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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/12/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-11, and 13-23 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 2-3 and 12 are canceled.
Claims 1, 4-11, and 13-23 are either amended directly or via a claim they depend from.
Claims 1, 4-11, and 13-23 are rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21, Lines 18-19 read, “wherein the one or more settings include disabling the at least collision detector based on the weight of the attachment,” when it should grammatically read, “wherein the one or more settings include disabling the at least one collision detector based on the weight of the attachment.”
Claim 23, Line 3 reads, “disabling the least one collision detector,” when it should grammatically read, “disabling the at least one collision detector.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-11, and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent Claim 1, Lines 15-16 read, “wherein the setting includes disabling at least one collision sensor based on the weight of the attachment.”
Independent Claim 20, Lines-16 15 read, “wherein the setting includes disabling the at least one lift detector based on the weight of the attachment.”
Independent Claim 21, Lines 18-19 read, “wherein the one or more settings include disabling the at least collision detector based on the weight of the attachment.”
Dependent Claim 23, Lines 3-4 read, “disabling the least one collision detector is based on the weight of the attachment being greater than a threshold level.”
The preceding limitations contain new matter due to no portion of the specification, including the applicant’s citation of Paragraph [0095], comprising the phrase, “disabling the collision detector/sensor,” the broadest reasonable interpretation of which comprises a broader scope than the scenario of, “the attachment 320 may even cause the outer shell 140-2 to become rigid relative the inner hull,” as described in Paragraph [0095].
The remainder of the claim set depends upon independent claims 1, 20, or 21, and are therefore rejected as well based upon their dependency.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner has ascertained a broadest reasonable interpretation of the, “disabling of the at least one collision/lift sensor/detector,” from particularly (Page 17, Lines 23-30 and Page 18, Lines 1-2) which read, “In one embodiment, the controller 110 is configured to receive an indication of the weight of the robotic lawn mower 100 and determine if the weight exceeds a weight threshold, and if so, operate in the attachment mode in a manner that accounts for the attachment 320. The weight threshold depends on the actual design and several factors, such as the resiliency of the collision and/or lift detectors, the attachment to the inner hull of the outer shell and/or the inertia of the outer shell 140-2. In one embodiment, the controller 110 is configured to account for the attachment 320 by adapting the operation of the collision detector 175. The adaptation may be to adapt threshold levels (or other levels) for detecting a collision. The adaptation may be to disengage the collision detector 175.” Therefore, the BRI for the purposes of examination be interpreted as an adaption threshold levels (or other levels) for detecting a collision or a disengagement of the collision detector.
Claims 1, 9-10, 13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerin (US 2018/0311831 A1, hereinafter Guerin) in view of DE20003153U1, which doesn’t appear to have an explicitly named author, and will therefore be referred to as DE20003153U1 from this point forward, further in view of Langgartner et al. (US 12,097,623 B2, hereinafter Langgartner)
Claim 1 Discloses: (Currently Amended)
“A robotic working tool system”
Guerin teaches an, (Abstract Line 1) “Apparatus and methods for adaptively retooling robots.”
“comprising a robotic working tool comprising a work tool device,”
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0005], Lines 7-9) “The robotic apparatus can utilize easy-to-install and/or hot-swappable robotic peripherals, such as sensors, end effectors, tooling, and other robotic peripherals.”
“an attachment receiver arranged to receive an attachment”
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0015], Lines 8-12) “The following general definitions will he used herein. Robotic hardware module: a physical device or tooling that can be connected (e.g., attached, coupled, linked, etc.) to a robot and/or disconnected (e.g., detached, decoupled, delinked, and the like) from the robot.”
Guerin additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0015], Lines 5-8) “An end effector can be a tool effector attached to a robot at a connection site of the robot or a tool grasped or held by a gripper-type end effector attached to the robot.”
“and a controller, the controller being configured to receive information regarding the attachment being received,”
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0051], Lines 3-14) “the various illustrative logics, logical blocks, modules, and circuits described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein may be implemented or performed with a general purpose processor … the processor may be any conventional processor, controller, microcontroller, or state machine.”
Guerin additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0035], Lines 6-9) “Process 300 starts at stage 310, during which the robotic system detects at least one connection event generated by robotic retooling apparatus 100 and establishes a communication link with peripheral adapter 120.”
“and in response thereto change operation of the robotic working tool to operate in an attachment operating mode, and to determine an aspect of the attachment and adapt the operation in the attachment operating mode to accommodate for the determined aspect,”
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0023], Lines 3-10) “Peripheral adapter 120 can be programmed to store at least one peripheral profile containing information associated with robotic peripheral 80, such as a set of physical properties of robotic peripheral 80 (e.g., unique identifier, name, model, type, relative mounting offset, size, mass, shape, physical extent, type and/or location of attachment sites 82, etc.), one or more suitable drivers that the robotic system can run to operate robotic peripheral 80.”
Guerin additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0019], Lines 29-33) “the programmable peripheral adapter can communicate with the robotic system and provide the robotic system with useful information, which the robotic system uses to reconfigure the robot, update operating characteristics of the robot, and/or communicate with and operate the robotic peripheral.”
“wherein the aspect is an indication of a weight of the attachment,”
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0023], Lines 3-10) “Peripheral adapter 120 can be programmed to store at least one peripheral profile containing information associated with robotic peripheral 80, such as a set of physical properties of robotic peripheral 80 (e.g., unique identifier, name, model, type, relative mounting offset, size, mass, shape, physical extent, type and/or location of attachment sites 82, etc.), one or more suitable drivers that the robotic system can run to operate robotic peripheral 80.”
“…
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 11-22) “the physical properties of the attached robotic peripheral, such as its mass, center of mass, moment of inertia, shape, physical extent, interaction or grasping point, must be programmed into the robotic system. The size information is required so that interaction point of the attached robotic peripheral as well as its shape and extent can be factored into calculations for kinematic movement, collision detection, and other motion calculations. The mass information is used when the robot is equipped with a force sensor and must offset the mass of the attached robotic peripheral, or when the robot is placed into a compliant and gravity-compensated mode for teaching,” and that, (Paragraph [0030], Lines 1-6) “In various embodiments, the robotic system stores the robotic profile of robot 90 that specifies one or more properties, settings, and/or configurations of robot 90 and/or the robotic system. Robotic properties of robot 90 include mass-related information, inertia-related information, dynamics-related information, [and] collision-related information.”
“wherein the robotic working tool comprises an outer shell and an inner hull, wherein the attachment receiver is mechanically connected to the outer shell, wherein the controller is configured to determine the weight of the attachment based on a relative movement between the outer shell and the inner hull,”
Guerin does not explicitly teach the preceding limitations.
However, Guerin does teach the following.
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 7-22) “One, the robotic peripherals must be attached to the robot in a repeatable and rigid manner. This is required so that an attached robotic peripheral does not move or come loose while the robot performs actions with the attached robotic peripheral. Two, the physical properties of the attached robotic peripheral, such as its mass, center of mass, moment of inertia, shape, physical extent, interaction or grasping point, must be programmed into the robotic system. The size information is required so that interaction point of the attached robotic peripheral as well as its shape and extent can be factored into calculations for kinematic movement, collision detection, and other motion calculations. The mass information is used when the robot is equipped with a force sensor and must offset the mass of the attached robotic peripheral.”
DE20003153U1 does teach the preceding limitations.
DE20003153U1 teaches, (Paragraph [0002], Lines 19-20) “attachment frames are necessary to hold working equipment, such as mowers or cleaning equipment.”
