DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action on the Merits in response to communications filed by applicant on February 26th, 2026. Claims 1-4 and 9 are currently pending and examined below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims, filed on February 26th, 2026, have been entered. Claims 1 and 9 are currently amended and pending, claims 2-4 are original, unamended, and pending, and claims 5-8 have been canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed on 01/26/2022 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6804580 B1("Stoddard") in view of US 9733646 B2 ("Nusser") in further view of US 5293460 A ("Nakatsuchi").
Regarding claim 1, Stoddard teaches a method for trajectory planning in a robotic system comprising (Stoddard: Column 11 lines 13-24, “FIG. 1 illustrates the general architecture of a control system according to the invention. Inside a work cell 1 are present multiple robots Rl-R4. Each controller RC-RC" has an associated motion system MS-MS" and is arranged to receive motion instructions from at least one motion instruction source MIS-MIS3 which can be either local to the controller, e.g. motion instruction sources MIS, MIS', M1S3 or remote from the controller as is the case for controller RC' in FIG. 1.”):
at least two robotic units including a second robotic unit comprising a manipulator (Stoddard: Column 11 lines 13-24, “FIG. 1 illustrates the general architecture of a control system according to the invention. Inside a work cell 1 are present multiple robots Rl-R4.”, Column 11 lines 38-49, “FIG. 2 shows an example of linked motion involving two robots Rl, R2. One robot Rl carries a part 4 along a motion trajectory T (though the latter need not be a straight line), while another robot R2 carries out a process relative to the part 4, such as arc welding along a weld line W.”. As can clearly be seen from the cited passage, the robots disclosed in Stoddard are robotic manipulators.);
wherein a state vector of each robotic unit comprises position components and velocity components and is variable with time as a function of input into said each robotic unit and independently from input into every other robotic unit (Stoddard: Column 12 lines 1-7, “The MSP comprises a subscriber list MS.4 containing information, e.g. network addresses of multiple subscribers on the other controllers who have defined independent reference frames associated with robots attached to the present controller.”, Column 13 lines 6-14, “The motion systems architecture can work in the presence of servo and interpolation clock synchronization between robot controllers or in the absence of such synchronization. There is also no requirement that the interpolation interval of two robot controllers be the same. Each component of the architecture assumes that wherever an independent frame is needed, its full state is available, including at least its velocity and position. Other derivatives, e.g. acceleration may optionally be present.”, Column 13 lines 26-30, “In the absence of clock synchronization, a timeout from the above delay may occur. In this case, an estimate of the publisher's frame state is made, based on previously updated positions and velocities and the known time interval from the update time to the current time.”. As can be seen from the cited passages, a reference frame is set for each robot that is independent. Furthermore, the state of this independent reference frame is comprised of at least the robot’s position and velocity. Lastly, as can be seen from the citation of Column 13 lines 26-30, this state is clearly time-varying.),
wherein a trajectory which defines motion of said robotic units from an initial state to a final state (Stoddard: Column 18 lines 27-67, “Robot R1 carries a part 4 along a straight line T between end points P0World, P1World which are defined in world coordinates. R2's Planner task will plan a motion from 0 velocity relative to World to 0 velocity relative to "PartlnGripper" and from a start position Pstart to final position, P1Part, defined relative to the Part.”),
enforces a coordinated interval for an interaction between the robotic units at a same speed and same direction while the robotic units are in motion at a nonzero speed at a fixed proximity to one another without contacting (Stoddard: Figure 2 linked relative motions L and T, Figure 8, Column 5 line 66 – Column 6 line 10, “The invention solves the aforementioned motion coordination problems among the robots by providing a method of the above-mentioned kind wherein time coordinated motion instructions are defined and executed by said control program, each such time coordinated motion instruction with unique label, such that information is communicated among said plurality of controllers and wherein robot motion produced by like labeled time coordinated motion instructions executed on any of said plurality of controllers executes in such a way that they jointly begin at a first time, follow a common relative velocity profile, and jointly end at a second time.”, Column 11 lines 38-49, “FIG. 2 shows an example of linked motion involving two robots Rl, R2. One robot Rl carries a part 4 along a motion trajectory T (though the latter need not be a straight line), while another robot R2 carries out a process relative to the part 4, such as arc welding along a weld line W. An important aspect of the invention illustrated in FIG. 2 is that the process robot R2 can rendezvous (rendezvous motion RM) and depart (depart motion DM) from the part 4 while the latter is in motion along the trajectory T. During processing of part 4 by robot R2, the two robots are in linked relative motion, robot Rl along the trajectory T and robot R2 along a generally curved trajectory L.”, Column 18 lines 27-67, “Robot R1 carries a part 4 along a straight line T between end points P0World, P1World which are defined in world coordinates. R2's Planner task will plan a motion from 0 velocity relative to World to 0 velocity relative to "PartlnGripper" and from a start position Pstart to final position, P1Part, defined relative to the Part. Robot R2 moves a welding torch 5 to the part 4 while the latter is in motion, stops relative to the part 4, then departs from the part 4, and moves back to a point P2World defined relative to World. Following is a description of the communication that occurs during these motions: … R2's Planner task will plan a motion from 0 velocity relative to World to 0 velocity relative to "PartlnGripper" and from a start position Pstart to final position, PlPart, defined relative to the Part. This motion is carried out by R2's interpolator and MSP tasks together; when the motion of R2 is complete, R2's tasks keep the torch 5 at a fixed position relative to the part 4 and at vanishing relative speed to the part. The periodic state messages and responses continue between Rl and R2; R2 issues "Move Torch to P2World@World". R2's Planner plans a motion from 0 velocity relative to the part to 0 velocity relative to World and to the final position P2World defined in World coordinates. This motion is carried out by R2's Interpolator and MSP tasks together;”. The cited passages clearly show that the system is configured to enforce an interaction between two robots (i.e. the welding operation carried out by robot R2 on the part carried by robot R1) while the robots are moving in the same speed and in the same direction. This can be clearly seen in Figure 2 and 8, specifically in the representation of the paths each respective robot follow, and in Column 18 lines 27-67, which describes moving the robot R2 relative to the part held by robot R1 while the robot R1 is in motion. Column 5 line 66 – Column 6 line 10 and Column 18 lines 27-67 additionally show that the robots are constrained to follow the same relative velocity profile, and more specifically, that the robot R2 moves with 0 velocity relative to the part held by robot R1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this means the robots move at the same velocity when the interaction is being enforced. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this interaction occurs while both robots are in motion at a non-zero velocity. Therefore, it is clear that the cited passages and figures of Stoddard teaches the limitation enforces an interaction between the robotic units at a same speed and same direction while the robotic units are in motion at a nonzero speed. Additionally one of ordinary skill in the art would recognized that the joint motion of the robots occurs in a coordinated interval and that the robots move at a fixed proximity to each other. The first robot is configured to hold and transport the workpiece while the second robot is configured with a work tool and is programmed to perform work on the workpiece while the object is in motion. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly see that the robots are kept at a fixed proximity to one another. This is additionally shown in Figure 8 which shows the trajectories of each robot.)
and executing, by the manipulator of the second robotic unit, a task for processing the workpiece that corresponds to the interaction (Stoddard: Column 11 lines 38-49, “FIG. 2 shows an example of linked motion involving two robots Rl, R2. One robot Rl carries a part 4 along a motion trajectory T (though the latter need not be a straight line), while another robot R2 carries out a process relative to the part 4, such as arc welding along a weld line W.”, Column 18 lines 37-67, “Robot R2 moves a welding torch 5 to the part 4 while the latter is in motion, stops relative to the part 4, then departs from the part 4, and moves back to a point P2World defined relative to World.”. The cited passages clearly show that the manipulator is configured to perform a processing task on the workpiece, which is a welding task in the example provided in the cited passages. Furthermore, a welding task is clearly an interaction between the robot and the manipulator.),
wherein the manipulator wields a tool for processing the workpiece (Stoddard: Column 11 lines 38-49, “FIG. 2 shows an example of linked motion involving two robots Rl, R2. One robot Rl carries a part 4 along a motion trajectory T (though the latter need not be a straight line), while another robot R2 carries out a process relative to the part 4, such as arc welding along a weld line W.”, Column 18 lines 37-67, “Robot R2 moves a welding torch 5 to the part 4 while the latter is in motion, stops relative to the part 4, then departs from the part 4, and moves back to a point P2World defined relative to World.”. The cited passage clearly show that the manipulator is holding a tool, which, in the example provided in the cited passages, is a welding torch.).
Stoddard does not teach at least two robotic units including a first robotic unit comprising a vehicle and a second robotic unit comprising a manipulator;
finding the trajectory that minimizes a predetermined cost function;
and wherein the cost function is a function of the state vectors of all of said at least two robotic units and is minimized under a constraint which defines a vector difference between the position components of the state vectors of said at least two robotic units at an instant of said trajectory, and
wherein the difference is a difference also of the velocity components of the state vectors of the robotic units at an instant of said trajectory, wherein the constraint that enforces an interaction between the robotic units at a same speed and same direction while the robotic units are in motion at a nonzero speed at a fixed proximity to one another without contacting, and which minimizes the cost function;
and wherein the difference is a difference also of the velocity components of the state vectors of the robotic units that enforces an interaction between the robotic units at a same speed and same direction while the robotic units are in motion at a nonzero speed while avoiding a collision;
carrying, by the vehicle of the first robotic unit, a workpiece in at least part of its trajectory;
wherein the constraint ensures that, while the at least two robotic units follow their respective trajectories, there is the instant where the respective positions of the first and second robotic units enable the interaction between them,
and wherein the instant is configured to allow the interaction as taking place at the end of the respective trajectories of the first and second robotic units.
