DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/26/2026, has been received and made of record. In response to the Final Office Action, dated on 12/15/2025. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-20, 22-28 and 30-41 are pending in the current application. Claims 2 and 21 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/26/2026 have been fully considered.
In the Arguments/Remarks:
Re: Rejection of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but in view of applicant’s amendments the arguments are rendered moot under the new grounds of rejection (see below) necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 12-16, 20, 22-25, 31-34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkemeyer (US 2012/0239190 A1) in view of Haddadin (US 2019/0168383 A1) and in further view of Merkle (US 2023/0182315 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Finkemeyer teaches a robotic system comprising: a robotic arm configured to move in multiple degrees of freedom, the robotic arm comprising one or more joints that are controllable by one or more motors or actuators [(see at least paragraphs 36-37) As in 36 “FIG. 1 shows a robot R which has a robot arm M and a control device S. The robot arm M constitutes essentially the movable part of the robot R, and includes a plurality of members 1 following each other in sequence which are connected to each other by means of joints 2. At one of its ends the robot arm M has an attaching device 3 for example in the form of a flange, to which for example an end effector in the form of a gripper 4 can be attached. The gripper 4 has for example gripping jaws 5, by means of which the gripper 4 can hold an object 6 so that the latter can be moved by means of the robot R. The gripper 4 with gripped object 6, the attaching device 3 and parts of the robot arm M are shown in additional detail in FIG. 2.” As in 37 “The robot arm M also has drives connected to the control device S, not shown in further detail, by means of which the members 1 can be moved relative to each other in reference to axes assigned to the joints 2. In the case of the present exemplary embodiment, the figures show only one of the axes A in reference to which the attaching device 4 can be moved directly, in particular rotated.”]
Finkemeyer teaches identifying an object in an environment of the robotic arm that is accessible to the robotic arm based on sensor data indicative of one of more features of the environment [(see at least paragraph 25) “In this condition it can preferably be ensured that the camera system assumes the control of the movement of the robot arm only if a stable contact of the object with its surroundings has been produced in the x direction, and if the camera system for example has already recognized a positioning image feature. Otherwise the robot arm can be moved at a predefined speed until the image feature is recognized.”]
Finkemeyer teaches determining that a component associated with the robotic arm is within a predefined distance from the object, where the predefined distance is relative to the axis of the object [(see at least paragraphs 40-46) As in 40 “the camera 8 is set up in particular to deliver images from the direction of thrust of the gripper 4, and the distance sensor is set up to determine a distance d likewise in the direction of thrust of the gripper 4. If the gripper 4 is set up for example in such a way that its direction of thrust is oriented in the x direction of a Cartesian world coordinate system 10, then in the case of the present exemplary embodiment the camera 8 and the distance sensor 9 are likewise oriented in the x direction of the coordinate system 10. This is illustrated in FIG. 2. The direction of thrust of the gripper 4 is oriented in particular in the direction of the axis A shown in FIG. 1.” As in 46 “The following control and regulating functionalities are also provided: [0047] force regulation, in particular Cartesian force regulation based on the force and torque sensor 7, to achieve a prescribed target force Fsoll with which the object 6 is to touch the floor 11 and the stop 12, [0048] speed control, in particular Cartesian speed control (trajectory planner and interpolater), with which the object 6 is to move when operated in this mode, [0049] distance regulation based on the distance sensor 9.”];
Finkemeyer teaches controlling the robotic arm to move the component at least partly automatically toward or into alignment with the axis of the object in response to the component being within the predefined distance from the object. [(see at least paragraphs 38-40,65) As in 38 “The drives are for example electric drives, and are actuated by the control device S in particular in automatic operation of the robot R, so that the attaching device 3 or a so-called tool center point of the robot R automatically carries out a predetermined movement. To this end, a corresponding user program runs on the control device S. The control device S can be designed in particular in such a way that it regulates the drives in automatic operation. The gripper 4 is also connected to the control device S, so that the latter is able to control a gripping and releasing of the object 6.” As in 65 “The control device recognizes the possibility of position regulation in the y direction as well on the basis of signals generated by the camera 8. If the object 46 has moved close enough to the side wall 14 so that the distance sensor 9 can ascertain the distance 9 reliably, then the control device switches automatically to distance regulation for the y direction.”] Examiner notes it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the gripper align with an axis of the object before picking it and while placing it in order to have effective control of the object during the pick and place operation.
Finkemeyer does not explicitly teach enabling manual movement of the robotic arm and a control system comprising one or more processing devices, the one or more processing devices being programmed to perform operations comprising: controlling amounts of torque provided to one or more of the joints by the one or more motors or actuators to overcome a force of gravity acting on the robotic arm while enabling manual movement of the robotic arm; and where identifying the object comprises identifying the axis of an object.
However, Haddadin teaches enabling manual movement of the robotic arm [(see at least paragraphs 6-8) As in 6 “The so-called direct “teach-in” process is used, particularly in lightweight robot systems, in which the effector or manipulator or robotic arm is guided and moved directly and manually by an operator, i.e. the required motion sequence is demonstrated to the manipulator in advance.”]
Haddadin teaches a control system comprising one or more processing devices, the one or more processing devices being programmed to perform operations comprising: controlling amounts of torque provided to one or more of the joints by the one or more motors or actuators to overcome a force of gravity acting on the robotic arm while enabling manual movement of the robotic arm [(see at least paragraphs 8,61) As in 8 “For the direct “teach-in” method mentioned above, it is therefore also known that the robot system is guided in its so-called gravitation-compensated state, in which the measured torques are fed back to the thereby active drives between the individual links, which means that the dead weight of the robot system and any self-locking of the gear mechanisms are not taken into account, and therefore the robot system can only be moved as a function of the external forces applied by an operator during manual guidance. Further approaches include a direct targeted control of the torques in relation to the individual motors, taking into account specified schemes or programs for friction compensation.” As in 61 “the manipulator M is set to a compensated mode. For this purpose, corresponding counterforces and counter-torques are generated by corresponding control of the drive units in the joints G in order to counteract the force of gravity, possibly a centrifugal force and/or a Coriolis force and/or initiated inertial forces, whereby the dead weight and thus the inertia of the manipulator M and any self-locking of the gears or joints is cancelled, so that the manipulator M can in the first place exhibit a repellable behaviour.”]
Merkle teaches where identifying the object comprises identifying an axis of the object [(see at least paragraph 41) “the at least one computing device is further configured to determine the longest axis of the target object based on at least one of the one or more prototype objects determined to match the target object.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Finkemeyer to include the teachings of Haddadin of manual movement of the robotic arm and a control system comprising one or more processing devices, the one or more processing devices being programmed to perform operations comprising: controlling amounts of torque provided to one or more of the joints by the one or more motors or actuators to overcome a force of gravity acting on the robotic arm while enabling manual movement of the robotic arm in order to define a movement sequence for a multi-axis manipulator of a robot system and reach an arbitrary target pose [(Haddadin Abstract)] and to further incorporate the teachings of Merkle of where identifying the object comprises identifying an axis of the object in order to facilitate proper/desired orientation during the picking and placing of the object to ensure safety. [(Merkle 162)]
Regarding claim 3, In view of the above combination of references, Finkemeyer further teaches wherein the axis is along a center of the object. [(see at least Fig.1, paragraph 40)]
Regarding claim 4, In view of the above combination of references, Finkemeyer further teaches wherein the axis is along a part of the object. [(see at least Fig.1, paragraph 40)]
Regarding claim 5, In view of the above combination of references, Finkemeyer further teaches wherein the operations comprise: following alignment of the component with the axis, constraining movement of the component to be along the axis. [(see at least Fig.1, paragraph 40) “The direction of thrust of the gripper 4 is oriented in particular in the direction of the axis A shown in FIG. 1.”]
Regarding claim 6, In view of the above combination of references, Finkemeyer further teaches wherein the operations comprise: following alignment of the component with the axis, constraining movement of the component relative to the axis. [(see at least Fig.1, paragraph 37) “The robot arm M also has drives connected to the control device S, not shown in further detail, by means of which the members 1 can be moved relative to each other in reference to axes assigned to the joints 2. In the case of the present exemplary embodiment, the figures show only one of the axes A in reference to which the attaching device 4 can be moved directly, in particular rotated.”]
Regarding claim 12, In view of the above combination of references, Finkemeyer further teaches wherein the component comprises a tool or end effector connected to the robotic arm. [(see at least paragraph 36) “At one of its ends the robot arm M has an attaching device 3 for example in the form of a flange, to which for example an end effector in the form of a gripper 4 can be attached. The gripper 4 has for example gripping jaws 5, by means of which the gripper 4 can hold an object 6 so that the latter can be moved by means of the robot R. The gripper 4 with gripped object 6, the attaching device 3 and parts of the robot arm M are shown in additional detail in FIG. 2.”]
Regarding claim 13, In view of the above combination of references, Finkemeyer further teaches wherein the component comprises a part of the robotic arm. [(see at least paragraph 36) “FIG. 1 shows a robot R which has a robot arm M and a control device S. The robot arm M constitutes essentially the movable part of the robot R, and includes a plurality of members 1 following each other in sequence which are connected to each other by means of joints 2. At one of its ends the robot arm M has an attaching device 3 for example in the form of a flange, to which for example an end effector in the form of a gripper 4 can be attached. The gripper 4 has for example gripping jaws 5, by means of which the gripper 4 can hold an object 6 so that the latter can be moved by means of the robot R. The gripper 4 with gripped object 6, the attaching device 3 and parts of the robot arm M are shown in additional detail in FIG. 2.”]
Regarding claim 14, In view of the above combination of references, Finkemeyer further teaches further comprising: a vision system associated with the robotic arm to capture the sensor data. [(see at least paragraph 40) “In the exemplary embodiment shown is FIG. 2, the camera 8 is set up in particular to deliver images from the direction of thrust of the gripper 4, and the distance sensor is set up to determine a distance d likewise in the direction of thrust of the gripper 4. If the gripper 4 is set up for example in such a way that its direction of thrust is oriented in the x direction of a Cartesian world coordinate system 10, then in the case of the present exemplary embodiment the camera 8 and the distance sensor 9 are likewise oriented in the x direction of the coordinate system 10.”]
Regarding claim 15, In view of the above combination of references, Finkemeyer further teaches wherein the vision system comprises one or more cameras mounted to the robotic arm. [(see at least Figs.2,4 paragraph 39) “the gripper 4 has a force and torque sensor 7, a camera 8 and a distance sensor 9, which are likewise connected to the control device, so that signals generated by the force and torque sensor, the camera 8 and the distance sensor 9 are available to the control device S.”]
Regarding claim 16, In view of the above combination of references, Finkemeyer further teaches wherein the operations comprise: receiving the sensor data electronically. [(see at least paragraphs 43-45) “the following items of information or signals are available to the control device S on the basis of the camera 8, the distance sensor 9 and the force and torque sensor 7: [0044] a measured force F, from which for example a quadratic error F.sub.y.sub.--.sub.error2 can be calculated in the y direction in reference to a target force, [0045] on the basis of the signals coming from the camera 8, the control device S can detect the obstacles 13 and thus recognize a danger of collision during the movement of the object 6 and the stop 12. This can be used for example for a regulation of position in the y direction.”]
Regarding claim 20, Finkemeyer teaches a method of controlling a robotic arm, the robotic arm comprising: one or more joints that are controllable by one or more motors or actuators [(see at least paragraphs 36-37) As in 36 “FIG. 1 shows a robot R which has a robot arm M and a control device S. The robot arm M constitutes essentially the movable part of the robot R, and includes a plurality of members 1 following each other in sequence which are connected to each other by means of joints 2. At one of its ends the robot arm M has an attaching device 3 for example in the form of a flange, to which for example an end effector in the form of a gripper 4 can be attached. The gripper 4 has for example gripping jaws 5, by means of which the gripper 4 can hold an object 6 so that the latter can be moved by means of the robot R. The gripper 4 with gripped object 6, the attaching device 3 and parts of the robot arm M are shown in additional detail in FIG. 2.” As in 37 “The robot arm M also has drives connected to the control device S, not shown in further detail, by means of which the members 1 can be moved relative to each other in reference to axes assigned to the joints 2. In the case of the present exemplary embodiment, the figures show only one of the axes A in reference to which the attaching device 4 can be moved directly, in particular rotated.”]
Finkemeyer teaches obtaining sensor data indicative of one of more features of an environment accessible to the robotic arm [(see at least paragraph 69) “In addition, a sufficient criterion, in particular a freely definable one, must also be fulfilled for the switchover into the higher-prioritized control and regulating functionality. This is fulfilled for example by detecting the surroundings using sensors. The necessary criterion may result for example on the basis of a current state of another degree of freedom, or may be a safety criterion, for example that a switchover into a higher-prioritized control and regulating functionality takes place only if certain prescribed or prescribable safety rules are fulfilled.”]
Finkemeyer teaches identifying an object in the environment based on sensor data [(see at least paragraph 25) “In this condition it can preferably be ensured that the camera system assumes the control of the movement of the robot arm only if a stable contact of the object with its surroundings has been produced in the x direction, and if the camera system for example has already recognized a positioning image feature. Otherwise the robot arm can be moved at a predefined speed until the image feature is recognized.”]
Finkemeyer teaches determining that a component associated with the robotic arm is within a predefined distance from the object, where the predefined distance is relative to the axis of the object [(see at least paragraphs 40-46) As in 40 “the camera 8 is set up in particular to deliver images from the direction of thrust of the gripper 4, and the distance sensor is set up to determine a distance d likewise in the direction of thrust of the gripper 4. If the gripper 4 is set up for example in such a way that its direction of thrust is oriented in the x direction of a Cartesian world coordinate system 10, then in the case of the present exemplary embodiment the camera 8 and the distance sensor 9 are likewise oriented in the x direction of the coordinate system 10. This is illustrated in FIG. 2. The direction of thrust of the gripper 4 is oriented in particular in the direction of the axis A shown in FIG. 1.” As in 46 “The following control and regulating functionalities are also provided: [0047] force regulation, in particular Cartesian force regulation based on the force and torque sensor 7, to achieve a prescribed target force Fsoll with which the object 6 is to touch the floor 11 and the stop 12, [0048] speed control, in particular Cartesian speed control (trajectory planner and interpolater), with which the object 6 is to move when operated in this mode, [0049] distance regulation based on the distance sensor 9.”];
Finkemeyer teaches controlling the robotic arm to move the component at least partly automatically toward or into alignment with the axis of the object in response to the component being within the predefined distance from the object. [(see at least paragraphs 38,65) As in 38 “The drives are for example electric drives, and are actuated by the control device S in particular in automatic operation of the robot R, so that the attaching device 3 or a so-called tool center point of the robot R automatically carries out a predetermined movement. To this end, a corresponding user program runs on the control device S. The control device S can be designed in particular in such a way that it regulates the drives in automatic operation. The gripper 4 is also connected to the control device S, so that the latter is able to control a gripping and releasing of the object 6.” As in 65 “The control device recognizes the possibility of position regulation in the y direction as well on the basis of signals generated by the camera 8. If the object 46 has moved close enough to the side wall 14 so that the distance sensor 9 can ascertain the distance 9 reliably, then the control device switches automatically to distance regulation for the y direction.”] Examiner notes it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the gripper align with an axis of the object before picking it and while placing it in order to have effective control of the object during the pick and place operation.
Finkemeyer does not explicitly teach enabling manual movement of the robotic arm and the method comprising: controlling amounts of torque provided to one or more of the joints by the one or more motors or actuators to overcome a force of gravity acting on the robotic arm while enabling manual movement of the robotic arm; and where identifying the object comprises identifying an axis of the object.
However, Haddadin teaches enabling manual movement of the robotic arm [(see at least paragraphs 6-8) As in 6 “The so-called direct “teach-in” process is used, particularly in lightweight robot systems, in which the effector or manipulator or robotic arm is guided and moved directly and manually by an operator, i.e. the required motion sequence is demonstrated to the manipulator in advance.”]
Haddadin teaches the method comprising: controlling amounts of torque provided to one or more of the joints by the one or more motors or actuators to overcome a force of gravity acting on the robotic arm while enabling manual movement of the robotic arm [(see at least paragraphs 8,61) As in 8 “ For the direct “teach-in” method mentioned above, it is therefore also known that the robot system is guided in its so-called gravitation-compensated state, in which the measured torques are fed back to the thereby active drives between the individual links, which means that the dead weight of the robot system and any self-locking of the gear mechanisms are not taken into account, and therefore the robot system can only be moved as a function of the external forces applied by an operator during manual guidance. Further approaches include a direct targeted control of the torques in relation to the individual motors, taking into account specified schemes or programs for friction compensation.” As in 61 “the manipulator M is set to a compensated mode. For this purpose, corresponding counterforces and counter-torques are generated by corresponding control of the drive units in the joints G in order to counteract the force of gravity, possibly a centrifugal force and/or a Coriolis force and/or initiated inertial forces, whereby the dead weight and thus the inertia of the manipulator M and any self-locking of the gears or joints is cancelled, so that the manipulator M can in the first place exhibit a repellable behaviour.”]
Merkle teaches where identifying the object comprises identifying an axis of the object [(see at least paragraph 41) “the at least one computing device is further configured to determine the longest axis of the target object based on at least one of the one or more prototype objects determined to match the target object.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Finkemeyer to include the teachings of Haddadin of manual movement of the robotic arm and a control system comprising one or more processing devices, the one or more processing devices being programmed to perform operations comprising: controlling amounts of torque provided to one or more of the joints by the one or more motors or actuators to overcome a force of gravity acting on the robotic arm while enabling manual movement of the robotic arm in order to define a movement sequence for a multi-axis manipulator of a robot system and reach an arbitrary target pose [(Haddadin Abstract)] and to further incorporate the teachings of Merkle of where identifying the object comprises identifying an axis of the object in order to facilitate proper/desired orientation during the picking and placing of the object to ensure safety. [(Merkle 162)]
Regarding claim 22, In view of the above combination of references, Finkemeyer further teaches wherein the axis is along a center of the object. [(see at least Fig.1, paragraph 40)]
Regarding claim 23, In view of the above combination of references, Finkemeyer further teaches wherein the axis is along a part of the object. [(see at least Fig.1, paragraph 40)]
Regarding claim 24, In view of the above combination of references, Finkemeyer further teaches further comprising: following alignment of the component with the axis, constraining movement of the component to be along the axis. [(see at least Fig.1, paragraph 40) “The direction of thrust of the gripper 4 is oriented in particular in the direction of the axis A shown in FIG. 1.”]
Regarding claim 25, In view of the above combination of references, Finkemeyer further teaches further comprising: following alignment of the component with the axis, constraining movement of the component relative to the axis. [(see at least Fig.1, paragraph 37) “The robot arm M also has drives connected to the control device S, not shown in further detail, by means of which the members 1 can be moved relative to each other in reference to axes assigned to the joints 2. In the case of the present exemplary embodiment, the figures show only one of the axes A in reference to which the attaching device 4 can be moved directly, in particular rotated.”]
Regarding claim 31, In view of the above combination of references, Finkemeyer further teaches wherein the component comprises a tool connected to the robotic arm. [(see at least paragraph 36) “At one of its ends the robot arm M has an attaching device 3 for example in the form of a flange, to which for example an end effector in the form of a gripper 4 can be attached. The gripper 4 has for example gripping jaws 5, by means of which the gripper 4 can hold an object 6 so that the latter can be moved by means of the robot R. The gripper 4 with gripped object 6, the attaching device 3 and parts of the robot arm M are shown in additional detail in FIG. 2.”]
Regarding claim 32, In view of the above combination of references, Finkemeyer further teaches wherein the component comprises a part of the robotic arm. [(see at least paragraph 36) “FIG. 1 shows a robot R which has a robot arm M and a control device S. The robot arm M constitutes essentially the movable part of the robot R, and includes a plurality of members 1 following each other in sequence which are connected to each other by means of joints 2. At one of its ends the robot arm M has an attaching device 3 for example in the form of a flange, to which for example an end effector in the form of a gripper 4 can be attached. The gripper 4 has for example gripping jaws 5, by means of which the gripper 4 can hold an object 6 so that the latter can be moved by means of the robot R. The gripper 4 with gripped object 6, the attaching device 3 and parts of the robot arm M are shown in additional detail in FIG. 2.”]
Regarding claim 33, In view of the above combination of references, Finkemeyer further teaches wherein the sensor data comprises one or more images obtained electronically. [(see at least paragraphs 43-45) “the following items of information or signals are available to the control device S on the basis of the camera 8, the distance sensor 9 and the force and torque sensor 7: [0044] a measured force F, from which for example a quadratic error F.sub.y.sub.--.sub.error2 can be calculated in the y direction in reference to a target force, [0045] on the basis of the signals coming from the camera 8, the control device S can detect the obstacles 13 and thus recognize a danger of collision during the movement of the object 6 and the stop 12. This can be used for example for a regulation of position in the y direction.”]
Regarding claim 34, In view of the above combination of references, Finkemeyer further teaches wherein the sensor data comprises one or more images obtained from one or more cameras connected to the robotic arm. [(see at least Figs.2,4 paragraphs 39, 43-45) As in 39 “the gripper 4 has a force and torque sensor 7, a camera 8 and a distance sensor 9, which are likewise connected to the control device, so that signals generated by the force and torque sensor, the camera 8 and the distance sensor 9 are available to the control device S.”]
Regarding claim 38, Finkemeyer teaches one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage devices storing instructions that are executable by one or more processing devices to control a robotic arm, the robotic arm comprising one or more of the joints that are controllable by one or more motors or actuators [(see at least paragraphs 36-37) As in 36 “FIG. 1 shows a robot R which has a robot arm M and a control device S. The robot arm M constitutes essentially the movable part of the robot R, and includes a plurality of members 1 following each other in sequence which are connected to each other by means of joints 2. At one of its ends the robot arm M has an attaching device 3 for example in the form of a flange, to which for example an end effector in the form of a gripper 4 can be attached. The gripper 4 has for example gripping jaws 5, by means of which the gripper 4 can hold an object 6 so that the latter can be moved by means of the robot R. The gripper 4 with gripped object 6, the attaching device 3 and parts of the robot arm M are shown in additional detail in FIG. 2.” As in 37 “The robot arm M also has drives connected to the control device S, not shown in further detail, by means of which the members 1 can be moved relative to each other in reference to axes assigned to the joints 2. In the case of the present exemplary embodiment, the figures show only one of the axes A in reference to which the attaching device 4 can be moved directly, in particular rotated.”]
Finkemeyer teaches obtaining sensor data indicative of an environment accessible to the robotic arm [(see at least paragraph 69) “In addition, a sufficient criterion, in particular a freely definable one, must also be fulfilled for the switchover into the higher-prioritized control and regulating functionality. This is fulfilled for example by detecting the surroundings using sensors. The necessary criterion may result for example on the basis of a current state of another degree of freedom, or may be a safety criterion, for example that a switchover into a higher-prioritized control and regulating functionality takes place only if certain prescribed or prescribable safety rules are fulfilled.”]
Finkemeyer teaches identifying an object in the environment based on the sensor data [(see at least paragraph 25) “In this condition it can preferably be ensured that the camera system assumes the control of the movement of the robot arm only if a stable contact of the object with its surroundings has been produced in the x direction, and if the camera system for example has already recognized a positioning image feature. Otherwise the robot arm can be moved at a predefined speed until the image feature is recognized.”]
Finkemeyer teaches determining that a component associated with the robotic arm is within a predefined distance from the object, where the predefined distance is relative to the axis of the object [(see at least paragraphs 40-46) As in 40 “the camera 8 is set up in particular to deliver images from the direction of thrust of the gripper 4, and the distance sensor is set up to determine a distance d likewise in the direction of thrust of the gripper 4. If the gripper 4 is set up for example in such a way that its direction of thrust is oriented in the x direction of a Cartesian world coordinate system 10, then in the case of the present exemplary embodiment the camera 8 and the distance sensor 9 are likewise oriented in the x direction of the coordinate system 10. This is illustrated in FIG. 2. The direction of thrust of the gripper 4 is oriented in particular in the direction of the axis A shown in FIG. 1.” As in 46 “The following control and regulating functionalities are also provided: [0047] force regulation, in particular Cartesian force regulation based on the force and torque sensor 7, to achieve a prescribed target force Fsoll with which the object 6 is to touch the floor 11 and the stop 12, [0048] speed control, in particular Cartesian speed control (trajectory planner and interpolater), with which the object 6 is to move when operated in this mode, [0049] distance regulation based on the distance sensor 9.”];
Finkemeyer teaches controlling the robotic arm to move the component at least partly automatically toward or into alignment with the axis of the object in response to the component being within the predefined distance from the object. [(see at least paragraphs 38,65) As in 38 “The drives are for example electric drives, and are actuated by the control device S in particular in automatic operation of the robot R, so that the attaching device 3 or a so-called tool center point of the robot R automatically carries out a predetermined movement. To this end, a corresponding user program runs on the control device S. The control device S can be designed in particular in such a way that it regulates the drives in automatic operation. The gripper 4 is also connected to the control device S, so that the latter is able to control a gripping and releasing of the object 6.” As in 65 “The control device recognizes the possibility of position regulation in the y direction as well on the basis of signals generated by the camera 8. If the object 46 has moved close enough to the side wall 14 so that the distance sensor 9 can ascertain the distance 9 reliably, then the control device switches automatically to distance regulation for the y direction.”] Examiner notes it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the gripper align with an axis of the object before picking it and while placing it in order to have effective control of the object during the pick and place operation.
Finkemeyer does not explicitly teach enabling manual movement of the robotic arm and the instructions being executable to perform operations comprising: controlling amounts of torque provided to one or more of the joints by the one or more motors or actuators to overcome a force of gravity acting on the robotic arm while enabling manual movement of the robotic arm; and where identifying the object comprises identifying the axis of an object.
However, Haddadin teaches enabling manual movement of the robotic arm [(see at least paragraphs 6-8) As in 6 “The so-called direct “teach-in” process is used, particularly in lightweight robot systems, in which the effector or manipulator or robotic arm is guided and moved directly and manually by an operator, i.e. the required motion sequence is demonstrated to the manipulator in advance.”]
Haddadin teaches the instructions being executable to perform operations comprising: controlling amounts of torque provided to the one or more of the joints by the one or more motors or actuators to overcome a force of gravity acting on the robotic arm while enabling manual movement of the robotic arm [(see at least paragraphs 8,61) As in 8 “ For the direct “teach-in” method mentioned above, it is therefore also known that the robot system is guided in its so-called gravitation-compensated state, in which the measured torques are fed back to the thereby active drives between the individual links, which means that the dead weight of the robot system and any self-locking of the gear mechanisms are not taken into account, and therefore the robot system can only be moved as a function of the external forces applied by an operator during manual guidance. Further approaches include a direct targeted control of the torques in relation to the individual motors, taking into account specified schemes or programs for friction compensation.” As in 61 “the manipulator M is set to a compensated mode. For this purpose, corresponding counterforces and counter-torques are generated by corresponding control of the drive units in the joints G in order to counteract the force of gravity, possibly a centrifugal force and/or a Coriolis force and/or initiated inertial forces, whereby the dead weight and thus the inertia of the manipulator M and any self-locking of the gears or joints is cancelled, so that the manipulator M can in the first place exhibit a repellable behaviour.”]
Merkle teaches where identifying the object comprises identifying an axis of the object [(see at least paragraph 41) “the at least one computing device is further configured to determine the longest axis of the target object based on at least one of the one or more prototype objects determined to match the target object.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Finkemeyer to include the teachings of Haddadin of manual movement of the robotic arm and a control system comprising one or more processing devices, the one or more processing devices being programmed to perform operations comprising: controlling amounts of torque provided to one or more of the joints by the one or more motors or actuators to overcome a force of gravity acting on the robotic arm while enabling manual movement of the robotic arm in order to define a movement sequence for a multi-axis manipulator of a robot system and reach an arbitrary target pose [(Haddadin Abstract)] and to further incorporate the teachings of Merkle of where identifying the object comprises identifying an axis of the object in order to facilitate proper/desired orientation during the picking and placing of the object to ensure safety. [(Merkle 162)]
Claims 7-9, 11, 17-19, 26-28, 30 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkemeyer in view of Haddadin and Merkle and in further view of O’Hare (US 2021/0387301 A1).
Regarding claim 7, In view of the above combination of references, Finkemeyer further teaches wherein the operations comprise: following controlling the robotic arm to move the component toward or into alignment with the axis of the object [(see at least paragraphs 38) “The drives are for example electric drives, and are actuated by the control device S in particular in automatic operation of the robot R, so that the attaching device 3 or a so-called tool center point of the robot R automatically carries out a predetermined movement. To this end, a corresponding user program runs on the control device S. The control device S can be designed in particular in such a way that it regulates the drives in automatic operation. The gripper 4 is also connected to the control device S, so that the latter is able to control a gripping and releasing of the object 6.”]
FInkemeyer does not explicitly teach enabling manual movement of the component along the axis to allow the robotic arm to interact with the object; recording movements of the robotic arm interacting with the object; translating the movements into robot code; and storing the robot code in memory on the control system.
However, O’Hare teaches enabling manual movement of the component along the axis to allow the robotic arm to interact with the object [(see at least paragraph 152) “Step 481 includes moving the reference geometry tool 321 in a planar direction (in the X and/or Y direction) until the reference geometry tool 321 is aligned with a kinematic locator 410. Moving the reference geometry tool 321 may be performed manually by an operator using a robot control interface 390, or by an operator manually manipulating the robot arm 302 by hand, or by a programmed robot control computer 379.”]; recording movements of the robotic arm interacting with the object; translating the movements into robot code; and storing the robot code in memory on the control system. [(see at least paragraphs 101,105,154) As in 154 “Step 486 records the location of the robot arm in the robot coordinate system when the reference geometry tool 321 is kinematically seated with the kinematic locator 410. In some embodiments, the operator records the location of the robot by hitting the “Enter” or “Done” key, for example on a robot control interface 390, or by a programmed robot control computer 379, so that the robot's software saves the coordinates of the workpiece setup relative to the robot's coordinate system.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Finkemeyer to incorporate the teachings of O’Hare of enabling manual movement of at least part of the robotic arm along the axis to allow the robotic arm to interact with the object and recording movements of the robotic arm interacting with the object, translating the movements into robot code and storing the robot code in memory on the control system in order to quickly and efficiently grasp and move an object within the environment.
Regarding claim 8, Modified Finkemeyer has all of the elements of claim 1 as discussed above.
Finkemeyer does not explicitly teach wherein the operations comprise: recording operational parameters of the robotic system; translating the operational parameters into robot code; and storing the robot code in memory on the control system.
However, O’Hare teaches wherein the operations comprise: recording operational parameters of the robotic system; translating the operational parameters into robot code; and storing the robot code in memory on the control system. [(see at least paragraphs 101,105) As in 101 “The computer processor 157 may have on-board, non-transient digital memory (e.g., RAM or ROM) for storing data and/or computer code, including non-transient instructions for implementing some or all of the control system operations and methods. Alternately, or in addition, the computer processor 157 may be operably coupled to other non-transient digital memory, such as RAM or ROM, or a programmable non-transient memory circuit for storing such computer code and/or control data. Consequently, some or all of the functions of the controller 150 may be implemented in software configured to execute on the computer processor.” As in 105 “The memory module 156 is also configured to store, for example, a specification for a workpiece 180 to be measured; a specification for a calibration artifact; an error map; and non-transient instructions executable on the computer processor 157, to name but a few examples. Such instructions may include, among other things, instructions for controlling the moveable features of the CMM 100 for measuring a workpiece 180 and/or a calibration artifact; instructions for analyzing measurement data; and instructions for correcting measurement data (e.g., with an error map).”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Finkemeyer to incorporate the teachings of O’Hare of recording operational parameters of the robotic system; translating the operational parameters into robot code; and storing the robot code in memory on the control system in order for some or all of the functions of the controller to be implemented in software configured to execute on a computer processor. [(O’Hare 101)]
Regarding claim 9, Modified Finkemeyer has all of the elements of claim 8 as discussed above.
Finkemeyer does not explicitly teach wherein the operational parameters relate to one or more of the following: sensor data of the robotic system, input/output ports in the robotic system, or an end effector or tool of the robotic system.
However, O’Hare teaches wherein the operational parameters relate to one or more of the following: sensor data of the robotic system, input/output ports in the robotic system, or an end effector or tool of the robotic system. [(see at least paragraph 106) “The measurement analyzer 154 is configured to process measurement data received from one or more sensors, such as measuring sensor 140. In some embodiments, the measurement analyzer 154 may revise the measurement data, for example by modifying the measurement data using an error map, and/or compare the measurement data to a specification, for example to assess deviation between a workpiece 180 and a specification for that workpiece 180. To that end, the measurement analyzer 154 may be a programmed digital signal processor integrated circuit, as known in the art.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Finkemeyer to further incorporate the teachings of O’Hare of wherein the operational parameters relate to one or more of the following: sensor data of the robotic system, input/output ports in the robotic system, or an end effector or tool of the robotic system in order to easily and efficiently operate the robotic system. [(O’Hare 48)]
Regarding claim 11, Finkemeyer has all of the elements of claim 1 as discussed above.
Finkemeyer does not explicitly teach wherein controlling the robotic arm to move the component automatically toward or into alignment is performed in combination with manual movement of the robotic arm.
However, O’Hare teaches wherein controlling the robotic arm to move the component automatically toward or into alignment is performed in combination with manual movement of the robotic arm. [(see at least paragraph 71) “The described laser targeting device can be used quickly and easily at a distance above the part, thereby eliminating steps and complexity in the teaching process. Moreover, in some embodiments, the robot includes a vision system that enables and configures the robot to use the later targeting device to automatically recognize the target mark on the part. In cases where minimal manual interaction is acceptable for system setup purposes, a laser targeting device as described can be extremely beneficial to predetermine the locations of parts in a pallet array so that they can be later automated.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Finkemeyer to incorporate the teachings of O’Hare of controlling the robotic arm to move the component automatically toward or into alignment is performed in combination with manual movement of the robotic arm in order to accurately retrieve a workpiece from the workpiece storage apparatus. [(O’Hare 16)]
Regarding claim 17, Modified Finkemeyer has all of the elements of claim 1 as discussed above.
Finkemeyer does not explicitly teach wherein the operations comprise: enabling the robotic arm to be moved out of the alignment in response to a predetermined amount of manual force.
However, O’Hare teaches wherein the operations comprise: enabling the robotic arm to be moved out of the alignment in response to a predetermined amount of manual force. [(see at least paragraph 104) “For example, under control of the computer processor 157, the motion controller 153 may send electrical control signals to one or more motors within the CMM 100 to cause movable features of the CMM 100 to move a measuring sensor 140 to various points within the measuring space 113 and take measurements of the workpiece 180 at such points. The motion controller 153 may control such motion in response to a measurement program stored in memory module 156, or stored in computer 170, or in response to manual control by an operator using manual controller 160, to name but a few examples.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Finkemeyer to incorporate the teachings of O’Hare of enabling the robotic arm to be moved out of the alignment in response to a predetermined amount of manual force in order to allow the user easily and efficiently operate/adjust the robot system.
Regarding claim 18, Modified Finkemeyer has all of the elements of claim 1 as discussed above.
Finkemeyer does not explicitly teach wherein the environment contains multiple objects, each of the multiple objects being a candidate for alignment with the component, and each of the multiple objects being at a different distance from the component.
However, O’Hare teaches wherein the environment contains multiple objects, each of the multiple objects being a candidate for alignment with the component, and each of the multiple objects being at a different distance from the component. [(see at least paragraphs 50,119) As in 50 “Once done, the robot, and its controller, may be said to have knowledge of the location of the coordinate measuring machine and the workpiece storage facility. Consequently, the robot is enabled to retrieve workpieces from the workpiece storage facility and deliver them to the measuring space of the coordinate measuring machine, for measurement by the coordinate measuring machine.” As in 119 “One or more workpieces 180 are stored in storage apparatus (or system) 200. In this embodiment, the storage system 200 includes one or more drawers (or shelves) 201. The storage system defines a storage system coordinate system having three mutually orthogonal axes (axes A, B, and C in FIG. 1A). The storage system coordinate system is independent of the CMM's coordinate systems (e.g., Q-R-S).”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Finkemeyer to incorporate the teachings of O’Hare of wherein the environment contains multiple objects, each of the multiple objects being a candidate for alignment with the component, and each of the multiple objects being at a different distance from the component in order to deliver/carry a wide variety of different objects/workpieces. [(O’Hare 2)]
Regarding claim 19, Modified Finkemeyer has all of the elements of claim 18 as discussed above.
Finkemeyer does not explicitly teach wherein the axis of the object to which the component is configured to align is for a closest one of the multiple objects to the component.
However, O’Hare teaches wherein the axis of the object to which the component is configured to align is for a closest one of the multiple objects to the component. [(see at least paragraphs.49, 116) As in 49 “a workpiece storage apparatus holding workpieces is delivered and positioned near a robot and another machine, such as a coordinate measuring machine. Unless the workpiece storage apparatus is positioned very precisely, and oriented with a high degree of precision, relative to the robot, the robot will not be able to accurately retrieve workpieces from the workpiece storage facility.” As in 116 “The mobility of the jogbox 190 also allows the operator to move closer to the coordinate measuring machine 100 and the workpiece 180 on which it operates than would be possible using a fixed control console or computer 170, in order, for example, to examine or adjust the location or orientation of the workpiece 180, or the operation of the coordinate measuring machine 100.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Finkemeyer to incorporate the teachings of O’Hare of wherein the axis of the object to which the component is configured to align is for a closest one of the multiple objects to the component in order to enable delivery and disposition of a workpiece to a location near the robot. [(O’Hare 49)]
Regarding claim 26, In view of the above combination of references, Finkemeyer further teaches further comprising: following controlling the robotic arm to move the component toward or into alignment with the axis of the object [(see at least paragraphs 38) “The drives are for example electric drives, and are actuated by the control device S in particular in automatic operation of the robot R, so that the attaching device 3 or a so-called tool center point of the robot R automatically carries out a predetermined movement. To this end, a corresponding user program runs on the control device S. The control device S can be designed in particular in such a way that it regulates the drives in automatic operation. The gripper 4 is also connected to the control device S, so that the latter is able to control a gripping and releasing of the object 6.”]
FInkemeyer does not explicitly teach enabling manual movement of the component along the axis to allow the robotic arm to interact with the object; recording movements of the robotic arm interacting with the object; translating the movements into robot code; and storing the robot code in memory on the control system.
However, O’Hare teaches enabling manual movement of the component along the axis to allow the robotic arm to interact with the object [(see at least paragraph 152) “Step 481 includes moving the reference geometry tool 321 in a planar direction (in the X and/or Y direction) until the reference geometry tool 321 is aligned with a kinematic locator 410. Moving the reference geometry tool 321 may be performed manually by an operator using a robot control interface 390, or by an operator manually manipulating the robot arm 302 by hand, or by a programmed robot control computer 379.”]; recording movements of the robotic arm interacting with the object; translating the movements into robot code; and storing the robot code in memory on the control system. [(see at least paragraphs 101,105,154) As in 154 “Step 486 records the location of the robot arm in the robot coordinate system when the reference geometry tool 321 is kinematically seated with the kinematic locator 410. In some embodiments, the operator records the location of the robot by hitting the “Enter” or “Done” key, for example on a robot control interface 390, or by a programmed robot control computer 379, so that the robot's software saves the coordinates of the workpiece setup relative to the robot's coordinate system.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Finkemeyer to incorporate the teachings of O’Hare of enabling manual movement of the component along the axis to allow the robotic arm to interact with the object and recording movements of the robotic arm interacting with the object, translating the movements into robot code and storing the robot code in memory on the control system in order to quickly and efficiently grasp and move an object within the environment.
Regarding claim 27, Modified Finkemeyer has all of the elements of claim 20 as discussed above.
Finkemeyer does not explicitly teach further comprising: recording operational parameters of the robotic system; translating the operational parameters into robot code; and storing the robot code in memory on a control system.
However, O’Hare teaches further comprising: recording operational parameters of the robotic system; translating the operational parameters into robot code; and storing the robot code in memory on a control system. [(see at least paragraphs 101,105) As in 101 “The computer processor 157 may have on-board, non-transient digital memory (e.g., RAM or ROM) for storing data and/or computer code, including non-transient instructions for implementing some or all of the control system operations and methods. Alternately, or in addition, the computer processor 157 may be operably coupled to other non-transient digital memory, such as RAM or ROM, or a programmable non-transient memory circuit for storing such computer code and/or control data. Consequently, some or all of the functions of the controller 150 may be implemented in software configured to execute on the computer processor.” As in 105 “The memory module 156 is also configured to store, for example, a specification for a workpiece 180 to be measured; a specification for a calibration artifact; an error map; and non-transient instructions executable on the computer processor 157, to name but a few examples. Such instructions may include, among other things, instructions for controlling the moveable features of the CMM 100 for measuring a workpiece 180 and/or a calibration artifact; instructions for analyzing measurement data; and instructions for correcting measurement data (e.g., with an error map).”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Finkemeyer to incorporate the teachings of O’Hare of recording operational parameters of the robotic system; translating the operational parameters into robot code; and storing the robot code in memory on a control system in order for some or all of the functions of the controller to be implemented in software configured to execute on a computer processor. [(O’Hare 101)]
Regarding claim 28, Modified Finkemeyer has all of the elements of claim 26 as discussed above.
Finkemeyer does not explicitly teach wherein the operational parameters relate to one or more of the following: input/output ports in a robotic system containing the robotic arm or an end effector or tool connected to the robotic arm.
However, O’Hare teaches wherein the operational parameters relate to one or more of the following: input/output ports in a robotic system containing the robotic arm or an end effector or tool connected to the robotic arm. [(see at least paragraph 106) “The measurement analyzer 154 is configured to process measurement data received from one or more sensors, such as measuring sensor 140. In some embodiments, the measurement analyzer 154 may revise the measurement data, for example by modifying the measurement data using an error map, and/or compare the measurement data to a specification, for example to assess deviation between a workpiece 180 and a specification for that workpiece 180. To that end, the measurement analyzer 154 may be a programmed digital signal processor integrated circuit, as known in the art.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Finkemeyer to further incorporate the teachings of O’Hare of operational parameters relate to one or more of the following: input/output ports in a robotic system containing the robotic arm or an end effector or tool connected to the robotic arm in order to easily and efficiently operate the robotic system. [(O’Hare 48)]
Regarding claim 30, Modified Finkemeyer has all of the elements of claim 20 as discussed above.
Finkemeyer does not explicitly teach wherein controlling the robotic arm to move the component automatically toward or into alignment is performed in combination with manual movement of the robotic arm.
However, O’Hare teaches wherein controlling the robotic arm to move the component automatically toward or into alignment is performed in combination with manual movement of the robotic arm. [(see at least paragraph 71) “The described laser targeting device can be used quickly and easily at a distance above the part, thereby eliminating steps and complexity in the teaching process. Moreover, in some embodiments, the robot includes a vision system that enables and configures the robot to use the later targeting device to automatically recognize the target mark on the part. In cases where minimal manual interaction is acceptable for system setup purposes, a laser targeting device as described can be extremely beneficial to predetermine the locations of parts in a pallet array so that they can be later automated.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Finkemeyer to incorporate the teachings of O’Hare of wherein controlling the robotic arm to move the component automatically toward or into alignment is performed in combination with manual movement of the robotic arm in order to accurately retrieve a workpiece from the workpiece storage apparatus. [(O’Hare 16)]
Regarding claim 35, Modified Finkemeyer has all of the elements of claim 20 as discussed above.
Finkemeyer does not explicitly teach further comprising: enabling the robotic arm to be moved out of the alignment in response to a predetermined amount of manual force.
However, O’Hare teaches further comprising: enabling the robotic arm to be moved out of the alignment in response to a predetermined amount of manual force. [(see at least paragraph 104) “For example, under control of the computer processor 157, the motion controller 153 may send electrical control signals to one or more motors within the CMM 100 to cause movable features of the CMM 100 to move a measuring sensor 140 to various points within the measuring space 113 and take measurements of the workpiece 180 at such points. The motion controller 153 may control such motion in response to a measurement program stored in memory module 156, or stored in computer 170, or in response to manual control by an operator using manual controller 160, to name but a few examples.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Finkemeyer to incorporate the teachings of O’Hare of enabling the robotic arm to be moved out of the alignment in response to a predetermined amount of manual force in order to allow the user easily and efficiently operate/adjust the robot system.
Regarding claim 36, Modified Finkemeyer has all of the elements of claim 20 as discussed above.
Finkemeyer does not explicitly teach wherein the environment contains multiple objects, each of the multiple objects being a candidate for alignment with the component, and each of the multiple objects being at a different distance from the component.
However, O’Hare teaches wherein the environment contains multiple objects, each of the multiple objects being a candidate for alignment with the component, and each of the multiple objects being at a different distance from the component. [(see at least paragraphs 50,119) As in 50 “Once done, the robot, and its controller, may be said to have knowledge of the location of the coordinate measuring machine and the workpiece storage facility. Consequently, the robot is enabled to retrieve workpieces from the workpiece storage facility and deliver them to the measuring space of the coordinate measuring machine, for measurement by the coordinate measuring machine.” As in 119 “One or more workpieces 180 are stored in storage apparatus (or system) 200. In this embodiment, the storage system 200 includes one or more drawers (or shelves) 201. The storage system defines a storage system coordinate system having three mutually orthogonal axes (axes A, B, and C in FIG. 1A). The storage system coordinate system is independent of the CMM's coordinate systems (e.g., Q-R-S).”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Finkemeyer to incorporate the teachings of O’Hare of wherein the environment contains multiple objects, each of the multiple objects being a candidate for alignment with the component, and each of the multiple objects being at a different distance from the component in order to deliver/carry a wide variety of different objects/workpieces. [(O’Hare 2)]
Regarding claim 37, Modified Finkemeyer has all of the elements of claim 20 as discussed above.
Finkemeyer does not explicitly teach wherein the axis of the object to which the component is configured to align is for a closest one of the multiple objects to the component.
However, O’Hare teaches wherein the axis of the object to which the component is configured to align is for a closest one of the multiple objects to the component. [(see at least paragraphs.49, 116) As in 49 “a workpiece storage apparatus holding workpieces is delivered and positioned near a robot and another machine, such as a coordinate measuring machine. Unless the workpiece storage apparatus is positioned very precisely, and oriented with a high degree of precision, relative to the robot, the robot will not be able to accurately retrieve workpieces from the workpiece storage facility.” As in 116 “The mobility of the jogbox 190 also allows the operator to move closer to the coordinate measuring machine 100 and the workpiece 180 on which it operates than would be possible using a fixed control console or computer 170, in order, for example, to examine or adjust the location or orientation of the workpiece 180, or the operation of the coordinate measuring machine 100.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Finkemeyer to incorporate the teachings of O’Hare of wherein the axis of the object to which the component is configured to align is for a closest one of the multiple objects to the component in order to enable delivery and disposition of a workpiece to a location near the robot. [(O’Hare 49)]
Claims 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkemeyer in view of Haddadin and in further view of Lager (US 2019/0143520 A1).
Regarding claim 39, Finkemeyer teaches wherein determining that the component associated with the robotic arm is within the predefined distance of the object comprises determining that the component of the robotic arm is within a first distance from the axis of the object; wherein controlling the robotic arm to move the component toward alignment with the axis of the object is performed in response to the component of the robotic arm being within the first distance from the axis of the object [(see at least paragraphs 36-40) As in 36 “The robot arm M constitutes essentially the movable part of the robot R, and includes a plurality of members 1 following each other in sequence which are connected to each other by means of joints 2. At one of its ends the robot arm M has an attaching device 3 for example in the form of a flange, to which for example an end effector in the form of a gripper 4 can be attached. The gripper 4 has for example gripping jaws 5, by means of which the gripper 4 can hold an object 6 so that the latter can be moved by means of the robot R. The gripper 4 with gripped object 6, the attaching device 3 and parts of the robot arm M are shown in additional detail in FIG. 2.” As in 39 “In the case of the present exemplary embodiment, the gripper 4 has a force and torque sensor 7, a camera 8 and a distance sensor 9, which are likewise connected to the control device, so that signals generated by the force and torque sensor, the camera 8 and the distance sensor 9 are available to the control device S.”]
Finkemeyer does not explicitly teach wherein determining that the component associated with the robotic arm is within the predefined distance of the object comprises determining that the component of the robotic arm is within a second distance from the axis of the object, the second distance being less than the first distance; and wherein controlling the robotic arm to move the component into alignment with the axis of the object is performed in response to the component of the robotic arm being within the second distance from the axis of the object and is performed with greater force than moving the component toward alignment.
However, Lager teaches wherein determining that the component associated with the robotic arm is within the predefined distance of the object comprises determining that the component of the robotic arm is within a second distance from the axis of the object, the second distance being less than the first distance; and wherein controlling the robotic arm to move the component into alignment with the axis of the object is performed in response to the component of the robotic arm being within the second distance from the axis of the object and is performed with greater force than moving the component toward alignment. [(see at least Fig.4, paragraphs 43, 64) As in 43 “There are first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh object positions OP1, OP2, OP3, OP4, OP5, OP6 and OP7 in the first working volume wv1, where the seventh object position OP7 is halfway in. There is also an eighth object position OP8 that has left the first working volume wv1 as well as ninth and tenth object positions OP9 and OP10 outside of the first working volume wv1. In the figure there are also shown two distances associated with the first object position OP1. There is a first distance d1 from the first object position OP1 to the exit region exr1 along the path of transport as well as a second distance d2 from the first object position OP1 to the entrance region enr1 along the path of transport.” As in 64 “It can also be seen that the estimated object spot movement is an estimate of the movement of the coordinate space of the first object transporting device. In the estimate of the movement it is possible to use predictions of variations in transporting speed. If the transporting speed is known at the decision instant, a prediction of the variation of the transporting speed may be used in obtaining a fine-tuned movement estimation.”] Examiner notes that the variation of transporting speed is being interpreted as the aligning the object with a greater speed from the second distance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Finkemeyer to incorporate the teachings of Lager of determining that the component associated with the robotic arm is within the predefined distance of the object comprises determining that the component of the robotic arm is within a second distance from the axis of the object, the second distance being less than the first distance; and wherein controlling the robotic arm to move the component into alignment with the axis of the object is performed in response to the component of the robotic arm being within the second distance from the axis of the object and is performed with greater force than moving the component toward alignment in order to obtain a fine-tuned movement estimation/instruction. [(Lager 64)]
Regarding claim 40, Finkemeyer teaches wherein determining that the component associated with the robotic arm is within the predefined distance of the object comprises determining that the component of the robotic arm is within a first distance from the axis of the object; wherein controlling the robotic arm to move the component toward alignment with the axis of the object is performed in response to the component of the robotic arm being within the first distance from the axis of the object [(see at least paragraphs 36-40) As in 36 “The robot arm M constitutes essentially the movable part of the robot R, and includes a plurality of members 1 following each other in sequence which are connected to each other by means of joints 2. At one of its ends the robot arm M has an attaching device 3 for example in the form of a flange, to which for example an end effector in the form of a gripper 4 can be attached. The gripper 4 has for example gripping jaws 5, by means of which the gripper 4 can hold an object 6 so that the latter can be moved by means of the robot R. The gripper 4 with gripped object 6, the attaching device 3 and parts of the robot arm M are shown in additional detail in FIG. 2.” As in 39 “In the case of the present exemplary embodiment, the gripper 4 has a force and torque sensor 7, a camera 8 and a distance sensor 9, which are likewise connected to the control device, so that signals generated by the force and torque sensor, the camera 8 and the distance sensor 9 are available to the control device S.”]
Finkemeyer does not explicitly teach wherein determining that the component associated with the robotic arm is within the predefined distance of the object comprises determining that the component of the robotic arm is within a second distance from the axis of the object, the second distance being less than the first distance; and wherein controlling the robotic arm to move the component into alignment with the axis of the object is performed in response to the component of the robotic arm being within the second distance from the axis of the object and is performed with greater force than moving the component toward alignment.
However, Lager teaches wherein determining that the component associated with the robotic arm is within the predefined distance of the object comprises determining that the component of the robotic arm is within a second distance from the axis of the object, the second distance being less than the first distance; and wherein controlling the robotic arm to move the component into alignment with the axis of the object is performed in response to the component of the robotic arm being within the second distance from the axis of the object and is performed with greater force than moving the component toward alignment. [(see at least Fig.4, paragraphs 43, 64) As in 43 “There are first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh object positions OP1, OP2, OP3, OP4, OP5, OP6 and OP7 in the first working volume wv1, where the seventh object position OP7 is halfway in. There is also an eighth object position OP8 that has left the first working volume wv1 as well as ninth and tenth object positions OP9 and OP10 outside of the first working volume wv1. In the figure there are also shown two distances associated with the first object position OP1. There is a first distance d1 from the first object position OP1 to the exit region exr1 along the path of transport as well as a second distance d2 from the first object position OP1 to the entrance region enr1 along the path of transport.” As in 64 “It can also be seen that the estimated object spot movement is an estimate of the movement of the coordinate space of the first object transporting device. In the estimate of the movement it is possible to use predictions of variations in transporting speed. If the transporting speed is known at the decision instant, a prediction of the variation of the transporting speed may be used in obtaining a fine-tuned movement estimation.”] Examiner notes that the variation of transporting speed is being interpreted as the aligning the object with a greater speed from the second distance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Finkemeyer to incorporate the teachings of Lager of determining that the component associated with the robotic arm is within the predefined distance of the object comprises determining that the component of the robotic arm is within a second distance from the axis of the object, the second distance being less than the first distance; and wherein controlling the robotic arm to move the component into alignment with the axis of the object is performed in response to the component of the robotic arm being within the second distance from the axis of the object and is performed with greater force than moving the component toward alignment in order to obtain a fine-tuned movement estimation/instruction. [(Lager 64)]
Regarding claim 41, Finkemeyer teaches wherein determining that the component associated with the robotic arm is within the predefined distance of the object comprises determining that the component of the robotic arm is within a first distance from the axis of the object; wherein controlling the robotic arm to move the component toward alignment with the axis of the object is performed in response to the component of the robotic arm being within the first distance from the axis of the object [(see at least paragraphs 36-40) As in 36 “The robot arm M constitutes essentially the movable part of the robot R, and includes a plurality of members 1 following each other in sequence which are connected to each other by means of joints 2. At one of its ends the robot arm M has an attaching device 3 for example in the form of a flange, to which for example an end effector in the form of a gripper 4 can be attached. The gripper 4 has for example gripping jaws 5, by means of which the gripper 4 can hold an object 6 so that the latter can be moved by means of the robot R. The gripper 4 with gripped object 6, the attaching device 3 and parts of the robot arm M are shown in additional detail in FIG. 2.” As in 39 “In the case of the present exemplary embodiment, the gripper 4 has a force and torque sensor 7, a camera 8 and a distance sensor 9, which are likewise connected to the control device, so that signals generated by the force and torque sensor, the camera 8 and the distance sensor 9 are available to the control device S.”]
Finkemeyer does not explicitly teach wherein determining that the component associated with the robotic arm is within the predefined distance of the object comprises determining that the component of the robotic arm is within a second distance from the axis of the object, the second distance being less than the first distance; and wherein controlling the robotic arm to move the component into alignment with the axis of the object is performed in response to the component of the robotic arm being within the second distance from the axis of the object and is performed with greater force than moving the component toward alignment.
However, Lager teaches wherein determining that the component associated with the robotic arm is within the predefined distance of the object comprises determining that the component of the robotic arm is within a second distance from the axis of the object, the second distance being less than the first distance; and wherein controlling the robotic arm to move the component into alignment with the axis of the object is performed in response to the component of the robotic arm being within the second distance from the axis of the object and is performed with greater force than moving the component toward alignment. [(see at least Fig.4, paragraphs 43, 64) As in 43 “There are first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh object positions OP1, OP2, OP3, OP4, OP5, OP6 and OP7 in the first working volume wv1, where the seventh object position OP7 is halfway in. There is also an eighth object position OP8 that has left the first working volume wv1 as well as ninth and tenth object positions OP9 and OP10 outside of the first working volume wv1. In the figure there are also shown two distances associated with the first object position OP1. There is a first distance d1 from the first object position OP1 to the exit region exr1 along the path of transport as well as a second distance d2 from the first object position OP1 to the entrance region enr1 along the path of transport.” As in 64 “It can also be seen that the estimated object spot movement is an estimate of the movement of the coordinate space of the first object transporting device. In the estimate of the movement it is possible to use predictions of variations in transporting speed. If the transporting speed is known at the decision instant, a prediction of the variation of the transporting speed may be used in obtaining a fine-tuned movement estimation.”] Examiner notes that the variation of transporting speed is being interpreted as the aligning the object with a greater speed from the second distance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Finkemeyer to incorporate the teachings of Lager of determining that the component associated with the robotic arm is within the predefined distance of the object comprises determining that the component of the robotic arm is within a second distance from the axis of the object, the second distance being less than the first distance; and wherein controlling the robotic arm to move the component into alignment with the axis of the object is performed in response to the component of the robotic arm being within the second distance from the axis of the object and is performed with greater force than moving the component toward alignment in order to obtain a fine-tuned movement estimation/instruction. [(Lager 64)]
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA whose telephone number is (571)272-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 with flex.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at 571-270-7777. 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.
/MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
