situated too close to the robot, i.e., for example, in the action range 60 in this case, and so there is an acute risk of collision. The robot must be brought into safe mode as quickly as possible, that is to say e.g. decelerated or even stopped, when the risk class RK2 is identified.” in par. 0042).
Burmeister does not appear to discuss the different control modes being safety-rated, but Vu does teach the control device having a safety-rated component (see at least the SADM using a safety-rated stopping mechanism when needed in par. 0071) and non-safety-rated component (see at least RSDM using non-safety rated interface to produce data in par. 0059).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Burmeister to incorporate the teachings of Vu wherein the controller of the robot has both safety rated and non-safety rated components. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Vu would be to implement “a real-time safety-rated control scheme without requiring a real-time safety-rated interface beyond a safety-rated stopping mechanism” (see par. 0071-0072), which improves safety.
Burmeister and Vu do not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Einav does teach:
a first potential occupancy envelope for the machinery corresponding to movements performable by the machinery during performance of a task thereby (see at least " Optionally, display 161 shows currently planned and/or anticipated robotic motions and/or currently anticipated human motions, e.g., as superimposed annotations to a simulated and/or actually imaged view of the task cell 100. Optionally, the display indicates what operation the robotic system is currently carrying out and/or primed to carry out based on prediction " in par. 0138 )
a second potential occupancy envelop for a human operator, encompassing movements performable by the human operator during performance of the task (see at least " Task prediction envelope 902, in some embodiments, provides a safety envelope which is based on a type of overall task and/or task operation “awareness”. Robotic motions are planned based in part on where a human operator's 150 body members are expected to be during the robotic motion. The expectation of human operator 150 body member positions is based, in some embodiments, on previous task operation definition and/or simulation. In some embodiments, the expectation is based on previous automatic observations of human operators (optionally, the specific human operator 150 currently performing the task) performing the task operation. " in par. 0161)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Burmeister as modified by Vu to incorporate the teachings of Einav wherein occupancy envelopes are predicted for the robot and a human collaborating with the robot based on the current/future tasks each are expected to perform. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Einav would be to improve safety during human-robot collaboration while maintaining robotic efficiency (see par. 0110)
Regarding Claim 17, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 16 (see Claim 16 analysis).
Burmeister further teaches: wherein signaling the safety-rated component of the controller comprises communicating parameters for putting the machinery in the safe state from a current state (see at least "“Possible countermeasures that can be adopted in step S14 lie in delimiting the speed and the forces generated by the robot arm 16. It is also possible to emit warning signals. For the reduction in speed, it is also possible to derive admissible limit values for the current movement trajectory of the robot arm 16.” In par. 0044)." in par. 0044) or
instructing the controller to enforce pre-stored default safety parameters (see at least “risk class RK2 states that the person is already situated too close to the robot, i.e., for example, in the action range 60 in this case, and so there is an acute risk of collision. The robot must be brought into safe mode as quickly as possible, that is to say e.g. decelerated or even stopped, when the risk class RK2 is identified.” in par. 0042)
Regarding Claim 18, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 16 (see Claim 16 analysis).
Burmeister further teaches: wherein the object-monitoring system is configured to further signal the safety-rated component of the controller after a delay (see at least “As already explained above, a predetermined time interval forms a basis for establishing the action range of the person. It is particularly expedient in this case for the time interval to correspond to a transition duration which the robot requires to change from the work mode into the safety mode.” in par. 0022 ).
Regarding Claim 19, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 18 (see Claim 18 analysis).
Burmeister further teaches: wherein the delay corresponds to an expected time for the machinery to enter a safe state (see at least “Thus, for example, this can be the time duration required for braking the movable part to a speed at which a collision with the person no longer harbors a risk of injury.” in par. 0022 ).
Regarding Claim 20, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 18 (see Claim 18 analysis).
Burmeister further teaches: wherein the further signaling comprises communicating, to the safety-rated controller component, safety parameters and a command to operate the machinery within the parameters (see at least “the collision monitoring 28 identifies that there is an intersection region 62 between the action range 58 of the person and the action range 60 of the robot 13. Thus, the risk class RK1 is present, namely a possible collision. Accordingly, the collision monitoring 28 e.g. blocks movements 64 of the robot arm 16 in the direction of the intersection region 62 in the present example.” in par. 0047 and “risk class RK2 states that the person is already situated too close to the robot, i.e., for example, in the action range 60 in this case, and so there is an acute risk of collision. The robot must be brought into safe mode as quickly as possible, that is to say e.g. decelerated or even stopped, when the risk class RK2 is identified.” in par. 0042).
Regarding Claim 21, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 19 (see Claim 19 analysis).
Burmeister does not appear to teach all of the following, but Vu does teach:
wherein the object-monitoring system is further configured to await an acknowledgment from the safety-rated controller component that the machinery is being operated in accordance with parameters corresponding to a safe state (see at least “Control routines 350, responsive to analysis module 342, may generate control signals to operating machinery, such as robots, within workspace 100 when certain conditions are detected. This control can be binary, indicating either safe or unsafe conditions, or can be more complex, such as an indication of what actions are safe and unsafe. The simplest type of control signal is a binary signal indicating whether an intrusion of either occupied or potentially occupied volume is detected in a particular zone… This output can be delivered, for example, via an I/O port 327 to a complementary port on the controlled machinery to stop or limit the operation of the machinery.” in par. 0049 ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav to incorporate the teachings of Vu wherein the SADM reports whether or not the robot is in a safe state at each control cycle. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Vu would be to implement “implements a real-time safety-rated control scheme without requiring a real-time safety-rated interface beyond a safety-rated stopping mechanism.” (see par. 0071)
Regarding Claim 22, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 21 (see Claim 21 analysis).
Burmeister further teaches: wherein the acknowledgment includes the parameters and the object-monitoring system is further configured to responsively update the first potential occupancy envelope in accordance with the parameters (see at least “Thus, the risk class RK1 is present, namely a possible collision. Accordingly, the collision monitoring 28 e.g. blocks movements 64 of the robot arm 16 in the direction of the intersection region 62 in the present example. By contrast, the robot arm 16 can perform the remaining movements 66 without hindrance.” in par. 0047).
Regarding Claim 23, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 21 (see Claim 21 analysis),
Burmeister does not appear to teach all of the following, but Vu does teach:
wherein the object-monitoring system is further configured to cause the machinery to safely cease operation if the acknowledgment is not received within the delay (see at least “Control routines 350, responsive to analysis module 342, may generate control signals to operating machinery, such as robots, within workspace 100 when certain conditions are detected. This control can be binary, indicating either safe or unsafe conditions, or can be more complex, such as an indication of what actions are safe and unsafe. The simplest type of control signal is a binary signal indicating whether an intrusion of either occupied or potentially occupied volume is detected in a particular zone… This output can be delivered, for example, via an I/O port 327 to a complementary port on the controlled machinery to stop or limit the operation of the machinery.” in par. 0049 and “Analysis module 342 utilizes this information along with instantaneous information about the current state of the robot at each cycle to determine instantaneous, current safe action constraints for the robot's motion.” In par. 0052 ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav to incorporate the teachings of Vu wherein the SADM reports whether or not the robot is in a safe state at each control cycle and stops the robot if it is not in a safe state. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Vu would be to implement “implements a real-time safety-rated control scheme without requiring a real-time safety-rated interface beyond a safety-rated stopping mechanism.” (see par. 0071)
Regarding Claim 24, Burmeister as modified by Vu and Einav teaches The system of claim 16 (see Claim 16 analysis).
Burmeister further teaches: wherein the machinery is a robot (see at least “robot 14” in par. 0031).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN M KATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2776. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs. 8:00-6:00.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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.
/DYLAN M KATZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3657