DETAILED ACTION
Prosecution Is Hereby Reopened
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 03/09/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments (found in the Appeal Brief)
Applicant's appeal brief filed 03/09/2026 has been fully considered and an appeal conference was held on 07/01/2026, where it was determined that the applicant’s arguments were reasonably persuasive with regards to the prior art of record, Einav, not fully anticipating the claims. In general, Einav discloses tracking/monitoring the human relative/in relation to the robot, but is not explicit in that the tracking/monitoring is of the robot versus only the human. As such, the previously made 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) anticipatory rejections have been withdrawn. However, Examiner holds that the claims are still unpatentable based on a prima facie case of obviousness (instead of being based on pure anticipation), and thus the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections are now replaced with 35 U.S.C 103 obviousness-based rejections based on the previously presented prior art reference, Einav, but now also in view of the newly included Cole reference. Please see new prior art rejections below for additional details.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einav et al. (US20190105779, referred to as Einav) in view of Cole et al. (US11014240, referred to as Cole)
Regarding claim 1: Einav discloses: A method of handling safety of an industrial robot in a workspace, the method comprising: ([0106] motion tracking of body members is used in planning robotic movements and / or increasing the safety of the human operator) providing a geometric region by a monitoring system, where the geometric region is defined in relation to the industrial robot and/or in relation to the workspace, and ([0106] the motion tracking is converted into defined safety and / or targeting envelopes ( also referred to herein as safety and / or targeting " zones ” ) , which define regions to be avoided and / or sought by robotic movements . The same envelope could be both avoided and sought simultaneously by different robotic parts moving simultaneously ; for example , one robotic part tries to avoid a body member , while another one is brought into proximity to the body member in advance of a human - robot collaborative action .) where the geometric region is associated with at least one condition for being fulfilled by the industrial robot; communicating the geometric region from the monitoring system to a robot control system of the industrial robot; ([0138] imaging devices 110 ( cameras ) are operable to optically monitor working areas of the task cell 100 . In some embodiments , imaging devices 110 image markers indicating positions and / or movements of body members ( for example , hands , arms and / or head ) of human operator 150 . In some embodiments , monitored operator body member positions and / or movements are used in the definition of safety envelopes , for example , to guide motion planning for robots 120 , 122 .)
determining a movement of the industrial robot by the robot control system based on the geometric region and the at least one condition; executing the movement by the industrial robot; and ([0211] movement planner 920 uses envelopes 1108 , 1110 to adjust robotic movements ( and / or other robotic actions ) to avoid ( e . g . for safety ) and or seek ( e . g . , for collaborative actions ) the positions of body members of human operator 150 , producing a new or adjusted movement plan 921 .) [monitoring, by the monitoring system, the execution of the movement] with respect to the geometric region and the at least one condition. ; ([0138] imaging devices 110 ( cameras ) are operable to optically monitor working areas of the task cell 100 . In some embodiments , imaging devices 110 image markers indicating positions and / or movements of body members ( for example , hands , arms and / or head ) of human operator 150 . In some embodiments , monitored operator body member positions and / or movements are used in the definition of safety envelopes , for example , to guide motion planning for robots 120 , 122 . [0167] any one or more of safety levels 902 , 904 , 906 uses optical tracking data of the operator . Examples of means and methods of optical tracking are discussed further , for example , in relation to FIGS . 3A - 3E , herein .)
Einav does not explicitly disclose the following limitations: monitoring, by the monitoring system, the execution of the movement
Einav does not disclose the following limitations, however Cole from an analogous field of endeavor, further teaches: ([col. 3, lines 46-49] sensors ( e.g. 57 and/or 58) can monitor operation of the robot 50 as well as the proximity of a person to the robot 50 (and/or to any particular component 52),)
Einav and Cole are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of human-robot interaction safety control devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the safety operator tracking system of Einav to enable the use of the monitoring system to monitor both the robot and operator simultaneously as taught in Cole.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the safety envelope method disclosed in Einav with the method applied to the explicit monitoring of both the human and robot throughout the interaction for more accurate safety positioning determination for the purpose of improving system safety.
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Einav and Cole teaches: The method according to claim 1,
Einav further discloses: further comprising: providing the at least one condition by the monitoring system; and communicating the at least one condition from the monitoring system to the robot control system. ([0166] a proximity envelope 906 is defined , in some embodiments , by sensors which detect
unexpected proximity of a robotic member to an object ( e . g . , a body member of a human operator 150 ) . Optionally , proximity as such is detected without localizing the position of proximity ; for example , disturbance of an electrical field ( e . g . , capacitively sensed ) , magnetic sensing , and / or
mechanical deflection of a projecting ( e . g . , whisker - like ) and / or encapsulating ( e . g . , sleeve - like ) member of the robot is detected by a change in a sensor value . Additionally or alternatively , proximity is detected , in some embodiments , by sensing proximity of a device worn by the operator . In some embodiments , proximity is detected optically ( for example , using the imaging devices 110 ) . A robot ' s safety response to proximity is optionally to treat it as a hard operating limit 908 , but can also be less abrupt for example , a controller ( such as control unit 160 ) can command the robotic arm to slow its movements , without halting entirely . If the spatial position of a body member in proximity to a robotic part is known ( e . g . , via optical sensing ) , movement of the robotic part is optionally changed to withdraw it from proximity .)
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Einav and Cole teaches:The method according to claim 1,
Einav further discloses: wherein the at least one condition becomes active when the industrial robot or an object enters the geometric region. ([0166] a proximity envelope 906 is defined , in some embodiments , by sensors which detect unexpected proximity of a robotic member to an object ( e . g . , a body member of a human operator 150 ) . Optionally , proximity as such is detected without localizing the position of proximity ; for example , disturbance of an electrical field ( e . g . , capacitively sensed ) , magnetic sensing , and / or mechanical deflection of a projecting ( e . g . , whisker - like ) and / or encapsulating ( e . g . , sleeve - like ) member of the robot is detected by a change in a sensor value . Additionally or alternatively , proximity is detected , in some embodiments , by sensing proximity of a device worn by the operator . In some embodiments , proximity is detected optically ( for example , using the imaging devices 110 ) . A robot ' s safety response to proximity is optionally to treat it as a hard operating limit 908 , but can also be less abrupt for example , a controller ( such as control unit 160 ) can command the robotic arm to slow its movements , without halting entirely . If the spatial position of a body member in proximity to a robotic part is known ( e . g . , via optical sensing ) , movement of the robotic part is optionally changed to withdraw it from proximity .)
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Einav and Cole teaches:The method according to claim 1,
Einav further discloses: wherein the at least one condition comprises a limitation of an operation parameter of the industrial robot. ([0166] a proximity envelope 906 is defined , in some embodiments , by sensors which detect unexpected proximity of a robotic member to an object ( e . g . , a body member of a human operator 150 ) . Optionally , proximity as such is detected without localizing the position of proximity ; for example , disturbance of an electrical field ( e . g . , capacitively sensed ) , magnetic sensing , and / or mechanical deflection of a projecting ( e . g . , whisker - like ) and / or encapsulating ( e . g . , sleeve - like ) member of the robot is detected by a change in a sensor value . Additionally or alternatively , proximity is detected , in some embodiments , by sensing proximity of a device worn by the operator . In some embodiments , proximity is detected optically ( for example , using the imaging devices 110 ) . A robot ' s safety response to proximity is optionally to treat it as a hard operating limit 908 , but can also be less abrupt for example , a controller ( such as control unit 160 ) can command the robotic arm to slow its movements , without halting entirely . If the spatial position of a body member in proximity to a robotic part is known ( e . g . , via optical sensing ) , movement of the robotic part is optionally changed to withdraw it from proximity .)
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Einav and Cole teaches: The method according claim 1,
Einav further discloses: further comprising taking a countermeasure by the monitoring system in case the at least one condition is not fulfilled by the industrial robot. ([0166] a proximity envelope 906 is defined , in some embodiments , by sensors which detect unexpected proximity of a robotic member to an object ( e . g . , a body member of a human operator 150 ) . Optionally , proximity as such is detected without localizing the position of proximity ; for example , disturbance of an electrical field ( e . g . , capacitively sensed ) , magnetic sensing , and / or mechanical deflection of a projecting ( e . g . , whisker - like ) and / or encapsulating ( e . g . , sleeve - like ) member of the robot is detected by a change in a sensor value . Additionally or alternatively , proximity is detected , in some embodiments , by sensing proximity of a device worn by the operator . In some embodiments , proximity is detected optically ( for example , using the imaging devices 110 ) . A robot ' s safety response to proximity is optionally to treat it as a hard operating limit 908 , but can also be less abrupt for example , a controller ( such as control unit 160 ) can command the robotic arm to slow its movements , without halting entirely . If the spatial position of a body member in proximity to a robotic part is known ( e . g . , via optical sensing ) , movement of the robotic part is optionally changed to withdraw it from proximity .)
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Einav and Cole teaches: The method according to claim 1,
Einav further discloses: further comprising performing an offline simulation of the determined movement with respect to the geometric region and the at least one condition prior to executing the movement. ([0233] At block 240 , in some embodiments , the sequence of operations needed to perform the task is tested ( stepped though in an actual or simulated run ) , to validate the robot ' s functionality as well as the human operator ' s 150 understanding of the process)
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Einav and Cole teaches: The method according to claim 1,
Einav does not disclose the following limitations, however Cole from an analogous field of endeavor, further teaches: wherein the determination of the movement comprises a determination of a path of the industrial robot. ([col. 3, lines 46-49] sensors ( e.g. 57 and/or 58) can monitor operation of the robot 50 as well as the proximity of a person to the robot 50 (and/or to any particular component 52),)
As previously stated, Einav and Cole are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of human-robot interaction safety control devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the safety operator tracking system of Einav to enable the use of the monitoring system to monitor both the robot and operator simultaneously as taught in Cole.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the safety envelope method disclosed in Einav with the method applied to the explicit monitoring of both the human and robot throughout the interaction for more accurate safety positioning determination for the purpose of improving system safety.
Regarding claim 8: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9: The combination of Einav and Cole teaches: The system according to claim 8,
Einav further discloses: wherein the monitoring control system is configured to: provide the at least one condition; and communicate the at least one condition to the robot control system. ([0166] a proximity envelope 906 is defined , in some embodiments , by sensors which detect unexpected proximity of a robotic member to an object ( e . g . , a body member of a human operator 150 ) . Optionally , proximity as such is detected without localizing the position of proximity ; for example , disturbance of an electrical field ( e . g . , capacitively sensed ) , magnetic sensing , and / or mechanical deflection of a projecting ( e . g . , whisker - like ) and / or encapsulating ( e . g . , sleeve - like ) member of the robot is detected by a change in a sensor value . Additionally or alternatively , proximity is detected , in some embodiments , by sensing proximity of a device worn by the operator . In some embodiments , proximity is detected optically ( for example , using the imaging devices 110 ) . A robot ' s safety response to proximity is optionally to treat it as a hard operating limit 908 , but can also be less abrupt for example , a controller ( such as control unit 160 ) can command the robotic arm to slow its movements , without halting entirely . If the spatial position of a body member in proximity to a robotic part is known ( e . g . , via optical sensing ) , movement of the robotic part is optionally changed to withdraw it from proximity. [0211] movement planner 920 uses envelopes 1108 , 1110 to adjust robotic movements ( and / or other robotic actions ) to avoid ( e . g . for safety ) and or seek ( e . g . , for collaborative actions ) the positions of body members of human operator 150 , producing a new or adjusted movement plan 921 .)
Regarding claim 10: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 11: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 12: The combination of Einav and Cole teaches: The system according to claim 8,
Einav further discloses: wherein the monitoring control system is configured to command a countermeasure in case the at least one condition is not fulfilled by the industrial robot. ([0211] movement planner 920 uses envelopes 1108 , 1110 to adjust robotic movements ( and / or other robotic actions ) to avoid ( e . g . for safety ) and or seek ( e . g . , for collaborative actions ) the positions of body members of human operator 150 , producing a new or adjusted movement plan 921 .)
Regarding claim 13: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim 14: The combination of Einav and Cole teaches: The system according to claim 8,
Einav further discloses: further comprising the industrial robot. ([0166] a proximity envelope 906 is defined , in some embodiments , by sensors which detect unexpected proximity of a robotic member to an object ( e . g . , a body member of a human operator 150 ))
Regarding claim 15: The combination of Einav and Cole teaches: The system according to claim 8,
Einav further discloses: further comprising a monitoring system, the monitoring system comprising including the monitoring control system and a monitoring device for monitoring the workspace. ([0138] imaging devices 110 ( cameras ) are operable to optically monitor working areas of the task cell 100 . In some embodiments , imaging devices 110 image markers indicating positions and / or movements of body members ( for example , hands , arms and / or head ) of human operator 150 . In some embodiments , monitored operator body member positions and / or movements are used in the definition of safety envelopes , for example , to guide motion planning for robots 120 , 122 . [0167] any one or more of safety levels 902 , 904 , 906 uses optical tracking data of the operator . Examples of means and methods of optical tracking are discussed further , for example , in relation to FIGS . 3A - 3E , herein .)
Regarding claim 16: Rejected using the same rationales as claims 3 and 10.
Regarding claim 17: Rejected using the same rationale as claims 4 and 11.
Regarding claim 18: Rejected using the same rationale as claims 4, 11, and 17.
Regarding claim 19: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 20: The combination of Einav and Cole teaches: The system according to claim 8,
Einav further discloses: wherein the monitoring system functions independently of the industrial robot. ([0138] imaging devices 110 ( cameras ) are operable to optically monitor working areas of the task cell 100 . In some embodiments , imaging devices 110 image markers indicating positions and / or movements of body members ( for example , hands , arms and / or head ) of human operator 150 . In some embodiments , monitored operator body member positions and / or movements are used in the definition of safety envelopes , for example , to guide motion planning for robots 120 , 122 . [0167] any one or more of safety levels 902 , 904 , 906 uses optical tracking data of the operator . Examples of means and methods of optical tracking are discussed further , for example , in relation to FIGS . 3A - 3E , herein . [0160] Nested blocks 902 , 904 , 906 , and 908 indicate successive levels of generally increasing ( with increasing nesting level ) minimum expectation of safety 901 , and generally decreasing ( again with increasing nesting level ) expectation of efficiency 903 at each successive safety and planning level . It is noted , however , that ( particularly of the outer - nested levels ) can encompass relatively large ranges of safety and / or efficiency , depending on how they are imple mented ; while the inner - nested levels are potentially more focused on ensuring safety ( at least in part because they have reduced predictive capabilities ) . The nested levels of safety and planning are summarized next , and discussed individu ally in more detail in relation to FIGS . 4 - 9 herein . [ 0161 ] Task prediction envelope 902 , in some embodi ments , provides a safety envelope which is based on a type of overall task and / or task operation " awareness ” . Robotic motions are planned based in part on where a human operator ' s 150 body members are expected to be during the robotic motion . The expectation of human operator 150 body member positions is based , in some embodiments , on previous task operation definition and / or simulation . In some embodiments , the expectation is based on previous automatic observations of human operators ( optionally , the specific human operator 150 c)
Examiner Note: Fig. 4 and the cited paragraphs show that the task prediction envelope can be fully distinct and independent from control of the robot, represented by external blocks 920 and 921.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTICUS A CAMERON whose telephone number is 703-756-4535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/ATTICUS A CAMERON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3658A
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights