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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). A certified copy of this document has been placed in the file wrapper. As such, the effective filing date of the instant application is considered 07/22/2021, coinciding with the filing date of the Europe application to which foreign priority was requested.
Response to Amendments
Claims 17, 20, 22-24, 26, and 30-31 have been amended. Claim 21 has been cancelled and claims 32-35 have been added. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been updated due to amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant first contends that the combination of prior art does not teach the amended claim language. Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to the new mapping presented below in view of the newly added language.
Applicant then contends that Murata does not disclose sensing an orientation or a pose of the manipulator, but this is not stated as disclosed by Murata in the previous action, and the relevant 103 rejection is presented in the updated mapping below.
Applicant next contends that the switching modes in Ning during approach process is not similar to the switching during docking process in the instant application, but does not provide a warrant for this claim outside of vaguely stating that Ning bases the switch on the detection of an approach of a worker to a warning area. Examiner contends that this description and the further cited portions of Ning clearly teach the broadest reasonable interpretation of detection “when a docking condition is satisfied in proximity of an interaction location”, as the docking condition can be interpreted as the clearance of the worker from the warning area.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 17-20 and 22-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. (US6019563A, referred to as Murata) in view of Guo et al. (CN110181507A, referred to as Guo) and further in view of Ning (US20220203538, referred to as Ning).
Regarding claim 17: Murata discloses: A robot comprising: a housing; at least one manipulator; a control system configured for controlling the manipulator; a safety volume enclosed at least by a surface set comprising at least one boundary surface; a boundary sensor system; and a mobile base; wherein: the safety volume is enclosed by at least one portion of the housing and the surface set; ([col. 9-10, lines 60-2] Protective fences (safety fences) or the like may be provided for the opening portions of the mounting portion 40a. Furthermore, a light emitting portion and a light receiving portion such as the first and second embodiments may be provided for the opening portion of the mounting portion 40a. In such the structure, intrusion of a worker or the like into the above-mentioned region during the movement of the AGV 40 or the operation of the arm 403 can be detected, and the movement of the AGV 40 and the operation of the arm 403 can be interrupted.) the housing of the robot comprises at least one opening, wherein each boundary surface is associated with an opening;
PNG
media_image1.png
8
5
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the boundary sensor system is configured for monitoring at least one boundary surface of the surface set;
PNG
media_image1.png
8
5
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the boundary sensor system is configured for sensing a presence of an object intersecting with at least one boundary surface of the surface set; the boundary sensor system comprises at least one photoelectric sensor; ([col. 2-3, lines 57-5] a transporting portion having an upper Surface and a driving device, the transporting portion being movable by the driving device, a transferring device provided on the upper Surface of the transporting portion, the transferring device being capable of transferring a workpiece to or from an apparatus, a mounting portion formed on the upper Surface of the transporting portion, the mounting portion having at least two opening portions which allow an opera tion for transferring the workpiece; at least one photoSensor respectively arranged on each of the opening portions to detect an object which intrudes from outside of the mounting portion into the mounting portion or projects from the mounting portion to the outside, and a control device which monitors a State of the photosensors and controls one of the transferring device and the driving device in accordance with the state of the photosensors [col. 9-10, lines 60-2] Protective fences (safety fences) or the like may be provided for the opening portions of the mounting portion 40a. Furthermore, a light emitting portion and a light receiving portion such as the first and second embodiments may be provided for the opening portion of the mounting portion 40a. In such the structure, intrusion of a worker or the like into the above-mentioned region during the movement of the AGV 40 or the operation of the arm 403 can be detected, and the movement of the AGV 40 and the operation of the arm 403 can be interrupted.) the control system comprises a safety supervision system [and a non-redundant control system, wherein the safety supervision system is a redundant control system; and] in a first state, the safety supervision system is configured for [decelerating] an operation of the manipulator if the boundary sensor system senses an object intersecting with at least one of the at least one monitored boundary surface; ([col. 9-10, lines 60-2] Protective fences (safety fences) or the like may be provided for the opening portions of the mounting portion 40a. Furthermore, a light emitting portion and a light receiving portion such as the first and second embodiments may be provided for the opening portion of the mounting portion 40a. In such the structure, intrusion of a worker or the like into the above-mentioned region during the movement of the AGV 40 or the operation of the arm 403 can be detected, and the movement of the AGV 40 and the operation of the arm 403 can be interrupted.) [and wherein: the robot comprises a manipulator sensing system configured for sensing an orientation and/or a pose of the at least one manipulator, and the safety supervision system is configured for determining a second state of at least one of the boundary surfaces based on the orientation and/or the pose of a portion of the at least one manipulator; and/or the control system is configured for detecting a second state when a docking condition is satisfied in proximity of an interaction location, wherein the robot is configured for sensing a marker element associated with the interaction location, and wherein the docking condition relates at least to a presence of the marker element.]
Murata does not explicitly disclose: and a non-redundant control system, wherein the safety supervision system is a redundant control system; and … decelerating
Murata does not disclose the following limitations, however Guo, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches: and a non-redundant control system, wherein the safety supervision system is a redundant control system; and … decelerating ([pg. 6, lines 19-30] After the emergency stop switch of the external operation box is pressed, the robot is stopped by an independent and redundant hardware and software loop; the momentum and position of the robot body during the emergency stop are calculated as time constant and deceleration, and the robot Deceleration and stop can be carried out as quickly as possible without damaging the service life of the main body reducer and arm; the servo unit of the integrated movement is decelerated or timed, and the system unit of the integrated movement is timed to the safety emergency stop board. When the ARM unit is timed, any one of the disconnects will disconnect the main power of the servo unit. Redundancy gives the robot a safety boost in an emergency stop. After the emergency stop is triggered, even if the emergency stop switch is restored during this process, the servo unit and system unit of the system's integrated control movement and the ARM unit of the safety emergency stop board will perform the robot deceleration completion or timing completion, and then The entire emergency stop process of the servo main power is cut off. After the execution is completed, the entire system is restored to the state of no emergency stop after the robot teach pendant alarm is reset.)
Murata and Guo are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of safety control systems for shared human-robot environments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the safety system of Murata to enable the redundant and non-redundant systems and arm deceleration safety method of Guo.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the safety method disclosed in Murata with the method applied to the safety backup system and deceleration safety procedures taught in Guo for the purpose of furthering safe working conditions using known methods.
Murata does not explicitly disclose: [and wherein: the robot comprises a manipulator sensing system configured for sensing an orientation and/or a pose of the at least one manipulator, and the safety supervision system is configured for determining a second state of at least one of the boundary surfaces based on the orientation and/or the pose of a portion of the at least one manipulator; and/or the control system is configured for detecting a second state when a docking condition is satisfied in proximity of an interaction location, wherein the robot is configured for sensing a marker element associated with the interaction location, and wherein the docking condition relates at least to a presence of the marker element.]
Murata does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however Ning, from an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: and wherein: the robot comprises a manipulator sensing system configured for sensing an orientation and/or a pose of the at least one manipulator, and ([0020] As the first sensor 20, a sensor capable of monitoring a wide range and detecting positions, moving speeds, and the like of a plurality of robots 5 and workers 6 is used.) the safety supervision system is configured for determining a second state of at least one of the boundary surfaces based on the orientation and/or the pose of a portion of the at least one manipulator; and/or the control system is configured for detecting a second state when a docking condition is satisfied in proximity of an interaction location, wherein the robot is configured for sensing a marker element associated with the interaction location, and wherein the docking condition relates at least to a presence of the marker element. ([0022] When the approach of the worker 6 to the warning area is detected , a mode determination unit 300 ( shown in FIG . 1 ) switches a second processing unit 200 to a “ safety monitoring mode ” ( second mode ) , and a robot control unit 4 performs control such as decelerating the robot 5. The second processing unit 200 has two modes , namely a “ safety monitoring mode ” and a “ normal mode ” ( first mode ) , and can switch between the two modes according to the degree of risk of contact between the robot 5 and the worker 6. The safety monitoring mode is a mode when a first processing unit 100 detects the approach of the worker 6 to the warning area , that is , when there is a high risk of contact between the robot 5 and the worker 6. On the other hand , the normal mode is a mode when the first processing unit 100 does not detect the approach of the worker 6 to the warning area , that is , when there is a low risk of contact between the robot 5 and the worker 6. [0026] … As described above , the dangerous area is an area where the movable part of the robot 5 and the worker 6 may come into contact with each other when the worker 6 invades . The warning area includes a safe area where the worker 6 does not come into contact with the movable part of the robot 5 even if the worker 6 invades , and the dangerous area where the worker 6 may come into contact with the movable part of the robot 5 . [ 0027 ] The dangerous area may be set in advance by a dangerous area setting unit 400 ( shown in FIG . 1 ) of the safety monitoring control device 2 as described later based on FIG . 1 . [ 0028 ] When the robot control unit 4 detects that the worker 6 has invaded the dangerous area , the robot control unit 4 performs control such as stopping the movement of the arm of the robot 5.)
Murata, Guo, and Ning are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of safety control systems for shared human-robot environments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the safety system of Murata to enable the multimodal safety method of Ning.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the safety method disclosed in Murata with the method applied to the multimodal safety procedures taught in Ning for the purpose of limiting unnecessary interruption and speeding up workflow while maintaining necessary safety conditions.
Regarding claim 18: The combination of Murata, Guo, and Ning teaches: The robot according to claim 17,
Murata further discloses: wherein: the at least one opening is a plurality of openings; and the at least one photoelectric sensor is a plurality of photoelectric sensors. ([col. 2-3, lines 57-5] a transporting portion having an upper Surface and a driving device, the transporting portion being movable by the driving device, a transferring device provided on the upper Surface of the transporting portion, the transferring device being capable of transferring a workpiece to or from an apparatus, a mounting portion formed on the upper Surface of the transporting portion, the mounting portion having at least two opening portions which allow an opera tion for transferring the workpiece; at least one photoSensor respectively arranged on each of the opening portions to detect an object which intrudes from outside of the mounting portion into the mounting portion or projects from the mounting portion to the outside, and a control device which monitors a State of the photosensors and controls one of the transferring device and the driving device in accordance with the state of the photosensors)
Regarding claim 19: The combination of Murata, Guo, and Ning teaches: The robot according to claim 17,
Murata further discloses: wherein in the first state, the safety supervision system is configured for [decelerating] the mobile base if the boundary sensor system senses an object intersecting with at least one of the at least one monitored boundary surface of the surface set. ([col. 2-3, lines 57-5] a transporting portion having an upper Surface and a driving device, the transporting portion being movable by the driving device, a transferring device provided on the upper Surface of the transporting portion, the transferring device being capable of transferring a workpiece to or from an apparatus, a mounting portion formed on the upper Surface of the transporting portion, the mounting portion having at least two opening portions which allow an opera tion for transferring the workpiece; at least one photoSensor respectively arranged on each of the opening portions to detect an object which intrudes from outside of the mounting portion into the mounting portion or projects from the mounting portion to the outside, and a control device which monitors a State of the photosensors and controls one of the transferring device and the driving device in accordance with the state of the photosensors [col. 9-10, lines 60-2] Protective fences (safety fences) or the like may be provided for the opening portions of the mounting portion 40a. Furthermore, a light emitting portion and a light receiving portion such as the first and second embodiments may be provided for the opening portion of the mounting portion 40a. In such the structure, intrusion of a worker or the like into the above-mentioned region during the movement of the AGV 40 or the operation of the arm 403 can be detected, and the movement of the AGV 40 and the operation of the arm 403 can be interrupted.)
Murata does not explicitly disclose: decelerating
Murata does not disclose the following limitations, however Guo, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches: and a non-redundant control system, wherein the safety supervision system is a redundant control system; and … decelerating ([pg. 6, lines 19-30] After the emergency stop switch of the external operation box is pressed, the robot is stopped by an independent and redundant hardware and software loop; the momentum and position of the robot body during the emergency stop are calculated as time constant and deceleration, and the robot Deceleration and stop can be carried out as quickly as possible without damaging the service life of the main body reducer and arm; the servo unit of the integrated movement is decelerated or timed, and the system unit of the integrated movement is timed to the safety emergency stop board. When the ARM unit is timed, any one of the disconnects will disconnect the main power of the servo unit. Redundancy gives the robot a safety boost in an emergency stop. After the emergency stop is triggered, even if the emergency stop switch is restored during this process, the servo unit and system unit of the system's integrated control movement and the ARM unit of the safety emergency stop board will perform the robot deceleration completion or timing completion, and then The entire emergency stop process of the servo main power is cut off. After the execution is completed, the entire system is restored to the state of no emergency stop after the robot teach pendant alarm is reset.)
As previously stated, Murata, Guo, and Ning are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of safety control systems for shared human-robot environments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the safety system of Murata to enable the redundant and non-redundant systems and arm deceleration safety method of Guo.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the safety method disclosed in Murata with the method applied to the safety backup system and deceleration safety procedures taught in Guo for the purpose of furthering safe working conditions using known methods.
Regarding claim 20: The combination of Murata, Guo, and Ning teaches: The robot according to claim 17,
Murata does not explicitly disclose: wherein the control system is configured for detecting a second state, and wherein either: in the second state, the control system is configured for not decelerating the operation of the manipulator in response to the boundary sensor system sensing an object intersecting with at least one boundary surface of the surface set; or the at least one boundary surface is a plurality of boundary surfaces, and the control system is configured for detecting the second state for at least one of the boundary surfaces, and the control system is configured for not decelerating the operation of the manipulator in response to the boundary sensor system sensing an object intersecting with a boundary surface in the second state.
Murata does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however Ning, from an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: wherein the control system is configured for detecting a second state, and wherein either: in the second state, the control system is configured for not decelerating the operation of the manipulator in response to the boundary sensor system sensing an object intersecting with at least one boundary surface of the surface set; or the at least one boundary surface is a plurality of boundary surfaces, and the control system is configured for detecting the second state for at least one of the boundary surfaces, and the control system is configured for not decelerating the operation of the manipulator in response to the boundary sensor system sensing an object intersecting with a boundary surface in the second state.
([0022] When the approach of the worker 6 to the warning area is detected , a mode determination unit 300 ( shown in FIG . 1 ) switches a second processing unit 200 to a “ safety monitoring mode ” ( second mode ) , and a robot control unit 4 performs control such as decelerating the robot 5. The second processing unit 200 has two modes , namely a “ safety monitoring mode ” and a “ normal mode ” ( first mode ) , and can switch between the two modes according to the degree of risk of contact between the robot 5 and the worker 6. The safety monitoring mode is a mode when a first processing unit 100 detects the approach of the worker 6 to the warning area , that is , when there is a high risk of contact between the robot 5 and the worker 6. On the other hand , the normal mode is a mode when the first processing unit 100 does not detect the approach of the worker 6 to the warning area , that is , when there is a low risk of contact between the robot 5 and the worker 6. [0026] … As described above , the dangerous area is an area where the movable part of the robot 5 and the worker 6 may come into contact with each other when the worker 6 invades . The warning area includes a safe area where the worker 6 does not come into contact with the movable part of the robot 5 even if the worker 6 invades , and the dangerous area where the worker 6 may come into contact with the movable part of the robot 5 . [ 0027 ] The dangerous area may be set in advance by a dangerous area setting unit 400 ( shown in FIG . 1 ) of the safety monitoring control device 2 as described later based on FIG . 1 . [ 0028 ] When the robot control unit 4 detects that the worker 6 has invaded the dangerous area , the robot control unit 4 performs control such as stopping the movement of the arm of the robot 5.)
As previously stated, Murata, Guo, and Ning are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of safety control systems for shared human-robot environments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the safety system of Murata to enable the multimodal safety method of Ning.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the safety method disclosed in Murata with the method applied to the multimodal safety procedures taught in Ning for the purpose of limiting unnecessary interruption and speeding up workflow while maintaining necessary safety conditions.
Regarding claim 22: The combination of Murata, Guo, and Ning teaches: The robot according to claim 17,
Murata further discloses: wherein: the marker element comprises a portion comprising optically encoded data, wherein the robot is configured for sensing the optically encoded data, and wherein the docking condition relates at least to the optically encoded data; and/or the marker element comprises a reflecting portion and wherein the robot comprises a reflection sensing unit configured for sensing a presence of the reflecting portion; and/or the marker element comprises a wireless data element configured for wireless identification, wherein the robot is configured for receiving wireless data from the wireless data element, and wherein the docking condition relates at least to the wireless data. ([col. 2-3, lines 57-5] a transporting portion having an upper Surface and a driving device, the transporting portion being movable by the driving device, a transferring device provided on the upper Surface of the transporting portion, the transferring device being capable of transferring a workpiece to or from an apparatus, a mounting portion formed on the upper Surface of the transporting portion, the mounting portion having at least two opening portions which allow an opera tion for transferring the workpiece; at least one photoSensor respectively arranged on each of the opening portions to detect an object which intrudes from outside of the mounting portion into the mounting portion or projects from the mounting portion to the outside, and a control device which monitors a State of the photosensors and controls one of the transferring device and the driving device in accordance with the state of the photosensors [col. 9-10, lines 60-2] Protective fences (safety fences) or the like may be provided for the opening portions of the mounting portion 40a. Furthermore, a light emitting portion and a light receiving portion such as the first and second embodiments may be provided for the opening portion of the mounting portion 40a. In such the structure, intrusion of a worker or the like into the above-mentioned region during the movement of the AGV 40 or the operation of the arm 403 can be detected, and the movement of the AGV 40 and the operation of the arm 403 can be interrupted.)
Regarding claim 23: The combination of Murata, Guo, and Ning teaches: The robot according to claim 17,
Murata further discloses: wherein: the docking condition relates at least to a determined position of the robot, and wherein the control system is configured for determining the position of the robot; and/or the robot is configured for sensing a distance to a portion of the interaction location. ([col. 4, lines 5-19] at least two photosensors, each photoSensor being attached to a position in an opening plane of one of the opening portions, each of the photoSensors including a light Scanning device emitting a beam and Scanning the opening plane with the beam; and a control device which monitors a State of the photosensors and controls one of the transferring device and the driving device in accordance with the State of the photoSensors, wherein the control device detects intrusion of an object, when a distance of propagation of the beam emitted from the photosensor at a certain Scanning angle, reflected in the opening plane and incident upon the light Scanning device, becomes Shorter than a distance which is previously determined to correspond to that scanning angle.)
Regarding claim 24: The combination of Murata, Guo, and Ning teaches: The robot according to claim 17,
Murata further discloses: wherein: the robot comprises an obstacle sensor configured for sensing obstacles; and the robot is configured for sensing a contour of a portion of the interaction location, and wherein the docking condition relates at least to the contour. ([col. 4, lines 5-19] at least two photosensors, each photoSensor being attached to a position in an opening plane of one of the opening portions, each of the photoSensors including a light Scanning device emitting a beam and Scanning the opening plane with the beam; and a control device which monitors a State of the photosensors and controls one of the transferring device and the driving device in accordance with the State of the photoSensors, wherein the control device detects intrusion of an object, when a distance of propagation of the beam emitted from the photosensor at a certain Scanning angle, reflected in the opening plane and incident upon the light Scanning device, becomes Shorter than a distance which is previously determined to correspond to that scanning angle.)
Regarding claim 25: The combination of Murata, Guo, and Ning teaches: A system comprising a plurality of interaction locations and at least one robot according to claim 17,
Murata further discloses: wherein the at least one robot is configured for picking and/or putting items at the plurality of interaction locations. ([col. 4, lines 27-30] a transferring device pro Vided on the upper Surface of the transporting portion, the transferring device being capable of transferring a workpiece to or from an opening portion of an apparatus.)
Regarding claim 26: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 17.
Regarding claim 27: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 18.
Regarding claim 28: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 20 first limitation.
Regarding claim 29: The combination of Murata, Guo, and Ning teaches: The robot according to claim 28,
Murata does not explicitly disclose: wherein: the control system is configured for detecting the second state if a docking condition is satisfied in proximity of an interaction location; and the robot is configured for sensing a marker element associated with the interaction location, and wherein the docking condition relates at least to a presence of the marker element.
Murata does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however Ning, from an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: wherein: the control system is configured for detecting the second state if a docking condition is satisfied in proximity of an interaction location; and the robot is configured for sensing a marker element associated with the interaction location, and wherein the docking condition relates at least to a presence of the marker element. ([0022] When the approach of the worker 6 to the warning area is detected , a mode determination unit 300 ( shown in FIG . 1 ) switches a second processing unit 200 to a “ safety monitoring mode ” ( second mode ) , and a robot control unit 4 performs control such as decelerating the robot 5. The second processing unit 200 has two modes , namely a “ safety monitoring mode ” and a “ normal mode ” ( first mode ) , and can switch between the two modes according to the degree of risk of contact between the robot 5 and the worker 6. The safety monitoring mode is a mode when a first processing unit 100 detects the approach of the worker 6 to the warning area , that is , when there is a high risk of contact between the robot 5 and the worker 6. On the other hand , the normal mode is a mode when the first processing unit 100 does not detect the approach of the worker 6 to the warning area , that is , when there is a low risk of contact between the robot 5 and the worker 6. [0026] … As described above , the dangerous area is an area where the movable part of the robot 5 and the worker 6 may come into contact with each other when the worker 6 invades . The warning area includes a safe area where the worker 6 does not come into contact with the movable part of the robot 5 even if the worker 6 invades , and the dangerous area where the worker 6 may come into contact with the movable part of the robot 5 . [ 0027 ] The dangerous area may be set in advance by a dangerous area setting unit 400 ( shown in FIG . 1 ) of the safety monitoring control device 2 as described later based on FIG . 1 . [ 0028 ] When the robot control unit 4 detects that the worker 6 has invaded the dangerous area , the robot control unit 4 performs control such as stopping the movement of the arm of the robot 5.)
As previously stated, Murata, Guo, and Ning are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of safety control systems for shared human-robot environments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the safety system of Murata to enable the multimodal safety method of Ning.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the safety method disclosed in Murata with the method applied to the multimodal safety procedures taught in Ning for the purpose of limiting unnecessary interruption and speeding up workflow while maintaining necessary safety conditions.
Regarding claim 30: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 23.
Regarding claim 31: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 17 and 26, however further directed to “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, which is not explicitly disclosed by Murata
Murata does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however Ning, from an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium ([0093] The processor may be , for example , a central processing unit ( CPU ) . The recording medium may be a “ non - temporary tangible medium ” , such as a read only memory ( ROM ) , as well as a tape , a disk , a card , a semiconductor memory, a programmable logic circuit, or the like.)
As previously stated, Murata, Guo, and Ning are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of safety control systems for shared human-robot environments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the safety system of Murata to enable the non-transitory storage taught in Ning.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the safety method disclosed in Murata with the method applied to the common storage methods taught in Ning.
Regarding claim 32: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 17.
Regarding claim 33: Rejected using the same rationale as claims 18 and 27.
Regarding claim 34: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 30.
Regarding claim 35: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 31
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTICUS A CAMERON whose telephone number is 703-756-4535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 4:30 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ATTICUS A CAMERON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3658A
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights