DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 07/28/2022.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
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 in parent Application No. DE10 2020 104 356, filed on 02/19/2020.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully
consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed
invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed
by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the
claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the
invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the
specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology
familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can
be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited
references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the
applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of
compact prosecution.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/28/2022 and 09/07/2022 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Applicant failed to provide drawings within application.
Specification
The Specification is objected to for referencing non-existent drawings. Pages 9-10 reference Fig.1 and Fig.2. All references to drawings need to be removed since no drawings were submitted. Revision is required.
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 1-18 are 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the claims recite a “and/or a neural network via the computing unit based on a predefined task for machining the workpiece and based on the spatial information determined by the computing unit from the respective image.” It is unclear how much of the limitation after “and/or” is optional. For example, is only the “neural network” optional or is all the language after the “and/or” optional? Clarification is required.
For purposes of compact prosecution, “a neural network via the computing unit” is interpreted as the “and/or” option.
The dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18, included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Claims 10-18 are directed to a system, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
determining the installation site of the robot manipulator by applying a non-linear optimization of a predefined cost function and/or a neural network via the computing unit based on a predefined task for machining the workpiece and based on the spatial information determined by the computing unit from the respective image. (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. For instance, a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) the installation site of the robot manipulator with/without the aid of pen and paper. The limitation is also directed towards Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2104.04(a)(2)(I)) which is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.”)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Insignificant Extra Solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
recording a respective image of the robot manipulator and of the workstation of the robot manipulator, and of a workpiece to be machined at the workstation via a camera unit, wherein the respective image contains spatial information; transmitting the respective image to a computing unit; (The additional elements amount to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering/outputting, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. The limitation of recording a respective image is interpreted as mere data gathering and the limitation of transmitting the respective image is interpreted as mere data outputting.)
determined by the computing unit from the respective image. (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer.)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Insignificant Extra Solution Activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(d)/(g).
Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent Claim 10 recites substantially similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 2 recites, outputting information about the installation site as determined, as a suggestion for a user at an output unit; and detecting an input by the user at an input unit, wherein the input includes a correction of the suggestion or a confirmation of the suggestion. The additional elements amount to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data outputting/gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. The limitations of outputting information and user input are interpreted as mere data outputting/gathering. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 recites, wherein the cost function of the non-linear optimization is dependent on a type of regulation implemented in a regulator of the robot manipulator and/or a type of generation of a movement command in the regulator and/or parameters of the predefined task, and/or wherein an input variable of the neural network is the type of regulation implemented in the regulator of the robot manipulator and/or the type of generation of the movement command in the regulator and/or parameters of the predefined task. The additional element simply elaborates on the cost function previously determined (see claim 1) to recite Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts, therefore the additional element further elaborates Mental Processes and Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)/(I). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 recites, wherein the images of the robot manipulator and of the workstation are contained in a common photograph. The additional element simply elaborates on the image previously determined (see claim 1) to recite Insignificant Extra-solution Activity, therefore the additional element further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering/outputting, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 recites, in addition to the installation site, determining an installation orientation of the robot manipulator via the computing unit by determining at least one angle of inclination. The additional limitation further elaborates a Mental Process per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) since a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) an installation orientation with/without the aid of pen/paper. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 recites, wherein the installation site of the robot manipulator is determined by geometric modeling of objects at the workstation and/or of the robot manipulator and/or of the workstation in respective geometric bodies. The additional limitation further elaborates a Mental Process per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) since a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) an installation site of the robot manipulator by geometric modelling with/without the aid of pen/paper. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7 recites, wherein the installation site of the robot manipulator is determined based on a simulation with modeled effects of technical mechanics, such that mechanical interactions between the robot manipulator and objects from a vicinity of the robot manipulator are taken into account. Per Applicant’s Specification disclosure [Pg.8 Ln.6-17], “simulation” is interpreted as performing multiple calculations. Thus, the additional limitation further amounts to Mental Processes (performed on a generic computer) per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), since a person can reasonably determine/calculate (i.e. evaluate, judge) the installation site with/without the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8, the method of claim 2, recites wherein the robot manipulator comprises two robot arms and the suggestion for the installation site is determined by maximizing a common work space with respect to a respective end effector of a respective robot arm. The additional limitation further elaborates a Mental Process per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) since a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) an installation site of the robot manipulator by maximizing a common workspace with respect to the robot arm(s) end effector, with/without the aid of pen/paper. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9 recites, wherein the cost function is a quality function to be maximized, the quality function being determined based on a respective degree of manipulability determined for a large number of poses of the robot manipulator wherein the respective degree of manipulability is determined based on a Jacobian matrix valid for a respective pose. The additional limitation elaborates on the cost function previously determined (see claim 1) to recite Mental Process and/or Mathematical Concepts. Thus, the additional limitation further amounts to Mental Processes (performed on a generic computer) and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)/(I), since a person can reasonably perform the limitation with/without the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 11-18 recite substantially the same subject matter as claims 2-9, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
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 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura US Pub. No. 2018/0036882 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Kimura”) in view of Cassidy, II US Patent No. 11247335 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Cassidy”).
Regarding claim 1, Kimura discloses a method of determining an installation site of a robot manipulator at a workstation (“The present invention relates to a layout setting method and a layout setting apparatus which set a layout for arranging, in a robot workspace including a robot arm and a peripheral device, the robot arm and the peripheral device” [P.0001]), the method comprising:
recording a respective image of the robot manipulator and of the workstation of the robot manipulator, and of a workpiece to be machined at the workstation via a camera unit, (“As the shape (design) information (i.e. camera images) of these things, for example, data recorded in another server or the like can be received via the network 610. Besides, the shape (design) information of these things may be set using video images captured in advance by a camera” [P.0082]. It is understood that the computing unit (i.e. CPU) is connected to the network – see FIG.2.); and
determining the installation site of the robot manipulator by applying a non-linear optimization of a predefined cost function based on a predefined task for machining the workpiece and based on the spatial information determined by the computing unit from the respective image. (“In S104, a range of the positions and orientations of the fixing base F of the robot arm A, and the peripheral devices (peripheral equipment), that is, the work piece rests P1, P2 and P3 is specified [...] Here, the position of the fixing base F (i.e. installation site) of the robot arm (i.e. manipulator) is represented by, for example, x, y and z in the task space, and rotation amounts α, β and γ around the respective axes as ZYX Euler angles. Then, the arrangement range of each of the coordinate values and the Euler angles is set within a range between the minimum value and the maximum value as follows, that is, the range from the lower limit (min) to the upper limit (max) of each of Xmin<X<Xmax, ymin<y<ymax, zmin<z<zmax, αmin<α<αmax, βmin<β<βmax, and γmin<γ<γmax. Likewise, the upper and lower limits of coordinate parameters in the task (working) space on the base B are also specified for each of the work piece rests P1, P2 and P3.” [P.0084], “the evaluation of the layout is performed only based on the operation time of the robot arm” [P.0088]. Step S104 is interpreted as non-linear optimization due to Applicant’s disclosure [Spec. Pg.4 Ln.12], “The aim of non-linear optimization is to change parameters and variables that can be changed at least over certain ranges in such a way that the structurally specified cost function that is dependent on these parameters or variables is minimized”. Also, the cost function is interpreted as “operation time of the robot arm” due to Applicant’s disclosure [Spec. Pg.4 Ln.16-18], “This predetermined cost function includes, in particular, a sum of terms, wherein the terms are preferably formed based on at least one of the following: an execution speed of the task”.)
Kimura fails to specifically disclose wherein the respective image contains spatial information and transmitting the respective image to a computing unit.
However, analogous art of Cassidy discloses wherein the respective image contains spatial information (“Vision system 106 may be configured to spatially map a pose of path marker 114 within workspace 124 based on an image of path marker 114. For example, vision system 106 may map a sensor coordinate system of vision sensor 130 (e.g., a pixel coordinate system of a camera and/or the like) with a coordinate system of workspace 124 such that path marker 114 captured in an image can be located within workspace 124.” Cassidy [Col.4 Ln.15]), transmitting the respective image to a computing unit (“a vision sensor configured to capture an image of the workspace and a path marker disposed on the workpiece; and a robot controller in communication with the robot, the end effector, the positioner, and the vision sensor, the robot controller (i.e. computing unit) being configured to: receive the image of the path marker from the vision sensor” Cassidy [Col.2 Ln.38]. The robot controller is interpreted as the computing unit due to Applicant’s disclosure [Spec. Pg.3 Ln.25] “The computing unit is, in particular, a control unit of the robot manipulator.”)
Kimura and Cassidy are analogous art as they both relate to industrial robots. Kimura discloses “a layout setting method and a layout setting apparatus which set a layout for arranging, in a robot workspace including a robot arm and a peripheral device, the robot arm and the peripheral device” [P.0001] and Cassidy discloses “The present disclosure relates generally to industrial robots and, for example, to semi-autonomous robot path planning” [Col.1 Ln.5]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the robot layout optimization method of Kimura with the image spatial mapping of Cassidy in order to efficiently “optimize the layout (arrangement) of the robot equipment at high speed” Kimura [P.0020].
Regarding claim 2, Kimura-Cassidy discloses the method of claim 1, Kimura further discloses outputting information about the installation site as determined, as a suggestion for a user at an output unit; (“Then, the layout corresponding to the best evaluation value acquired is output and set“ Kimura [P.0115]) and
detecting an input by the user at an input unit, wherein the input includes a correction of the suggestion or a confirmation of the suggestion. (“a user interface configured to cause an operator to create the initial layout or correct the initial layout or the new layout, while causing the operator to confirm, with the 3D outputting device, a state of the arrangement configuration of the robot arm and the peripheral device in the robot workspace.” Kimura [Claim 14])
Kimura discloses the limitations of claim 2 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Cassidy as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Kimura-Cassidy disclose the method of claim1, Kimura further discloses wherein the cost function of the non-linear optimization is dependent on a type of regulation implemented in a regulator of the robot manipulator . (“a range of the positions and orientations (i.e. type of regulation) of the fixing base F of the robot arm A, and the peripheral devices (peripheral equipment), that is, the work piece rests P1, P2 and P3 is specified.” Kimura [P.0084]. A range of positions/orientations is interpreted as a type of regulation due to Applicant’s disclosure [Spec. Pg.6 Ln.23] “Possible regulators of the robot manipulator are, in particular: force regulators, position regulators, impedance regulators, admittance regulators, speed regulators.”)
Kimura discloses the limitations of claim 3 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Cassidy as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Kimura-Cassidy disclose the method of claim 1, Kimura further discloses the method further comprising, in addition to the installation site, determining an installation orientation of the robot manipulator via the computing unit by determining at least one angle of inclination. (“to acquire the concrete orientation of the robot arm by calculating each shaft joint angle of the robot arm from the teaching point of the hand tip of the robot arm, an inverse kinematics calculation is performed. For example, when the robot arm A of FIG. 1 is given with a teaching point T1 indicating the position and orientation of the hand tip, joint angles (θ1, θ2 and θ3) of the robot arm A are calculated such that the hand tip position of the robot arm A comes to the position and orientation of the teaching point T1.” Kimura [P.0055]. See Applicant’s disclosure [Spec. Pg.7 Ln.6-9] for angle of inclination description.)
Kimura discloses the limitations of claim 5 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Cassidy as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Kimura-Cassidy disclose the method of claim 1, Kimura further discloses wherein the installation site of the robot manipulator is determined by geometric modeling of objects at the workstation and/or of the robot manipulator and/or of the workstation in respective geometric bodies. (“Further, when a path for avoiding interference is generated by the trajectory generating unit 34, it is necessary to decide whether or not objects interfere with each other. For example, in a case where the 3D CAD data (i.e. modeling) of the robot arm A (i.e. manipulator) and the obstacle O (i.e. object at the workstation) are represented as sets of polygons (for example, polygons such as triangles), it is determined whether or not the set of the polygons of the current orientation of the robot arm A and the set of the polygons of the obstacle O are geometrically in contact with each other.” Kimura [P.0061])
Kimura discloses the limitations of claim 6 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Cassidy as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Kimura-Cassidy disclose the method of claim 1, Kimura further discloses wherein the installation site of the robot manipulator is determined based on a simulation with modeled effects of technical mechanics, such that mechanical interactions between the robot manipulator and objects from a vicinity of the robot manipulator are taken into account. (“FIG. 1 is an explanatory diagram for describing a robot arm and peripheral devices to which layout (i.e. installation site) evaluation or an optimizing process of the present invention is applicable, or a display screen on which the robot arm and the peripheral devices are simulation-displayed by a layout optimizing apparatus.” Kimura [P.0023]. The simulation is interpreted to include mechanical interactions between the robot manipulator and objects because “in a case where the 3D CAD data of the robot arm A and the obstacle O are represented as sets of polygons (for example, polygons such as triangles), it is determined whether or not the set of the polygons of the current orientation of the robot arm A and the set of the polygons of the obstacle O are geometrically in contact with each other.” Kimura [P.0061])
Kimura discloses the limitations of claim 7 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Cassidy as claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Kimura-Cassidy disclose the method of claim 2, Kimura further discloses wherein the robot manipulator comprises two robot arms (“although only one robot arm A is illustrated in FIG. 1, the following control can be realized even in a case where two or more six-shaft articulated robot arms are arranged.” Kimura [P.0038]) and the suggestion for the installation site is determined by maximizing a common work space with respect to a respective end effector of a respective robot arm. (“The layout evaluating unit (layout setting unit) and the layout moving unit 38 (layout changing unit) generate and optimize the layout (arrangement) of the robot arm A, the work piece W, and various peripheral devices (i.e. respective end effectors) [...] The layout evaluating unit 36 (layout setting unit) sets an evaluation value concerning fitness with respect to the specific operation that the robot arm accesses the peripheral device (i.e. end effector) in the robot workspace, and, based on the set evaluation value, sets an initial layout or a new layout” Kimura [P.0062-63], “when the initial layout generation, the layout update and the trajectory generation are being performed, the state of the arrangement configuration of the robot arm A and each peripheral device and the position and orientation of the robot arm in the robot workspace are 3D-output (display or print) in real time. With such 3D-output, it is possible for the operator to confirm the state of the layout optimizing process.” Kimura [P.0105]. Optimizing the layout is interpreted as maximizing a common workspace, since the optimization method considers robot arm movement relative to potential obstructions within the workspace.)
Kimura discloses the limitations of claim 8 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Cassidy as claim 1.
Claims 10-12 and 14-17 recite substantially the same subject matter as claims 1-3 and 5-8 respectively and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura US Pub. No. 2018/0036882 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Kimura”) in view of Cassidy, II US Patent No. 11247335 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Cassidy”), in further view of Govindaraj et al. US Pub. No. 2020/0198141 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Govindaraj”)
Regarding claim 4, Kimura-Cassidy disclose the method of claim 1, but fail to specifically disclose the limitations of claim 4.
However, Govindaraj discloses wherein the images of the robot manipulator and of the workstation are contained in a common photograph. (“The sensors are preferably selected at least partially from the following sensors: cameras (i.e. common photographs), in particular video cameras and stereo cameras” Govindaraj [P.0013])
Govindaraj is analogous art as it pertains to the field of automation in factory environments, specifically focusing on methods and systems for accurately mapping the positions of objects and personnel within such environments to enhance safety and operational efficiency. The invention offers improved precision in tracking object positions through the use of multiple sensors, enabling real-time updates to the object map. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Kimura-Cassidy combination to include object tracking/mapping, as Govindaraj discloses, in order “ to determine the exact position of objects” Govindaraj [P.0004] while determining an installation site for a robot manipulator.
Claim 13 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura US Pub. No. 2018/0036882 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Kimura”) in view of Cassidy, II US Patent No. 11247335 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Cassidy”), in further view of Trabia, Mohamed B., and Murali Kathari. "Placement of a manipulator for minimum cycle time." Journal of Robotic Systems 16.8 (1999): 419-431 (hereinafter referred to as “Trabia”).
Regarding claim 9, Kimura-Cassidy disclose the method of claim 1 but fail to specifically disclose the limitations of claim 9.
However, Trabia discloses wherein the cost function is a quality function to be maximized, the quality function being determined based on a respective degree of manipulability determined for a large number of poses of the robot manipulator wherein the respective degree of manipulability is determined based on a Jacobian matrix valid for a respective pose. (“Path manipulability measure indicates of the closeness of the Jacobian matrix manipulator to degeneracy while traversing a path. Choosing the base location with the maximum path manipulability measure (i.e. cost/quality function to be maximized) represents a good initial guess for finding the base location that yields the minimum path traversal time.” [Pg.424 Sec.3.1]. See Figure 8 and 9 [Pg.425] for number of poses.)
Trabia is analogous art as it relates to the design of a robotic work cell. Trabia discloses “this article studies the effects of the manipulator location, within a work cell, on the path traversal time. The article defines the boundaries of the manipulator base locus when the end-effector path is prescribed. Effects of joint mechanical limits and obstacles on this locus are also considered. The proposed algorithm uses nonlinear programming to search the manipulator base locus for the base location that yields the minimum time to traverse a path, subject to the actuator torque constraints of the manipulator.” [Abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cost function of Kimura to include a path manipulability measure (Jacobian matrix), as disclosed by Trabia, in order to “select a suitable initial guess for the base location of the robot” Trabia [Pg.428 Col.1 P.1], since the “performance of any numerical optimization algorithm depends on the initial guess.” Trabia [Pg.424 Sec.3.1].
Claim 18 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 9 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Schmitt et al. (Method And Apparatus For Determining An Optimized Movement Sequence For A Robot Device – US Pub. No 12263595 B2). “simulating movement portions of the robot device taking account of the uncertainty of the position of the first object and/or the uncertainty of the position of the robot device; and determining the optimized sequence of movements of the robot device taking account of the simulated movement portions and boundary conditions which specify at least one starting position and the target position of the first object.” [Abstract]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186