DE20003153U1 additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0021], Lines 126-129) “The body 4 and chassis 7 of the motor vehicle 1 are movable relative to each other, for example, they are connected to each other via springs and dampers. When a weight load is applied by a working device 8 attached to the attachment frame 2, for example a verge mower held on a boom 9, a weight load on the front end of the vehicle occurs, which causes the front area of the vehicle to nod and reduces the lifting distance h between the vehicle body 4 and the chassis 7.” With respect to broadest reasonable interpretation, the body of the vehicle is being mapped to the outer shell, while the chassis is being mapped to the inner hull.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the robot attachment system of Guerin which is capable of determining the mass and moment arms associated with a particular attachment via a force sensor to adjust collision determinations, with the explicit methodology of understanding an attachment’s mass and moment arm with respect to the relative movement between an outer shell and inner hull taught by DE20003153U1, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for combining the references would be understand the weight of an attachment and the moment arm and displacement it creates on the outer shell relative to the inner hull, in order to implement countermeasures to keep the attachment at an intended neutral position. As DE20003153U1 describes, (Paragraph [0024], Lines 172-178) “To compensate for the inclined position, according to Fig. 3, the actuator 10b located on the side loaded with the working device 8, here designed as a hydraulic cylinder, is extended by a distance increased by the distance Δχ compared to the extended state of the other hydraulic cylinder. The additional application of the distance Δχ to the actuator on the loaded side of the vehicle counteracts the inclination of the vehicle body 4, so that it reaches a parallel or almost parallel position to the axis 21 of the chassis (Fig.3).” In a similar counterbalancing fashion, Guerin describes, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 19-21) “The mass information is used when the robot is equipped with a force sensor and must offset the mass of the attached robotic peripheral.”
“ and wherein the setting includes disabling at least one collision detector based on the weight of the attachment.”
Guerin and DE20003153U1 do not explicitly teach the preceding limitations.
However it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the preceding limitation in light of Langgartner.
Langgartner teaches, (Abstract, Lines 1-5) “A method for collision monitoring of a robot includes ascertaining an actual value of an axis load of at least one axis of the robot and identifying a collision of the robot if a deviation between this actual value and a reference value of the axis load exceeds a threshold value,” and that, (Page 4, Column 1, Lines 61-63) “An axis load within the meaning of the present invention may comprise, in particular, a force or a torque acting on the axis.”
Langgartner additionally teaches, (Page 4, Column 2, Lines 3-15) “The reference value in one embodiment is, in particular, in at least one (movement mode) operating mode a value of the axis load expected during collision-free operation or with no collision, which in one embodiment is predicted, in particular, pre-calculated and/or ascertained on the basis of a model, in particular, as a function of or on the basis of an external load, in particular, a contact load and/or payload, and/or, as a function, in particular, of an actual or measured, pose and/or movement, in particular, speed and/or acceleration of the robot. Such a value expected without collision or during collision-free operation, in particular, is generally referred to here as “setpoint value”.” Therefore, a setpoint which serves as a collision detection threshold may be created based upon the effect of weight a payload has upon the pose of the vehicle. When the setpoint is raised due to an expected payload which exerts a larger load on the system, the collision detector is effectively disabled.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Guerin and DE20003153U1, with the collision setpoint methodology of Langgartner, in order to yield predictable results.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an robotic arm attachment such as taught within the system of Guerin would have an identical technical effect as the payload exhibiting a weighted effect on the pose of the robot as taught by Langgartner. Combining the references would also yield the benefits of adapting threshold levels for detecting a collision to avoid unwanted collision detections based upon weight from a desired robotic component. As Langgartner describes, (Page 6, Column 5, Lines 63-67 and Column 6, Lines 1-4) “In this way, the specification of threshold values in one embodiment may continue to be simplified, even when reducing a (stop) tracking error and/or a reliable (more reliable) detection of actual collisions may be enabled and/or the risk of an unwarranted responding of the collision monitoring may be reduced. A tracking error in the present case is referred to, in particular, in a manner customary in the art, as a (controller) deviation between detected actual and commanded variables, in particular, axis positions.”
Claim 9 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The robotic working tool system according to 1, wherein the controller is further configured to adapt the operation to accommodate for the determined aspect by adapting the driving of the robotic working tool.”
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 25-36) “If the robotic peripheral attached to the robot includes an active peripheral, such as an electrically driven “smart” tool (e.g., a servo), a suitable driver must be loaded to provide proper power or electrical signals to the robotic peripheral. In this situation, the driver also communicates with the robotic peripheral and receives feedback from the robotic peripheral. If the robotic peripheral attached to the robot includes a passive peripheral, such as a pneumatically or hydraulically actuated “dumb” tool, a driver must be loaded that actuates a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder to cause fluid flow or pressure change to operate the robotic peripheral.”
Claim 10 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The robotic working tool system according to 1, wherein the controller is further configured to receive information regarding a type of attachment and adapt the operation according to the type of attachment.”
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0023], Lines 3-10) “Peripheral adapter 120 can be programmed to store at least one peripheral profile containing information associated with robotic peripheral 80, such as a set of physical properties of robotic peripheral 80 (e.g., unique identifier, name, model, type, relative mounting offset, size, mass, shape, physical extent, type and/or location of attachment sites 82, etc.), one or more suitable drivers that the robotic system can run to operate robotic peripheral 80.”
Claim 13 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The robotic working tool system according to any of claim 10, wherein the controller is further configured to adapt the operation to accommodate for the type of attachment by adapting driving of the robotic working tool .”
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 25-36) “If the robotic peripheral attached to the robot includes an active peripheral, such as an electrically driven “smart” tool (e.g., a servo), a suitable driver must be loaded to provide proper power or electrical signals to the robotic peripheral. In this situation, the driver also communicates with the robotic peripheral and receives feedback from the robotic peripheral. If the robotic peripheral attached to the robot includes a passive peripheral, such as a pneumatically or hydraulically actuated “dumb” tool, a driver must be loaded that actuates a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder to cause fluid flow or pressure change to operate the robotic peripheral.”
Claim 17 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The robotic working tool system according to 1, wherein the controller is further configured to receive information regarding the attachment being removed, and in response thereto adapt the operation of the robotic working tool to operate in a working tool operating mode.”
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0028], Lines 30-35) “The tool manager then relays the profile information to robot 90 and/or the robotic system to change system settings, load drivers, actuate mechanical components, etc. If robot 90 is equipped with more than one robotic adapters, multiple connection events can be interpreted and handled at once for each robotic peripheral,” and that, (Paragraph [0034], Lines 1-4) “At stage 260, robotic retooling apparatus 100 detects peripheral adapter 120 being detached from robot 90, i.e., the detachable connection between peripheral adapter 120 and robot 90 being broken,” as well as, (Paragraph [0037], Lines 1-6) “At stage 360, the robotic system receives at least one detachment event indicating that the detachable connection between peripheral adapter 120 and robot 90 is broken. Finally, at stage 370, the robotic system restores the robotic profile, including operating characteristics and properties of robot 90, to the initial state.”
Claim 18 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The robotic working tool system according to claim 1, wherein the attachment receiver is arranged to receive the attachment in addition to the work tool device.”
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0028], Lines 1-6) “When the connection monitor detects a detachable connection forming between peripheral adapter 120 and robotic adapter 130, robotic retooling apparatus 100 generates at least one connection event and establishes a communication link between peripheral adapter 120 and robotic adapter 130.”
PNG
media_image1.png
292
413
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-5, 14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerin in view of DE20003153U1, further in view of Langgartner, further in view of Svensson et al. (WO 2018/174777 A1, hereinafter Svensson).
Claim 4 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The robotic working tool system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to adapt the operation in the attachment operating mode to accommodate for the determined aspect by adapting the operation of at least one of the at least one collision detector.”
Guerin, DE20003153U1, and Langgartner do not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 4. However, Guerin does teach the following.
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 1-19) “Adaptive robotic retooling apparatus and methods, embodiments of which are described herein, solve several problems that are typical of outfitting a robot in a robotic system with different robotic peripherals (e.g., tools, sensors, end effectors, etc.) to allow the robot to successfully and safely perform actions with the robotic peripherals in the physical world … The size information is required so that interaction point of the attached robotic peripheral as well as its shape and extent can be factored into calculations for kinematic movement, collision detection, and other motion calculations.”
Svensson does teach the limitations of claim 4.
Svensson teaches, (Page 1, Lines 5-7, TECHNICAL FIELD) “The present disclosure relates to a robotic work tool, such a lawn mower and to a method for improved lift and collision detection to be executed by a robotic work tool.”
Svensson additionally teaches, (Page 1, Lines 13-15, BACKGROUND ART) “collision detection is necessary in order to enable the robotic work tool to adapt its operation when a collision is detected, to avoid the robotic work tool from simply stopping in front of the object by trying to push through it.”
Svensson additionally teaches, (Page 3, Lines 20-22, SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE) “the controller may be configured to receive sensor input indicating lateral movement of the sensor element and the detection element relative each other, and in response thereto, determine that a collision has been detected.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the robotic attachment system capable of interpreting collision of Guerin with the explicit teachings of adapting the operation of at least one of the at least one collision detector taught by Svensson, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for combining the references would be to allow a robot’s sensors to accurately determine a collision event from a lift event. As Svensson describes, (Page 2, Lines 25-30 SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE) “The use of a three-dimensional sensor in the robotic work tool according to the present disclosure therefore results in that the controller may be configured to accurately determine from the sensor output whether the robotic work tool has been subjected to a collision (lateral movement of the body) or a lift (vertical movement of the body).” An additional rationale for combining the references would be to prevent system damage by preventing the robot from continually trying to drive through an object. As Svensson describes, (Page 1, Lines 13-15, BACKGROUND ART) “collision detection is necessary in order to enable the robotic work tool to adapt its operation when a collision is detected, to avoid the robotic work tool from simply stopping in front of the object by trying to push through it.”
Claim 5 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The robotic working tool system according to claim 1, wherein the robotic working tool further comprises a lift detector, and wherein the controller is further configured to adapt the operation in the attachment operating mode to accommodate for the determined aspect by adapting the operation of the lift detector.”
Guerin, DE20003153U1, and Langgartner do not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 5. However, Guerin does teach the following.
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 1-19) “Adaptive robotic retooling apparatus and methods, embodiments of which are described herein, solve several problems that are typical of outfitting a robot in a robotic system with different robotic peripherals (e.g., tools, sensors, end effectors, etc.) to allow the robot to successfully and safely perform actions with the robotic peripherals in the physical world … The size information is required so that interaction point of the attached robotic peripheral as well as its shape and extent can be factored into calculations for kinematic movement, collision detection, and other motion calculations.”
Svensson does teach the limitations of claim 5.
Svensson teaches, (Page 1, Lines 5-7, TECHNICAL FIELD) “The present disclosure relates to a robotic work tool, such a lawn mower and to a method for improved lift and collision detection to be executed by a robotic work tool.”
Svensson additionally teaches, (Page 2, Lines 23-20, SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE) “A three-dimensional sensor arrangement may differentiate a change in relative position of the detection element and the sensor element in lateral direction from a changes of their relative position in vertical direction. The use of a three-dimensional sensor in the robotic work tool according to the present disclosure therefore results in that the controller may be configured to accurately determine from the sensor output whether the robotic work tool has been subjected to a collision (lateral movement of the body) or a lift (vertical movement of the body). This in, turn results in effective operation of the robotic work tool since false alarms essentially are avoided.”
Svensson additionally teaches, (Page 1, Lines 16-18, BACKGROUND ART) “Likewise, it is important - also from a safety perspective - to detect that a robotic work tool is lifted, so that the operating member or tool, typically a rotating knife of a robotic lawnmower may be turned off to prevent risk of injuring an operator.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the robotic attachment system capable of interpreting collision of Guerin with the explicit teachings of distinguishing collision and lift via a detector taught by Svensson, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for combining the references would be to maintain the safety benefits of accurately determining lift events of a lawnmower without having false alarms that needlessly delay the operation of the work tool. As Svensson describes, (Page 1, Lines 16-18, BACKGROUND ART) “Likewise, it is important - also from a safety perspective - to detect that a robotic work tool is lifted, so that the operating member or tool, typically a rotating knife of a robotic lawnmower may be turned off to prevent risk of injuring an operator,” and additionally describes, (Page 2, Lines 27-30, SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE) “the controller may be configured to accurately determine from the sensor output whether the robotic work tool has been subjected to a collision (lateral movement of the body) or a lift (vertical movement of the body). This in, turn results in effective operation of the robotic work tool since false alarms essentially are avoided.”
Claim 14 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The robotic working tool system according to any of claim 9, wherein the robotic working tool comprises at least one wheel having a first diameter, and at least one second wheel having a second diameter wherein the second diameter is larger than the first diameter,”
Guerin, DE20003153U1, and Langgartner do not teach the limitations of claim 14.
However, Guerin does teach the following.
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 1-19) “Adaptive robotic retooling apparatus and methods, embodiments of which are described herein, solve several problems that are typical of outfitting a robot in a robotic system with different robotic peripherals (e.g., tools, sensors, end effectors, etc.) to allow the robot to successfully and safely perform actions with the robotic peripherals in the physical world … The size information is required so that interaction point of the attached robotic peripheral as well as its shape and extent can be factored into calculations for kinematic movement, collision detection, and other motion calculations.”
Guerin additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0019], Lines 29-33) “the programmable peripheral adapter can communicate with the robotic system and provide the robotic system with useful information, which the robotic system uses to reconfigure the robot, update operating characteristics of the robot, and/or communicate with and operate the robotic peripheral.”
Svensson does teach the limitations of claim 14.
Svensson teaches, (Page 7, Lines 5-10, DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS) “The robotic lawnmower 100 comprises two pair of wheels 150. One pair of front wheels 150 is arranged in the front carriage 10 and one pair of rear wheels 150 is arranged in the rear carriage 101". At least some of the wheels 150 are drivably connected to at least one electric motor 450.”
PNG
media_image2.png
316
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Upon viewing Figure 1, it can be seen that the pair of wheels (150) present in the bottom half of the image comprise a smaller diameter than the pair of wheels (150) present in the top half of the image.
“and wherein the controller is further configured to adapt the driving of the robotic working tool by causing the robotic working tool to travel with the at least one second wheel forward of the at least one first wheel.”
Svensson teaches, (Page 8, Lines 14-16, DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS) “The robotic lawnmower 100, may comprise a grass cutting device 460, such as a rotating blade driven by a cutter motor 465. The grass cutting device 460 being an example of a work tool 460 for a robotic work tool 100.”
Svensson additionally teaches, (Page 10, Lines 1-3, DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS) “robotic lawnmower 100 may alternatively or additionally use the satellite navigation device 490, supported by the deduced reckoning navigation sensor 495 to navigate the work area 57.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the robotic attachment system of Guerin with the lawnmower embodiment comprising wheels of differing diameters of Svensson, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for combining the references would be to achieve the benefits of a lawnmower having larger rear wheels than front wheels, which is a common lawnmower configuration in the art, wherein uneven terrain is typically traversed easier. This particular configuration be implemented in front wheel drive lawnmowers, for example, as larger rear wheels on front wheel drive lawn mowers help improve traction, especially on uneven terrain, and make the mower easier to control. An example of this benefit being written can be seen in Baumann et al., (US 2003/0182919 A1) which describes that, (Paragraph [0054]) “In some embodiments, [lawnmower] wheels 104 and 106 are of substantially the same size. However, where desirable, mowers 100 of the present invention may utilize a larger diameter rear wheel 106' as shown in FIG. 3. While not limited to any particular configuration, larger rear wheels 106' are preferably associated with front wheel drive configurations of the mower 100.”
Claim 19 Discloses: (Currently Amended)
“The robotic working tool system according to claim 1, wherein the robotic working tool is a robotic lawnmower, and the work tool device is a grass cutting device.”
Guerin, DE20003153U1, and Langgartner do not teach the limitations of claim 19. However, Guerin does teach the following.
Guerin teaches an, (Abstract Line 1) “Apparatus and methods for adaptively retooling robots.”
Svensson does teach the limitations of claim 19.
Svensson teaches, (Page 1, Lines 5-7, TECHNICAL FIELD) “The present disclosure relates to a robotic work tool, such a lawn mower and to a method for improved lift and collision detection to be executed by a robotic work tool.”
Svensson additionally teaches, (Page 8, Lines 14-16 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS) “The robotic lawnmower 100, may comprise a grass cutting device 460, such as a rotating blade driven by a cutter motor 465. The grass cutting device 460 being an example of a work tool 460 for a robotic work tool 100.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the robotic retooling system of Guerin with the grass cutting device attachment typically used within the context of a lawnmower as taught by Svensson, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for combining the references would be to utilize an attachment which is known in the art to be used for mowing lawns. As Svensson describes, (Page 8, Lines 15-16 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS) The grass cutting device 460 being an example of a work tool 460 for a robotic work tool 100.”
Claim 20 Discloses: (Currently Amended)
“A method for use in a robotic working tool system”
Guerin teaches an, (Abstract Line 1) “Apparatus and methods for adaptively retooling robots.”
“comprising a robotic working tool, comprising a work tool device and an attachment receiver arranged to receive an attachment”
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0015], Lines 8-12) “The following general definitions will he used herein. Robotic hardware module: a physical device or tooling that can be connected (e.g., attached, coupled, linked, etc.) to a robot and/or disconnected (e.g., detached, decoupled, delinked, and the like) from the robot.”
Guerin additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0015], Lines 5-8) “An end effector can be a tool effector attached to a robot at a connection site of the robot or a tool grasped or held by a gripper-type end effector attached to the robot.”
“the method comprising: receiving information regarding the attachment being received,”
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0035], Lines 6-9) “Process 300 starts at stage 310, during which the robotic system detects at least one connection event generated by robotic retooling apparatus 100 and establishes a communication link with peripheral adapter 120.”
“and in response thereto changing operation of the robotic working tool to operate in an attachment operating mode, and determining an aspect of the attachment and adapting the operation in the attachment operating mode to accommodate for the determined aspect,”
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0023], Lines 3-10) “Peripheral adapter 120 can be programmed to store at least one peripheral profile containing information associated with robotic peripheral 80, such as a set of physical properties of robotic peripheral 80 (e.g., unique identifier, name, model, type, relative mounting offset, size, mass, shape, physical extent, type and/or location of attachment sites 82, etc.), one or more suitable drivers that the robotic system can run to operate robotic peripheral 80.”
Guerin additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0019], Lines 29-33) “the programmable peripheral adapter can communicate with the robotic system and provide the robotic system with useful information, which the robotic system uses to reconfigure the robot, update operating characteristics of the robot, and/or communicate with and operate the robotic peripheral.”
“wherein the aspect is an indication of a weight of the attachment,”
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0023], Lines 3-10) “Peripheral adapter 120 can be programmed to store at least one peripheral profile containing information associated with robotic peripheral 80, such as a set of physical properties of robotic peripheral 80 (e.g., unique identifier, name, model, type, relative mounting offset, size, mass, shape, physical extent, type and/or location of attachment sites 82, etc.), one or more suitable drivers that the robotic system can run to operate robotic peripheral 80.”
“wherein the robotic working tool comprises an outer shell and an inner hull, wherein the attachment receiver is mechanically connected to the outer shell, wherein the controller is configured to determine the weight of the attachment based on a relative movement between the outer shell and the inner hull,”
Guerin does not explicitly teach the preceding limitations.
However, Guerin does teach the following.
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 7-22) “One, the robotic peripherals must be attached to the robot in a repeatable and rigid manner. This is required so that an attached robotic peripheral does not move or come loose while the robot performs actions with the attached robotic peripheral. Two, the physical properties of the attached robotic peripheral, such as its mass, center of mass, moment of inertia, shape, physical extent, interaction or grasping point, must be programmed into the robotic system. The size information is required so that interaction point of the attached robotic peripheral as well as its shape and extent can be factored into calculations for kinematic movement, collision detection, and other motion calculations. The mass information is used when the robot is equipped with a force sensor and must offset the mass of the attached robotic peripheral.”
DE20003153U1 does teach the preceding limitations.
DE20003153U1 teaches, (Paragraph [0002], Lines 19-20) “attachment frames are necessary to hold working equipment, such as mowers or cleaning equipment.”
DE20003153U1 additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0021], Lines 126-129) “The body 4 and chassis 7 of the motor vehicle 1 are movable relative to each other, for example, they are connected to each other via springs and dampers. When a weight load is applied by a working device 8 attached to the attachment frame 2, for example a verge mower held on a boom 9, a weight load on the front end of the vehicle occurs, which causes the front area of the vehicle to nod and reduces the lifting distance h between the vehicle body 4 and the chassis 7.” With respect to broadest reasonable interpretation, the body of the vehicle is being mapped to the outer shell, while the chassis is being mapped to the inner hull.
“ lift detector of the robotic working tool is adapted based on the weight of the attachment”
Guerin does not explicitly teach a lift detector being adapted based on the weight of the attachment. Guerin does teach the following with regards to the mass of an attachment contributing to collision detection.
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 11-22) “the physical properties of the attached robotic peripheral, such as its mass, center of mass, moment of inertia, shape, physical extent, interaction or grasping point, must be programmed into the robotic system. The size information is required so that interaction point of the attached robotic peripheral as well as its shape and extent can be factored into calculations for kinematic movement, collision detection, and other motion calculations. The mass information is used when the robot is equipped with a force sensor and must offset the mass of the attached robotic peripheral, or when the robot is placed into a compliant and gravity-compensated mode for teaching,” and that, (Paragraph [0030], Lines 1-6) “In various embodiments, the robotic system stores the robotic profile of robot 90 that specifies one or more properties, settings, and/or configurations of robot 90 and/or the robotic system. Robotic properties of robot 90 include mass-related information, inertia-related information, dynamics-related information, [and] collision-related information.”
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a lift-detector is well known in the art to effectively refers to a collision detector that determines vertical movement of a body. For example, Svensson describes, (Page 2, Lines 25-30 SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE) “The use of a three-dimensional sensor in the robotic work tool according to the present disclosure therefore results in that the controller may be configured to accurately determine from the sensor output whether the robotic work tool has been subjected to a collision (lateral movement of the body) or a lift (vertical movement of the body).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the robotic attachment system capable of interpreting collision of Guerin, with the explicit teachings of adapting the operation of at least one of the lift detectors in a similar manner as a collision detector in light of the interchangeability of the elements based upon a robots’ deflection direction as portrayed by Svensson, in order to yield predictable results.
As Svensson describes, (Page 4, Lines 6-9) “According to an embodiment, the controller may be configured to … determine whether collision or lift has been detected by comparing sensor input with a threshold value.”
“, and wherein the setting includes disabling the at least one lift detector based on the weight of the attachment.”
Guerin, DE20003153U1, and Svensson do not explicitly teach the preceding limitations.
However it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the preceding limitation in light of Langgartner.
Langgartner teaches, (Abstract, Lines 1-5) “A method for collision monitoring of a robot includes ascertaining an actual value of an axis load of at least one axis of the robot and identifying a collision of the robot if a deviation between this actual value and a reference value of the axis load exceeds a threshold value,” and that, (Page 4, Column 1, Lines 61-63) “An axis load within the meaning of the present invention may comprise, in particular, a force or a torque acting on the axis.”
