DETAILED ACTION
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 Remarks
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejections of the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejections of the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive..
The claims are not as narrow as Applicant appears to believe, particularly due to the vague and/or non-specific terms and phrasings used.
The meaning of the phrase “protective field” is particularly broad and appears defined more by its intended purpose and its final condition or state. Applicant uses the term to refer to an area or volume which only meets the meaning of the term “protective” with respect to its final and implemented state. As disclosed, the “protective field” is not actually a protective field in any aspect until after a finalized field is determined and “protective” measures of some sort enforced with respect to said field. The claims must be interpreted within said context, which generally means that they refer to the eventual or future “protective field”.
See for example the “teach-in phase” of Page 4 of Applicant’s specification wherein the robot is operated in what is still referred to as a “protective field” regardless of it not being enforced as such for obvious reasons (the robot would violate the field during teaching). See also “The protective field actually monitored is then the (new or remaining) protective field after the occupied space has been removed and the inner boundary has been created” (emphasis added) of the same page.
Therefore, when referring to “the protective field” it is clear it is with respect to a final monitored “field” with enforced “protective” states. This consequently colors the meaning of all related limitation.
While the protective field “has an outer boundary” and is defined “between the inner boundary and the outer boundary”, the claims are wholly open to the nature of the outer boundary and inner boundary and these only refer to the final state of a protective field. Furthermore, the “such that” clause appears to only indicate the nature of the “protective field” and does not actually appear to limit the “defining …” limitation.
The term “removing” remains abstract and subjective, particularly in the present context of dividing a space into areas of eventual differing protective enforcement (i.e. a “protective field”). An area that is not subject to particular monitoring, protective enforcement, etc. is removed therefrom. In other words, excluding any area or region from a protective measure is removing said area or region from any related protective enforcement.
Therefore, for the above reasons, Kriveshko clearly continues to read on the claim limitations. The claims provide limitations which define the nature of an eventual “protective field”, and then provide limitations directed towards actual implementation thereof.
Kriveshko discloses monitoring of a 3D workspace having dimensions ([0014] “workspace parameters, such as the dimensions thereof”). The monitoring of the workspace is likewise bounded by the sensor employed in monitoring “each of the sensors being associated with a grid of pixels for recording images of a portion of the workspace within a sensor field of view” ([0019]). Kriveshko also discloses narrower workspace areas, for example virtual volumes in the workspace [0094]. See also Applicant’s disclosure which makes it clear that a “protective field” (in the final sense, see above) is a truncation of the areas of concern/enforced protective measures in a monitored area. An original area, volume, etc. having boundaries exists in Kriveshko (though Examiner notes the claim is only concerned with the “protective field” having an outer boundary, not with some initial field/area having one).
Kriveshko determines various zones or regions of particular interest, including those related to humans and machinery. One particular approach is to successively simulate ([0093]) or actually operate ([0094]) a machinery/robot through an activity to determine a swept volume (collection of occupied spaces) or variation thereof. This swept volume may be used in the creation of zones such as keep-in zones and keep-out zones ([0013]). A keep-in zone sets all area outside of the zone as under protective measures/monitoring. As the “protective field” as disclosed by Applicant means the area under which such measures/monitoring occurs, this means this area has been removed.
Kriveshko further discloses that further zones may exist, for example “a plurality of nested, spatially distinct 3D subzones” as shown in Figure 13. Zones 1306 and 1304 are defined by the inner regions (1304 and 1302 respectively) not being included in those zones consideration, or in other words being removed from those zones. These zones further truncate the monitored area and provide 3D regions for response to both robot and human intrusion thereof. Again, the claims are not particular in any respect to the origin of the outer boundary. Furthermore, Applicant’s disclosure appears to disclose either arbitrary selection, or stretching of a swept volume, which would appear to be both disclosed for outer boundaries.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites “the same one of the robot positions”. It should recite “a same one of the robot positions”, “the” having no antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites “wherein, for each of the different robot positions, the respective space occupied by the robot is determined after a predetermined time has elapsed and/or after a change in the respective robot position by a predetermined value”.
Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported as suggested per several section of MPEP 2163, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation in the application as filed. Specifically, Examiner could not find where Applicant discloses that the information for a given position is decoupled from that actual position. See 112(b) rejection below
Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites “wherein, for each of the different robot positions, the respective space occupied by the robot is determined after a predetermined time has elapsed and/or after a change in the respective robot position by a predetermined value”. The time and position of a respective robot position and the space occupied thereof should match. However, these claim limitations recite an effective decoupling of the two. The term “respective” refers to the coupling between robot position and space occupied, however the claim indicates a desynchronization and non-matching positions. For example, it is extremely unclear how a space occupied by the robot for a particular robot position can actually be for that particular robot position when it is not actually in said robot position. Furthermore, Applicant does not appear to disclose this feature, instead appearing to disclose shared position determining (See 112(a) rejection above).
In the interest of compact prosecution, and in light of what Examiner believes was actually attempted to be claimed, the limitations have instead been interpreted as reading:
“wherein, the different robot positions of the robot differ in a position of the robot by a predetermined value, and/or the different robot positions occur at different points in time, each having a minimum predetermined time interval between neighboring points in time” or similar.
Examiner notes that the above interpretation has not been carefully reviewed for support in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the increase of the size of the inner boundary is increased by a stretching”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 recites “increases a size of the inner boundary”. Claim 15 makes it unclear if the activity of “successive removal” of Claims 1 and 14 itself involves now further involves “stretching” or if the size of the inner boundary separately and after initial generation is then “increased by a stretching”.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted as reading “wherein the size of the inner boundary defined by the successive removal of each of the respective spaces is increased by a stretching”.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim exhibits identical issues to Claim 15 above.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted as reading “wherein the size of the inner boundary defined by the successive removal of each of the respective spaces is increased by an isotropic stretching”.
Claim Interpretation
General Note:
Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s specification and was unable to identify any disclosure specifically and particularly describing the noun phrase “protective field”. Furthermore, the phrase appears to be used to refer to all stages of the same “field”, regardless of its changing nature over its development.
The phrase has thus been given its plain meaning, or in other words, ordinary and customary meaning in accordance with MPEP 2111, which based on the dictionary definitions of the terms used is one of an area, zone, region, or other similar defined location having a perimeter which is intended to keep someone or something safe from injury or damage. Examiner notes that such a definition is highly open to interpretation, and furthermore that many of Applicant’s claim limitations appear to be open to extremely broad interpretation as they refer to said field.
For example, what is considered within, inside, without, outside, etc. appears to be particularly subjective. See for example page 2 of Applicant’s specification which recites “Removing the occupied space from the protective field results in a cut-out in the protective field that lies within the outer boundary of the protective field” or the statements on Page 5 which recites “The statement that the robot is operated "in the protective field" is in particular to be understood as the outer boundary of the protective field at least regionally surrounding the robot and/or the protective field safeguarding the robot” wherein the first statement indicates that “in” does not literally mean “in” as Applicant defines an inner boundary, but can also mean such things as surround, encapsulate, etc. and the second statement is so broad as to include any level of “safeguarding” as consequently meaning “in”.
112(f)
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:
Robot controller of Claim 24
Monitoring Device of Claim 24
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 12, 14 – 18, 21, and 24 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kriveshko et al. (US 20210053225 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kriveshko teaches:
A method for monitoring the operation of a robot in a protective field (See at least “workspace” or “workcell” throughout disclosure, or alternatively or additionally computed POE 910, or alternatively or additionally at minimum outer zone 1306 of the zones 1302 through 1306. Examiner notes that due to “protective field” being open to such broad interpretation other parts of the disclosure might readily read on the limitation), wherein the protective field has an outer boundary (See at least Figure 13, [0014] “workspace parameters, such as the dimensions thereof” and [0019] “each of the sensors being associated with a grid of pixels for recording images of a portion of the workspace within a sensor field of view”), comprising:
for different robot positions of the robot, determining respective spaces occupied by the robot (See at least [0012] “In various embodiments, the spatial regions potentially occupied by any portion of the robot (or other machinery) and the human operator within a defined time interval or during performance of all or a defined portion of a task or an application are generated, e.g., calculated dynamically and, if desired, represented visually. These “potential occupancy envelopes” (POEs) may be based on the states (e.g., the current and expected positions, velocities, accelerations, geometry and/or kinematics) of the robot and the human operator”),
defining an inner boundary of the protective field by successively removing each of the respective spaces occupied by the robot from the protective field, such that the protective field is defined between the inner boundary and the outer boundary (Examiner notes that neither the nature of “respective spaces” or of the verb “removing” are claimed with any particularity. For example, Page 3 of Applicant’s disclosure is more specific and indicates a condition of overlap and volume (“regions that belong to both the protective field and the robot volume”). Consequently, the terms and phrasing are particularly broad. For example a “respective space” is not limited to the entire volume occupied by a robot, or necessarily even where the robot is exactly located, and what is considered as “removing” can be highly subjective based on perspective.
See at least variously disclosed “keep-in zone” which is “based on the POE” ([0110]) which results in an area the robot must operate in, and the area outside as the area it cannot. In other words, it removes the area from a greater area in at least one form of protective monitoring or removes the area not in the zone from robot operation, or removes the area in the zone from restricted operation, etc. depending on perspective. For example, [0013] “In some embodiments, a “keep-in” zone and/or a “keep-out” zone associated with the robot can be defined, e.g., based on the POEs of the robot and human operator. In the former case, operation of the robot is constrained so that all portions of the robot and workpieces remain within the spatial region defined by the keep-in zone … Based on the POEs of the robot and human operator and/or the keep-in/keep-out zones, movement of the robot during physical performance of the activity may be restricted in order to ensure safety” (emphasis added). See especially Figure 13 and associated disclosure in [0123] for teachings which read on more narrow interpretations of the claims)
monitoring the protective field (See at least Figure 1 and [0080] “sensor system 101 … monitoring the workspace”);
transmitting a signal when the robot and/or an object enters the protective field; and
controlling movement of the robot in response to the signal to implement a safety related measure (See at least [0117] “when the robot violates the safety measures specified in the safety protocol, OMS 1010 may issue commands to the robot controller 1004 … For example, upon determining that the robot … is outside the keep-in zone … OMS 1010 may … issue a command to … to reduce the robot speed to a desired value”)
Regarding Claim 2, Kriveshko teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein the robot is an articulated arm robot (See at least [0005] “In general, robot arms comprise a number of mechanical links connected by revolute and prismatic joints that can be precisely controlled”. Examiner furthermore notes that this is common knowledge to one of ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding Claim 3, Kriveshko teaches:
The method according to claim 2,
wherein the articulated arm robot has 6 axes (See various figures, in particular Figure 13. Examiner furthermore notes that this is common knowledge to one of ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding Claim 4, Kriveshko teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein the robot moves at least partly within the outer boundary of the protective field (See “protective field” related disclosure of Claim 1 above. This feature is readily disclosed, particularly wherein it reads “at least partly”).
Regarding Claim 5, Kriveshko teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein, for each of the different robot positions, the respective space occupied by the robot is determined after a predetermined time has elapsed (See at least [0091] “the POE 306 is effectively updated on a quasi-continuous basis in real time” and [0106] “In various embodiments, based on the updated poses, moving directions, velocities and/or accelerations, the POEs of the machinery and operator in the next moment (i.e., after a time increment) can be computed and updated” and/or [0085] “a movement prediction module 245 may predict movements of the machinery and/or the human operator within a defined future interval (e.g., 0.1 sec, 0.5 sec, 1 sec, etc.)”) and/or after a change in the respective robot position by a predetermined value (See at least [0123] “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”. Examiner notes that neither “predetermined time” or “predetermine value” are defined and are inclusive therefore of all values).
Regarding Claim 6, Kriveshko teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein the space occupied by the robot between two successive ones (Examiner notes that the claims do not establish any particular order and therefore “successive” does not appear to further narrow the scope under BRI) of the different robot positions is extrapolated and is also removed from the protective field (See at least [0093] and [0094] discussing determining a swept volume or “task/application level POE” based on simulating or actually operating the robot through an activity. It is common knowledge to extrapolate or interpolate information including positions between data points, and given the smooth nature of all of the drawings should be considered as inherently occurring.
Alternatively, Kriveshko also teaches forward prediction and extrapolation. See at least [0124] “Additionally or alternatively, state estimation techniques based on information detected by the sensor system 101 can be used to project the movements of the human and other objects forward in time” and/or [0126] “In a fourth step 1428, the control system (e.g., the movement-prediction module 245) predicts movements of the machinery and/or operator within a defined future interval when performing the task/application. For example, the movement-prediction module 245 may utilize the current states of the machinery and the operator and identification parameters characterizing the geometry and kinematics of the machinery (e.g., based on the machinery model) and the operator to predict all possible spatial regions that may be occupied by any portion of the machinery and any portion of the human operator within the defined interval when performing the task/application. In a fifth step 1430, based on the predicted movements of the machinery and the operator, the mapping module 246 creates the POEs of the machinery and the human operator”) to define the inner boundary (See the preceding, however this does not appear to be a positively recited limitation and appears to merely indicate an intended result or purpose of the preceding limitations).
Regarding Claim 7, Kriveshko teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein the protective field is monitored by a sensor system that comprises at least one sensor (See at least sensor system 101 and Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Kriveshko teaches:
The method according to claim 7,
wherein the at least one sensor is arranged separately and/or spaced apart from the robot (See at least sensor system 101 and Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Kriveshko teaches:
The method according to claim 7,
wherein each of the respective spaces occupied by the robot is at least partly determined by means of the sensor system (See at least [0080] “The mode of operation of the sensors 102.sub.1-3 is not critical so long as a 3D representation of the workspace 100 is obtainable from images or other data obtained by the sensors 102.sub.1-3. The sensors 102.sub.1-3 may collectively cover and can monitor the entire workspace (or at least a portion thereof) 100, which includes a robot 106 controlled by a conventional robot controller 108”).
Regarding Claim 10, Kriveshko teaches:
The method according to claim 9,
wherein each of the respective spaces occupied by the robot is at least partly determined by multiple measurements in the same one of the robot positions (Examiner notes that “robot positions” is not particularly claimed or defined and therefore this limitation is readily disclosed through several features. First, the robot, even with a sliding base or other additional degree of freedom, is limited to a particular total swept volume 904 and therefore limited to a general location. Second, the base of the robot for a robot having no ability to relocate what is typically considered its base, has a singular location. Third, see Figure 1 wherein the more than one sensor might be utilized. See also at least [0012] and [0015] as needed).
Regarding Claim 11, Kriveshko teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein each of the respective spaces occupied by the robot is at least partly determined by means of simulation (See at least [0125] “[0125] 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.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Kriveshko teaches:
The method according to claim 11,
wherein each of the respective spaces occupied by the robot is at least partly determined by estimation (Examiner notes that wherein the nature of “estimation” is not claimed as in Claim 13, there does not appear to be a clear distinction from Claim 11. One of ordinary skill in the art would consider all simulation as a form of “estimation” as it is by its very nature not real and only an approximation or estimation).
Regarding Claim 14, Kriveshko teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein the successive removal of each of the respective spaces occupied by the robot increases a size of the inner boundary (As provided in Claim 1, the inner boundary is defined by the above action (successive removal of…). Furthermore, there is no requirement that an inner boundary initially exist prior to this activity or a size. Therefore, by simply existing when it did not before, a size of the inner boundary is increased (from 0 or nothing, to something). See also [0093] and [0094]. Each point in time over a particular moving trajectory increases the size of a POE).
Regarding Claim 15, Kriveshko teaches:
The method according to claim 14,
wherein the increase of the size of the inner boundary is increased by a stretching (See “slight padding/offset of the total swept volume 904” of [0112] or POE 906 or keep-in zone 908 in Figure 9B or POE 912 of Figure 9A).
Regarding Claim 16, Kriveshko teaches:
The method according to claim 14,
wherein the increase of the size of the inner boundary is increased by an isotropic stretching (Examiner notes that “isotropic stretching” is not clearly defined or even disclosed. Therefore, based on the plain English meaning of the terms used, see again the “slight padding/offset of the total swept volume 904” of [0112] or POE 906 or keep-in zone 908 in Figure 9B or POE 912 of Figure 9A)),
Regarding Claim 17, Kriveshko teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein the inner and/or the outer boundary of the protective field has an irregular shape (See almost all Figures).
Regarding Claim 18, Kriveshko teaches:
The method according to claim 17,
wherein the irregular shape is defined by extruded polygons and/or triangles of the same shape (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase “of the same shape” does not add any distinction to “triangles”, as if they are “triangles” they are already of the same shape (a triangle). Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to provide any disclosure whatsoever which might further inform the meaning of this phrase to any other interpretation, let alone change the BRI.
See at least [0081] “The volume of space covered by each sensor—typically a solid truncated pyramid or solid frustum—may be represented in any suitable fashion, e.g., the space may be divided into a 3D grid of small (5 cm, for example) voxels or other suitable form of volumetric representation. For example, a 3D representation of the workspace 100 may be generated using 2D or 3D ray tracing” and [0110] “To overcome this challenge and optimize the moving path of the machinery for performing a task, various embodiments establish and store in memory the swept volume of the machinery (including, for example, robot links, end effectors and workpieces) throughout a programmed routine (e.g., a POE of the machinery), and then define the keep-in zone based on the POE as a detailed volume composed of, e.g., mesh surfaces, NURBS or T-spline solid bodies. That is, the keep-in zone may be arbitrary in shape and not assembled from base prismatic volumes”).
Regarding Claim 21, Kriveshko teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein the determination of each of the respective spaces occupied by the robot and the removal thereof from the protective field take place automatically (See at least Claim 1. Examiner notes that all operations are performed by computing components).
Regarding Claim 24 and 26, the claims appear to recite the limitations/features as Claims 1 and 25, except for the recitation of particular structural components such as “a robot”, “a robot control”, and a “a monitoring device”. Therefore, Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under the same logic as Claim 1 above and Claim 25 below with respect to prior art, as these additional features are disclosed in at least Figure 1.
Regarding Claim 25, Kriveshko teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein the safety-related measure comprises slowing the movement of the robot or stopping the robot (See at least “a safety stop or slowdown” of [0111] or [0118]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kriveshko et al. in view of Watabe et al. (US 20240149458 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Kriveshko teaches:
The method according to claim 12,
Kriveshko does not explicitly teach:
Wherein each of the respective spaces occupied by the robot is at least partly determined by means of a Kalman filter (See at least [0379] “The trajectory prediction unit 2046 may sequentially predict the position of the effector using, for example, a Kalman filter”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a Kalman filter in the prediction/simulation/etc. techniques of Kriveshko as disclosed by Watabe with a reasonable expectation of success. The use of Kalman filters for predicting robotic states based on robot sensor data is well-known and routine.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657