DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
3. Claims 1-24 are pending in this application. Claims 1-24 were amended by preliminary amendment.
Specification
4. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Interpretation
5. Applicant’s claims and specification liberally use the terms “jerk reference”, “acceleration reference”, and “velocity reference” without formal definition. Our interpretation of these terms based on context from the specification and general familiarity with the art is that they are ideal or target values for the respective quantities jerk, acceleration, and velocity of devices or vehicles as tracked over time in a motion profile. These reference values are graphed in motion profiles as a device or vehicle moves from a starting position to a destination, for example in applicant’s figs. 11-12.
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.
6. Claims 9, 11, 13-14, 16-17, 18-21, and 23-24 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 9, 11, 13-14, 16, 18-19, and 23-24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In these claims the word is used as part of a comparison of values, e.g. “substantially zero” in claim 1, but the degree to which a value may be substantially zero is undefined and therefore indefinite. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgments without restriction renders the claim indefinite. See in re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970). Claims 17 and 20-21, without reciting the term “substantially”, inherit the indefiniteness of their parent claims.
7. Claim 23 recites the limitation "motion control profile" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note: it appears an inadvertent redaction may have occurred at the point marked “[sic]” in the following passage from the claim: “…computer executable instructions for causing a controller to execute instructions [sic] motion control profile being generated by a method which includes….”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Griffiths, et al., US 2020/0384645 (hereinafter Griffiths).
Griffiths discloses:
A carrier having thereon a computer program comprising computer executable instructions for causing a controller to execute instructionsGriffiths discloses a computer-implemented method in [0006] and the computer itself in [0125]. Its abstract “object” of [0006] and elsewhere in the disclosure is the carrier of the claim, as the object is exemplified by a mobile robot as in [0001], [0005], and [0125]. As disclosed in [0125], the computer may be embedded as a controller in a robot.
motion control profile being generated by a method which includes: i) receiving a plurality of constraints for the motion control profile, wherein the plurality of constraints includes a plurality of jerk constraints;Griffiths discloses jerk constraints in [0020] and [0022] as “jerk-limited movement profiles” and “jerk limits”. Positive and negative jerk limits (for acceleration and deceleration) are disclosed in [0137] and together these two types constitute a plurality. Moreover, profiles such as those depicted in fig. 15 with multiple phases of acceleration and deceleration may have a plurality of both positive and negative jerk limit constraints.
ii) selectively applying one or more of the plurality of jerk constraints for controlling a magnitude of the acceleration reference and the velocity reference within one or more of the plurality of constraints in the acceleration phase;Griffiths discloses this method step in [0137].
and iii) selectively applying one or more of the plurality of jerk constraints for controlling a magnitude of the deceleration reference and the velocity reference within one or more of the plurality of constraints in the deceleration phase;Griffiths discloses this method step in [0137].
such that a magnitude of the acceleration reference and the velocity reference is substantially zero at the second position.This limitation is equivalent to stating that the load handling vehicle comes to a stop at the second position, i.e. has arrived at its destination. While Griffiths’ motion profile generation and selection method works regardless of desired terminal velocity, among the several types of motion profiles disclosed, the final profile of fig. 8 discloses a profile with acceleration (black line) and velocity (gray line) “substantially zero” at the end of the profile (t=1.3).
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.
9. Claims 1-2, 5-16, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths in view of Hognaland, Ingvar, US 2018/0244467 (hereinafter Hognaland).
10. Regarding claim 1,
Griffiths discloses:
A method for generating a motion control profile having an acceleration and a deceleration phase Griffiths discloses motion profiles with acceleration and deceleration phases in [0011]. A variety of such profiles are depicted in figs. 4-9 and 15.
the motion control profile defining, as a function of time, at least one of an acceleration reference, a velocity reference, a position reference and a jerk reference,Griffiths discloses an exemplary motion profile in fig. 15 which includes jerk, acceleration, and velocity references graphed over time.
the motion control profile being generated by the method comprising i) receiving a plurality of constraints for the motion control profile, wherein the plurality of constraints includes a plurality of jerk constraints;Griffiths discloses jerk constraints in [0020] and [0022] as “jerk-limited movement profiles” and “jerk limits”. Positive and negative jerk limits (for acceleration and deceleration) are disclosed in [0137] and together these two types constitute a plurality. Moreover, profiles such as those depicted in fig. 15 with multiple phases of acceleration and deceleration may have a plurality of both positive and negative jerk limit constraints.
ii) selectively applying one or more of the plurality of jerk constraints for controlling a magnitude of the acceleration reference and the velocity reference within one or more of the plurality of constraints in the acceleration phase;Griffiths discloses this method step in [0137].
and iii) selectively applying one or more of the plurality of jerk constraints for controlling a magnitude of the deceleration reference and the velocity reference within one or more of the plurality of constraints in the deceleration phase;Griffiths discloses this method step in [0137].
such that a magnitude of the acceleration reference and the velocity reference is substantially zero at the second position.This limitation is equivalent to stating that the load handling vehicle comes to a stop at the second position, i.e. has arrived at its destination. While Griffiths’ motion profile generation and selection method works regardless of desired terminal velocity, among the several types of motion profiles disclosed, the final profile of fig. 8 discloses a profile with acceleration (black line) and velocity (gray line) “substantially zero” at the end of the profile (t=1.3).
However, Griffiths does not disclose all aspects of:
to control motion of a load handling device from a first position to a second position on a grid structure including a plurality of tracks arranged in a grid pattern,While Griffiths’ system controls mobile robots such as load handling devices, it does not disclose a particular robotic vehicle or load handling device or a particular storage system context such as the claimed structure with its grid pattern of tracks.
the load handling device including a wheel assembly comprising a first and second pair of wheels, a drive mechanism for driving the wheel assembly and a controller connected to the drive mechanism being instructed to drive the wheel assembly according to the motion control profile,While Griffiths’ system controls mobile robots such as load handling devices according to a motion profile, Griffiths does not disclose a wheel assembly and drive mechanism.
Hognaland, an invention in the field of mobile robotics, teaches the missing elements of the limitations:
to control the motion of a load handling device (1: fig. 1) from a first position to a second position on a grid structure (15: fig. 1) including a plurality of tracks arranged in a grid pattern (13: fig. 1),
the load handling device including a wheel assembly comprising a first and second pair of wheels (unnumbered wheel sets [0050]), a drive mechanism (unnumbered motor [0051]) for driving the wheel assembly and a controller connected to the drive mechanism (unnumbered local control processing means [0052]) being instructed to drive the wheel assembly according to the motion control profile,In teaching these limitations in combination with Griffiths, we rely on Hognaland solely for its structures, i.e. its grid structure with tracks, its robotic vehicle, its wheel assembly, its drive mechanisms, and its controller. For the motion control profile we rely on Griffiths, which discloses the control of an abstract robotic vehicle, instantiated in combination by that of Hognaland.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Griffiths, to control the motion of a load handling device from a first position to a second position on a grid structure including a plurality of tracks arranged in a grid pattern, and with the load handling device including a wheel assembly comprising a first and second pair of wheels, a drive mechanism for driving the wheel assembly and a controller connected to the drive mechanism being instructed to drive the wheel assembly according to the motion control profile, as taught by Hognaland, because the structures of Hognaland are conventional and well-known elements of dense-grid storage systems to which Griffiths’ motion profile method is easily adapted and because motion control of robots such as Hognaland’s would provide obvious commercial advantages such as optimizing robot motion to improve storage system efficiency.
11. Regarding claim 2,
Griffiths in view of Hognaland teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
comprising receiving at least one velocity constraint, at least one acceleration constraint, and/or at least one deceleration constraint, said at least one velocity constraint, at least one acceleration constraint, at least one deceleration constraint, and the plurality of jerk constraints defining the plurality of constraints for generating a sequence of one or more trajectory segments.Griffiths discloses acceleration and velocity constraints in [0022]. As regards the trajectory segments, Griffiths discloses positive and negative profiles in [0017] associated with positive and negative acceleration terminal phases, and discloses acceleration, constant velocity, and deceleration phases in [0019]. Griffiths teaches the association of limits (constraints) with phases in [0028].
12. Regarding claim 5,
Griffiths in view of Hognaland teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein a magnitude of the velocity reference of the load handling device at the first position has a value greater than zero.Griffiths discloses nonzero velocity at the starting (first) position in [0021]. All of Griffiths’ motion profile figures depict this situation as well, i.e. figs. 4-9, 13, and 15.
13. Regarding claim 6,
Griffiths in view of Hognaland teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein selectively applying the plurality of jerk constraints in the acceleration phase comprises selectively switching between one or more of the plurality of jerk constraints to control a magnitude of the acceleration reference and velocity reference within the plurality of constraints in the acceleration phase;Griffiths discloses the application of a positive jerk constraint in an acceleration phase in [0020]. A jerk constraint directly limits the rate or magnitude of acceleration change and thus indirectly affects the rate or magnitude of velocity change.
and wherein selectively applying the plurality of jerk constraints in the deceleration phase includes selectively switching between the one or more of the plurality of jerk constraints to control a magnitude of the deceleration reference and the velocity reference within the plurality of constraints in the deceleration phase.Griffiths discloses the application of a negative jerk constraint in a deceleration phase in [0020]. A jerk constraint directly limits the rate or magnitude of acceleration change and thus indirectly affects the rate or magnitude of velocity change.
14. Regarding claim 7,
Griffiths in view of Hognaland teaches the limitations of claim 6 and also:
wherein the controller is configured to generate the motion control profile by selectively applying the one or more of the plurality of jerk constraints in one or more switching patterns in the acceleration phase and/or in the deceleration phase. Griffiths discloses switching patterns with jerk values in [0203] used to generate the “ThreeThree” motion profile of fig. 15 which comprises acceleration and deceleration phases, abrupt changes in jerk reference values, linear changes in acceleration values, and continuous changes in velocity values. In this motion profile five different constant jerk constraints are applied to five different stages of increasing, constant, or decreasing acceleration yielding a single continuous curve for velocity rising and falling over the course of the profile.
15. Regarding claim 8,
Griffiths in view of Hognaland teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the controller is configured: i) to selectively increase or decrease the a magnitude of the acceleration reference in the acceleration phase by selectively applying the plurality of jerk constraints in one or more switching patterns within one or more of the plurality of constraints in the acceleration phase; and/or ii) to selectively increase or decrease a magnitude of the deceleration reference in the deceleration phase by selectively applying the plurality of jerk constraints in one or more switching patterns within one or more of the plurality of constraints in the deceleration phase. Griffiths discloses the application of positive jerk constraints in acceleration phases and negative jerk constraints in deceleration phases in [0020]. A jerk constraint directly limits the rate or magnitude of acceleration change and thus indirectly affects the rate or magnitude of velocity change. Griffiths discloses switching patterns with jerk values in [0203] used to generate the “ThreeThree” motion profile of fig. 15.
16. Regarding claim 9,
Griffiths in view of Hognaland teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein one of the plurality of jerk constraints is substantially zero to provide a substantially constant acceleration.Griffiths discloses a jerk constraint of 0 in phases II and VI of the motion profile of fig. 15. In these phases acceleration is seen to be constant.
17. Regarding claim 10,
Griffiths in view of Hognaland teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the plurality of jerk constraints in the acceleration phase and the deceleration phase comprises a first jerk constraint and a second jerk constraint such that: i) a magnitude of the acceleration reference and of the velocity reference in the acceleration phase are controlled by selectively applying the first jerk constraint and the second jerk constraint within one or more of the plurality of constraints in the acceleration phase; and ii) a magnitude of the deceleration reference and of the velocity reference in the deceleration phase are controlled by selectively applying the first jerk constraint and the second jerk constraint within one or more of the plurality of constraints in the deceleration phase.Griffiths discloses the application of positive jerk constraints in acceleration phases and negative jerk constraints in deceleration phases in [0020] and for example in the motion profile of fig. 15. A first constraint from fig. 15 might for example be the positive constraint applied in phase I and a second constraint might be the negative constraint applied in phase III. A jerk constraint directly limits the rate or magnitude of acceleration change and thus indirectly affects the rate or magnitude of velocity change.
18. Regarding claim 11,
Griffiths in view of Hognaland teaches the limitations of claim 10 and also:
wherein the absolute values of the first and second jerk constraints are substantially equal.Griffiths discloses in [0137] a common object trajectory scenario wherein an acceleration phase is followed by an optional constant velocity phase and then followed by a symmetric deceleration phase, with positive values swapped for negative values. In this scenario, Griffith’s positive and negative jerk constraints have the same absolute value.
19. Regarding claim 12,
Griffiths in view of Hognaland teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the plurality of jerk constraints in the acceleration phase comprises; a first jerk constraint and a second jerk constraint, and the plurality of jerk constraints in the deceleration phase includes a third jerk constraint and a fourth jerk constraint such that: i) a magnitude of the acceleration reference and of the velocity reference in the acceleration phase are controlled by selectively applying the first jerk constraint and the second jerk constraint within the one or more constraints in the acceleration phase; and ii) a magnitude of the deceleration reference and of the velocity reference in the deceleration phase are controlled by selectively applying the third jerk constraint and the fourth jerk constraint within the one or more constraints in the deceleration phase.Griffiths teaches this arrangement in its “ThreeThree” motion profile of fig. 15. As seen in the figure, there are four jerk steps, two positive and two negative associated with the acceleration and deceleration phase of the profile (at stage I-II, stage II-III, stage V-VI, and stage VI-VII).
20. Regarding claim 13,
Griffiths in view of Hognaland teaches the limitations of claim 12 and also:
wherein the absolute values of the first, second, third and fourth jerk constraints are substantially equal.Griffiths teaches this arrangement in its “ThreeThree” motion profile of fig. 15. As seen in the figure, there are four jerk steps, two positive and two negative associated with the acceleration and deceleration phase of the profile (at stage I-II, stage II-III, stage V-VI, and stage VI-VII); these stages all have the same magnitude constraints.
21. Regarding claim 15,
Griffiths in view of Hognaland teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the controller is configured to optimise the motion control profile by: i) generating a first motion control profile by selectively applying the plurality of jerk constraints in a first switching pattern in the acceleration phase and by selectively applying the plurality of jerk constraints in a second switching pattern in the deceleration phase such that the first motion control profile has a duration of a first time; ii) generating a second motion control profile by selectively applying the plurality of jerk constraints in a third switching pattern in the acceleration phase and by selectively applying the plurality of jerk constraints in a fourth switching pattern in the deceleration phase, such that the second motion control profile has a duration of a second time; and iii) choosing an optimal motion control profile by selecting between the first motion control profile and the second motion control profile having the shortest time duration.Taken all together, these limitations amount to generating two candidate motion profiles with jerk constraints for acceleration and deceleration phases and choosing the one with a shortest duration. Griffiths’ invention is largely concerned with selecting and optimizing motion profiles from amongst a plurality of candidate profiles and so its specification addresses the subject at length and in great detail, but the concept is introduced in [0024]-[0027] where [0027] discloses the claimed minimum time criterion. Griffiths further discloses the claimed multiple jerk constraints with switching patterns in [0203] and in fig. 15 which depicts a positive jerk constraint for the acceleration phase and a negative jerk constraint for the deceleration phase.
22. Regarding claim 16,
Griffiths in view of Hognaland teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
comprising predicting a value of a parameter associated with the motion control profile using a root finding algorithm to find a root of an objective function, the objective function being an amount of positional deviation of the motion control profile from the second position when a magnitude of the velocity reference and the acceleration reference of the motion control profile is substantially zero and the root corresponds to a value of the parameter where the positional deviation is substantially zero at the second position, the root finding method algorithm being one of a Newton's root-finding method, a secant root-finding method, a bisection root- finding method, an interpolation-based root- finding method, an inverse-interpolation-based root- finding method, a Brent's root-finding method, a Budan-Fourier- based root- finding method, and a Strum-chain-based root- finding method.Griffiths discloses at great length a method of using the Newton-Raphson method (an alternate name for Newton’s Method) to find the extremum of position for a gradient function for the motion of an object in [0042]-[0059]. We note especially [0042] disclosing that the target state of motion includes a velocity (the claimed parameter), [0048] disclosing a target position (the claimed second position) and [0054] disclosing Newton’s method, where the difference between object position and destination position is zero. While Griffiths’ motion profile generation and selection method works regardless of desired terminal velocity, among the several types of motion profiles disclosed, the final profile of fig. 8 discloses a profile with acceleration (black line) and velocity (gray line) “substantially zero” at the end of the profile (t=1.3).
23. Regarding claim 22,
Griffiths in view of Hognaland teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
comprising advancing the motion control profile in discrete time steps.Griffiths’ teaches in motion profile fig. 15 discrete time stages I-VII which constitute the claimed time steps. The singularities in jerk reference values in this graph also present discrete time steps.
24. Regarding claim 24,
Griffiths discloses:
The controller including a processor and a data storage means including computer executable instructionsGriffiths discloses a computer-implemented method in [0006] and the computer itself in [0125]. As disclosed in [0125], the computer may be embedded as a controller in a robot.
for causing the controller to execute instructions for a motion control profile generated by a method which includes: i) receiving a plurality of constraints for the motion control profile, wherein the plurality of constraints includes a plurality of jerk constraints;Griffiths discloses motion profiles with acceleration and deceleration phases in [0011]. A variety of such profiles are depicted in figs. 4-9 and 15. Griffiths discloses jerk constraints in [0020] and [0022] as “jerk-limited movement profiles” and “jerk limits”. Positive and negative jerk limits (for acceleration and deceleration) are disclosed in [0137] and together these two types constitute a plurality. Moreover, profiles such as those depicted in fig. 15 with multiple phases of acceleration and deceleration may have a plurality of both positive and negative jerk limit constraints.
ii) selectively applying one or more of the plurality of jerk constraints for controlling a magnitude of the acceleration reference and the velocity reference within one or more of the plurality of constraints in the acceleration phase;Griffiths discloses this method step in [0137].
and iii) selectively applying one or more of the plurality of jerk constraints for controlling a magnitude of the deceleration reference and the velocity reference within one or more of the plurality of constraints in the deceleration phase;Griffiths discloses this method step in [0137].
such that magnitude of the acceleration reference and the velocity reference is substantially zero at the second position.This limitation is equivalent to stating that the load handling vehicle comes to a stop at the second position, i.e. has arrived at its destination. While Griffiths’ motion profile generation and selection method works regardless of desired terminal velocity, among the several types of motion profiles disclosed, the final profile of fig. 8 discloses a profile with acceleration (black line) and velocity (gray line) “substantially zero” at the end of the profile (t=1.3).
However, Griffiths does not disclose all aspects of:
A load handling device comprising: a drive mechanism for driving a wheel assembly including a first pair and a second pair of wheels; and a controller connected to the drive mechanism and configured to drive the wheel assembly,While Griffiths’ system controls mobile robots such as load handling devices according to a motion profile, Griffiths does not disclose a wheel assembly and drive mechanism.
Hognaland, an invention in the field of mobile robotics, teaches the missing elements of the limitations:
A load handling device (1: fig. 1) comprising: a drive mechanism (unnumbered motor [0051]) for driving a wheel assembly including a first pair and a second pair of wheels (unnumbered wheel sets [0050]); and a controller (unnumbered local control processing means [0052]) connected to the drive mechanism and configured to drive the wheel assembly,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Griffiths with a load handling device comprising: a drive mechanism for driving a wheel assembly including a first pair and a second pair of wheels; and a controller connected to the drive mechanism and configured to drive the wheel assembly, as taught by Hognaland, because the claimed robotic features are commonplace in mobile robotics. Many well-known mobile robots feature wheel assemblies with at least two pairs of wheels with at least one drive unit powering the wheels and at least one controller controlling the drives.
25. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths in view of Hognaland and further in view of Kanazawa, et al., US 2016/0016308 (hereinafter Kanazawa).
Griffiths in view of Hognaland teaches the limitations of claim 1 but not:
wherein a value of one or more of the plurality of constraints is a function of a total mass of the load handling device.Griffiths does not teach mass as a constraining feature for its motion profiles.
Kanazawa, an invention in the field of robotics, teaches:
wherein a value of one or more of the plurality of constraints is a function of a total mass of the load handling device.Kanazawa teaches mass factoring into constraints applied to a robot motion profile (aka “trajectory” in the art) in [0143]. The constraint condition of the paragraph is based on friction, which is function of the total mass of an object such as a load handling device that is the subject of a motion profile.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Griffiths and Hognaland wherein a value of one or more of the plurality of constraints is a function of a total mass of the load handling device, as taught by Kanazawa because both friction and inertial moment play a part in the motion of all moving objects subject to acceleration and both these factors are a function of the mass of the moving object. Hence any acceleration constraint applied to an object’s motion may sensibly be based on a function of the object’s mass.
26. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths in view of Hognaland and further in view of Broquère, et al., Soft Motion Trajectory Planner for
Service Manipulator Robot, arXiv.org, 2009 (hereinafter Broquère).
Griffiths in view of Hognaland teaches the limitations of claim 11 but not:
wherein an absolute value of the jerk is substantially in a range 0.1m/s3 to 200m/s3Griffiths and Hognaland do not teach explicit numeric jerk values.
Broquère, a journal article in the field of robot trajectory planning, teaches:
wherein an absolute value of the jerk is substantially in a range 0.1m/s3 to 200m/s3Broquère teaches in the table on page 5 a maximum jerk value of 0.9 m/s3, within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Griffiths and Hognaland, wherein an absolute value of the jerk is substantially in a range 0.1m/s3 to 200m/s3, as taught by Broquère, because a jerk range of 0.1 to 200 m/s3 is extremely broad and a wide variety of industrial devices that constrain jerk values using motion profiles do so within this range.
27. Claims 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths in view of Hognaland and further in view of Nagarajan; Umashankar, US 9,975,244 (hereinafter Nagarajan).
28. Regarding claim 18,
Griffiths in view of Hognaland teaches the limitations of claim 1 but not all aspects of:
comprising re-generating the motion control profile by applying the plurality of jerk constraints in one or more switching patterns in the acceleration and/or the deceleration phase in response to receiving an updated second position that is different from the second position such that the a magnitude of the velocity reference and acceleration reference is substantially zero is at the updated second position.While Griffiths discloses the generation of a motion control profile according to a plurality of jerk constraints in one or more switching patterns in acceleration and/or deceleration phases (as in [0203]), and also a second or destination position where velocity and acceleration are substantially zero (as in the final profile depicted in fig. 8), it does not disclose regenerating motion control profiles in response to deviation or error of position. However, Griffiths not only discloses the need to update motion profiles in real time in response to events during a trajectory in [0005], it is plainly fully capable of executing its method more than once as required.
Nagarajan, an invention in the field of robotics, teaches the missing element of:
comprising re-generating the motion control profile by applying the plurality of jerk constraints in one or more switching patterns in the acceleration and/or the deceleration phase in response to receiving an updated second position that is different from the second position such that the a magnitude of the velocity reference and acceleration reference is substantially zero is at the updated second position.Nagarajan teaches an updated trajectory (i.e. re-generated motion profile) in C16/L17-37 based on a “target motion state”. Per C1/L15-16, a motion state is defined to comprise elements such as position, velocity, acceleration, and jerk. Note that “trajectories” are understood in the art to be synonymous with “motion profiles”. Making use of Nagarajan’s teaching of a target-position-based triggering condition (i.e. an updated second position) for motion profile regeneration and Griffith’s method for generating motion profiles, the claimed method is implemented in combination. While Griffiths’ motion profile generation and selection method works regardless of desired terminal velocity, among the several types of motion profiles disclosed, the final profile of fig. 8 discloses a profile with acceleration (black line) and velocity (gray line) “substantially zero” at the end of the profile (t=1.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Griffiths and Hognaland, comprising re-generating the motion control profile by applying the plurality of jerk constraints in one or more switching patterns in the acceleration and/or the deceleration phase in response to receiving an updated second position that is different from the second position such that the a magnitude of the velocity reference and acceleration reference is substantially zero is at the updated second position, as taught by Nagarajan, because all programmed movement results in some degree of deviation or error, and because the ability to correct for such deviation is plainly desirable in any industrial machine required to move with precision.
29. Regarding claim 19,
Griffiths in view of Hognaland teaches the limitations of claim 1 but not all aspects of:
comprising re-generating the motion control profile by applying the plurality of jerk constraints in one or more switching patterns in the acceleration phase and/or the deceleration phase in response to receiving an update to the one or more constraints in the acceleration phase and/or deceleration phase such that a magnitude of the velocity reference and acceleration reference is substantially zero at the second position.While Griffiths discloses the generation of a motion control profile according to a plurality of jerk constraints in one or more switching patterns in acceleration and/or deceleration phases, and also a second or destination position where velocity and acceleration are substantially zero (as in fig. 8), it does not disclose regenerating motion control profiles in response to deviation or error of position. However, Griffiths not only discloses the need to update motion profiles in real time in response to events during a trajectory in [0005], it is plainly fully capable of executing its method more than once as required.
Nagarajan, an invention in the field of robotics, teaches the missing element of:
comprising re-generating the motion control profile by applying the plurality of jerk constraints in one or more switching patterns in the acceleration phase and/or the deceleration phase in response to receiving an update to the one or more constraints in the acceleration phase and/or deceleration phase such that a magnitude of the velocity reference and acceleration reference is substantially zero at the second position.Nagarajan teaches an updated trajectory (i.e. re-generated motion profile) in C16/L17-37 based on a “target motion state”. Per C1/L15-16, a motion state is defined to comprise elements such as position, velocity, acceleration, and jerk. Note that “trajectories” are understood in the art to be synonymous with “motion profiles”. Making use of Nagarajan’s teaching of a target-acceleration-based triggering condition (i.e. an updated acceleration constraint) for motion profile regeneration and Griffith’s method for generating motion profiles, the claimed method is implemented in combination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Griffiths and Hognaland, comprising re-generating the motion control profile by applying the plurality of jerk constraints in one or more switching patterns in the acceleration phase and/or the deceleration phase in response to receiving an update to the one or more constraints in the acceleration phase and/or deceleration phase such that a magnitude of the velocity reference and acceleration reference is substantially zero at the second position, as taught by Nagarajan, because a wide variety of circumstances may lead to an updated acceleration constraint during the course of a controlled object or robot’s trajectory. When such updates occur, it is plainly necessary to update the trajectory or motion profile with the new constraint to avoid hazards associated with the violation of a constraint such as failure to arrive at an intended destination or damage incurred by the object or robot.
30. Regarding claim 20,
Griffiths in view of Hognaland and Nagarajan teaches the limitations of claim 18 and also:
comprising the step of re-generating the motion control profile by applying the plurality of jerk constraints in one or more switching patterns in the acceleration phase and/or the deceleration phase in response to receiving an updated position from one or more position sensors.Nagarajan teaches an updated trajectory (i.e. re-generated motion profile) in C16/L17-37 based on a “target motion state”. Per C1/L15-16, a motion state is defined to comprise elements such as position, velocity, acceleration, and jerk. Nagarajan teaches motion state (i.e. position) sensors in C9/L9-11, and Hognaland also teaches optical position sensors in [0052]. As per the parent claim 18, in combination with Griffiths we make use of Griffiths’ method of motion profile generation, applying its plurality of jerk constraints as on an initial motion profile generation.
31. Regarding claim 21,
Griffiths in view of Hognaland and Nagarajan teaches the limitations of claim 20 and also:
wherein the one or more position sensors comprises: one or more optical sensors mounted on the load handling device and configured to cooperate with a grid structure to determine a position of the load handling device relative to the grid structure.Hognaland discloses optical position sensors for its grid-structure-traversing robot in [0052].
Allowable Subject Matter
32. Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While considerations of mass related to the application of velocity and acceleration constraints in motion profiles are not unknown to the art (see rejection above to parent claim 3), claim 4’s particular limitation of a velocity or acceleration constraint in a motion profile inversely proportional to the total mass of the moving object in the profile was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
33. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2010/0063603 teaches the generation of movement profiles based on constraints such as velocity, acceleration, and jerk. US 2006/0087632 teaches updating motion profiles after the detection of a position error. US 2020/0272153 teaches updating motion profiles based on acceleration changes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655