Langgartner additionally teaches, (Page 4, Column 2, Lines 3-15) “The reference value in one embodiment is, in particular, in at least one (movement mode) operating mode a value of the axis load expected during collision-free operation or with no collision, which in one embodiment is predicted, in particular, pre-calculated and/or ascertained on the basis of a model, in particular, as a function of or on the basis of an external load, in particular, a contact load and/or payload, and/or, as a function, in particular, of an actual or measured, pose and/or movement, in particular, speed and/or acceleration of the robot. Such a value expected without collision or during collision-free operation, in particular, is generally referred to here as “setpoint value”.” Therefore, a setpoint which serves as a collision detection threshold may be created based upon the effect of weight a payload has upon the pose of the vehicle. When the setpoint is raised due to an expected payload which exerts a larger load on the system, the collision detector is effectively disabled.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Guerin and DE20003153U1, and particular the lift detector of Svensson, with the collision setpoint methodology of Langgartner, in order to yield predictable results.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an robotic arm attachment such as taught within the system of Guerin would have an identical technical effect as the payload exhibiting a weighted effect on the pose of the robot as taught by Langgarthner. Combining the references would also yield the benefits of adapting threshold levels for detecting a collision to avoid unwanted collision detections based upon weight from a desired robotic component. As Langgartner describes, (Page 6, Column 5, Lines 63-67 and Column 6, Lines 1-4) “In this way, the specification of threshold values in one embodiment may continue to be simplified, even when reducing a (stop) tracking error and/or a reliable (more reliable) detection of actual collisions may be enabled and/or the risk of an unwarranted responding of the collision monitoring may be reduced. A tracking error in the present case is referred to, in particular, in a manner customary in the art, as a (controller) deviation between detected actual and commanded variables, in particular, axis positions.”
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerin in view of DE20003153U1, further in view of Langgartner further in view of Williams et al. (US 2018/0361581 - A1, hereinafter Williams).
Claim 6 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The robotic working tool system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured adapt the operation of the robotic working tool to enable a follow-me-mode.”
Guerin, DE20003153U1, and Langgartner do not teach the limitations of claim 6. However, Guerin does teach the following.
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0019], Lines 29-33) “the programmable peripheral adapter can communicate with the robotic system and provide the robotic system with useful information, which the robotic system uses to reconfigure the robot, update operating characteristics of the robot, and/or communicate with and operate the robotic peripheral.”
Williams does teach the limitations of claim 6.
Williams teaches, (Paragraph [0023]) “FIG. 36 illustrates a human “follow-me” guided path through a service area.”
PNG
media_image3.png
442
881
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the robotic retooling system of Guerin with the robotic platform capable of following a user as taught by Williams, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for combining the references would be to allow the user to conveniently direct a robot to a specific area that needs a particular job performed by a particular tool. For example, Williams describes a scenario where, (Paragraph [0139], Lines 1-9) “the follow-me” mode may be used for quick-clean applications 3720, such as where a user identifies an area that needs immediate cleaning. The user may then go to the robotic platform 100, turn it on and enable “follow-me” mode, and have the robotic platform 100 follow the user to the location that needs cleaning, and then, either through manual controls or through gesture or voice controls, command the robotic platform 100 to clean the area.”
Claim 7 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The robotic working tool system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured adapt the operation of the robotic working tool to enable a follow-boundary-mode.”
Guerin, DE20003153U1, and Langgartner do not teach the limitations of claim 7. However, Guerin does teach the following.
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0019], Lines 29-33) “the programmable peripheral adapter can communicate with the robotic system and provide the robotic system with useful information, which the robotic system uses to reconfigure the robot, update operating characteristics of the robot, and/or communicate with and operate the robotic peripheral.”
Williams does teach the limitations of claim 7.
Williams teaches, (Paragraph [0077]) “With reference to FIG. 7, there is illustrated an exemplary and non-limiting embodiment of a sensing, obstacle avoidance, and path planning process. As illustrated, sensors, such as a side panel capacitive sensor 702, wall following sensors 704, ultrasound sensors 706, 2D LIDAR 708 (e.g., or other imaging system, such as a vision sensor, stereoscopic imaging system, imaging systems utilizing time-of-flight or structured light algorithms, and the like), rear segmented LIDAR 710, camera 210, and the like, may provide input sensor sources for obstacle avoidance 720 that may then be provided to a global planner 722 for one or more of a plurality of planning algorithms, such as for a point A to point B algorithm 730, full coverage algorithm 732, spot cleaning algorithm 734, wall following algorithm 736, and the like. Algorithmic outputs may then be used for sensing, obstacle avoidance, and path planning for the robotic platform 100, such as when the robotic platform encounters an obstacle 146 that is either anticipated or unexpected with respect to the service plan being executed.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a wall following mode is a type of follow-boundary mode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the robotic retooling system of Guerin with the robotic platform capable of following a boundary as taught by Williams, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for combining the references would be to ensure the robotic platform stays within intended areas to perform an operation and avoids potential collisions. As Williams describes, (Paragraph [0147], Lines 22-25) “In embodiments, stay-out areas, obstacles to avoid, edges to stay clear of, and the like, may also be defined such that the robotic platform 100 cleans only the intended areas.”
Claim 8 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The robotic working tool system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured adapt the operation of the robotic working tool to enable a virtual-map-navigation mode.”
Guerin, DE20003153U1, and Langgartner do not teach the limitations of claim 8. However, Guerin does teach the following.
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0019], Lines 29-33) “the programmable peripheral adapter can communicate with the robotic system and provide the robotic system with useful information, which the robotic system uses to reconfigure the robot, update operating characteristics of the robot, and/or communicate with and operate the robotic peripheral.”
Williams does teach the limitations of claim 8.
Williams teaches, (Paragraph [0049], Lines 1-5) “Navigation through service areas 140A-B may utilize a combination of digital map usage (e.g., localization determined based on navigation through the mapped area) and real-time sensors (e.g., sensors 104 monitoring the robotic platform's surrounding environment).”
Williams additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0063], Lines 1-4) “In accordance with exemplary and non-limiting embodiments, the imaging system may be used to create an initial mapping, in 2D or 3D, of an environment in which the robotic platform 100 is intended to operate.
Williams additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0052], Lines 1-9) “The robotic platform 100 may navigate through the service area through a combination of sensor-based position estimation and positional predication based on the physical movements of the robotic platform 100. For instance, positional encoders from the propulsion mechanisms may provide odometry data for positional measurements, and based on kinematic algorithms and the plan for movement (e.g., per the service plan and 2D digital map), may be used to predict where the robotic platform 100 will be in time.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the robotic retooling system of Guerin with the robotic platform of Williams capable of implementing Simultaneous location and Mapping (SLAM), in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for combining the references would be to utilize SLAM to continuously update the location of the robot and the area through which it travels. Th allows the robot to ensure it is traveling through the correct areas and avoids any newly introduced obstacles that could cause a collision. As Williams describes, (Paragraph [0149], Lines 4-15) “To map the service area, the robotic platform 100 may utilize the teach-repeat process (e.g., through establishing a peripheral boundary of the area to be serviced) in conjunction with robotic mapping and navigation facilities, such as through simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), where a map is constructed or updated in the service area while simultaneously keeping track of an its location within it. The robotic navigation system may then use pose and location information in conjunction with the established digital map to locate and orient the robotic platform 100 consistent with orientation guidance contained in the map,” and additionally describes, (Paragraph [0147], Lines 22-26) “In embodiments, stay-out areas, obstacles to avoid, edges to stay clear of, and the like, may also be defined such that the robotic platform 100 cleans only the intended areas. This may be particularly useful when the layout of a room has been changed.”
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerin, in view of DE20003153U1, further in view of Langgarthner, further in view of Doll (US 2017/0087724 A1, hereinafter Doll).
Claim 11 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The robotic working tool system according to claim 10, wherein the type of attachment is a load receiving attachment or a second work tool device.”
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0028], Lines 30-37) “The tool manager then relays the profile information to robot 90 and/or the robotic system to change system settings, load drivers, actuate mechanical components, etc. If robot 90 is equipped with more than one robotic adapters, multiple connection events can be interpreted and handled at once for each robotic peripheral. In this manner, different robotic peripherals can be attached to robot 90 simultaneously, and are individually addressed by the tool manager.”
“wherein the type of attachment is a load receiving attachment.”
Guerin , DE20003153U1, and Langgartner do not explicitly teach the preceding limitation.
However, Guerin does teach the following.
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 11-15) “the physical properties of the attached robotic peripheral, such as its mass, center of mass, moment of inertia, shape, physical extent, interaction or grasping point, must be programmed into the robotic system.”
Doll does teach the preceding limitation.
Doll teaches, (Abstract, Lines 1-3) “A robot for handling goods in transit having a movable fork unit with a load-bearing fork and a fork base relative to which the load-bearing fork can be translationally moved.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the robotic retooling system of Guerin with a load receiving attachment such as the load-bearing fork described in the robotic system of Doll, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for combing the references would be to utilize load receiving attachments such as a load bearing fork, which are well known in the art, to be able to handle the weight associated with carrying objects in motion, as may be required by a desired operation. Doll makes it clear that the disclosed fork is load-bearing and is used, (Abstract, Line 1) “for handling goods in transit.”
Claims 15, 16, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerin in view of DE20003153U1, further in view of Langgarthner, further in view of DE202019106926U1, which doesn’t appear to have an explicitly named author, and will therefore be referred to as DE202019106926U1 from this point forward.
Claim 15 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The robotic working tool system according to claim 1, wherein the robotic working tool comprises at least one collision detector, and wherein the controller is further configured to receive information from the at least one collision detector and to execute an operator command associated with the information received from the at least one collision detector.”
Guerin, DE20003153U1, and Langgartner do not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 15.
However, Guerin does teach the following.
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 1-19) “Adaptive robotic retooling apparatus and methods, embodiments of which are described herein, solve several problems that are typical of outfitting a robot in a robotic system with different robotic peripherals (e.g., tools, sensors, end effectors, etc.) to allow the robot to successfully and safely perform actions with the robotic peripherals in the physical world … The size information is required so that interaction point of the attached robotic peripheral as well as its shape and extent can be factored into calculations for kinematic movement, collision detection, and other motion calculations.”
Guerin additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0019], Lines 29-33) “the programmable peripheral adapter can communicate with the robotic system and provide the robotic system with useful information, which the robotic system uses to reconfigure the robot, update operating characteristics of the robot, and/or communicate with and operate the robotic peripheral.”
DE202019106926U1 does teach the limitations of claim 15.
DE202019106926U1 teaches, (Paragraph [0012], Lines 104-107) “It is an advantageous effect of the invention that the external force acting on a mobile robot is determined, which force is exerted on the mobile robot in particular by a user. With the knowledge of this external force on the mobile robot, inputs to the mobile robot can be made by the user.”
DE202019106926U1 additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0017], Lines 206-211) “If, on the other hand, the determined external force or the external force curve lies outside the specified range due to their correspondingly high values, it is assumed that there is an undesirable collision between the mobile robot and an object in the mobile robot's environment. This allows for a more precise differentiation of haptic gestures from other influences acting on the mobile robot.”
DE202019106926U1 additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0025], Lines 298-302) “If the external force or the external force curve exceeds a predefined second limit value, an undesirable collision of the robot with an object in the robot's environment is assumed. The use of this second threshold ensures that a collision and the resulting force acting on the mobile robot are not mistakenly interpreted as a haptic gesture by a user.”
Despite the disclosure of DE202019106926U1 distinguishing a detected haptic gesture from a detected collision event based upon a force threshold value, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that on operator could apply an external force to the mobile object which is large enough to make it interpret a collision event.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the robotic retooling system of Guerin with the haptic system capable of determining user commands and collisions, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for combining the references would be to allow the user to utilize touching the robot in order to issue commands, as specific input patterns or applied forces may correspond to particular commands. As DE202019106926U1 describes, (Paragraph [0024], Lines 284-290) “a theoretical command is specified at the computing unit of the mobile robot and is parameterized or also specified in its structure by executing the haptic gesture, i.e. the application of an external force or an external force pattern (pattern) by the user. Advantageously, user commands can also be specified and, in particular, parameterized for the mobile robot so that the subsequent execution of these commands is carried out according to the user's specifications.”
Claim 16 Discloses: (Previously Presented)
“The robotic working tool system according to claim 15, wherein the controller is further configured to execute the operator command associated with the information received from the at least one collision detector when operating in the attachment operating mode and to execute an evasive navigation action associated with the information received from the at least one collision detector when operating in the working tool operating mode.”
Guerin, DE20003153U1, and Langgartner do not teach the limitations of claim 16.
However, Guerin does teach the following.
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 1-19) “Adaptive robotic retooling apparatus and methods, embodiments of which are described herein, solve several problems that are typical of outfitting a robot in a robotic system with different robotic peripherals (e.g., tools, sensors, end effectors, etc.) to allow the robot to successfully and safely perform actions with the robotic peripherals in the physical world … The size information is required so that interaction point of the attached robotic peripheral as well as its shape and extent can be factored into calculations for kinematic movement, collision detection, and other motion calculations.”
Guerin additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0019], Lines 29-33) “the programmable peripheral adapter can communicate with the robotic system and provide the robotic system with useful information, which the robotic system uses to reconfigure the robot, update operating characteristics of the robot, and/or communicate with and operate the robotic peripheral.”
DE202019106926U1 does teach the limitations of claim 16.
DE202019106926U1 teaches, (Paragraph [0017], Lines 206-209) “the determined external force or the external force curve lies outside the specified range due to their correspondingly high values, it is assumed that there is an undesirable collision between the mobile robot and an object in the mobile robot's environment.”
DE202019106926U1 additionally teaches, “According to a further advantageous embodiment, the commands assigned to the respective forces or force curves comprise at least one command from the following:
- Interrupting a currently executed action of the mobile robot,
- Starting an action of the mobile robot,
- Resuming an interrupted action of the mobile robot,
- Saving the determined external force or force curve,
- Adjusting a pose of the mobile robot, especially in the direction of the external force,
- activating a follow mode of the mobile robot, wherein the mobile robot is designed to follow a person in the follow mode,
- Deactivating the follow mode of the mobile robot,
- triggering a subsequent action in a series of actions to be performed consecutively by the
mobile robot,
- Putting the mobile robot into a sleep state,
- Waking up the mobile robot from a sleep state,
- Moving the mobile robot towards contact with an object in the environment of the mobile robot and exerting a predetermined force of the mobile robot on the object in the environment of the
mobile robot,
- Initiating a switch between tasks to be performed by the mobile robot,
- initiating a transition between operation modes of the mobile robot, wherein the operation
modes comprise at least one of the following: teach-in mode, test run, task execution,
exploration.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the robotic retooling system of Guerin with the haptic system capable of determining user commands that serve as the building blocks of an evasion operation, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for combining the references would be to allow the user to utilize touching the robot in order to issue commands, as specific input patterns or applied forces may correspond to particular commands. As DE202019106926U1 describes, (Paragraph [0024], Lines 284-290) “a theoretical command is specified at the computing unit of the mobile robot and is parameterized or also specified in its structure by executing the haptic gesture, i.e. the application of an external force or an external force pattern (pattern) by the user. Advantageously, user commands can also be specified and, in particular, parameterized for the mobile robot so that the subsequent execution of these commands is carried out according to the user's specifications.”
Claim 21 Discloses: (Currently Amended)
“A robotic working tool system comprising a robotic working tool comprising a controller and at least one collision detector,”
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 1-19) “Adaptive robotic retooling apparatus and methods, embodiments of which are described herein, solve several problems that are typical of outfitting a robot in a robotic system with different robotic peripherals (e.g., tools, sensors, end effectors, etc.) to allow the robot to successfully and safely perform actions with the robotic peripherals in the physical world … The size information is required so that interaction point of the attached robotic peripheral as well as its shape and extent can be factored into calculations for kinematic movement, collision detection, and other motion calculations.”
Guerin additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0019], Lines 29-33) “the programmable peripheral adapter can communicate with the robotic system and provide the robotic system with useful information, which the robotic system uses to reconfigure the robot, update operating characteristics of the robot, and/or communicate with and operate the robotic peripheral.”
“wherein the controller is configured to: receive information regarding the attachment being received,”
Guerin teaches (Paragraph [0051], Lines 3-14) “the various illustrative logics, logical blocks, modules, and circuits described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein may be implemented or performed with a general purpose processor … the processor may be any conventional processor, controller, microcontroller, or state machine.”
