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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 07/07/2026. Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claim 4 is canceled. Claims 10-11 are newly added.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/07/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et. al. (W.O. Publication No. 2021/025660)-IDS in view of Hammes et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0232102) in further view of Pilz et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0105788).
Regarding claim 1 and similarly with respect to claim 9
Johnson discloses “A system for monitoring a hazardous zone of a machine, comprising: at least one sensor having at least one spatial monitored zone for monitoring the hazardous zone,” (See Johnson [0050] disclosing a machine sensor, an optical camera device, and a TOF or LIDAR device, each provided as a part of a personnel safety system for a human within a hazardous environment of a machine, see Johnson [0033].).
Johnson discloses “and a control and evaluation unit,” (See instant application Fig. 1, Char. 6 and specification disclosing the unit as a generic control unit.) (See Johnson [0050] disclosing a personnel safety management device. The personnel safety management device incudes a processor, see Johnson Fig. 2, Char. 262.).
Johnson discloses “wherein the at least one sensor is configured to cyclically transmit 3D data of the monitored zone to the control and evaluation unit” (See Johnson [0055] and [0059] disclosing the optical sensor and TOF or LIDAR device can extract a three-dimensional point cloud of the scene of interest. The sensors communicate the data, over exemplified time periods, to the personnel safety management device via a network, see Johnson [0098]-[0099] & Fig. 2, Chars. 210, 220, 202 and 260.).
Johnson discloses “wherein the sensor is further configured to generate at least one protected zone in the monitored zone” (See instant application specification disclosing the protected zone as a monitored zone to protect a person by initiating a shutdown or a slowdown procedure on the basis of a distance threshold to mitigate a stoppage of work.) (See Johnson [0068] disclosing data from the machine sensor may be used to define virtual zones. A breach of the first or second virtual zone may result in a slow-down or shutdown of the machine, see Johnson [0038].).
Johnson discloses “wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to compare the received 3D data of the monitored zone with known position data of the machine and to check them for agreement;” (See Johnson [0081]-[0083] disclosing the personnel safety management device may compare the position data from a machine sensor with the data from the TOF or LIDAR device to identify a match.).
Johnson discloses “wherein the control and evaluation unit Is configured to localize objects in the monitored zone of the at least one sensor with reference to the 3D data and to determine their distance from the dangerous part of the machine,” (See Johnson [0057]-[0058] disclosing the personnel safety management device may include a neural network, which can be trained to determine or estimate the location of the human with respect to the machine in the hazardous environment based on the images captured by the optical camera device.).
Johnson discloses “and wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to compare the received 3D image data of the monitored zone of the at least one sensor with known position data of the environment and to check them for agreement.” (See Johnson [0081]-[0083] disclosing the personnel safety management device may compare the position data from a machine sensor with the data from the TOF or LIDAR device to identify a match.).
Johnson discloses all the elements of claim 1 except “wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one safe 3D camera,”, “wherein the 3D data are 3D image data,”, “wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to bridge the at least one sensor having the protected zone as long as there is an agreement of the position data and not to bridge the sensor having the protected zone if there is no agreement of the position data, and”, & “wherein the control and evaluation unit is further configured not to bridge the at least one sensor having the protected zone if the distance of objects from at least one dangerous part of the machine falls below predefined first distance values,”
Pilz discloses “wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one safe 3D camera,” (See Pilz [0072] and Fig. 1, Char. 12 disclosing a sensor system for detecting people and mobile units in an area surrounding a technical installation, such as a robotic manipulator, including 3-dimensional safety camera systems.).
Pilz discloses “wherein the 3D data are 3D image data,” (Pilz [0072] disclosing a 3-dimensional safety camera system. Cameras provide image data).
Johnson and Pilz are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotics. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnson, to incorporate the teachings of Pilz to include a safe 3D camera system for providing image data in the area of a robotic manipulator. Doing so provides known techniques in the art for safety and monitoring systems, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as it advantageously provides a safety system that may utilize existing sensors without having to add new sensors to the system thereby, the costs for an inventive safety system can be reduced advantageously, see Pilz [0024].
Hammes discloses “wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to bridge the at least one sensor having the protected zone as long as there is an agreement of the position data and not to bridge the sensor having the protected zone if there is no agreement of the position data, and” (See Hammes [0034]-[0035] & [0039] disclosing muting or bridging a sensor so long as there is an agreement of known position data and a sensor.).
Hammes discloses “wherein the control and evaluation unit is further configured not to bridge the at least one sensor having the protected zone if the distance of objects from at least one dangerous part of the machine falls below predefined first distance values,” (See Hammes [0067] & [0074] disclosing not muting or bridging a sensor which is providing a distance measurement.).
Johnson and Hammes are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotics. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnson, to incorporate the teachings of Hammes to include bridging or muting sensors based on an agreement of position data or a detection of some distance. Doing so provides known techniques in the art for safety and monitoring systems, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as it advantageously provides machine control to optionally make use of the position data of the object or person for the situation based safeguarding of the machine enabling a safe distinction of a permitted person or a permitted object and an unauthorized person or unauthorized object see Hammes [0010] and [0035].
Regarding claim 2
Johnson discloses “The system in accordance with claim 1, wherein a first sensor is configured as a sensor to cyclically deliver 3D data of the monitored zone to the control and evaluation unit and a second sensor is configured as a sensor to generate the protected zone.” (See Johnson [0050] disclosing a machine sensor, an optical camera device, and a TOF or LIDAR device, each provided as a part of a personnel safety system for a human within a hazardous environment of a machine, see Johnson [0033].).
Regarding claim 3
Johnson discloses “The system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to cause at least a part of the machine to carry out an evasive movement if the distance of objects from a dangerous part the machine falls below predefined second distance values.” (See Johnson [0081] disclosing the personnel safety management device may compare the position data from a machine sensor with the data from the TOF or LIDAR device.).
Regarding claim 5
Johnson discloses “The system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to compare the received 3D data of the monitored zone of the sensor with position data of further arranged sensors and to check them for agreement.” (See Johnson [0081]-[0083] disclosing the personnel safety management device may compare the position data from a machine sensor with the data from the TOF or LIDAR device to identify a match. The machine sensor corresponds to position data of further arranged sensors.).
Regarding claim 6
Johnson discloses “The system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to activate the protected zone when the dangerous part of the machine is in an unpermitted position.” (See Johnson [0075] disclosing performing a remedial action when detecting or determining an overlap or imminent overlap in the location or motion of personnel such as the human, and that of the machine.).
Regarding claim 7
Johnson discloses “The system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the machine is a mobile machine or a fixed position machine.” (See Johnson Fig. 1, Char. 110 and [0033] disclosing the machine may move along a linear pathway.).
Regarding claim 8
Johnson discloses “The system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the machine is a robot and the hazardous zone of the machine is a hazardous zone of the robot.” (See Johnson Fig. 1, Chars. 110, 114, and 112 and [0018] disclosing the machine as an automated tool subsystem (robot) and [0033] disclosing the virtual boundaries may be disposed, for example, partially about the machine or in any other suitable configuration in relation to the machine.).
Regarding claim 10 and similarly with respect to claim 11
Johnson modified in view of Hammes and Pilz discloses “The system in accordance with claim 1,”, and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the at least one sensor consists of the at least one safe 3D camera.”
Pilz discloses “wherein the at least one sensor consists of the at least one safe 3D camera..” (See Pilz [0072] and Fig. 1, Char. 12 disclosing a sensor system for detecting people and mobile units in an area surrounding a technical installation, such as a robotic manipulator, including 3-dimensional safety camera systems.).
The rationale for forming the combination is similar to the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights