DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-26 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This Final Rejection is in response to the amendment submitted on 12/4/2025.
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 Arguments and Amendments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 12/4/2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-24 under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided below, which was necessitated based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims, which changed the scope of the claims. Examiner notes wherein Applicant’s arguments are directed towards the newly amended claim limitation(s), which are addressed by the newly found prior art, as indicated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 15-17, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20210154842 A1) as modified by Hashimoto (US 20070096674 A1) .
Claim 1:
Lin teaches the following limitations:
A robotic system, comprising: a robot configured to move one or more items within a workspace; (Lin - [0007] In accordance with the teachings of the present disclosure, a state machine controller to dynamically plan a robot's path is disclosed. An industrial robot such as a multi-arm articulated robot operates in a workspace according to a defined program. …) a sensor configured to collect sensor data with respect to the workspace; and (Lin - [0007] … A sensor or camera monitors the workspace and detects any object—such as a human, a forklift or a mobile robot—approaching or entering the workspace. The sensor provides input to the state machine controller, which includes states of; track current path, change speed, and replan path. …) one or more processors configured to: determine to reset operation of the robot; (Lin - [0007] … After reducing robot speed in the change speed state, the state machine can resume the original path and speed if the object has cleared the workspace, further reduce speed to zero if necessary to avoid a collision, or transition to the replan path state to compute a new path to the goal position which avoids the object in the workspace. ) determine, based at least in part on the sensor data [] that a human worker exited a safeguarded space within the workspace; and in response to determining that the human worker exited the safeguarded space (Lin - [0018] It is possible that an object 130, which could be a person, a forklift, or any other object, may move through the workspace 120. Consider that the object 130 moves along an object path 132 which passes through a danger zone 124 in the workspace 120. … ; [0033] After planning of a new path is initiated in replan path state 340, the process moves on, still in the replan path state 340, to determine whether the object 130 has left the workspace 120 at decision diamond 442. If the object 130 has left the workspace 120, then the process proceeds back to select the original path at the box 412, and transitions back to the track path 320. …)
Lin does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Hashimoto teaches:
in response to detecting activation of a reset control,
(Hashimoto - [0035] The operator, after switching the operation mode change-over switch to the teaching operation mode and holding the teaching pendant 27, enters into the inside of the guard fence 15 by opening the door 17 of the guard fence 15 or through the light curtain 21b and approaches the robot 13. In order to reactivate the robot stopped as an emergency and start the teaching job, the operator grips the deadman switch 35 of the teaching pendant 27 and depresses the reset key on the teaching pendant 27.)
obtained after activation of the reset control,
(Hashimoto - [0035] The operator, after switching the operation mode change-over switch to the teaching operation mode and holding the teaching pendant 27, enters into the inside of the guard fence 15 by opening the door 17 of the guard fence 15 or through the light curtain 21b and approaches the robot 13. In order to reactivate the robot stopped as an emergency and start the teaching job, the operator grips the deadman switch 35 of the teaching pendant 27 and depresses the reset key on the teaching pendant 27.)
after the activation of the reset control,
(Hashimoto - [0035] The operator, after switching the operation mode change-over switch to the teaching operation mode and holding the teaching pendant 27, enters into the inside of the guard fence 15 by opening the door 17 of the guard fence 15 or through the light curtain 21b and approaches the robot 13. In order to reactivate the robot stopped as an emergency and start the teaching job, the operator grips the deadman switch 35 of the teaching pendant 27 and depresses the reset key on the teaching pendant 27.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin to include a method for resetting the robot before exiting the workspace or safety zone as taught in Hashimoto . Having the ability to safely reset the robot without exiting a workspace provides a more efficient and direct way to reset a the robot without having to waste time exiting and returning to the space.
Claim 2:
Lin teaches the following limitations:
The robotic system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: pause operation of the robot in response to determining that an operator entered a safeguarded space within the workspace.
(Lin - [0021] At box 210, when the object 130 is detected approaching the danger zone 124, the controller 150 slows the motion of the robot 110 at box 212. Slowing the robot 110 allows the robot 110 to be stopped at a later time, if necessary, without causing excessive braking forces and torques. At box 220, when the object 130 is blocking the original path 114—i.e., the object 130 is occupying the danger zone 124—the controller 150 slows the motion of the robot 110 to zero (stop) at box 222. At box 224, the controller 150 then begins planning a new path which avoids the object 130 and the danger zone 124.)
