DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action on the Merits in response to communications filed by applicant on November 25th, 2025. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and examined below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the Claims filed on November 25th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 9, and 12 are currently amended and pending, and claims 2-8 and 10-11 are original, unamended, and pending. The amendments to the Abstract filed on November 25th, 2025 have been entered and have overcome each and every object set forth in the previous Non-Final Office Action mailed August 25th, 2025.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer does not comply with 37 CFR 1.321 because:
The applicant cited on the Terminal Disclosure submitted on November 26th, 2025 is not the applicant as cited on the Application Data Sheet and/or Filling Receipt. The applicant cited on the Terminal Disclosure must be cited exactly as it is cited on the Application Data Sheet and/or Filing Receipt. A corrected Terminal Disclosure in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 is required in reply to the Office action.
It should be noted that applicant is not required to pay another disclaimer fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.20(d) when submitting a replacement or supplemental terminal disclaimer.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12 lines 23-24, the phrase “wherein the robot controller being configured to freely move the hazardous part of the robot within the protected zone” appears to be an exact duplicate of the phase in lines 21-22. It is suggested by the examiner that one of the duplicate phrases be removed for the purpose of improving clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. Both claim 1 recites the limitation “volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot” and claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot”. The two limitations are clearly so close in content that they both cover the same thing. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 – control and evaluation unit
Claim 12 – control and evaluation unit
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7623031 B2 ("Harberer") in view of US 9489730 B2 ("Doettling") in further view of US 11396099 B2 ("Wartenberg").
Regarding claim 1, Harberer teaches a system for monitoring a hazard zone of a robot (Harberer: Figure 1, Abstract, “An apparatus for the control of at least one safety-relevant function of a machine is described having a machine control for the control of the movements of the machine, having at least one sensor for the sensing of an object inside a monitored zone and having an evaluation unit for the setting of a danger zone and for the triggering of the safety-relevant function on the intrusion of the sensed object into the danger zone. To set the danger zone, the evaluation unit is coupled to the machine control and the evaluation unit is designed for the derivation of the parameters required for the setting of the danger zone starting from the control signals used by the machine control for the movement control of the machine. A corresponding method is furthermore described.”, Column 5 lines 19-25, “FIGS. 1 and 2 show an apparatus for the control of a safety-relevant function of a machine 11 designed as a robot comprising a movable robot arm 12. The machine 11 comprises a machine control 19 which is connected to an evaluation unit 17 via a lead 18 for the bidirectional transmission of data.”),
having at least one sensor having at least one spatial monitored zone for monitoring the hazard zone (Harberer: Figure 1 sensor 16, Column 5 lines 33-40, “The sensor 16 is arranged above the machine 11 such that it monitors a monitored zone 10 (see FIG. 2) which includes the working zone of the machine 11 within which the robot arm 12 moves and a zone adjacent thereto.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the working zone of the robot is a zone that is hazardous for a human to be in.);
and a control and evaluation unit (Harberer: Column 5 lines 19-25, “The machine 11 comprises a machine control 19 which is connected to an evaluation unit 17 via a lead 18 for the bidirectional transmission of data.”);
and a robot controller for controlling the movements of at least one hazardous part of the robot (Harberer: Column 5 lines 19-25, “FIGS. 1 and 2 show an apparatus for the control of a safety-relevant function of a machine 11 designed as a robot comprising a movable robot arm 12. The machine 11 comprises a machine control 19 which is connected to an evaluation unit 17 via a lead 18 for the bidirectional transmission of data.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the machine control would control the motion of the robot arm.),
wherein the robot controller and the control and evaluation unit are electronically connected to one another by means of at least one interface (Harberer: Column 5 lines 19-25, “The machine 11 comprises a machine control 19 which is connected to an evaluation unit 17 via a lead 18 for the bidirectional transmission of data. A wireless connection can generally also be provided instead of the lead 18.”);
wherein the sensor is configured to cyclically transmit at least data of the monitored zone to the control and evaluation unit (Harberer: Column 5 lines 26-32, “The evaluation unit 17 is connected via a further lead 21 to a sensor 16 designed as a monitoring camera, with a wireless connection generally also being conceivable here. Instead of being designed as a camera, the sensor can also be designed as any other spatially resolving sensor and/or time resolving sensor, for example as a laser scanner, in particular as an area sensor.”, Column 5 lines 33-40, “The sensor 16 is arranged above the machine 11 such that it monitors a monitored zone 10 (see FIG. 2) which includes the working zone of the machine 11 within which the robot arm 12 moves and a zone adjacent thereto. A person 14 (object) is located inside the monitored zone 10 and is sensed by the sensor 16, with data being transmitted to the evaluation unit 17 on the position, direction of movement and/or direction of speed of the person 14 via the lead 21.”, Column 5 lines 41-47, “Furthermore, a danger zone 22 can be recognized from FIGS. 1 and 2 which is set by the evaluation unit 17. The danger zone 22 characterizes that zone of the monitored zone 10 on whose breach by an object 14 a safety-relevant function has to be triggered. For example, the machine 11 can be 45 switched off on an intrusion of the person 14 into the danger zone 22.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see from the cited passages that the sensor is configured to continuously monitor the monitored zone. This means that the sensor sends data it has captured to the controller at some frequency and, in other words, transmits the data cyclically.);
wherein the sensor and the control and evaluation unit are further configured to generate at least one spatial protected zone in the monitored zone (Harberer: Figure 1 danger zone 22, Column 5 lines 41-47, “Furthermore, a danger zone 22 can be recognized from FIGS. 1 and 2 which is set by the evaluation unit 17. The danger zone 22 characterizes that zone of the monitored zone 10 on whose breach by an object 14 a safety-relevant function has to be triggered.”);
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to localize persons in the monitored zone of the sensor with reference to the data (Harberer: Column 5 lines 33-40, “A person 14 (object) is located inside the monitored zone 10 and is sensed by the sensor 16, with data being transmitted to the evaluation unit 17 on the position, direction of movement and/or direction of speed of the person 14 via the lead 21.”),
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to arrange the spatial protected zone such that the spatial protected zone completely surrounds and includes the hazardous part of the robot (Harberer: Figure 1 danger zone 22, Column 5 lines 48-58, “In accordance with the invention, the size and shape of the danger zone 22 is set by the evaluation unit 17 on the basis of the data obtained directly from the machine control 19 via the lead 18-for example the position, speed of movement and direction of movement of the robot arm 12. The danger zone 22 can thereby be minimized as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2. At the same time, the data on the person 14 such as his position, speed of movement and direction of movement sensed by the sensor 16 or derived therefrom are likewise used to set the danger zone 22. The danger zone 22 can be set dynamically, i.e. with the robot arm 12 moving along, or also statically.”. As can be seen from the cited figure and passage, the protected zone (i.e. the danger zone 22) completely surrounds the robot arm.)
and a surface of the protected zone forms an outer safety boundary (Harberer: Figure 1 danger zone 22, Column 5 lines 41-47, “Furthermore, a danger zone 22 can be recognized from FIGS. 1 and 2 which is set by the evaluation unit 17. The danger zone 22 characterizes that zone of the monitored zone 10 on whose breach by an object 14 a safety-relevant function has to be triggered. For example, the machine 11 can be 45 switched off on an intrusion of the person 14 into the danger zone 22.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the outer surface of the danger zone creates a safety boundary, as a safety-relevant is functioned once a person enters the danger zone.),
with the location of the safety boundary being fixable in dependence on a distance, on a direction of movement and/or a movement speed of the person with respect to the hazardous part of the robot (Harberer: Figures 2a-2c and 3a-3c, “Column 5 lines 48-58, “In accordance with the invention, the size and shape of the danger zone 22 is set by the evaluation unit 17 on the basis of the data obtained directly from the machine control 19 via the lead 18-for example the position, speed of movement and direction of movement of the robot arm 12. The danger zone 22 can thereby be minimized as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2. At the same time, the data on the person 14 such as his position, speed of movement and direction of movement sensed by the sensor 16 or derived therefrom are likewise used to set the danger zone 22. The danger zone 22 can be set dynamically, i.e. with the robot arm 12 moving along, or also statically.”)
wherein the robot controller being configured to freely move the hazardous part of the robot within the protected zone (Harberer: “Column 5 lines 48-58, “In accordance with the invention, the size and shape of the danger zone 22 is set by the evaluation unit 17 on the basis of the data obtained directly from the machine control 19 via the lead 18-for example the position, speed of movement and direction of movement of the robot arm 12.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that because the danger zone is set based on the position, speed, and direction of movement of the robot, that the robot would be able to freely operate in said danger zone. Furthermore, Column 5 lines 41-47 describes the robot performing a safety-relevant function if a human id detected within the danger zone. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that, if no person is detected, the robot would continue to function as normal.).
Harberer does not teach wherein the sensor is configured to cyclically transmit at least 3D data of the monitored zone to the control and evaluation unit;
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to localize persons in the monitored zone of the sensor with reference to the 3D data and to determine their distance from the hazardous part of the robot,
and wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities
and to add additional 3D buffer zones based on the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities, with the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot,
and with said 3D buffer zone additionally surrounding the protected zone.
Doettling, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the sensor is configured to cyclically transmit at least 3D data of the monitored zone to the control and evaluation unit (Doettling: Column 9 lines 10-24, “The device 10 comprises at least one sensor unit 12 which is designed to provide a respective current 3-D image of the hazardous working area of an automated machine at defined intervals of time.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that a 3D image of the hazardous zone that is monitored would provide 3D data of said zone.);
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to localize persons in the monitored zone of the sensor with reference to the 3D data and to determine their distance from the hazardous part of the robot (Doettling: Column 10 lines 51-67, “The position of the robot 22 and the position of the person 34 are repeatedly determined at defined intervals of time and a check is carried out in order to determine whether the person 34 and the robot 22 come too close to one another. The area 36 (illustrated in white in FIG. 2) around the robot 22 here symbolizes a minimum distance 38 which must always be complied with by the person 34 with respect to the robot 22. If the person 34 approaches the robot 22 to such an extent that the minimum distance 38 is undershot, this is detected using the evaluation unit 18.”. From the cited passage, it is clear a distance between the human and robot is determined. Furthermore, as shown in Column 9 lines 10-24 this data is clearly 3D.),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the system for monitoring a hazard zone of a robot taught in Harberer with wherein the sensor is configured to cyclically transmit at least 3D data of the monitored zone to the control and evaluation unit; wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to localize persons in the monitored zone of the sensor with reference to the 3D data and to determine their distance from the hazardous part of the robot taught in Doettling with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would have been obvious to try. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that robots commonly move in three-dimensions and to be able to properly control the robot, the 3D data of the robot, its environment, and anything in said environment must be known. Furthermore, the system for monitoring a hazard zone of a robot taught in Harberer already teaches determining the positional data of the robot and a human within the monitored zone, but does not explicitly teach whether or not this data is 3D. It would have been within the technological capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system in Harberer such that the data was 3D as taught in Doettling. The combination would not have changed or introduced new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required.
Harberer in view of Doettling does not teach and wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities
and to add additional 3D buffer zones based on the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities, with the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot,
and with said 3D buffer zone additionally surrounding the protected zone.
Wartenberg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities (Wartenberg: Column 21 lines 1-32, “For example, referring to FIG. 6A, a POE 602 that instantaneously characterizes the spatial region potentially occupied by any portion of the human body in the time interval 1\t can be computed based on the worst-case scenario ( e.g., the furthest distance with the fastest speed) that the human operator can move.”, Column 21 lines 33-46, “In some embodiments, the POE 602 of the human operator is refined by acquiring more information about the operator. For example, the sensor system 101 may acquire a series of scanning data ( e.g., images) within a time interval li.t. By analyzing the operator's positions and poses in the scanning data and based on the time period li.t, the operator's moving direction, velocity and acceleration can be determined. This information, in combination with the linear and angular kinematics and dynamics of human motion, may reduce the potential distance reachable by the operator in the immediate future time 1\t, thereby refining the POE of the operator (e.g., POE 604 in FIG. 6B).”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the potential occupancy envelope (“POE”) is a 3D volume representing the space the operator currently occupies and could potentially occupy in the future. This is clearly a way of taking into account the volume of a person.)
and to add additional 3D buffer zones based on the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities, with the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot (Wartenberg: Column 24 lines 13-33, “In some embodiments, path optimization includes creation of a 3D "keep-in" zone (or volume) (i.e., a zone/ volume to which the robot is restricted during operation) and/or a "keep-out" zone (or volume) (i.e., a zone/volume from which the robot is restricted during operation).”, Column 28 lines 1-22, “Similarly, the keep-out zone may be determined based on the POE of the human operator. Again, a static future interval POE represents the entire spatial region that the human operator may possibly reach within a specified time, and thus corresponds to the most conservative possible keep-out zone within which an intrusion of the robot will trigger a safety stop or slowdown. A static task-level POE of the human operator may reduce the determined keep-out zone in accordance with the task to be performed, and a dynamic, task-level or application-level POE of the human may further reduce the keep-out zone based on a specific point in the execution of a task by the human. In addition, the POE of the human operator can be shared by the safety-rated and non-safety-rated control components as described above for operating the robot in a safe manner. For example, upon detecting intrusion of the robot in the keep-out zone, the OMS 1010 may issue a command to the non-safety-rated control component to slow down the robot in an unsafe way, and then engaging the safety-rated robot control ( e.g., monitoring) component to ensure that the robot remains outside the keep-out zone or has a speed below the predetermined value.”. From the cited passages, the system is clearly able to create a keep-out zone (a buffer zone in this case) based on the volume of the person (the potential occupancy envelope or “POE”) and controls the robot to remain outside of the keep-out zone.),
and with said 3D buffer zone additionally surrounding the protected zone (Wartenberg: Figure 13, Column 30 lines 3-40, “One approach to achieving this is to modulate the robot's maximum velocity (by which is meant the velocity of the robot itself or any appendage thereof) proportionally to the minimum distance between any point on the robot and any point in the relevant set of sensed objects to be avoided. For example, the robot may be allowed to operate at maximum speed when the closest object or human is further away than some threshold distance beyond which collisions are not a concern, and the robot is halted altogether if an object/ human is within the PSD. For example, referring to FIG. 13, an interior 3D danger zone 1302 around the robot may be computationally generated by the SADM based on the computed PSD or keep-in zone associated with the robot described above; if any portion of the human operator crosses into the danger zone 1302-or is predicted to do so within the next cycle based on the computed POE of the human operator----operation of the robot may be halted. In addition, a second 3D zone 1304 enclosing and slightly larger than the danger zone 1302 may be defined also based on the computed PSD or keep-in zone associated with the robot. If any portion of the human operator crosses the threshold of zone 1304 but is still outside the interior danger zone 1302, the robot is signaled to operate at a slower speed. In one embodiment, the robot is proactively slowed down when the future interval POE of the operator overlaps spatially with the second zone 1304 such that the next future interval POE cannot possibly enter the danger zone 1302. Further, an outer zone 1306 corresponding to a boundary may be defined such that outside this zone 1306, all movements of the human operator are considered safe because, within an operational cycle, they cannot bring the operator sufficiently close to the robot to pose a danger. In one embodiment, detection of any portion of the operator's body within the outer zone 1306 but still outside the second 3D zone 1304 allows the robot 904 to continue operating at full speed. These zones 1302-1306 may be updated if the robot is moved (or moves) within the environment and may complement the POE in terms of overall robot control.”. The cited passages clearly show that the POE of the human is used to add additional buffer zones to the robot that surround the protected zone (i.e. the danger zone 1302).).
Harberer in view of Doettling teaches a system for monitoring a safety zone of a robot. Harberer in view of Doettling does not teach wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities and to add additional 3D buffer zones based on the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities, with the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot and with said 3D buffer zone additionally surrounding the protected zone. Wartenberg teaches wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities and to add additional 3D buffer zones based on the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities, with the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot and with said 3D buffer zone additionally surrounding the protected zone. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the system taught in Harberer in view of Doettling with wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities and to add additional 3D buffer zones based on the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities, with the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot and with said 3D buffer zone additionally surrounding the protected zone taught in Wartenberg. Furthermore, the system taught in Harberer in view of Doettling is already configured to determine the 3D data of a person and their extremities, the 3D data including the position and movement direction. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the system taught in Harberer in view of Doettling to use this 3D data to determine a volume of the person and implement an additional buffer zone using this volume as taught in Wartenberg without changing or introducing new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a system for monitoring a hazard zone of a robot wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities and to add additional 3D buffer zones based on the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities, with the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot and with said 3D buffer zone additionally surrounding the protected zone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the system for monitoring a hazard zone of a robot taught in Harberer in view of Doettling with wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities and to add additional 3D buffer zones based on the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities, with the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot and with said 3D buffer zone additionally surrounding the protected zone taught in Wartenberg with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Harberer in view of Doettling in further view of Wartenberg teaches wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to cause at least the hazardous part of the robot to perform an evasive movement if the distance of the person from the hazardous part of the robot falls below predefined distance values (Harberer: Column 3 line 66 – Column 4 line 9, “The evasive action of the machine with respect to the object can preferably be defined as one of the safety-relevant functions. An evasive action of the machine can frequently be safer than the slowing down or stopping of the machine since a stopping can be achieved less fast than an evasive motion under certain circumstances due to the inertia of the machine.”, Doettling: Column 10 lines 51-67, “The position of the robot 22 and the position of the person 34 are repeatedly determined at defined intervals of time and a check is carried out in order to determine whether the person 34 and the robot 22 come too close to one another. The area 36 (illustrated in white in FIG. 2) around the robot 22 here symbolizes a minimum distance 38 which must always be complied with by the person 34 with respect to the robot 22. If the person 34 approaches the robot 22 to such an extent that the minimum distance 38 is undershot, this is detected using the evaluation unit 18. In this case, the evaluation unit 18 generates a control signal, on account of which the machine controller 20 immediately stops the working movement of the robot 22.”).
Harberer teaches system for monitoring a hazard zone of a robot wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to cause at least the hazardous part of the robot to perform an evasive movement. Doettling teaches performing an emergency stop if the distance of the person from the hazardous part of the robot falls below predefined distance values. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the system for monitoring a hazard zone of a robot wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to cause at least the hazardous part of the robot to perform an evasive movement taught in Harberer to perform this evasive maneuver if the distance of the person from the hazardous part of the robot falls below predefined distance values as taught in Doettling. The combination would not have changed or introduced new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Harberer in view of Doettling in further view of Wartenberg teaches the limitation wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to cause at least the hazardous part of the robot to perform an evasive movement if the distance of the person from the hazardous part of the robot falls below predefined distance values.
Regarding claim 3, Harberer in view of Doettling in further view of Wartenberg teaches wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to cause at least the hazardous part of the robot to avoid a ramming with the person (Harberer: Column 3 lines 49-65, “In accordance with a further preferred embodiment, the slowing down and/or the stopping of the machine is defined as one of the safety-relevant functions. Maximum safety is generally achieved when the machine is brought to a stop as fast as possible on the intrusion of an object into the danger zone. In some cases, however, a slowing down of the speed of movement of the machine can also be sufficient. Depending on the information on the direction of movement and/or on the speed of movement of the object and/or of the machine available to the evaluation unit, either a reduction of the speed of movement or the complete stopping of the machine can therefore be selected. In comparison with a machine programmed only to stop, this has the advantage that a machine stop is really only triggered in necessary cases, whereas a slowing down of the machine motion is sufficient in less urgent cases.”, Column 3 line 66 – Column 4 line 9, “The evasive action of the machine with respect to the object can preferably be defined as one of the safety-relevant functions. An evasive action of the machine can frequently be safer than the slowing down or stopping of the machine since a stopping can be achieved less fast than an evasive motion under certain circumstances due to the inertia of the machine.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the safety-relevant functions discussed in the cited passages would prevent the robot from coming into contact with a human and would therefore prevent the robot from ramming the human.).
Regarding claim 4, Harberer in view of Doettling in further view of Wartenberg teaches wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to identify individual extremities of the person (Doettling: Column 7 lines 11-28, “In this refinement, the classifier is not only able to identify a person as a whole. It also makes it possible to identify individual body parts, in particular the limbs (arms, legs and/or hands). The identified body parts make it possible to increase the position resolution with respect to the identified person in order to thus detect, for example, whether or not the person is extending his arm in the direction of the machine.”)
and to determine their distance, direction of movement, and/or speed movement with respect to the hazardous part of the robot (Doettling: Column 12 lines 50-58, “In the preferred exemplary embodiment, body part detection and the determination of further items of position information representing the position of individual body parts of the identified person are then carried out according to step 70. In particular, the position of outstretched arms/ hands and/or outstretched legs is determined using the body part detector 70.”, /Column 12 lines 59-67, “According to step 72, a check is then carried out in order to determine whether the identified person-possibly taking into account the position of his body parts-complies with the minimum distance 38 relating to the robot 22.”).
Regarding claim 7, Harberer in view of Doettling in further view of Wartenberg wherein the sensor is a time of flight sensor, a laser scanner having a plurality of scan planes, a time of flight camera, a stereo camera, an FMCW LiDAR sensor, a radar sensor, an ultrawideband radio sensor, or an infrared camera (Harberer: Column 5 lines 26-32, “The evaluation unit 17 is connected via a further lead 21 to a sensor 16 designed as a monitoring camera, with a wireless connection generally also being conceivable here. Instead of being designed as a camera, the sensor can also be designed as any other spatially resolving sensor and/or time resolving sensor, for example as a laser scanner, in particular as an area sensor.” Doettling: Column 9 lines 10-24, “In one preferred exemplary embodiment, the sensor unit 12 is a stereo camera system having at least a first camera 14 and a second camera 16”, Column 9 lines 25-33, “In other exemplary embodiments, the sensor unit 12 may comprise a time-of-flight camera. This is be understood as meaning a camera which provides, on the one hand, 2-D images of an area to be monitored. In addition, the camera provides distance information which is obtained by a time of-flight measurement. In addition, the sensor unit 12 may be in the form of a 3-D scanner and/or may use another technology which makes it possible to generate 3-D images of a working area to be safeguarded.”).
Regarding claim 8, Harberer in view of Doettling in further view of Wartenberg teaches wherein the robot controller is configured to evaluate a 3D model of the environment and to move the hazardous part of the robot within the protected zone starting from the 3D model (Wartenberg: Column 14 lines 18-43, “The mode of operation of the sensors 1021-3- is not critical so long as a 3D representation of the workspace 100 is obtainable from images or other data obtained by the sensors 1021-3.”, Column 14 lines 44-67, “In various embodiments, data obtained by each of the sensors 1021-3 is transmitted to a control system 112. Based thereon, the control system 112 may computationally generate a 3D spatial representation ( e.g., voxels) of the workspace 100, recognize the robot 106, human operator and/or workpiece handled by the robot and/or human operator, and track movements thereof as further described below. … . For example, a 3D representation of the workspace 100 may be generated using 2D or 3D raytracing. This ray tracing can be performed dynamically or via the use of precomputed volumes, where objects in the workspace 100 are previously identified and captured by the control system 112.”, Column 30 line 55 – Column 31-line 32, “FIG. 14A illustrates an exemplary approach for computing a POE of the machinery and/or human operator based at least in part on simulation of the machinery's operation in accordance herewith. In a first step 1402, the sensor system is activated to acquire information about the workspace, machinery and/or human operator. In a second step 1404, based on the scanning data acquired by the sensor system, the control system generates a 3D spatial representation (e.g., voxels) of the workspace (e.g., using the analysis module 242) and recognize the human and the machinery and movements thereof in the workspace (e.g., using the object-recognition module 243). In a third step 1406, the control system accesses the system memory to retrieve a model of the machinery that is acquired from the machinery manufacturer (or the conventional modeling tool) or generated based on the scanning data acquired by the sensor system. In a fourth step 1408, the control system (e.g., the simulation module 244) simulates operation of the machinery in a virtual volume in the workspace for performing a task/application.”. As can be seen from the cited passages, the system is configured to create a 3D representation of the workspace and first simulates the movement of the robot using the 3D representation of the workspace.).
Regarding claim 9, Harberer in view of Doettling in further view of Wartenberg teaches wherein volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot (Wartenberg: Column 21 lines 1-32, “For example, referring to FIG. 6A, a POE 602 that instantaneously characterizes the spatial region potentially occupied by any portion of the human body in the time interval 1\t can be computed based on the worst-case scenario ( e.g., the furthest distance with the fastest speed) that the human operator can move.”, Column 21 lines 33-46, “In some embodiments, the POE 602 of the human operator is refined by acquiring more information about the operator. For example, the sensor system 101 may acquire a series of scanning data ( e.g., images) within a time interval li.t. By analyzing the operator's positions and poses in the scanning data and based on the time period li.t, the operator's moving direction, velocity and acceleration can be determined. This information, in combination with the linear and angular kinematics and dynamics of human motion, may reduce the potential distance reachable by the operator in the immediate future time 1\t, thereby refining the POE of the operator (e.g., POE 604 in FIG. 6B).”, Column 24 lines 13-33, “In some embodiments, path optimization includes creation of a 3D "keep-in" zone (or volume) (i.e., a zone/ volume to which the robot is restricted during operation) and/or a "keep-out" zone (or volume) (i.e., a zone/volume from which the robot is restricted during operation).”, Column 28 lines 1-22, “Similarly, the keep-out zone may be determined based on the POE of the human operator. Again, a static future interval POE represents the entire spatial region that the human operator may possibly reach within a specified time, and thus corresponds to the most conservative possible keep-out zone within which an intrusion of the robot will trigger a safety stop or slowdown. A static task-level POE of the human operator may reduce the determined keep-out zone in accordance with the task to be performed, and a dynamic, task-level or application-level POE of the human may further reduce the keep-out zone based on a specific point in the execution of a task by the human. In addition, the POE of the human operator can be shared by the safety-rated and non-safety-rated control components as described above for operating the robot in a safe manner. For example, upon detecting intrusion of the robot in the keep-out zone, the OMS 1010 may issue a command to the non-safety-rated control component to slow down the robot in an unsafe way, and then engaging the safety-rated robot control ( e.g., monitoring) component to ensure that the robot remains outside the keep-out zone or has a speed below the predetermined value.”. From the cited passages, the system is clearly able to create a keep-out zone (a buffer zone in this case) based on the volume of the person (the potential occupancy envelope or “POE”) and controls the robot to remain outside of the keep-out zone. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly see that this is a method of considering the volume of the person and their extremities in the kinematics of the dangerous part of the robot.).
Regarding claim 10, Harberer in view of Doettling in further view of Wartenberg teaches wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to compare the received 3D data of the monitored zone with known position data of the environment and to check them for agreement (Doettling: Column 12 lines 27-39, “According to step 68, a check is carried out in order to determine whether the first item of position information from the foreign object detector 50 and the second item of position information from the person tracker 66 each represent identical positions. If this is the case, the position of the identified person determined in a non-fail-safe manner is verified by the position of the foreign object detector 50 determined in a fail-safe manner. The position of the person determined by the person tracker 66 can consequently be processed further as fail-safe position information. In contrast, if the comparison in step 68 reveals that the positions are not identical, the emergency stop of the robot 22 is activated according to step 64.”, Column 12 lines 40-49, “In preferred exemplary embodiments, the position information can be compared using comparison features which are representative of the respective determined position. For example, the position of the identified person on the floor of the protection zone 30 can be compared with the corresponding position of the detected foreign object on the floor of the protection zone 30. Alternatively or additionally, the positions of the vertical and horizontal main axes of the foreign object and of the identified person 34 can be compared with one another.”. The cited passages clearly teach comparing the received position data using the known position of objects in the environment and verifying the position data is identical. In the embodiment described in the cited passages, the position information obtained by the person tracker is considered as the fail-safe position information (in other words, it acts as a known position). The position information obtained by the foreign object detector is compared to the known position and is checked for agreement.).
Regarding claim 11, Harberer in view of Doettling in further view of Wartenberg wherein the robot is a mobile robot or a stationary robot (Harberer: Figure 1 robot arm 12, Column 5 lines 19-25, “FIGS. 1 and 2 show an apparatus for the control of a safety-relevant function of a machine 11 designed as a robot comprising a movable robot arm 12.”).
Regarding claim 12, Harberer teaches a method of monitoring a hazard zone of a robot (Harberer: Figure 1, Abstract, “An apparatus for the control of at least one safety-relevant function of a machine is described having a machine control for the control of the movements of the machine, having at least one sensor for the sensing of an object inside a monitored zone and having an evaluation unit for the setting of a danger zone and for the triggering of the safety-relevant function on the intrusion of the sensed object into the danger zone. To set the danger zone, the evaluation unit is coupled to the machine control and the evaluation unit is designed for the derivation of the parameters required for the setting of the danger zone starting from the control signals used by the machine control for the movement control of the machine. A corresponding method is furthermore described.”, Column 5 lines 19-25, “FIGS. 1 and 2 show an apparatus for the control of a safety-relevant function of a machine 11 designed as a robot comprising a movable robot arm 12. The machine 11 comprises a machine control 19 which is connected to an evaluation unit 17 via a lead 18 for the bidirectional transmission of data.”. The machine of the system is clearly a robot arm.),
having at least one sensor having at least one spatial monitored zone for monitoring the hazard zone (Harberer: Figure 1 sensor 16, Column 5 lines 33-40, “The sensor 16 is arranged above the machine 11 such that it monitors a monitored zone 10 (see FIG. 2) which includes the working zone of the machine 11 within which the robot arm 12 moves and a zone adjacent thereto.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the working zone of the robot is a zone that is hazardous for a human to be in.);
and a control and evaluation unit (Harberer: Column 5 lines 19-25, “The machine 11 comprises a machine control 19 which is connected to an evaluation unit 17 via a lead 18 for the bidirectional transmission of data.”);
and a robot controller for controlling the movements of at least one hazardous part of the robot (Harberer: Column 5 lines 19-25, “FIGS. 1 and 2 show an apparatus for the control of a safety-relevant function of a machine 11 designed as a robot comprising a movable robot arm 12. The machine 11 comprises a machine control 19 which is connected to an evaluation unit 17 via a lead 18 for the bidirectional transmission of data.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the machine control would control the motion of the robot arm.),
wherein the robot controller and the control and evaluation unit are electronically connected to one another by means of at least one interface (Harberer: Column 5 lines 19-25, “The machine 11 comprises a machine control 19 which is connected to an evaluation unit 17 via a lead 18 for the bidirectional transmission of data. A wireless connection can generally also be provided instead of the lead 18.”);
wherein the sensor is configured to cyclically transmit at least data of the monitored zone to the control and evaluation unit (Harberer: Column 5 lines 26-32, “The evaluation unit 17 is connected via a further lead 21 to a sensor 16 designed as a monitoring camera, with a wireless connection generally also being conceivable here. Instead of being designed as a camera, the sensor can also be designed as any other spatially resolving sensor and/or time resolving sensor, for example as a laser scanner, in particular as an area sensor.”, Column 5 lines 33-40, “The sensor 16 is arranged above the machine 11 such that it monitors a monitored zone 10 (see FIG. 2) which includes the working zone of the machine 11 within which the robot arm 12 moves and a zone adjacent thereto. A person 14 (object) is located inside the monitored zone 10 and is sensed by the sensor 16, with data being transmitted to the evaluation unit 17 on the position, direction of movement and/or direction of speed of the person 14 via the lead 21.”, Column 5 lines 41-47, “Furthermore, a danger zone 22 can be recognized from FIGS. 1 and 2 which is set by the evaluation unit 17. The danger zone 22 characterizes that zone of the monitored zone 10 on whose breach by an object 14 a safety-relevant function has to be triggered. For example, the machine 11 can be 45 switched off on an intrusion of the person 14 into the danger zone 22.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see from the cited passages that the sensor is configured to continuously monitor the monitored zone. This means that the sensor sends data it has captured to the controller at some frequency and, in other words, transmits the data cyclically.);
wherein the sensor and the control and evaluation unit generate at least one spatial protected zone in the monitored zone (Harberer: Figure 1 danger zone 22, Column 5 lines 41-47, “Furthermore, a danger zone 22 can be recognized from FIGS. 1 and 2 which is set by the evaluation unit 17. The danger zone 22 characterizes that zone of the monitored zone 10 on whose breach by an object 14 a safety-relevant function has to be triggered.”);
wherein the control and evaluation unit localizes persons in the monitored zone of the sensor with reference to the data (Harberer: Column 5 lines 33-40, “A person 14 (object) is located inside the monitored zone 10 and is sensed by the sensor 16, with data being transmitted to the evaluation unit 17 on the position, direction of movement and/or direction of speed of the person 14 via the lead 21.”),
wherein the control and evaluation unit arranges the spatial protected zone such that the spatial protected zone completely surrounds and includes the hazardous part of the robot (Harberer: Figure 1 danger zone 22, Column 5 lines 48-58, “In accordance with the invention, the size and shape of the danger zone 22 is set by the evaluation unit 17 on the basis of the data obtained directly from the machine control 19 via the lead 18-for example the position, speed of movement and direction of movement of the robot arm 12. The danger zone 22 can thereby be minimized as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2. At the same time, the data on the person 14 such as his position, speed of movement and direction of movement sensed by the sensor 16 or derived therefrom are likewise used to set the danger zone 22. The danger zone 22 can be set dynamically, i.e. with the robot arm 12 moving along, or also statically.”. As can be seen from the cited figure and passage, the protected zone (i.e. the danger zone 22) completely surrounds the robot arm.)
and a surface of the protected zone forms an outer safety boundary (Harberer: Figure 1 danger zone 22, Column 5 lines 41-47, “Furthermore, a danger zone 22 can be recognized from FIGS. 1 and 2 which is set by the evaluation unit 17. The danger zone 22 characterizes that zone of the monitored zone 10 on whose breach by an object 14 a safety-relevant function has to be triggered. For example, the machine 11 can be 45 switched off on an intrusion of the person 14 into the danger zone 22.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the outer surface of the danger zone creates a safety boundary, as a safety-relevant is functioned once a person enters the danger zone.),
with the location of the safety boundary being fixable in dependence on a distance, on a direction of movement and/or a movement speed of the person with respect to the hazardous part of the robot (Harberer: Figures 2a-2c and 3a-3c, “Column 5 lines 48-58, “In accordance with the invention, the size and shape of the danger zone 22 is set by the evaluation unit 17 on the basis of the data obtained directly from the machine control 19 via the lead 18-for example the position, speed of movement and direction of movement of the robot arm 12. The danger zone 22 can thereby be minimized as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2. At the same time, the data on the person 14 such as his position, speed of movement and direction of movement sensed by the sensor 16 or derived therefrom are likewise used to set the danger zone 22. The danger zone 22 can be set dynamically, i.e. with the robot arm 12 moving along, or also statically.”)
wherein the robot controller freely moving the hazardous part of the robot within the protected zone (Harberer: “Column 5 lines 48-58, “In accordance with the invention, the size and shape of the danger zone 22 is set by the evaluation unit 17 on the basis of the data obtained directly from the machine control 19 via the lead 18-for example the position, speed of movement and direction of movement of the robot arm 12.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that because the danger zone is set based on the position, speed, and direction of movement of the robot, that the robot would be able to freely operate in said danger zone. Furthermore, Column 5 lines 41-47 describes the robot performing a safety-relevant function if a human id detected within the danger zone. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that, if no person is detected, the robot would continue to function as normal.),
wherein the robot controller being configured to freely move the hazardous part of the robot within the protected zone (Harberer: Column 5 lines 48-58).
Harberer does not teach wherein the sensor is configured to cyclically transmit at least 3D data of the monitored zone to the control and evaluation unit;
wherein the control and evaluation unit localizes persons in the monitored zone of the sensor with reference to the 3D data and determines their distance from the hazardous part of the robot,
and wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities
and to add additional 3D buffer zones based on the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities, with the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot,
and with said 3D buffer zone additionally surrounding the protected zone.
Doettling, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the sensor is configured to cyclically transmit at least 3D data of the monitored zone to the control and evaluation unit (Doettling: Column 9 lines 10-24, “The device 10 comprises at least one sensor unit 12 which is designed to provide a respective current 3-D image of the hazardous working area of an automated machine at defined intervals of time.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that a 3D image of the hazardous zone that is monitored would provide 3D data of said zone.);
wherein the control and evaluation unit localizes persons in the monitored zone of the sensor with reference to the 3D data and determines their distance from the hazardous part of the robot (Doettling: Column 10 lines 51-67, “The position of the robot 22 and the position of the person 34 are repeatedly determined at defined intervals of time and a check is carried out in order to determine whether the person 34 and the robot 22 come too close to one another. The area 36 (illustrated in white in FIG. 2) around the robot 22 here symbolizes a minimum distance 38 which must always be complied with by the person 34 with respect to the robot 22. If the person 34 approaches the robot 22 to such an extent that the minimum distance 38 is undershot, this is detected using the evaluation unit 18.”. From the cited passage, it is clear a distance between the human and robot is determined. Furthermore, as shown in Column 9 lines 10-24 this data is clearly 3D.),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the method of monitoring a hazard zone of a robot taught in Harberer with wherein the sensor is configured to cyclically transmit at least 3D data of the monitored zone to the control and evaluation unit; wherein the control and evaluation unit localizes persons in the monitored zone of the sensor with reference to the 3D data and determines their distance from the hazardous part of the robot taught in Doettling with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would have been obvious to try. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that robots commonly move in three-dimensions and to be able to properly control the robot, the 3D data of the robot, its environment, and anything in said environment must be known. Furthermore, the method of monitoring a hazard zone of a robot taught in Harberer already teaches determining the positional data of the robot and a human within the monitored zone, but does not explicitly teach whether or not this data is 3D. It would have been within the technological capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method in Harberer such that the data was 3D as taught in Doettling. The combination would not have changed or introduced new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required.
Harberer in view of Doettling does not teach and wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities
and to add additional 3D buffer zones based on the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities, with the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot,
and with said 3D buffer zone additionally surrounding the protected zone.
Wartenberg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities (Wartenberg: Column 21 lines 1-32, “For example, referring to FIG. 6A, a POE 602 that instantaneously characterizes the spatial region potentially occupied by any portion of the human body in the time interval 1\t can be computed based on the worst-case scenario ( e.g., the furthest distance with the fastest speed) that the human operator can move.”, Column 21 lines 33-46, “In some embodiments, the POE 602 of the human operator is refined by acquiring more information about the operator. For example, the sensor system 101 may acquire a series of scanning data ( e.g., images) within a time interval li.t. By analyzing the operator's positions and poses in the scanning data and based on the time period li.t, the operator's moving direction, velocity and acceleration can be determined. This information, in combination with the linear and angular kinematics and dynamics of human motion, may reduce the potential distance reachable by the operator in the immediate future time 1\t, thereby refining the POE of the operator (e.g., POE 604 in FIG. 6B).”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the potential occupancy envelope (“POE”) is a 3D volume representing the space the operator currently occupies and could potentially occupy in the future. This is clearly a way of taking into account the volume of a person.)
and to add additional 3D buffer zones based on the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities, with the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot (Wartenberg: Column 24 lines 13-33, “In some embodiments, path optimization includes creation of a 3D "keep-in" zone (or volume) (i.e., a zone/ volume to which the robot is restricted during operation) and/or a "keep-out" zone (or volume) (i.e., a zone/volume from which the robot is restricted during operation).”, Column 28 lines 1-22, “Similarly, the keep-out zone may be determined based on the POE of the human operator. Again, a static future interval POE represents the entire spatial region that the human operator may possibly reach within a specified time, and thus corresponds to the most conservative possible keep-out zone within which an intrusion of the robot will trigger a safety stop or slowdown. A static task-level POE of the human operator may reduce the determined keep-out zone in accordance with the task to be performed, and a dynamic, task-level or application-level POE of the human may further reduce the keep-out zone based on a specific point in the execution of a task by the human. In addition, the POE of the human operator can be shared by the safety-rated and non-safety-rated control components as described above for operating the robot in a safe manner. For example, upon detecting intrusion of the robot in the keep-out zone, the OMS 1010 may issue a command to the non-safety-rated control component to slow down the robot in an unsafe way, and then engaging the safety-rated robot control ( e.g., monitoring) component to ensure that the robot remains outside the keep-out zone or has a speed below the predetermined value.”. From the cited passages, the system is clearly able to create a keep-out zone (a buffer zone in this case) based on the volume of the person (the potential occupancy envelope or “POE”) and controls the robot to remain outside of the keep-out zone.),
and with said 3D buffer zone additionally surrounding the protected zone (Wartenberg: Figure 13, Column 30 lines 3-40, “One approach to achieving this is to modulate the robot's maximum velocity (by which is meant the velocity of the robot itself or any appendage thereof) proportionally to the minimum distance between any point on the robot and any point in the relevant set of sensed objects to be avoided. For example, the robot may be allowed to operate at maximum speed when the closest object or human is further away than some threshold distance beyond which collisions are not a concern, and the robot is halted altogether if an object/ human is within the PSD. For example, referring to FIG. 13, an interior 3D danger zone 1302 around the robot may be computationally generated by the SADM based on the computed PSD or keep-in zone associated with the robot described above; if any portion of the human operator crosses into the danger zone 1302-or is predicted to do so within the next cycle based on the computed POE of the human operator----operation of the robot may be halted. In addition, a second 3D zone 1304 enclosing and slightly larger than the danger zone 1302 may be defined also based on the computed PSD or keep-in zone associated with the robot. If any portion of the human operator crosses the threshold of zone 1304 but is still outside the interior danger zone 1302, the robot is signaled to operate at a slower speed. In one embodiment, the robot is proactively slowed down when the future interval POE of the operator overlaps spatially with the second zone 1304 such that the next future interval POE cannot possibly enter the danger zone 1302. Further, an outer zone 1306 corresponding to a boundary may be defined such that outside this zone 1306, all movements of the human operator are considered safe because, within an operational cycle, they cannot bring the operator sufficiently close to the robot to pose a danger. In one embodiment, detection of any portion of the operator's body within the outer zone 1306 but still outside the second 3D zone 1304 allows the robot 904 to continue operating at full speed. These zones 1302-1306 may be updated if the robot is moved (or moves) within the environment and may complement the POE in terms of overall robot control.”. The cited passages clearly show that the POE of the human is used to add additional buffer zones to the robot that surround the protected zone (i.e. the danger zone 1302).).
Harberer in view of Doettling teaches a method for monitoring a safety zone of a robot. Harberer in view of Doettling does not teach wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities and to add additional 3D buffer zones based on the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities, with the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot and with said 3D buffer zone additionally surrounding the protected zone. Wartenberg teaches wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities and to add additional 3D buffer zones based on the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities, with the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot and with said 3D buffer zone additionally surrounding the protected zone. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the method taught in Harberer in view of Doettling with wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities and to add additional 3D buffer zones based on the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities, with the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot and with said 3D buffer zone additionally surrounding the protected zone taught in Wartenberg. Furthermore, the method taught in Harberer in view of Doettling is already configured to determine the 3D data of a person and their extremities, the 3D data including the position and movement direction. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the method taught in Harberer in view of Doettling to use this 3D data to determine a volume of the person and implement an additional buffer zone using this volume as taught in Wartenberg without changing or introducing new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a method for monitoring a hazard zone of a robot wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities and to add additional 3D buffer zones based on the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities, with the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot and with said 3D buffer zone additionally surrounding the protected zone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the method for monitoring a hazard zone of a robot taught in Harberer in view of Doettling with wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities and to add additional 3D buffer zones based on the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities, with the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot and with said 3D buffer zone additionally surrounding the protected zone taught in Wartenberg with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7623031 B2 ("Harberer") in view of US 9489730 B2 ("Doettling") in further view of US 11396099 B2 ("Wartenberg") in further view of Non-Patent Literature Document "Safe Human-Robot-Collaboration-Introduction and Experiment using ISO/TS 15066" ("Rosenstrauch").
Regarding claim 5, Harberer in view of Doettling in further view of Wartenberg does not teach wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of biomechanical properties of the person or of individual extremities in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot.
Rosenstrauch, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of biomechanical properties of the person or of individual extremities in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot (Rosenstrauch: Page 741, Section II Technical Specification ISO/TS 15066, “Power and force limiting finally allows a completely shared collaborative workspace and the possibility of unintentional and unpredictable collisions between human and robot. In order to provide safety power and force are limited to ensure compliance with given biomechanical force or pressure thresholds (Fig. 3, d). These biomechanical limits (maximum pressure and forces) for quasi-static and transient contact depend on different body parts, shown as red dots in fig. 4. Equations for calculating transient contact speed limit values are introduced. Due to this, it is possible to derive and implement concrete settings (maximum speed, force) to the robot system to ensure safety after risk assessment.”. The cited passage clearly teaches using the biomechanical properties of various extremities in the control of the robot. Furthermore, controlling the speed of the robot is a part of kinematics.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the system for monitoring a hazard zone of a robot taught in Harberer in view of Doettling in further view of Wartenberg with teach wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of biomechanical properties of the person or of individual extremities in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot taught in Rosenstrauch with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of biomechanical properties in the control of robot kinematics allows the robot to comply with international safety standards for human-robot-collaboration that state any contact should not create an injury (Rosenstrauch: Page 741, Section II Technical Specification ISO/TS 15066, “The technical specification ISO/TS 15066 is not a standard, it rather updates the state of the art in existing robot safety standards. Now it is accepted as best practise in addition to DIN EN 10218 regarding human-robot collaboration. While DIN EN I 0218 states that any contact "should not create an injury", TSO/TS 15066 names limits for force and speed to comply that.”).
Regarding claim 6, Harberer in view of Doettling in further view of Wartenberg does not teach wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of biomechanical properties of the person or of individual extremities
and to calculate permitted speeds of the hazardous part of the robot based on the biomechanical properties of the person or of individual extremities and to take them into account in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot.
Rosenstrauch, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of biomechanical properties of the person or of individual extremities (Rosenstrauch: Page 741, Section II Technical Specification ISO/TS 15066, “Power and force limiting finally allows a completely shared collaborative workspace and the possibility of unintentional and unpredictable collisions between human and robot. In order to provide safety power and force are limited to ensure compliance with given biomechanical force or pressure thresholds (Fig. 3, d). These biomechanical limits (maximum pressure and forces) for quasi-static and transient contact depend on different body parts, shown as red dots in fig. 4. Equations for calculating transient contact speed limit values are introduced. Due to this, it is possible to derive and implement concrete settings (maximum speed, force) to the robot system to ensure safety after risk assessment.”. The cited passage clearly teaches using the biomechanical properties of various extremities in the control of the robot. Furthermore, controlling the speed of the robot is a part of kinematics.)
and to calculate permitted speeds of the hazardous part of the robot based on the biomechanical properties of the person or of individual extremities and to take them into account in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot (Rosenstrauch: Page 742 Section III Experiment, Subsection A Experimental Setup, Equations 1-10, “As described above in this case risk reduction is achieved by limiting the maximum force and torque of the robot system which in turn is effected by limiting power and speed. The required values are either given in ISO/TS 15066 [ 17] or determined by equations also given in [17] accordingly. The maximum permissible pressure and force for this particular body area and the case of a quasi-static contact has to be limited:”, “These limits (given [17]) are double in case of a in transient contact. The maximum relative speed between human and robot can be calculated:”, “where mif shall be assumed with 0.6kg for a human hand and mR is the sum of half of the total mass of the moving parts of the robot and the effective payload, all together estimated to 15kg. k is called effective spring constant and for the back of a hand given with 75 N/mm. The maximum transfer energy E allowed during a transient contact is limited to 0,49J. The transferred energy is related to the robot speed:”, “The maximum speed Vmax, is either is limited to its direct calculation (9) or results out of the maximal allowed transfer energy (6):”. The cited passages clearly teach determining the permitted speed of the robot given the biomechanical properties of an extremity of a person.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the system for monitoring a hazard zone of a robot taught in Harberer in view of Doettling in further view of Wartenberg with teach wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of biomechanical properties of the person or of individual extremities and to calculate permitted speeds of the hazardous part of the robot based on the biomechanical properties of the person or of individual extremities and to take them into account in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot taught in Rosenstrauch with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of biomechanical properties in the control of robot kinematics allows the robot to comply with international safety standards for human-robot-collaboration that state any contact should not create an injury (Rosenstrauch: Page 741, Section II Technical Specification ISO/TS 15066, “The technical specification ISO/TS 15066 is not a standard, it rather updates the state of the art in existing robot safety standards. Now it is accepted as best practise in addition to DIN EN 10218 regarding human-robot collaboration. While DIN EN I 0218 states that any contact "should not create an injury", TSO/TS 15066 names limits for force and speed to comply that.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pages 13-15 Applicant argues that the prior art on record fails to teach the limitations of the amended independent claims, specifically that the prior art fails to teach the limitation “and wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is configured to take account of the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities and to add additional 3D butter zones based on the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities, with the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot, and with said 3D buffer zone additionally surrounding the protected zone.”, drawn from the original dependent claim 9. Specifically on Pages 14-15, Applicant argues that Wartenberg fails to teach the limitation “and wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is configured to take account of the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities and to add additional 3D butter zones based on the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities, with the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot, and with said 3D buffer zone additionally surrounding the protected zone.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claim 1 and 12 and in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claim 9 in the previous Non-Final Office Action mailed August 25th, 2025, Wartenberg teaches wherein the robot controller and/or the control and evaluation unit is/are configured to take account of the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities (Wartenberg: Column 21 lines 1-32) and to add additional 3D buffer zones based on the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities, with the volume of the person or the volume of individual extremities having the additional 3D buffer zones being considered in the kinematics of the hazardous part of the robot (Wartenberg: Column 24 lines 13-33, Column 28 lines 1-22), and with said 3D buffer zone additionally surrounding the protected zone (Wartenberg: Figure 13, Column 30 lines 3-40). The cited passages of Wartenberg clearly teaches that the system is configured to create an additional 3D buffer (termed a “keep-out” zone) using the potential occupancy envelope (POE) of a human. As is apparent from the cited passages, the POE defines a volume around a human that is determined based on the volume of said human, which can additionally be extended to the reachable area of the human, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize would require taking into account the size and volume of the extremities as well. Additionally, as is detailed in Figure 13 and Column 30 lines 3-40, the POE of the human is used to define additionally buffer zones (i.e. zones 1304 and 1306) around the protected zone (i.e. danger zone 1302) in which the robot may move at different speed or stop entirely if a human enters one of these zones. Therefore it is clear that the combination of Harberer in view of Doettling in further view of Wartenberg teaches the limitations of the amended independent claims 1 and 12.
Therefore, for the reasons stated herein and in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the independent claims 1 and 12 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah W Stiebritz whose telephone number is (571)272-3414. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.W.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/TRUC M DO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658