Nusser, in the same field of endeavor, teaches at least two robotic units including a first robotic unit comprising a vehicle and a second robotic unit comprising a manipulator (Nusser: Column 11 lines 17-34, “FIG. 2C shows an autonomous guided vehicle (AGV), according to an example embodiment. More specifically, AGV 240 may be a relatively small, mobile robotic device that is capable of transporting individual boxes or cases.”, Column 11 lines 35-48, “FIG. 2D shows an autonomous fork truck, according to an example embodiment. More specifically, autonomous fork truck 260 may include a forklift 262 for lifting and/or moving pallets of boxes or other larger materials.”. As can clearly be seen from the cited passages, Nusser disclose two types of possible robotic vehicles.);
finding the trajectory that minimizes a predetermined cost function (Nusser: Column 6 line 64 – Column 7 line 10, “In some examples, global control system 150 may include a central planning system that assigns tasks to different robotic devices within fleet 100. The central planning system may employ various scheduling algorithms to determine which devices will complete which tasks at which times. For instance, an auction type system may be used in which individual robots bid on different tasks, and the central planning system may assign tasks to robots to minimize overall costs. In additional examples, the central planning system may optimize across one or more different resources, such as time, space, or energy utilization. In further examples, a planning or scheduling system may also incorporate particular aspects of the geometry and physics of box picking, packing, or storing.”. As can be clearly seen from the cited passage, the system is configured to assign tasks to minimize a cost function that is defined by several possible parameters such as time, space, or energy utilization.);
and wherein the cost function is a function of the state vectors of all of said at least two robotic units and is minimized under a constraint which defines a vector difference between at least the position components of the state vectors of said at least two robotic units at an instant of said trajectory (Nusser: Column 13 lines 32-49, “In further examples, the pedestal robot 304 may also identify the location and/or identifying information for one or more of the AGV's 302 within the area of reach of the pedestal robot 304. For instance, the pedestal robot 304 may use visual data from one or more optical sensors to locate particular ones of the AGV's 302 in order to move objects to or from the AGV's 302. In some examples, the pedestal robot 304 may determine the relative positioning of the AGV's 302 based on a visual handshake, in which one or both of the pedestal robot 304 and an AGV 302 identify one or more visual tags or other identifying parts on the other robotic device. In further examples, one of the AGV's 302 may adjust its position based on the visual handshake to facilitate a box handoff, such as by moving to a location within reach of the pedestal robot 304 that minimizes the amount of movement needed by the robotic arm or gripper of the pedestal robot 304.”. As can be seen from the cited passage, the system is configured to minimize the amount of movement need by the robotic arm by moving the AVG closer within the robotic arms range of motion. This is clearly a method of minimizing the position between the two robots and is also a part of the cost function cited previously as it is minimizing the space between the two robots.),
carrying, by the vehicle of the first robotic unit, a workpiece in at least part of its trajectory (Nusser: Column 11 lines 17-34, “FIG. 2C shows an autonomous guided vehicle (AGV), according to an example embodiment. More specifically, AGV 240 may be a relatively small, mobile robotic device that is capable of transporting individual boxes or cases.”, Column 13 lines 4-18, “ FIG. 3C illustrates the pallet 314 of boxes placed on the ground within warehouse 300 at a location within reach of pedestal robot 304. The autonomous fork truck 306 may then move away to perform a different task at another location. Once the pallet 314 is placed within reach of pedestal robot 304, the pedestal robot 304 may be controlled to pick up or move boxes from or to the pallet 314. In some examples, the pedestal robot 304 may distribute boxes from the pallet 314 to one or more AGV's 302, which may be commanded to sit and wait until the pedestal robot 304 has finished moving the boxes. For instance, as illustrated in FIG. 3C, the robotic arm of pedestal robot 304 may use its gripper to move a box off of pallet 314 and onto one of the AGV's 302 for delivery to another location within warehouse 300.”, Column 14 lines 4-19, “In reference to FIG. 3D, an AGV 302 may be controlled to transport the box 316 after receiving the box 316 from pedestal robot 304. For instance, the AGV 302 may transport the box 316 to another location within warehouse 300 for eventual delivery out of the warehouse. In the illustrated example, the AGV 302 may transport the box 316 to a location within an area of reach of robotic truck loader 318. The robotic truck loader 318 may include a robotic arm with a gripper and/or other equipment to facilitate loading objects onto a delivery truck 320 or a different type of vehicle. In some examples, the robotic truck loader 318 may include wheels as shown which may enable the robotic truck loader 318 to move around within the warehouse 300, possibly to load delivery trucks parked at different docks adjacent to the warehouse 300. In other examples, one or more robotic truck loaders could be fixed within the environment as well.”. As can clearly be seen from the cited passages, the AGV is configured to transport an object for at least part of its trajectory to a robotic manipulator that interacts with the object being transported.);
wherein the constraint ensures that, while the at least two robotic units follow their respective trajectories, there is the instant where the respective positions of the first and second robotic units enable the interaction between them (Nusser: Column 6 line 64 – Column 7 line 10, “In some examples, global control system 150 may include a central planning system that assigns tasks to different robotic devices within fleet 100. The central planning system may employ various scheduling algorithms to determine which devices will complete which tasks at which times. For instance, an auction type system may be used in which individual robots bid on different tasks, and the central planning system may assign tasks to robots to minimize overall costs. In additional examples, the central planning system may optimize across one or more different resources, such as time, space, or energy utilization. In further examples, a planning or scheduling system may also incorporate particular aspects of the geometry and physics of box picking, packing, or storing.”, Column 13 lines 32-49, “In further examples, the pedestal robot 304 may also identify the location and/or identifying information for one or more of the AGV's 302 within the area of reach of the pedestal robot 304. For instance, the pedestal robot 304 may use visual data from one or more optical sensors to locate particular ones of the AGV's 302 in order to move objects to or from the AGV's 302. In some examples, the pedestal robot 304 may determine the relative positioning of the AGV's 302 based on a visual handshake, in which one or both of the pedestal robot 304 and an AGV 302 identify one or more visual tags or other identifying parts on the other robotic device. In further examples, one of the AGV's 302 may adjust its position based on the visual handshake to facilitate a box handoff, such as by moving to a location within reach of the pedestal robot 304 that minimizes the amount of movement needed by the robotic arm or gripper of the pedestal robot 304.”. As can be seen from the cited passage, the system is configured to minimize the amount of movement need by the robotic arm by moving the AVG closer within the robotic arms range of motion. This is clearly a method of minimizing the position between the two robots and is also a part of the cost function cited previously as it is minimizing the space between the two robots. Furthermore, this is clearly a constraint that ensures there is an instant along the trajectories where the two robots can interact. The minimization of the distance between the two robots clearly ensures that the two robots can interact with each other.),
and wherein the instant is configured to allow the interaction as taking place at the end of the respective trajectories of the first and second robotic units (Nusser: Figures 3C and 3D, Column 13 lines 4-18, Column 14 lines 4-19. As can be seen from the cited passages and figures, the interaction between the robots clearly occurs at what can be considered the end of their respective trajectories.).
Stoddard teaches a method for trajectory planning in a robotic system comprising: at least two robotic units including a second robotic unit comprising a manipulator; wherein a state vector of each robotic unit comprises position components and velocity components and is variable with time as a function of input into said each robotic unit and independently from input into every other robotic unit, wherein a trajectory which defines the motion of said robotic units from an initial state to a final state, and executing, by the manipulator of the second robotic unit, a task for processing the workpiece that corresponds to an interaction, wherein the manipulator wields a tool for processing the workpiece. Stoddard does not teach at least two robotic units including a first robotic unit comprising a vehicle and a second robotic unit comprising a manipulator; finding the trajectory that minimizes a predetermined cost function; and wherein the cost function is a function of the state vectors of all of said at least two robotic units and is minimized under a constraint which defines a vector difference between at least the position components of the state vectors of said at least two robotic units at an instant of said trajectory; carrying, by the vehicle of the first robotic unit, a workpiece in at least part of its trajectory; wherein the constraint ensures that, while the at least two robotic units follow their respective trajectories, there is the instant where the respective positions of the first and second robotic units enable the interaction between them, and wherein the instant is configured to allow the interaction as taking place at the end of the respective trajectories of the first and second robotic units. Nusser teaches at least two robotic units including a first robotic unit comprising a vehicle and a second robotic unit comprising a manipulator; finding the trajectory that minimizes a predetermined cost function; and wherein the cost function is a function of the state vectors of all of said at least two robotic units and is minimized under a constraint which defines a vector difference between at least the position components of the state vectors of said at least two robotic units at an instant of said trajectory; carrying, by the vehicle of the first robotic unit, a workpiece in at least part of its trajectory; wherein the constraint ensures that, while the at least two robotic units follow their respective trajectories, there is the instant where the respective positions of the first and second robotic units enable the interaction between them, and wherein the instant is configured to allow the interaction as taking place at the end of the respective trajectories of the first and second robotic units. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the method taught in Stoddard with at least two robotic units including a first robotic unit comprising a vehicle and a second robotic unit comprising a manipulator; finding the trajectory that minimizes a predetermined cost function; and wherein the cost function is a function of the state vectors of all of said at least two robotic units and is minimized under a constraint which defines a vector difference between at least the position components of the state vectors of said at least two robotic units at an instant of said trajectory; carrying, by the vehicle of the first robotic unit, a workpiece in at least part of its trajectory; wherein the constraint ensures that, while the at least two robotic units follow their respective trajectories, there is the instant where the respective positions of the first and second robotic units enable the interaction between them, and wherein the instant is configured to allow the interaction as taking place at the end of the respective trajectories of the first and second robotic units taught in Nusser. Furthermore, Stoddard teaches controlling the trajectory of two robots and positioning a second robots relative to a workpiece that the first robot is transporting in order to perform a task on the workpiece the first robot is transporting. Such a task already takes into consideration the states and relative position of each robot. Therefore, modifying the method to include a cost function with a constraint that facilitates the interaction between the two points at a point along their respective trajectories as taught in Nusser would not change or introduce new functionality. Additionally, while the first robot used to transport the workpiece is a manipulator, modifying this robot to be an automated vehicle as taught in Nusser would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been necessary for either modification. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a method for trajectory planning in a robotic system comprising at least two robotic units including a first robotic unit comprising a vehicle and a second robotic unit comprising a manipulator; finding the trajectory that minimizes a predetermined cost function; and wherein the cost function is a function of the state vectors of all of said at least two robotic units and is minimized under a constraint which defines a vector difference between at least the position components of the state vectors of said at least two robotic units at an instant of said trajectory; carrying, by the vehicle of the first robotic unit, a workpiece in at least part of its trajectory; wherein the constraint ensures that, while the at least two robotic units follow their respective trajectories, there is the instant where the respective positions of the first and second robotic units enable the interaction between them, and wherein the instant is configured to allow the interaction as taking place at the end of the respective trajectories of the first and second robotic units.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the method for trajectory planning in a robotic system taught in Stoddard with at least two robotic units including a first robotic unit comprising a vehicle and a second robotic unit comprising a manipulator; finding the trajectory that minimizes a predetermined cost function; and wherein the cost function is a function of the state vectors of all of said at least two robotic units and is minimized under a constraint which defines a vector difference between at least the position components of the state vectors of said at least two robotic units at an instant of said trajectory; carrying, by the vehicle of the first robotic unit, a workpiece in at least part of its trajectory; wherein the constraint ensures that, while the at least two robotic units follow their respective trajectories, there is the instant where the respective positions of the first and second robotic units enable the interaction between them, and wherein the instant is configured to allow the interaction as taking place at the end of the respective trajectories of the first and second robotic units taught in Nusser with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would have yielded predictable results.
Stoddard in view of Nusser does not teach and wherein the difference is a difference also of the velocity components of the state vectors of the robotic units at an instant of said trajectory, wherein the constraint that enforces an interaction between the robotic units at a same speed and same direction while the robotic units are in motion at a nonzero speed at a fixed proximity to one another without contacting, and which minimizes the cost function;
Nakatsuchi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the difference is a difference also of the velocity components of the state vectors of the robotic units at an instant of said trajectory, wherein the constraint that enforces an interaction between the robotic units at a same speed and same direction while the robotic units are in motion at a nonzero speed at a fixed proximity to one another without contacting, and which minimizes the cost function (Nakatsuchi: Column 1 lines 50-65, “According to the present invention, there is provided a velocity-variation minimization control method for a robot comprising: a step of substituting a position vector for a start point, a velocity vector for said start point, a position vector for an end point, a velocity vector for said end point, and a provisional movement time into equations that express the position and velocity of said robot as cubic functions with respect to time, to obtain solutions for coefficients of said cubic functions; a step of obtaining a sum of squares of differences between a velocity obtained using said coefficients and a target velocity; and a step of using convergence calculations to obtain a value of said movement time that minimizes said sum of squares. The robot is then controlled in such a manner that the of said robot follows a path based on said converged movement time.”, Column 3 lines 1-11, “A movement time that minimizes the value of S is then obtained by a convergence calculation. In other words, step S50 determines whether the above differences have converged by checking whether or not the result is less than or equal to a minute constant value .epsilon., and if it is less than or equal to .epsilon., step S60 determines the path between the two points. At that point, velocity variations are at a minimum.”).
Stoddard in view of Nusser teaches a method of trajectory planning in a robotic system comprising: at least two robotic units including a first robotic unit comprising a vehicle and a second robotic unit comprising a manipulator; wherein a state vector of each robotic unit comprises position components and velocity components and is variable with time as a function of input into said each robotic unit and independently from input into every other robotic unit, wherein a trajectory which defines the motion of said robotic units from an initial state to a final state is determined by finding the trajectory that minimizes a predetermined cost function, and wherein the cost function is a function of the state vectors of all of said at least two robotic units and is minimized under a constraint which defines a vector difference between at least the position components of the state vectors of said at least two robotic units at an instant of said trajectory, and enforces an interaction between the robotic units at a same speed and same direction while the robotic units are in motion at a nonzero speed at a fixed proximity to one another without contacting. Stoddard in view of Nusser does not teach wherein the difference is a difference also of the velocity components of the state vectors of the robotic units at an instant of said trajectory, wherein the constraint that enforces an interaction between the robotic units at a same speed and same direction while the robotic units are in motion at a nonzero speed at a fixed proximity to one another without contacting, and which minimizes the cost function. Nakatsuchi teaches wherein the difference is a difference also of the velocity components of the state vectors of the robotic units at an instant of said trajectory, wherein the constraint that enforces an interaction between the robotic units at a same speed and same direction while the robotic units are in motion at a nonzero speed at a fixed proximity to one another without contacting, and which minimizes the cost function. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to have combine the robotic trajectory planning method taught in Stoddard in view of Nusser with the method of minimizing the difference in velocity taught in Nakatsuchi. Furthermore, Stoddard in view of Nusser teaches that the system is configured to cause the robots to follow the same velocity profile (Stoddard: Column 5 line 66 – Column 6 line 10), so modifying the method such that it minimizes the difference in velocity would only require the reference velocity to be change to that of the other robot. Additionally, the equation used to minimize this difference in velocity taught in Nakatsuchi is already a form of a cost function and is readably combinable with the cost function taught in Stoddard in view of Nusser. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would not change or introduce new functionality into either the robotic trajectory planning method taught in Stoddard in view of Nusser or the method of minimizing the difference in velocity taught in Nakatsuchi. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of the robotic trajectory planning method determining a trajectory that minimizes the difference in velocity between the robots.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the robotic trajectory planning method taught in Stoddard in view of Nusser with the method of minimizing the difference in velocity taught in Nakatsuchi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Stoddard in view of Nusser in further view of Nakatsuchi teaches wherein said instant is at the end of the trajectory thus determined (Stoddard: Column 18 lines 27-67, “Robot R1 carries a part 4 along a straight line T between end points P0World, P1World which are defined in world coordinates. R2's Planner task will plan a motion from 0 velocity relative to World to 0 velocity relative to "PartlnGripper" and from a start position Pstart to final position, P1Part, defined relative to the Part.” Nusser: Column 13 lines 32-49, “In further examples, the pedestal robot 304 may also identify the location and/or identifying information for one or more of the AGV's 302 within the area of reach of the pedestal robot 304. For instance, the pedestal robot 304 may use visual data from one or more optical sensors to locate particular ones of the AGV's 302 in order to move objects to or from the AGV's 302. In some examples, the pedestal robot 304 may determine the relative positioning of the AGV's 302 based on a visual handshake, in which one or both of the pedestal robot 304 and an AGV 302 identify one or more visual tags or other identifying parts on the other robotic device. In further examples, one of the AGV's 302 may adjust its position based on the visual handshake to facilitate a box handoff, such as by moving to a location within reach of the pedestal robot 304 that minimizes the amount of movement needed by the robotic arm or gripper of the pedestal robot 304.”. As can clearly be seen from the cited passages, both Stoddard and Nusser teach that it is the end of the trajectory that is determined, either to perform work on a workpiece in Stoddard or to remove/place a workpiece from/in an AVG.).
Regarding claim 3, Stoddard in view of Nusser in further view of Nakatsuchi teaches wherein said instant is determined by minimization of the cost function (Stoddard: Column 18 lines 27-67, “Robot R1 carries a part 4 along a straight line T between end points P0World, P1World which are defined in world coordinates. R2's Planner task will plan a motion from 0 velocity relative to World to 0 velocity relative to "PartlnGripper" and from a start position Pstart to final position, P1Part, defined relative to the Part.” Nusser: Column 13 lines 32-49, “In further examples, the pedestal robot 304 may also identify the location and/or identifying information for one or more of the AGV's 302 within the area of reach of the pedestal robot 304. For instance, the pedestal robot 304 may use visual data from one or more optical sensors to locate particular ones of the AGV's 302 in order to move objects to or from the AGV's 302. In some examples, the pedestal robot 304 may determine the relative positioning of the AGV's 302 based on a visual handshake, in which one or both of the pedestal robot 304 and an AGV 302 identify one or more visual tags or other identifying parts on the other robotic device. In further examples, one of the AGV's 302 may adjust its position based on the visual handshake to facilitate a box handoff, such as by moving to a location within reach of the pedestal robot 304 that minimizes the amount of movement needed by the robotic arm or gripper of the pedestal robot 304.”).
Stoddard teaches determining the end point of a robot such that said robot can perform an operation on a workpiece held by another robot. Nusser teaches minimizing the distance between an AVG and a robotic arm such that the amount of movement required by the arm is minimized. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to have combine the robotic trajectory planning of Stoddard with minimization of the distance between the AVG and robotic arm, such that the end point of the robot’s trajectory is determined by minimizing the distance between the two robots. No inventive effort would have been required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Stoddard in view of Nusser in further view of Nakatsuchi teaches the all of the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Stoddard in view of Nusser in further view of Nakatsuchi teaches wherein state vectors of the robotic units at the beginning and at the end of the trajectory are identical (Stoddard: Column 18 lines 27-67, “Robot R2 moves a welding torch 5 to the part 4 while the latter is in motion, stops relative to the part 4, then departs from the part 4, and moves back to a point P2World defined relative to World. R2's Planner task will plan a motion from 0 velocity relative to World to 0 velocity relative to "PartlnGripper" and from a start position Pstart to final position, PlPart, defined relative to the Part. R2 issues "Move Torch to P2World@World". R2's Planner plans a motion from 0 velocity relative to the part to 0 velocity relative to World and to the final position P2World defined in World coordinates.”, Nusser: Column lines, “In reference to FIG. 3A, a robotic fleet may include multiple AGV's 302 for quickly transporting small totes, such as individual boxes or objects. The AGV's 302 may be assigned by a centralized control system to move to particular areas of warehouse 300 to pick up boxes for transport to another location, such as to store boxes or to move boxes to a location to await delivery from the warehouse 300. In some examples, the AGV's 302 may be assigned to move within an area of reach of a fixed robotic manipulator, such as pedestal robot 304. More specifically, pedestal robot 304 may be an elevated robotic arm that is configured to pick up or otherwise move nearby objects. In some examples, the pedestal robot 304 may be capable of constructing or deconstructing nearby pallets 312 of boxes. In additional examples, the pedestal robot 304 may be operable to remove objects from or place particular objects on the AGV's 302 once they have moved within an area of reach of pedestal robot 304.”).
Stoddard teaches that the second robot is configured such that it’s starting state and ending state are exactly the same, as it starts and stops at the same position and with a velocity of zero at its starting and stopping position. Stoddard does not explicitly state that the first robot returns to its original position after the operation is complete. Nusser teaches that the AVGs can be configured to repeatedly travel between a location and a position near a fixed manipulator. Furthermore, the manipulator is configured to repeatedly place or remove objects from the AVGs. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to have modified Stoddard such that the first robot returns to its starting position in order to repeatedly perform an operation, and thereby make its initial and final states equivalent, as taught in Nusser with both the AVGs and the robotic manipulator. No inventive would be required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Stoddard in view of Nusser in further view of Nakatsuchi teaches all of the elements of claim 4.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6804580 B1("Stoddard") in view of US 9733646 B2 ("Nusser") in further view of US 5293460 A ("Nakatsuchi") in further view of US 2018/0107175 A1 ("Ha") in further view of US 2010/0007302 A1 ("Ewert").
Regarding claim 9, Stoddard in view of Nusser in further view of Nakatsuchi in further view of Tanda teaches wherein the cost function increases along with one or more of the following parameters: time needed for executing the trajectory, total energy required for executing the trajectory (Nusser: Column 6 line 64 – Column 7 line 10, “In some examples, global control system 150 may include a central planning system that assigns tasks to different robotic devices within fleet 100. The central planning system may employ various scheduling algorithms to determine which devices will complete which tasks at which times. For instance, an auction type system may be used in which individual robots bid on different tasks, and the central planning system may assign tasks to robots to minimize overall costs. In additional examples, the central planning system may optimize across one or more different resources, such as time, space, or energy utilization. In further examples, a planning or scheduling system may also incorporate particular aspects of the geometry and physics of box picking, packing, or storing.”. As can clearly be seen from the cited passage, the cost function taught in Nusser includes both time (as shown in Column 7 lines 49-61 this is execution time) and energy utilization. It is stated that the system is configured to minimize these costs, so it follows that the cost function increase along with these parameters.).
Stoddard in view of Nusser in further view of Nakatsuchi does not teach peak power required when executing the trajectory, and load imposed on each one of actuators of the robotic units when executing the trajectory.
Ha, in the same field of endeavor teaches load imposed on each one of actuators of the robotic units when executing the trajectory (Ha: ¶ 0012, “In some implementations, the new system and method for robot design solves (or at least addresses) the problem of automatically designing legged robots for given locomotion tasks by numerical optimization. An example of such a task is to move from one location to another using a specific sequence of footsteps. The parameters optimized in the system and its implemented algorithms (or software modules) may be the length of each link (e.g., a robot leg's thigh, shank, and foot). The cost function for optimization can be chosen to be the sum of squared joint torque, power, and/or contact force which leads to a robot design that is more efficient in terms of energy consumption. The system and its algorithms are believed to provide the first robot design methodology that can optimize the design of legged robots. The optimization algorithms/methods address the issue specific to legged robots of contact and momentum planning. Because handling this issue simultaneously with design optimization makes the problem intractable, a three-stage (or at least two-stage) solution was chosen by the inventors for implementation in the robot design system/framework.”. The cited passages teach that the cost function can comprise the sum of the squares of the torque at each joint. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the torque at each joint is the load on the actuator at those joints.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the method for trajectory planning in a robotic system taught in Stoddard in view of Nusser in further view of Nakatsuchi with load imposed on each one of actuators of the robotic units when executing the trajectory taught in Ha with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have required to the simple addition of a known variable to an equation readily configurable with said variable. The method taught in Stoddard in view of Nusser in further view of Nakatsuchi already teaches minimizing a cost function to determine the trajectory for a robot system wherein the cost function includes the time of the trajectory and the total energy consumption of the trajectory. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could easily add the load on each actuator as taught in Ha to the cost function taught in Stoddard in view of Nusser in further view of Nakatsuchi. Such a modification would not have changed or introduced new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required.
Stoddard in view of Nusser in further view of Nakatsuchi in further view of Ha does not teach peak power required when executing the trajectory.
Ewert, in the same field of endeavor, teaches peak power required when executing the trajectory (Ewert: Abstract, “A method for controlling the movement of axles whose drives are connected for exchanging energy, in particular by connecting intermediate circuits of the converters respectively comprised by the drives, prior to the start of the movement, a predictive determination of the sequence of movements being performed, in the process of which first the time-critical axle is determined, then the travel profile of the time-critical axle is defined, then a respective total energy consumption is assigned to the possible travel profiles of additional axles, from these, the profile is selected that has the smallest total energy requirement associated with it, and then the movement is carried out.”, ¶ 0015, “In example embodiments, the time interval associated with the movement for the respective additional axles and their travel profile, in particular including associated acceleration values and braking acceleration values, is determined such that the required peak power for the movement, supplied via the energy supply lines from the drives connected for energy exchange, is as low as possible, in particular minimal. Thus, advantageously, only a low power needs to be supplied. In particular, the greatest power to be supplied while the movement is carried out, that is, the peak power, is as low as possible. This allows for thin wires and thus cost-effective cables as electrical supply lines for the device operated in accordance with example embodiments of the present invention. Thus, not only is the total energy consumption kept at a minimum, but also the total peak power to be supplied to the device from outside is kept low. This then entails structural advantages such as commensurately thin conductor cross sections and electrical and electronic components that may be dimensioned to be commensurately small. This also applies, for example, to rectifier diodes for producing the unipolar intermediate circuit voltage or line reactors for damping harmonic oscillations.”, ¶ 0052, “In other exemplary embodiments of the present invention, rather than determining all possible travel profiles for the additional axles and then determining their associated total energy, instead the possible travel profiles are equipped with parameters whose value range is defined, that is, the boundary conditions are defined. Exemplary boundary conditions to be mentioned are time ranges for the travel of the additional axles, maximum accelerations, etc. Afterwards, an optimization method is used for determining an at least local optimum in this multi-dimensional parameter space. The optimization is carried out mainly with respect to the total energy. If multiple solutions may emerge, the optimization is also carried out with respect to the smallest possible peak power to be supplied.”. The cited passages teach a method of controlling axels with drive devices, wherein the system determines a sequence of movements performed by the system, determines an energy profile for each movement profile determined, and selects the trajectory that minimizes the total energy used as well as minimizes the peak power.).
Stoddard in view of Nusser in further view of Nakatsuchi in further view of Ha teaches a method of determining a trajectory for a robot system comprising: wherein the cost function includes time needed for executing the trajectory, total energy required for executing the trajectory, and load imposed on each one of actuators of the robotic units when executing the trajectory. Stoddard in view of Nusser in further view of Nakatsuchi in further view of Ha does not teach peak power required when executing the trajectory. Ewert teaches peak power required when executing the trajectory. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the cost function taught in Stoddard in view of Nusser in further view of Nakatsuchi with peak power required when executing the trajectory taught in Ewert. Furthermore, while Ewert does not specifically use a cost function, the method of Ewert still determines the peak power for each potential trajectory and selects the trajectory that minimizes the peak power. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the cost function taught in Stoddard in view of Nusser in further view of Nakatsuchi in further view of Ha with the peak power taught in Ewert according to methods known in the art. Such a modification would not have changed or introduced new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have required the simple addition of a known variable to a readily configurable equation.
Therefore, the it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the robot control method taught in Stoddard in view of Nusser in further view of Nakatsuchi in further view of Ha with peak power required when executing the trajectory taught in Ewert with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have required the simple addition of a known variable to a readily configurable equation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 26th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on Pages 4-5. Applicant argues that the prior art on record does not teach the limitations of the amended independent claim 1. Specifically on Page 5, Applicant argues that the combination of Stoddard in view of Nusser in further view of Nakatsuchi in further view of Tanda fails to teach the limitation “wherein the difference is a difference also of the velocity components of the state vectors of the robotic units at an instant of said trajectory, wherein the constraint that enforces an interaction between the robotic units at a same speed and same direction while the robotic units are in motion at a nonzero speed at a fixed proximity to one another without contacting, and which minimizes the cost function”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As was stated in the previous Non-Final Office action mailed November 28th, 2026 and above in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section, Stoddard teaches a method for trajectory planning in a robotic system comprising (Stoddard: Column 11 lines 13-24): at least two robotic units including a second robotic unit comprising a manipulator (Stoddard: Column 11 lines 13-24, Column 11 lines 38-49); wherein a state vector of each robotic unit comprises position components and velocity components and is variable with time as a function of input into said each robotic unit and independently from input into every other robotic unit (Stoddard: Column 12 lines 1-7, Column 13 lines 6-14, Column 13 lines 26-30), wherein a trajectory which defines motion of said robotic units from an initial state to a final state (Stoddard: Column 18 lines 27-67), enforces a coordinated interval for an interaction between the robotic units at a same speed and same direction while the robotic units are in motion at a nonzero speed at a fixed proximity to one another without contacting (Stoddard: Figure 2 linked relative motions L and T, Figure 8, Column 5 line 66 – Column 6 line 10, Column 11 lines 38-49, Column 18 lines 27-67) and executing, by the manipulator of the second robotic unit, a task for processing the workpiece that corresponds to the interaction (Stoddard: Column 11 lines 38-49), wherein the manipulator wields a tool for processing the workpiece (Stoddard: Column 11 lines 38-49). The cited passages clearly show that the system is configured to enforce an interaction between two robots (i.e. the welding operation carried out by robot R2 on the part carried by robot R1) while the robots are moving in the same speed and in the same direction. This can be clearly seen in Figure 2 and 8, specifically in the representation of the paths each respective robot follow, and in Column 18 lines 27-67, which describes moving the robot R2 relative to the part held by robot R1 while the robot R1 is in motion. Column 5 line 66 – Column 6 line 10 and Column 18 lines 27-67 additionally show that the robots are constrained to follow the same relative velocity profile, and more specifically, that the robot R2 moves with 0 velocity relative to the part held by robot R1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this means the robots move at the same velocity when the interaction is being enforced. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this interaction occurs while both robots are in motion at a non-zero velocity. Additionally one of ordinary skill in the art would recognized that the joint motion of the robots occurs in a coordinated interval and that the robots move at a fixed proximity to each other. The first robot is configured to hold and transport the workpiece while the second robot is configured with a work tool and is programmed to perform work on the workpiece while the object is in motion. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly see that the robots are kept at a fixed proximity to one another and that the robots themselves do not contact one another. This is additionally shown in Figure 8 which shows the trajectories of each robot. Therefore, it is clear that the cited passages and figures of Stoddard teaches the limitation enforces a coordinated interval for an interaction between the robotic units at a same speed and same direction while the robotic units are in motion at a nonzero speed at a fixed proximity to one another without contacting. The secondary reference Nusser teaches at least two robotic units including a first robotic unit comprising a vehicle and a second robotic unit comprising a manipulator (Nusser: Column 11 lines 17-34,); finding the trajectory that minimizes a predetermined cost function (Nusser: Column 6 line 64 – Column 7 line 10); and wherein the cost function is a function of the state vectors of all of said at least two robotic units and is minimized under a constraint which defines a vector difference between at least the position components of the state vectors of said at least two robotic units at an instant of said trajectory (Nusser: Column 13 lines 32-49), carrying, by the vehicle of the first robotic unit, a workpiece in at least part of its trajectory (Nusser: Column 11 lines 17-34, Column 13 lines 4-18, Column 14 lines 4-19); wherein the constraint ensures that, while the at least two robotic units follow their respective trajectories, there is the instant where the respective positions of the first and second robotic units enable the interaction between them (Nusser: Column 6 line 64 – Column 7 line 10, Column 13 lines 32-49), and wherein the instant is configured to allow the interaction as taking place at the end of the respective trajectories of the first and second robotic units (Nusser: Figures 3C and 3D, Column 13 lines 4-18, Column 14 lines 4-19). Nusser clearly teaches determining the trajectory for multiple robots such that an interaction isa enabled between the robots. Said trajectory is determined by minimizing a cost function. Stoddard teaches controlling the trajectory of two robots and positioning a second robots relative to a workpiece that the first robot is transporting in order to perform a task on the workpiece the first robot is transporting. Such a task already takes into consideration the states and relative position of each robot. Therefore, modifying the method to include a cost function with a constraint that facilitates the interaction between the two points at a point along their respective trajectories as taught in Nusser would not change or introduce new functionality. Additionally, while the first robot used to transport the workpiece is a manipulator, modifying this robot to be an automated vehicle as taught in Nusser would not change or introduce new functionality. The secondary reference Nakatsuchi teaches wherein the difference is a difference also of the velocity components of the state vectors of the robotic units at an instant of said trajectory, wherein the constraint that enforces an interaction between the robotic units at a same speed and same direction while the robotic units are in motion at a nonzero speed at a fixed proximity to one another without contacting, and which minimizes the cost function (Nakatsuchi: Column 1 lines 50-65, Column 3 lines 1-11). Nakatsuchi teaches a method of controlling a robot such that the difference in velocity is minimized. Stoddard in view of Nusser teaches that the system is configured to cause the robots to follow the same velocity profile (Stoddard: Column 5 line 66 – Column 6 line 10), so modifying the method such that it minimizes the difference in velocity would only require the reference velocity to be change to that of the other robot. Additionally, the equation used to minimize this difference in velocity taught in Nakatsuchi is already a form of a cost function and is readably combinable with the cost function taught in Stoddard in view of Nusser. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, The combination of Stoddard in view of Nusser in further view of Nakatsuchi teaches the limitation “wherein the difference is a difference also of the velocity components of the state vectors of the robotic units at an instant of said trajectory, wherein the constraint that enforces an interaction between the robotic units at a same speed and same direction while the robotic units are in motion at a nonzero speed at a fixed proximity to one another without contacting, and which minimizes the cost function”.
Therefore, for the reasons stated herein and above in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the independent claim 1 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah W Stiebritz whose telephone number is (571)272-3414. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7-5 EST.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270-5744. 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.
/N.W.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658