Claim 15:
Lin does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Hashimoto teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein determining to reset the operation of the robot is based at least in part on a reset button within the workspace being activated before the human worker exits the safeguarded space.
(Hashimoto - [0035] The operator, after switching the operation mode change-over switch to the teaching operation mode and holding the teaching pendant 27, enters into the inside of the guard fence 15 by opening the door 17 of the guard fence 15 or through the light curtain 21b and approaches the robot 13. In order to reactivate the robot stopped as an emergency and start the teaching job, the operator grips the deadman switch 35 of the teaching pendant 27 and depresses the reset key on the teaching pendant 27.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin to include a method for resetting the robot before exiting the workspace or safety zone as taught in Hashimoto . Having the ability to safely reset the robot without exiting a workspace provides a more efficient and direct way to reset a the robot without having to waste time exiting and returning to the space.
Claim 16:
Lin does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Hashimoto teaches:
The system of claim 15, wherein the button is on the robot or within a predefined distance of the robot.
(Hashimoto – [see figure 3] ; [0035] The operator, after switching the operation mode change-over switch to the teaching operation mode and holding the teaching pendant 27, enters into the inside of the guard fence 15 by opening the door 17 of the guard fence 15 or through the light curtain 21b and approaches the robot 13. In order to reactivate the robot stopped as an emergency and start the teaching job, the operator grips the deadman switch 35 of the teaching pendant 27 and depresses the reset key on the teaching pendant 27.)
Examiner Note:
The space inside the guard fence (as illustrated in Hashimoto figure 3) is being interpreted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), as a predefined distance to the robot for performing a reset.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin to include a method for resetting the robot in close proximity to the workspace and robot without the need to exit the workspace or safety zone as taught in Hashimoto . Having the ability to safely reset the robot without exiting the workspace provides a more efficient and direct way to reset a the robot without having to waste time exiting and returning to the space.
Claim 17:
Lin teaches the following limitations:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to perform image analysis with respect to the sensor data to detect a human within the workspace.
(Lin - [0018] It is possible that an object 130, which could be a person, a forklift, or any other object, may move through the workspace 120. Consider that the object 130 moves along an object path 132 which passes through a danger zone 124 in the workspace 120. … ; [0007] … A sensor or camera monitors the workspace and detects any object—such as a human, a forklift or a mobile robot—approaching or entering the workspace. The sensor provides input to the state machine controller, which includes states of; track current path, change speed, and replan path. …)
Claim 19:
Lin teaches the following limitations:
The system of claim 1, wherein the robot is resumed in response to determining that the human worker exited the safeguarded space without another human worker entering the safeguarded space before the robot resumes operation.
(Lin - [0018] It is possible that an object 130, which could be a person, a forklift, or any other object, may move through the workspace 120. Consider that the object 130 moves along an object path 132 which passes through a danger zone 124 in the workspace 120. … ; [0033] After planning of a new path is initiated in replan path state 340, the process moves on, still in the replan path state 340, to determine whether the object 130 has left the workspace 120 at decision diamond 442. If the object 130 has left the workspace 120, then the process proceeds back to select the original path at the box 412, and transitions back to the track path 320. …)
Claim 20:
Lin teaches the following limitations:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine, based at least in part on the sensor data, that the human worker entered the safeguarded space while the robot is being controlled to move an item within the workspace; (Lin - [0007] In accordance with the teachings of the present disclosure, a state machine controller to dynamically plan a robot's path is disclosed. An industrial robot such as a multi-arm articulated robot operates in a workspace according to a defined program. A sensor or camera monitors the workspace and detects any object—such as a human, a forklift or a mobile robot—approaching or entering the workspace. The sensor provides input to the state machine controller, which includes states of; track current path, change speed, and replan path. …) and in response to determining that the human worker entered the safeguarded space, stopping operation of the robot. (Lin - [0021] At box 210, when the object 130 is detected approaching the danger zone 124, the controller 150 slows the motion of the robot 110 at box 212. Slowing the robot 110 allows the robot 110 to be stopped at a later time, if necessary, without causing excessive braking forces and torques. At box 220, when the object 130 is blocking the original path 114—i.e., the object 130 is occupying the danger zone 124—the controller 150 slows the motion of the robot 110 to zero (stop) at box 222. At box 224, the controller 150 then begins planning a new path which avoids the object 130 and the danger zone 124.)
Claim 21:
Lin teaches the following limitations:
The system of claim 1, wherein resuming operation of the robot includes controlling the robot (Lin - [0018] It is possible that an object 130, which could be a person, a forklift, or any other object, may move through the workspace 120. Consider that the object 130 moves along an object path 132 which passes through a danger zone 124 in the workspace 120. … ; [0033] After planning of a new path is initiated in replan path state 340, the process moves on, still in the replan path state 340, to determine whether the object 130 has left the workspace 120 at decision diamond 442. If the object 130 has left the workspace 120, then the process proceeds back to select the original path at the box 412, and transitions back to the track path 320. …) to operate in an autonomous mode to move the items within the workspace. (Lin - [0017] The system 100 includes a robot 110 operating in a workspace 120. For purposes of discussion, consider that the robot 110 is operating in an open warehouse area, running a program where it picks up items from an inbound conveyor and places each item on a pallet for shipping. … )
Claim 22:
Lin teaches the following limitations:
The system of claim 1, wherein the robot comprises a robot comprising an end effector configured to grasp an item.
(Lin - [0017] The system 100 includes a robot 110 operating in a workspace 120. For purposes of discussion, consider that the robot 110 is operating in an open warehouse area, running a program where it picks up items from an inbound conveyor and places each item on a pallet for shipping. This is of course just an example, and the robot 110 could be performing any type of operation. The robot 110 includes a tool 112 (such as a grasper), and the normal program involves moving the tool 112 along an original path 114 to a goal or destination location 122.)
Claim 23.
Lin teaches the following limitations:
A method, comprising: obtaining, from a sensor, sensor data with respect to a workspace for a robot configured to move one or more items; [(Lin - [0007] … A sensor or camera monitors the workspace and detects any object—such as a human, a forklift or a mobile robot—approaching or entering the workspace. The sensor provides input to the state machine controller, which includes states of; track current path, change speed, and replan path. … ; [0017] The system 100 includes a robot 110 operating in a workspace 120. For purposes of discussion, consider that the robot 110 is operating in an open warehouse area, running a program where it picks up items from an inbound conveyor and places each item on a pallet for shipping. … ) determining to reset operation of the robot; (Lin - [0007] … After reducing robot speed in the change speed state, the state machine can resume the original path and speed if the object has cleared the workspace, further reduce speed to zero if necessary to avoid a collision, or transition to the replan path state to compute a new path to the goal position which avoids the object in the workspace. ) determining, based at least in part on the sensor data [ operation of the robot. (Lin - [0018] It is possible that an object 130, which could be a person, a forklift, or any other object, may move through the workspace 120. Consider that the object 130 moves along an object path 132 which passes through a danger zone 124 in the workspace 120. … ; [0033] After planning of a new path is initiated in replan path state 340, the process moves on, still in the replan path state 340, to determine whether the object 130 has left the workspace 120 at decision diamond 442. If the object 130 has left the workspace 120, then the process proceeds back to select the original path at the box 412, and transitions back to the track path 320. …)
Lin does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Hashimoto teaches
in response to detecting activation of a reset control,
(Hashimoto - [0035] The operator, after switching the operation mode change-over switch to the teaching operation mode and holding the teaching pendant 27, enters into the inside of the guard fence 15 by opening the door 17 of the guard fence 15 or through the light curtain 21b and approaches the robot 13. In order to reactivate the robot stopped as an emergency and start the teaching job, the operator grips the deadman switch 35 of the teaching pendant 27 and depresses the reset key on the teaching pendant 27.)
obtained after activation of the reset control,
(Hashimoto - [0035] The operator, after switching the operation mode change-over switch to the teaching operation mode and holding the teaching pendant 27, enters into the inside of the guard fence 15 by opening the door 17 of the guard fence 15 or through the light curtain 21b and approaches the robot 13. In order to reactivate the robot stopped as an emergency and start the teaching job, the operator grips the deadman switch 35 of the teaching pendant 27 and depresses the reset key on the teaching pendant 27.)
after the activation of the reset control,
(Hashimoto - [0035] The operator, after switching the operation mode change-over switch to the teaching operation mode and holding the teaching pendant 27, enters into the inside of the guard fence 15 by opening the door 17 of the guard fence 15 or through the light curtain 21b and approaches the robot 13. In order to reactivate the robot stopped as an emergency and start the teaching job, the operator grips the deadman switch 35 of the teaching pendant 27 and depresses the reset key on the teaching pendant 27.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin to include a method for resetting the robot before exiting the workspace or safety zone as taught in Hashimoto . Having the ability to safely reset the robot without exiting a workspace provides a more efficient and direct way to reset a the robot without having to waste time exiting and returning to the space.
Claim 24:
Lin teaches the following limitations:
A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for: (Lin - [0037] Throughout the preceding discussion, various computers and controllers are described and implied. It is to be understood that the software applications and modules of these computer and controllers are executed on one or more computing devices having a processor and a memory module. In particular, this includes a processor in the object detection module 142 and a processor in the state machine robot controller 150 discussed above. obtaining, from a sensor, sensor data with respect to a workspace for a robot configured to move one or more items; …) [(Lin - [0007] … After reducing robot speed in the change speed state, the state machine can resume the original path and speed if the object has cleared the workspace, further reduce speed to zero if necessary to avoid a collision, or transition to the replan path state to compute a new path to the goal position which avoids the object in the workspace.) determining, based at least in part on the sensor data [(Lin - [0018] It is possible that an object 130, which could be a person, a forklift, or any other object, may move through the workspace 120. Consider that the object 130 moves along an object path 132 which passes through a danger zone 124 in the workspace 120. … ; [0033] After planning of a new path is initiated in replan path state 340, the process moves on, still in the replan path state 340, to determine whether the object 130 has left the workspace 120 at decision diamond 442. If the object 130 has left the workspace 120, then the process proceeds back to select the original path at the box 412, and transitions back to the track path 320. …)
Lin does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Hashimoto teaches:
in response to detecting activation of a reset control,
(Hashimoto - [0035] The operator, after switching the operation mode change-over switch to the teaching operation mode and holding the teaching pendant 27, enters into the inside of the guard fence 15 by opening the door 17 of the guard fence 15 or through the light curtain 21b and approaches the robot 13. In order to reactivate the robot stopped as an emergency and start the teaching job, the operator grips the deadman switch 35 of the teaching pendant 27 and depresses the reset key on the teaching pendant 27.)
obtained after activation of the reset control,
(Hashimoto - [0035] The operator, after switching the operation mode change-over switch to the teaching operation mode and holding the teaching pendant 27, enters into the inside of the guard fence 15 by opening the door 17 of the guard fence 15 or through the light curtain 21b and approaches the robot 13. In order to reactivate the robot stopped as an emergency and start the teaching job, the operator grips the deadman switch 35 of the teaching pendant 27 and depresses the reset key on the teaching pendant 27.)
after the activation of the reset control,
(Hashimoto - [0035] The operator, after switching the operation mode change-over switch to the teaching operation mode and holding the teaching pendant 27, enters into the inside of the guard fence 15 by opening the door 17 of the guard fence 15 or through the light curtain 21b and approaches the robot 13. In order to reactivate the robot stopped as an emergency and start the teaching job, the operator grips the deadman switch 35 of the teaching pendant 27 and depresses the reset key on the teaching pendant 27.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin to include a method for resetting the robot before exiting the workspace or safety zone as taught in Hashimoto . Having the ability to safely reset the robot without exiting a workspace provides a more efficient and direct way to reset a the robot without having to waste time exiting and returning to the space.
Claim 25:
The system of claim 1, wherein the reset control is physically located within the safeguard space.
(Hashimoto - [0035] The operator, after switching the operation mode change-over switch to the teaching operation mode and holding the teaching pendant 27, enters into the inside of the guard fence 15 by opening the door 17 of the guard fence 15 or through the light curtain 21b and approaches the robot 13. In order to reactivate the robot stopped as an emergency and start the teaching job, the operator grips the deadman switch 35 of the teaching pendant 27 and depresses the reset key on the teaching pendant 27.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin to include a method for resetting the robot before exiting the workspace or safety zone as taught in Hashimoto . Having the ability to safely reset the robot without exiting a workspace provides a more efficient and direct way to reset a the robot without having to waste time exiting and returning to the space.
Claim(s) 3 -12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20210154842 A1) as modified by Hashimoto (US 20070096674 A1) in view of Vu (US 20220379474 A1) .
Claim 3:
Lin in combination with Hashimoto does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Vu teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor comprises a first subset of sensors and a second subset of sensors having overlapping fields of detection.
(Vu – [0087] … As described above, a camera array 102 monitors the workcell 400, which includes a robot 402. … An object-monitoring system (OMS) 410 obtains information about objects from the cameras 102 and uses this sensor information to identify relevant objects in the workcell 400. ; [0108] In one mode of operation, a plurality of OMSs 410 share cameras 102; that is, an OMS 410 responsible for a particular workcell 100 or other zone (e.g., a transport lane 610) shares sensor data with the OMSs of adjacent zones. But each OMS 410 is actually responsible, in the sense of communicating with controllers 407, only for its zone. The covered space 600 is thereby divided up into separate, possibly overlapping safety zones, each of which is the responsibility of a single OMS 410. … ; [see also Figures 2 and 5] )
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin and Hashimoto to include multiple sensors that create overlapping zones of coverage in the workspace as taught in Vu . Having multiple overlapping zones of sensor coverage ensures that the movement of workers and other objects is consistently tracked across the workspace, particularly in larger environments.
Claim 4:
Lin in combination with Hashimoto does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Vu teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor comprises a plurality of sensors that collect sensor data for different fields of detection in a set of fields of detection.
(Vu – [0087] … As described above, a camera array 102 monitors the workcell 400, which includes a robot 402. … An object-monitoring system (OMS) 410 obtains information about objects from the cameras 102 and uses this sensor information to identify relevant objects in the workcell 400. ; [0108] In one mode of operation, a plurality of OMSs 410 share cameras 102; that is, an OMS 410 responsible for a particular workcell 100 or other zone (e.g., a transport lane 610) shares sensor data with the OMSs of adjacent zones. But each OMS 410 is actually responsible, in the sense of communicating with controllers 407, only for its zone. The covered space 600 is thereby divided up into separate, possibly overlapping safety zones, each of which is the responsibility of a single OMS 410. … ; [see also Figures 2 and 5] )
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin and Hashimoto to include multiple sensors that create overlapping zones of coverage in the workspace as taught in Vu . Having multiple overlapping zones of sensor coverage ensures that the movement of workers and other objects is consistently tracked across the workspace, particularly in larger environments.
Claim 5:
Lin in combination with Hashimoto does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Vu teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein: the sensor comprises a first subset of sensors that capture sensor data for a first field of detection, and a second subset of sensors that capture sensor data for a second field of detection; and the first field of detection and the second field of detection are at least partially overlapping.
(Vu – [0087] … As described above, a camera array 102 monitors the workcell 400, which includes a robot 402. … An object-monitoring system (OMS) 410 obtains information about objects from the cameras 102 and uses this sensor information to identify relevant objects in the workcell 400. ; [0108] In one mode of operation, a plurality of OMSs 410 share cameras 102; that is, an OMS 410 responsible for a particular workcell 100 or other zone (e.g., a transport lane 610) shares sensor data with the OMSs of adjacent zones. But each OMS 410 is actually responsible, in the sense of communicating with controllers 407, only for its zone. The covered space 600 is thereby divided up into separate, possibly overlapping safety zones, each of which is the responsibility of a single OMS 410. … ; [see also Figures 2 and 5] )
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin and Hashimoto to include multiple sensors that create successive and overlapping zones of coverage in the workspace as taught in Vu . Having multiple successive overlapping zones of sensor coverage ensures that the movement of workers and other objects can be tracked as they move between zones ensuring that the worker is accurately located while in the detection zone.
Claim 6:
Lin in combination with Hashimoto does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Vu teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein determining that the human worker exited a safeguarded space within the workspace comprises: determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, that the human worker exited a set of fields of detection.
(Vu – [0033] In a second aspect, the invention pertains to a method of monitoring adjacent first and second three-dimensional workcells each of which includes controlled machinery. The first and second workcells overlap along a shared region, and at least the second workcell includes a monitoring system comprising plurality of cameras distributed thereabout. In various embodiments, the method comprises the steps of computationally predicting that a human will cross a first portal in the shared region into the second workcell and electronically signaling the monitoring system of the second workcell of expected crossing of the first portal by the identified first human. … [see also Figure 5] )
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin and Hashimoto to include multiple sensors that accurately detect the entry and exit of workers from the detection zones as taught in Vu. Having the ability to accurately track the entry and exit of workers in the detection zone, enhances the safety of the workers traversing the workspace and ensures that the robot can resume operations with a minimum of delay after the exit of the tracked workers.
Claim 7:
Lin in combination with Hashimoto does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Vu teaches:
The system of claim 6, wherein: the set of fields of detection are successive fields of detection; and determining that the human worker exited the set of fields of detection includes determining that the human worker successively exited the successive fields of detection.
(Vu - [0167] The possibility of collisions may be monitored as described above with respect to FIG. 5, using concentric 3D safety envelopes. The locations and 3D extents of these safety envelopes are updated at each time step as the machinery operates and humans or mobile machinery classified as intrusions move about and among safety envelopes 502, 508, 510. These updates are affected by refreshing the data structures that maintain, in real time, the location and trajectory of all objects in the workcell and the occlusions and unsafe spaces they generate as they move in the workcell and between zones. … ; [See also Figure 5] )
Examiner Note:
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that to “move about and among the safety envelopes”, as described in Vu, figure 5, would require a human to both enter and exit successive safety envelopes in the workspace.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin and Hashimoto to include multiple sensors that accurately detect the entry and exit of workers from the detection zones as taught in Vu. Having the ability to accurately track the entry and exit of workers in the detection zone, enhances the safety of the workers traversing the workspace and ensures that the robot can resume operations with a minimum of delay after the exit of the tracked workers.
Claim 8:
Lin in combination with Hashimoto does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Vu teaches:
The system of claim 7, wherein determining that the human worker exited the set of fields of detection comprises: determining that the human worker exited a first field of detection; and in response to determining that the human worker exited the first field of detection, determining that the human worker exited a second field of detection, wherein the first field of detection is closer to the robot than the second field of detection.
(Vu - [0167] The possibility of collisions may be monitored as described above with respect to FIG. 5, using concentric 3D safety envelopes. The locations and 3D extents of these safety envelopes are updated at each time step as the machinery operates and humans or mobile machinery classified as intrusions move about and among safety envelopes 502, 508, 510. These updates are affected by refreshing the data structures that maintain, in real time, the location and trajectory of all objects in the workcell and the occlusions and unsafe spaces they generate as they move in the workcell and between zones. … ; [See also Figure 5] )
Examiner Note:
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the concentric safety envelopes as described in Vu, figure 5, would require that the successive zones would be closer or farther from the robot, as compared to each other, when traversed by a human in the workspace.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin and Hashimoto to include multiple sensors that accurately detect the entry and exit of workers from the detection zones as taught in Vu. Having the ability to accurately track the entry and exit of workers in the detection zone, enhances the safety of the workers traversing the workspace and ensures that the robot can resume operations with a minimum of delay after the exit of the tracked workers.
Claim 9:
Lin in combination with Hashimoto does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Vu teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein determining that the human worker exited a safeguarded space within the workspace comprises: determining that the human worker entered a first field of detection; determining that the human worker entered a second field of detection after entering the first field of detection; determining that the human worker exited the first field of detection after the entering the second field of detection; and determining that the human worker exited the second field of detection after the exiting the first field of detection.
(Vu- [0153] In the illustrated overlapping case (FIG. 7B), the transition from the zone monitored by one system to that monitored by another is, in effect, an entry point or boundary 710 extending midway between the zone boundaries 708a (of the zone 702a) and 708b (of the zone 702b). This central boundary 710 may be used to ensure that only one control system 715a, 715b keeps track of objects or humans in the region labeled “Trigger Zone.” Suppose, for example, that a human operator in Workcell 1 crosses the zone boundary 708b and so now is within both zones 702a, 702b. Control System 1 will continue to monitor the operator until she crosses the central boundary 710, at which point Control System 1 will hand off monitoring of the operator to Control System 2. …)
Examiner Note:
The examiner is interpreting this claim as a description of the detection of a human worker crossing between successive and overlapping zones. In particular the following portion of claim 9 , (“determining that the human worker exited the first field of detection after the entering the second field of detection;”) , is descriptive of overlapping, successive zones.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin and Hashimoto to include multiple sensors that accurately detect the entry and exit of workers from overlapping detection zones as taught in Vu. Having the ability to accurately track the entry and exit of workers in overlapping detection zone, enhances the safety of the workers traversing the workspace and ensures that the robot can resume operations with a minimum of delay after the exit of the tracked workers.
Claim 10:
Lin in combination with Hashimoto does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Vu teaches:
The system of claim 9, wherein determining that the human worker entered the second field of detection comprises determining that the human worker moved from a back portion of the first field of detection to a front portion of the second field of detection.
(Vu- [0153] In the illustrated overlapping case (FIG. 7B), the transition from the zone monitored by one system to that monitored by another is, in effect, an entry point or boundary 710 extending midway between the zone boundaries 708a (of the zone 702a) and 708b (of the zone 702b). This central boundary 710 may be used to ensure that only one control system 715a, 715b keeps track of objects or humans in the region labeled “Trigger Zone.” Suppose, for example, that a human operator in Workcell 1 crosses the zone boundary 708b and so now is within both zones 702a, 702b. Control System 1 will continue to monitor the operator until she crosses the central boundary 710, at which point Control System 1 will hand off monitoring of the operator to Control System 2. …)
Examiner Note:
The examiner is interpreting this claim as a description of the detection of a human worker crossing between successive and overlapping zones.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin and Hashimoto to include multiple sensors that accurately detect the entry and exit of workers from overlapping detection zones as taught in Vu. Having the ability to accurately track the entry and exit of workers in overlapping detection zone, enhances the safety of the workers traversing the workspace and ensures that the robot can resume operations with a minimum of delay after the exit of the tracked workers.
Claim 11:
Lin in combination with Hashimoto does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Vu teaches:
The system of claim 9, wherein in response to determining that the human worker exited the second field of detection after the exiting the first field of detection, the robot is controlled to resume operation if no further humans are within the safeguarded space.
(Vu - [0167] The possibility of collisions may be monitored as described above with respect to FIG. 5, using concentric 3D safety envelopes. The locations and 3D extents of these safety envelopes are updated at each time step as the machinery operates and humans or mobile machinery classified as intrusions move about and among safety envelopes 502, 508, 510. These updates are affected by refreshing the data structures that maintain, in real time, the location and trajectory of all objects in the workcell and the occlusions and unsafe spaces they generate as they move in the workcell and between zone. … ; [0168 … When the human causing the warning or violation moves out of the way, the alarm ceases, and the machinery resumes its normal operation. … ; [see also Figure 5] )
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin and Hashimoto to include multiple sensors that accurately detect the exit of workers from overlapping detection zones and then resuming operations after ensuring that the zone is clear of workers and obstructions as taught in Vu. Having the ability to accurately track the exit of workers from detection zones and then resuming operations, ensures that the robot can resume operations with a minimum of delay after the exit of the tracked workers.
Claim 12:
Lin in combination with Hashimoto does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Vu teaches:
The system of claim 9, wherein the second field of detection is further from the robot than the first field of detection.
(Vu - [0167] The possibility of collisions may be monitored as described above with respect to FIG. 5, using concentric 3D safety envelopes. The locations and 3D extents of these safety envelopes are updated at each time step as the machinery operates and humans or mobile machinery classified as intrusions move about and among safety envelopes 502, 508, 510. …; [see also Figure 5] )
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin and Hashimoto to include detection zones that are set up successively so that neighboring zones are at different distances from the robot, as compared to each other, as taught in Vu. Having the ability to establish successive zones which are closer or farther from the robot allows the detection system to differentiate robot behaviors (fast, slow, or stop) based on the how close or far away the worker is from the robot.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20210154842 A1) as modified by Hashimoto (US 20070096674 A1) in view of Yamamoto (US 20160214259 A1) .
Claim 13:
Lin in combination with Hashimoto does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Yamamoto teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein operation of the robot is resumed after determining the human worker exited a last field of detection in a set of successive fields of detection without another operator entering the safeguarded space after the human worker exited a first field of detection.
(Yamamoto – [0031] … the area outside the monitoring area 95 is an area where there is a sufficient distance from the robot 1 and thus no limitation is laid on the operation speed of the robot 1. ; [0038] … The intrusion judgement unit 46 judges an area in which the person exists, based on a pre-set range for the monitoring area 95. In other words, the intrusion judgement unit 46 judges whether the person exists in the stopping area 93, whether the person exists in the speed limiting area 94, or whether the person exists outside the monitoring area 95. ; [0044] …The control illustrated in FIG. 4 can be repeatedly performed at predetermined time intervals. Further, the control can be performed not only during a time period when the robot 1 is driving but also during a time period when the robot 1 is stopped. …; [0051] At step 108, the operation control unit 43 releases the operation of the robot from being limited.; [See also Figures 1 and 4])
Examiner Note:
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that Yamamoto, figure 4, describes a continuous safety zone monitoring algorithm which would include the permutation described in instant claim 13.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin and Hashimoto to include multiple sensors that accurately detects any additional workers that might be in the workspace prior to resuming operations as taught in Yamamoto. Having the ability to accurately track the exit of additional workers from detection zones before resuming operations, ensures that the robot can resume operations with a minimum of delay after the exit of the tracked workers and ensure the safety of all workers in the workspace.
Claim 14:
Lin in combination with Hashimoto does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Yamamoto teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein operation of the robot is resumed in response to determining the human worker is within a predefined designated exit zone that is disposed further from the robot than a last field of detection in a set of successive fields of detection.
(Yamamoto – [0031] … the area outside the monitoring area 95 is an area where there is a sufficient distance from the robot 1 and thus no limitation is laid on the operation speed of the robot 1. ; [0049] At step 104, when a person does not exist in the speed limiting area 94, the procedure proceeds to step 107. This instance is in a state in which a person does not intrude into the both areas of the stopping area 93 and the speed limiting area 94. In other words, it is a state in which a person does not exist in the monitoring area 95..; [See also Figures 1 and 4])
Examiner Note:
The area outside of monitoring area 95 as described in at least, Yamamoto figure 4, is being interpreted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), as a predefined exit zone as described in instant claim 14.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin and Hashimoto to provide an exit zone that is farther from the robot than the last detection zone as taught in Yamamoto. Having a designated area in which both the worker and the detection system can easily identify that a worker has left the detection zone, provides a specific safe location which can be easily identified by both the detection system and the worker that is traversing the detection zone or workspace.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20210154842 A1 ) as modified by Hashimoto (US 20070096674 A1) in view of Roessler (US 20170333137 A1).
Claim 18:
Lin in combination with Hashimoto does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Roessler teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein at least a subset of the plurality of sensors operates with a refresh rate of 200 ms or less.
(Roessler - [0032] … The optical sensors 50 preferably have sampling rates of 100 Hz or more, more preferably 300 Hz or more, and most preferably 500 Hz or more. In some embodiments, the optical sensors 50 have sampling rates of 8000 Hz….)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin and Hashimoto to include sensors with high frequency sampling as taught in Roessler. Having the ability to process sensor data quickly ensures that the tracking of human workers in the workspace happens quickly and accurately thus enhancing the safety of the workers in the detection zones where the sensors operate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Morioka (US 11440188 B2) describes a robot system with an approach sensor that detects the approach of a human to the movable human-collaborative robot. When the approach sensor has detected the approach of a human, the control unit restricts the operation of robot.
Takahashi (US 20180029230 A1) describes a safety management method which sets a third space that both a worker and a robot can enter between a first space in which the worker is present and a second space in which the robot is disposed. The system monitors boundary crossing and the presence/absence of the robot or the worker in the third space. The system restricts the operation of the robot, when the crossing of a boundary is detected.
Nehei (US 20100191372 A1) describes a production system in which a human and a robot may simultaneously perform a cooperative task in the same area while ensuring human's safety. A robot is positioned at one side of a working table, and an operator is positioned at the other side of the working table. The reachable area of the operator is limited by the working table. An area of the working table is divided into an area where only the operator may perform a task, an area where only the robot may perform a task, and an area where both the operator and the robot may enter.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN LINDSAY OSTROW whose telephone number is (703)756-1854. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270 5376. 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.
/ALAN LINDSAY OSTROW/
Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657