Guerin additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0035], Lines 6-9) “Process 300 starts at stage 310, during which the robotic system detects at least one connection event generated by robotic retooling apparatus 100 and establishes a communication link with peripheral adapter 120.”
“and in response thereto change operation of the robotic working tool to operate in an attachment operating mode; determine an aspect of the attachment and adapt the operation in the attachment operating mode to accommodate for the determined aspect;”
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0023], Lines 3-10) “Peripheral adapter 120 can be programmed to store at least one peripheral profile containing information associated with robotic peripheral 80, such as a set of physical properties of robotic peripheral 80 (e.g., unique identifier, name, model, type, relative mounting offset, size, mass, shape, physical extent, type and/or location of attachment sites 82, etc.), one or more suitable drivers that the robotic system can run to operate robotic peripheral 80.”
Guerin additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0019], Lines 29-33) “the programmable peripheral adapter can communicate with the robotic system and provide the robotic system with useful information, which the robotic system uses to reconfigure the robot, update operating characteristics of the robot, and/or communicate with and operate the robotic peripheral.”
“ … wherein the aspect is an indication of a weight of the attachment,”
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0023], Lines 3-10) “Peripheral adapter 120 can be programmed to store at least one peripheral profile containing information associated with robotic peripheral 80, such as a set of physical properties of robotic peripheral 80 (e.g., unique identifier, name, model, type, relative mounting offset, size, mass, shape, physical extent, type and/or location of attachment sites 82, etc.), one or more suitable drivers that the robotic system can run to operate robotic peripheral 80.”
“ … one or more settings of the at least one collision detector of the robotic working tool are adapted based on the weight of the attachment”
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 11-22) “the physical properties of the attached robotic peripheral, such as its mass, center of mass, moment of inertia, shape, physical extent, interaction or grasping point, must be programmed into the robotic system. The size information is required so that interaction point of the attached robotic peripheral as well as its shape and extent can be factored into calculations for kinematic movement, collision detection, and other motion calculations. The mass information is used when the robot is equipped with a force sensor and must offset the mass of the attached robotic peripheral, or when the robot is placed into a compliant and gravity-compensated mode for teaching,” and that, (Paragraph [0030], Lines 1-6) “In various embodiments, the robotic system stores the robotic profile of robot 90 that specifies one or more properties, settings, and/or configurations of robot 90 and/or the robotic system. Robotic properties of robot 90 include mass-related information, inertia-related information, dynamics-related information, [and] collision-related information.”
“receive information from the at least one collision detector indicating a collision event; interpret the collision event as an operator command associated with the collision event; and to execute the operator command,”
Guerin does not teach the preceding limitations.
DE202019106926U1 does teach the preceding limitations.
DE202019106926U1 teaches, (Paragraph [0012], Lines 104-107) “It is an advantageous effect of the invention that the external force acting on a mobile robot is determined, which force is exerted on the mobile robot in particular by a user. With the knowledge of this external force on the mobile robot, inputs to the mobile robot can be made by the user.”
DE202019106926U1 additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0017], Lines 206-211) “If, on the other hand, the determined external force or the external force curve lies outside the specified range due to their correspondingly high values, it is assumed that there is an undesirable collision between the mobile robot and an object in the mobile robot's environment. This allows for a more precise differentiation of haptic gestures from other influences acting on the mobile robot.”
DE202019106926U1 additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0025], Lines 298-302) “If the external force or the external force curve exceeds a predefined second limit value, an undesirable collision of the robot with an object in the robot's environment is assumed. The use of this second threshold ensures that a collision and the resulting force acting on the mobile robot are not mistakenly interpreted as a haptic gesture by a user.”
Despite the disclosure of DE202019106926U1 distinguishing a detected haptic gesture from a detected collision event based upon a force threshold value, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that on operator could apply an external force to the mobile object which is large enough to make it interpret a collision event.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the robotic retooling system of Guerin with the haptic system capable of determining user commands and collisions, in order to yield predictable results.
The rationale for combining the references would be to allow the user to utilize touching the robot in order to issue commands, as specific input patterns or applied forces may correspond to particular commands. As DE202019106926U1 describes, (Paragraph [0024], Lines 284-290) “a theoretical command is specified at the computing unit of the mobile robot and is parameterized or also specified in its structure by executing the haptic gesture, i.e. the application of an external force or an external force pattern (pattern) by the user. Advantageously, user commands can also be specified and, in particular, parameterized for the mobile robot so that the subsequent execution of these commands is carried out according to the user's specifications.”
“wherein the robotic working tool comprises an outer shell and an inner hull, wherein the attachment receiver is mechanically connected to the outer shell, wherein the controller is configured to determine the weight of the attachment based on a relative movement between the outer shell and the inner hull,”
Guerin does not explicitly teach the preceding limitations.
However, Guerin does teach the following.
Guerin teaches, (Paragraph [0018], Lines 7-22) “One, the robotic peripherals must be attached to the robot in a repeatable and rigid manner. This is required so that an attached robotic peripheral does not move or come loose while the robot performs actions with the attached robotic peripheral. Two, the physical properties of the attached robotic peripheral, such as its mass, center of mass, moment of inertia, shape, physical extent, interaction or grasping point, must be programmed into the robotic system. The size information is required so that interaction point of the attached robotic peripheral as well as its shape and extent can be factored into calculations for kinematic movement, collision detection, and other motion calculations. The mass information is used when the robot is equipped with a force sensor and must offset the mass of the attached robotic peripheral.”
DE20003153U1 does teach the preceding limitations.
DE20003153U1 teaches, (Paragraph [0002], Lines 19-20) “attachment frames are necessary to hold working equipment, such as mowers or cleaning equipment.”
DE20003153U1 additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0021], Lines 126-129) “The body 4 and chassis 7 of the motor vehicle 1 are movable relative to each other, for example, they are connected to each other via springs and dampers. When a weight load is applied by a working device 8 attached to the attachment frame 2, for example a verge mower held on a boom 9, a weight load on the front end of the vehicle occurs, which causes the front area of the vehicle to nod and reduces the lifting distance h between the vehicle body 4 and the chassis 7.” With respect to broadest reasonable interpretation, the body of the vehicle is being mapped to the outer shell, while the chassis is being mapped to the inner hull.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the robot attachment system of Guerin which is capable of determining the mass and moment arms associated with a particular attachment via a force sensor to adjust collision determinations, with the explicit methodology of understanding an attachment’s mass and moment arm with respect to the relative movement between an outer shell and inner hull taught by DE20003153U1, in order to yield predictable results.
“, and wherein the one or more settings include disabling the at least collision detector based on the weight of the attachment.”
Guerin, DE20003153U1, and DE202019106926U1 do not explicitly teach the preceding limitations.
However it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the preceding limitation in light of Langgartner.
Langgartner teaches, (Abstract, Lines 1-5) “A method for collision monitoring of a robot includes ascertaining an actual value of an axis load of at least one axis of the robot and identifying a collision of the robot if a deviation between this actual value and a reference value of the axis load exceeds a threshold value,” and that, (Page 4, Column 1, Lines 61-63) “An axis load within the meaning of the present invention may comprise, in particular, a force or a torque acting on the axis.”
Langgartner additionally teaches, (Page 4, Column 2, Lines 3-15) “The reference value in one embodiment is, in particular, in at least one (movement mode) operating mode a value of the axis load expected during collision-free operation or with no collision, which in one embodiment is predicted, in particular, pre-calculated and/or ascertained on the basis of a model, in particular, as a function of or on the basis of an external load, in particular, a contact load and/or payload, and/or, as a function, in particular, of an actual or measured, pose and/or movement, in particular, speed and/or acceleration of the robot. Such a value expected without collision or during collision-free operation, in particular, is generally referred to here as “setpoint value”.” Therefore, a setpoint which serves as a collision detection threshold may be created based upon the effect of weight a payload has upon the pose of the vehicle. When the setpoint is raised due to an expected payload which exerts a larger load on the system, the collision detector is effectively disabled.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Guerin and DE20003153U1, with the collision setpoint methodology of Langgartner, in order to yield predictable results.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an robotic arm attachment such as taught within the system of Guerin would have an identical technical effect as the payload exhibiting a weighted effect on the pose of the robot as taught by Langgarthner. Combining the references would also yield the benefits of adapting threshold levels for detecting a collision to avoid unwanted collision detections based upon weight from a desired robotic component. As Langgartner describes, (Page 6, Column 5, Lines 63-67 and Column 6, Lines 1-4) “In this way, the specification of threshold values in one embodiment may continue to be simplified, even when reducing a (stop) tracking error and/or a reliable (more reliable) detection of actual collisions may be enabled and/or the risk of an unwarranted responding of the collision monitoring may be reduced. A tracking error in the present case is referred to, in particular, in a manner customary in the art, as a (controller) deviation between detected actual and commanded variables, in particular, axis positions.”
Claim 22 Discloses: (Currently Amended)
“The robotic work tool system of claim 21, wherein the one or more settings
Guerin, DE20003153U1, and DE202019106926U1 do not explicitly teach the preceding limitations.
Langgartner does teach the preceding limitations.
Langgartner teaches, (Abstract, Lines 1-5) “A method for collision monitoring of a robot includes ascertaining an actual value of an axis load of at least one axis of the robot and identifying a collision of the robot if a deviation between this actual value and a reference value of the axis load exceeds a threshold value,” and that, (Page 4, Column 1, Lines 61-63) “An axis load within the meaning of the present invention may comprise, in particular, a force or a torque acting on the axis.”
Langgartner additionally teaches, (Page 4, Column 2, Lines 3-15) “The reference value in one embodiment is, in particular, in at least one (movement mode) operating mode a value of the axis load expected during collision-free operation or with no collision, which in one embodiment is predicted, in particular, pre-calculated and/or ascertained on the basis of a model, in particular, as a function of or on the basis of an external load, in particular, a contact load and/or payload, and/or, as a function, in particular, of an actual or measured, pose and/or movement, in particular, speed and/or acceleration of the robot. Such a value expected without collision or during collision-free operation, in particular, is generally referred to here as “setpoint value”.” Therefore, a setpoint which serves as a collision detection threshold may be created based upon the effect of weight a payload has upon the pose of the vehicle. When the setpoint is raised due to an expected payload which exerts a larger load on the system, the collision detector is effectively disabled.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Guerin, DE20003153U1, and DE202019106926U1, with the collision setpoint methodology of Langgartner, in order to yield predictable results.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an robotic arm attachment such as taught within the system of Guerin would have an identical technical effect as the payload exhibiting a weighted effect on the pose of the robot as taught by Langgarthner. Combining the references would also yield the benefits of adapting threshold levels for detecting a collision to avoid unwanted collision detections based upon weight from a desired robotic component. As Langgartner describes, (Page 6, Column 5, Lines 63-67 and Column 6, Lines 1-4) “In this way, the specification of threshold values in one embodiment may continue to be simplified, even when reducing a (stop) tracking error and/or a reliable (more reliable) detection of actual collisions may be enabled and/or the risk of an unwarranted responding of the collision monitoring may be reduced. A tracking error in the present case is referred to, in particular, in a manner customary in the art, as a (controller) deviation between detected actual and commanded variables, in particular, axis positions.”
Claim 23 Discloses: (Currently Amended)
“The robotic work tool system of claim 21,wherein the setting of the at least one collision detector of the robotic working tool is an engagement disablingis based on the weight of the attachment being greater than a threshold level.”
Guerin, DE20003153U1, and DE202019106926U1 do not explicitly teach the preceding limitations.
Langgartner does teach the preceding limitations.
Langgartner teaches, (Abstract, Lines 1-5) “A method for collision monitoring of a robot includes ascertaining an actual value of an axis load of at least one axis of the robot and identifying a collision of the robot if a deviation between this actual value and a reference value of the axis load exceeds a threshold value,” and that, (Page 4, Column 1, Lines 61-63) “An axis load within the meaning of the present invention may comprise, in particular, a force or a torque acting on the axis.”
Langgartner additionally teaches, (Page 4, Column 2, Lines 3-15) “The reference value in one embodiment is, in particular, in at least one (movement mode) operating mode a value of the axis load expected during collision-free operation or with no collision, which in one embodiment is predicted, in particular, pre-calculated and/or ascertained on the basis of a model, in particular, as a function of or on the basis of an external load, in particular, a contact load and/or payload, and/or, as a function, in particular, of an actual or measured, pose and/or movement, in particular, speed and/or acceleration of the robot. Such a value expected without collision or during collision-free operation, in particular, is generally referred to here as “setpoint value”.” Therefore, a setpoint which serves as a collision detection threshold may be created based upon the effect of weight a payload has upon the pose of the vehicle. When the setpoint is raised due to an expected payload which exerts a larger load on the system, the collision detector is effectively disabled.
Langgartner additionally teaches, (Page 4, Column 1, Lines 24-28) “It is known from in-house practice to identify collisions of robots, if deviations between detected, actual values and expected, in particular, model-based ascertained values (“setpoint values”) of axis loads exceed predefined threshold values.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Guerin, DE20003153U1, and DE202019106926U1, with the collision setpoint methodology of Langgartner, in order to yield predictable results.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an robotic arm attachment such as taught within the system of Guerin would have an identical technical effect as the payload exhibiting a weighted effect on the pose of the robot as taught by Langgarthner. Combining the references would also yield the benefits of adapting threshold levels for detecting a collision to avoid unwanted collision detections based upon weight from a desired robotic component. As Langgartner describes, (Page 6, Column 5, Lines 63-67 and Column 6, Lines 1-4) “In this way, the specification of threshold values in one embodiment may continue to be simplified, even when reducing a (stop) tracking error and/or a reliable (more reliable) detection of actual collisions may be enabled and/or the risk of an unwarranted responding of the collision monitoring may be reduced. A tracking error in the present case is referred to, in particular, in a manner customary in the art, as a (controller) deviation between detected actual and commanded variables, in particular, axis positions.”
RELEVANT, BUT NOT CITED PRIOR ART
The prior are is made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Reigo et al. (WO 2015/094052 A1) teaches (Abstract), “A robotic work tool system (200) comprising a robotic work tool (100) and a beacon marker (280), said robotic work tool (100) comprising a beacon sensor (175) configured to sense a signal being transmitted by the beacon marker (280), said beacon marker (280) marking an area (270) around an obstacle (260) in a work area (205) in which said robotic work tool (100) is arranged to operate, wherein said robotic work tool is configured to determine a proximity to a beacon marker (280) and to adapt its operation accordingly.
Yamamoto (US 2021/0039256 A1) teaches a system wherein, (Abstract, Lines 1-2) “Load information on a tool to be attached to a robot arm and collision sensitivity are input,” and further that, (Paragraph [0010]) “the method includes: inputting load information on a load to be attached to the arm and collision sensitivity indicating a threshold value for detection of a collision of the arm,” as well as,” (Paragraphs [0017-0018]) “the accuracy of the load information and the collision sensitivity are in a proportional relation, the deflection correction amount may be set to be larger as the collision sensitivity increases. For example, if the collision sensitivity is more than 80%, the load information may be considered to be accurate, and the deflection correction amount may be calculated in consideration of the deflection amount caused by the load and the deflection amount due to the mass of the arm.”
Yamamura teaches, (Page 12, Column 2, Lines 38-41) “The utility vehicle of the present invention can be embodied in the form of various types of utility vehicle and particularly as an autonomously navigating utility vehicle as a lawn mower for lawn or grass mowing work,” and that, (Page 13, Column 3, Lines 35-38) “A collision (contact) sensor 40 is attached to the frame 12b. The collision sensor 40 outputs an ON signal when the frame 12b detaches from the chassis 12a owing to collision (contact) with an obstacle or foreign object.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER V. GENTILE whose telephone number is (703)756-1501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Kito R. Robinson can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
/ALEXANDER V GENTILE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights