DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
This office action is in response to amendments filed 01/28/2026. Claims 1-23 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments to the claims with respect to rejections of Claims 1-22 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and but are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Hoffman as modified by Szarski fails to teach the claimed teach-in mode, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments focus on Szarski not teaching a teach-in mode where movement is continued as position data of the environment is collected. First, Szarski is not relied upon to teach this feature, as primary reference Hoffman discloses this feature at least in par. 0045 (see mapping below). Szarski is merely relied upon to teach the control scheme to enter and exit the teach-in mode. Second, Szarski says that normal operation of the robot is paused before starting a revised scan of the environment (see par. 0075). Szarski does not disclose or imply that the robot must be stationary throughout the revised scanning process. Par. 0079 of Szarski clarifies that the robots are piloted along the floor surface while recording scans to develop a computer representation of the environment.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that Hoffmann and Szarski cannot be combined as their control schemes directly contradict each other, examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, Szarski does disclose the robots moving while continually scanning the environment to determine a computer representation. Additionally, Szarski is only relied upon to teach the control scheme to enter and exit the teach-in mode taught by Hoffmann. Even if Szarski did state that the robots were required to stay stationary throughout a revised scan, which it does not, the references would still be combinable as there is no reason why triggers for starting or stopping a stationary revised scan could not be applied to start or stop a moving revised scan.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 10, 12-17, 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann et al (EP3988256, hereinafter Hofmann, see attached translation) in view of Szarski et al (US 20190291275, hereinafter Szarski)
Regarding Claim 1, Hofmann teaches:
a method for the safe operation of a machine that has a movable machine part comprising a hazardous section (see at least "This is a computer-implemented method that runs, for example, in its own safety controller that is connected to the at least one distance sensor and the machine. An implementation in machine control or a distributed implementation is also conceivable." in par. 0020),
wherein the method comprises:
the movable machine part moving according to a sequence program predefined for the machine (see at least "During operation, the distance values measured by the distance sensors 12 a- bare compared to distance thresholds. Depending on the position of the robot arm 10 on its movement path, fixed, predefined distance thresholds (DSDT, Default Safety Distance Threshold) or adapted distance thresholds (ASDT, Application-Specific Distance Threshold) are used for this purpose." in par. 0043) ; and
an environment of the hazardous section being monitored (see at least "The external camera 30 preferably monitors the robot arm 10 and its surroundings in a stationary manner from a fixed outside perspective. It would also be possible to move the external camera 30 and thus successively record the topography. This is because shadowing can occur as a result of the central perspective of the external camera 30, and the topography is incompletely captured from only one external perspective. Such gaps can be plausiblely filled by inter- or extrapolation or by previous detections. Insofar as the robot arm 10 itself is the cause of the shading, it can be moved at least during a preliminary detection of the topography in order to shadow and release other regions in each case." in par. 0052) ,
wherein, in the event of an engagement of an object into a defined protective volume within the monitored environment, a safety-related reaction is triggered that comprises the movement of the movable machine part being stopped if the engagement exceeds a defined engagement threshold of the protective volume (see at least "If a person, for example, grasps the region secured by means of the protective bell 16 with his hand 18 and thus interrupts one of the sight beams 14 at a shorter distance than the associated distance threshold, the protective bell 16 is considered to be injured. Therefore, a safety-directed reaction of the robot 10 is triggered, which may consist of a deceleration, avoidance or an emergency stop depending on the violated distance thresholds." in par. 0044) ;
wherein the protective volume is variable, namely depending on the current position of the hazardous section, to permit a scheduled approach of the hazardous section to one or more objects (see at least "As already mentioned, the distance thresholds are preferably set to a predefined fixed value during a movement of the robot arm 10 in the free space. The protective bell 16 thus has a fixed extension. However, if the end effector approaches a working surface 20 or an object 22, the protective bell 16 would virtually abut and incorrectly trigger the safety function. Therefore, the distance thresholds are successively reduced in such phases of the approach and are extended again during the subsequent rearward movement." in par. 0045) , and
wherein the protective volume is taught:
in that an initial protective volume is first predefined (see at least "As already mentioned, the distance thresholds are preferably set to a predefined fixed value during a movement of the robot arm 10 in the free space. The protective bell 16 thus has a fixed extension. " in par. 0045 ) ;
in that the machine is controlled so that the movable machine part moves according to the predefined sequence program while the environment of the hazardous section is monitored (see at least "As already mentioned, the distance thresholds are preferably set to a predefined fixed value during a movement of the robot arm 10 in the free space. The protective bell 16 thus has a fixed extension. However, if the end effector approaches a working surface 20 or an object 22, the protective bell 16 would virtually abut and incorrectly trigger the safety function. Therefore, the distance thresholds are successively reduced in such phases of the approach and are extended again during the subsequent rearward movement." in par. 0045) ;
the movement is continued and position data of objects in the environment of the hazardous section are acquired in so doing and the protective volume is defined based on the acquired position data (see at least " FIG. 4 shows an exemplary topography or 3D contour of the environment of the robot arm 10 with a virtual protective bell 16 adapted thereto. the topography is determined by the working surface 20 and objects 22 located thereon, wherein an elevation 32 is shown here by way of example for arbitrary 3D contours. The protective bell 16 is illustrated in this example by protective surfaces which can be regarded as viewing beams 14 with a particular cross section or can also be scanned by geometric beams. The topography is known by preliminary measurement and/or continuous measurement using at least one topography sensor according to FIG. 3 or in another way, for example from a 3D or CAD model of the robot cell of the robot arm 10. " in par. 0056)
Hofmann does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Szarski does teach:
in that, if the movement of the movable machine part is stopped as a result of an object engaging into the initial protective volume (see at least " In this regard, the processor 204 of the robotic system 100 may be configured to autonomously stop movement of a robotic arm 106 and/or an end effector 110 upon the occurrence of an arm stopping condition. In the present disclosure, an arm stopping condition may be described as the occurrence of contact of a robotic arm 106 and/or end effector 110 with an object other than the operating surface 308 of the workpiece 300. For example, contact of the robotic arm 106 and/or end effector 110 with a stationary object (e.g., any surface other the than the operating surface 308 of the workpiece 300) or a movable object (e.g., another robot, a human, etc.) may cause the robot 102 to autonomously stop all movement. In another example, the movement of the mobile base 104 along the floor surface 352 may be autonomously stop upon the occurrence of a base stopping condition. In the present disclosure, a base stopping condition may occur upon the detection of any object that is on a collision course with the mobile base 104 and is within a certain distance of the robot 102. A base stopping condition may be determined by the processor 204 based on imaging data or other sensor input from the robot 102. Upon determining the existence of a base stopping condition, the processor 204 may be stop movement of the mobile base 104 prior to eminent collision of the robot 102 with the object." in par. 0080) ,
a teach-in mode can be started by means of a first user input, in which teach-in mode position data of objects in the environment of the hazardous section are acquired in so doing (see at least " In some examples, the robotic system 100 may be configured to allow for manual pausing of the robot operations at any point. Such manual pausing may allow for manual entry of data such as allowing for a revised scan by the robot 102 of the physical environment 350 for updating the world map 242." in par. 0075) ;
in that the teach-in mode can be terminated by means of a second user input (see at least " the method may include autonomously or manually restarting operation of the robot 102 at the step or phase during which the movement was stopped" in par. 0096) ; and
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Hofmann to incorporate the teachings of Szarski wherein a user can pause the robot and cause it to enter a mode where it rescans the environment to update the world map. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Szarski would be to reduce the risk of colliding with workpieces in the robot’s environment (see par. 0068)
Regarding Claim 2, Hofmann as modified by Szarski teaches:
the method according to claim 1,
Hofmann further teaches: wherein the machine is part of a human-robot collaboration (see at least " his applies to all typical collaborative, robot-controlled activities such as gripping, joining, screwing and the like." in par. 0015).
Regarding Claim 3, Hofmann as modified by Szarski teaches:
the method according to claim 1,
Hofmann further teaches: wherein the safety-related reaction comprises the movement of the movable machine part being slowed down if the engagement exceeds a defined further engagement threshold of the protective volume (see at least " Therefore, a safety-directed reaction of the robot 10 is triggered, which may consist of a deceleration, avoidance or an emergency stop depending on the violated distance thresholds." in par. 0044 and “Instead of discrete distance thresholds and safety-directed slowing down or stopping when engaging in the protective beams defined thereby, continuous adaptation of the robot speed is also conceivable. The shortest distance measured is always leading.” In par. 0063).
Regarding Claim 4, Hofmann as modified by Szarski teaches:
the method according to claim 3,
Hofmann further teaches: wherein the engagement thresholds are defined such that the further engagement threshold is exceeded before said engagement threshold (see at least "Therefore, a safety-directed reaction of the robot 10 is triggered, which may consist of a deceleration, avoidance or an emergency stop depending on the violated distance thresholds." in par. 0044 and “Instead of discrete distance thresholds and safety-directed slowing down or stopping when engaging in the protective beams defined thereby, continuous adaptation of the robot speed is also conceivable. The shortest distance measured is always leading.” In par. 0063).
Regarding Claim 7, Hofmann as modified by Szarski teaches:
the method according to claim 1,
Hofmann further teaches: wherein, for those portions of the movement of the movable machine part in which the objects, whose position data were acquired, engage into the initial protective volume, the protective volume is defined by reducing the initial protective volume until these objects no longer engage into it (see at least " Preferably, starting from the maximum distance being less than a minimum distance, the distance threshold is reduced with a reducing maximum distance. In this case, the movable machine part is no longer in the free space but approaches the surrounding contour, and a full-length protective beam corresponding to the preset value has no space. Therefore, the distance threshold is adjusted accordingly and the protective beam is shortened, preferably successively as the surrounding contour continues to be approached. Accordingly, the protective beam is lengthened again as it moves back and is at an increasing distance from the surrounding contour. Shortening upon approach and lengthening upon removal preferably occurs with hysteresis. Again, all of these settings and adjustments to distance thresholds may relate to multiple, all, or only single view beams." in par. 0033 and “As already mentioned, the distance thresholds are preferably set to a predefined fixed value during a movement of the robot arm 10 in the free space. The protective bell 16 thus has a fixed extension. However, if the end effector approaches a working surface 20 or an object 22, the protective bell 16 would virtually abut and incorrectly trigger the safety function. Therefore, the distance thresholds are successively reduced in such phases of the approach and are extended again during the subsequent rearward movement.” In par. 0045).
Regarding Claim 8, Hofmann as modified by Szarski teaches:
the method according to claim 7,
Hofmann further teaches: wherein the protective volume is equated with the initial protective volume for the remaining portions of the movement (see at least " As already mentioned, the distance thresholds are preferably set to a predefined fixed value during a movement of the robot arm 10 in the free space. The protective bell 16 thus has a fixed extension… Therefore, the distance thresholds are successively reduced in such phases of the approach and are extended again during the subsequent rearward movement." in par. 0045).
Regarding Claim 10, Hofmann as modified by Szarski teaches:
the method according to claim 1,
Hofmann does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Szarski does teach:
wherein the movement of the movable machine part is continued in accordance with the sequence program after the termination of the teach-in mode (see at least "the method may include autonomously or manually restarting operation of the robot 102 at the step or phase during which the movement was stopped" in par. 0096).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Hofmann to incorporate the teachings of Szarski wherein a user can pause the robot and cause it to enter a mode where it rescans the environment to update the world map and then restart the automatic operation where it left off. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Szarski would be to reduce the risk of colliding with workpieces in the robot’s environment (see par. 0068)
Regarding Claim 12, Hofmann as modified by Szarski teaches:
the method according to claim 1,
Hofmann does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Szarski does teach:
wherein, if the movement of the movable machine part is stopped as a result of an object engaging into the initial protective volume, a user of the machine is prompted to selectively enter the first user input or a third user input by means of which a continuation of the movement of the movable machine part is enabled in accordance with the sequence program (see at least "the method may include autonomously or manually restarting operation of the robot 102 at the step or phase during which the movement was stopped" in par. 0096).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Hofmann to incorporate the teachings of Szarski wherein a user can pause the robot and cause it to enter a mode where it rescans the environment to update the world map and then restart the automatic operation where it left off. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Szarski would be to reduce the risk of colliding with workpieces in the robot’s environment (see par. 0068)
Regarding Claim 13, Hofmann as modified by Szarski teaches:
the method according to claim 1,
Hofmann further teaches: wherein the environment of the hazardous section is monitored by means of one or more sensors that are moved along with the movable machine part (see at least " Preferably, a topography sensor is moved with the machine part. As a result, the topography sensor assumes an alternating perspective which, in any case, generally advantageously captures precisely the relevant part of the environment of the machine and can correspond to a perspective of the distance sensors or can at least come close to the latter. A movement of the topography sensor is, for example, a camera mounted on the machine part." in par. 0028).
Regarding Claim 14, Hofmann as modified by Szarski teaches:
the method according to claim 13,
Hofmann further teaches: wherein the one or more sensors are one or more non-contact distance sensors (see at least "Preferably, a topography sensor is moved with the machine part. As a result, the topography sensor assumes an alternating perspective which, in any case, generally advantageously captures precisely the relevant part of the environment of the machine and can correspond to a perspective of the distance sensors or can at least come close to the latter. A movement of the topography sensor is, for example, a camera mounted on the machine part." in par. 0028).
Regarding Claim 15, Hofmann as modified by Szarski teaches:
the method according to claim 13,
Hofmann further teaches: wherein the position data are acquired by means of the one or at least one of the plurality of sensors (see at least "Detection with exactly one co-moving camera 28 and one external camera 30 is just one example. One of the cameras 28, 30 can be omitted or additional cameras that are moved along and/or external can be used. By fusion, a complete topography can then be obtained despite shading. In particular, a camera 28 that is moved along is suitable for capturing or updating the topography in the particularly relevant regions in the field of view of the distance sensors 12 a- b. For an optimized computing time, it is sufficient to restrict a dynamic detection of the topography to the relevant areas of the depth map, which, according to heuristic considerations, can actually lie in an extension of the protective bell 16." in par. 0053 ).
Regarding Claim 16, Hofmann as modified by Szarski teaches:
the method according to claim 1,
Hofmann further teaches: wherein the sequence program is independent of the protective volume (see at least " On the basis of this maximum distance, the distance thresholds are now adapted, which define a length of the protective beams and thus of the protective bell 16. These calculations are preferably carried out in real time in the controller 24. the robot arm 10 can approach a surface from any spatial directions with the adapted distance thresholds, while the protective bell 16 always remains sufficiently closed and prevents a dangerous intervention. This adaptation is no longer taught or related to a finite number of changeover points in, in contrast to the prior art." in par. 0058).
Regarding Claim 17, Hofmann as modified by Szarski teaches:
the method according to claim 16,
Hofmann further teaches: wherein the sequence program is not modified by the teaching-in of the protective volume. (see at least "On the basis of this maximum distance, the distance thresholds are now adapted, which define a length of the protective beams and thus of the protective bell 16. These calculations are preferably carried out in real time in the controller 24. the robot arm 10 can approach a surface from any spatial directions with the adapted distance thresholds, while the protective bell 16 always remains sufficiently closed and prevents a dangerous intervention. This adaptation is no longer taught or related to a finite number of changeover points in, in contrast to the prior art." in par. 0058).
Regarding Claim 19, Hofmann as modified by Szarski (references to Hofmann) also teaches:
a machine that has a movable machine part comprising a hazardous section and comprises a control apparatus that is configured to carry out a method for a safe operation of the machine (see at least " FIG. 1 shows an overview of a robot arm 10 to be secured, which cooperates with an operator in a "pick-and-place" scenario. The robot arm 10 and the specific application are examples, and the following explanations are applicable to arbitrary robots and other moving machines and scenarios to be secured, in particular AGCs/AGCs (Automated Guided Vehicle/Container) or drones." in par. 0041 and “The distance values are passed on to a controller 24, within which a function block 26 is responsible for the safety evaluations considered here and which, if necessary, outputs a safe signal to the machine 10 or its controller in order to trigger a safety reaction.” In par. 0048),
wherein the method comprises:
the method of Claim 1 (see Claim 1 analysis for rejection of the method).
Regarding Claim 20, Hofmann as modified by Szarski (references to Hofmann) also teaches:
the machine according to claim 19 that further has one or more sensors that are moved along with the movable machine part (see at least " FIG. 3 shows an overview similar to FIG. 1, but with at least one additional topography sensor for detecting the topography in the environment of the robot arm 10, i.e. in particular the 3D contour formed by working surface 20 and objects 22 on the working surface 20 or the relevant parts thereof. There are numerous possibilities for detecting the topography in advance and/or dynamically during operation." in par. 0050 ) ,
wherein the control apparatus is configured to control the one or more sensors to monitor the environment of the hazardous section (see at least " The operating perspective of the distance sensors 12 a- bwith respect to this topography can be determined from the forward kinematics of the robot arm 10. The corresponding information is transferred, for example, by a robot controller of the robot arm 10. Preferably, the forward kinematics is determined in a safe manner or validated by tests and comparison with other detections. The starting point and direction of the vision beams 14 are also known with the operating perspective of the distance sensors 12 a- b, and thus the entire spatial position of the protective bell 16; it is then possible to calculate the distance at which a respective vision beam 14 intersects the topography, and thus the available maximum distance between the distance sensor 12 a- band the working environment." in par. 0057).
Regarding Claim 21, Hofmann as modified by Szarski (references to Hofmann) also teaches:
the machine according to claim 20
wherein the one or more sensors are one or more non-contact distance sensors (see at least "Detection with exactly one co-moving camera 28 and one external camera 30 is just one example. One of the cameras 28, 30 can be omitted or additional cameras that are moved along and/or external can be used. By fusion, a complete topography can then be obtained despite shading. In particular, a camera 28 that is moved along is suitable for capturing or updating the topography in the particularly relevant regions in the field of view of the distance sensors 12 a- b. For an optimized computing time, it is sufficient to restrict a dynamic detection of the topography to the relevant areas of the depth map, which, according to heuristic considerations, can actually lie in an extension of the protective bell 16." in par. 0053 ).
Regarding Claim 22, Hofmann as modified by Szarski also teaches:
the machine according to claim 20,
Hofmann does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Szarski does teach:
wherein the control apparatus is configured to control the one or at least one of the plurality of sensors to acquire the position data in the teach-in mode (see at least " In some examples, the robotic system 100 may be configured to allow for manual pausing of the robot operations at any point. Such manual pausing may allow for manual entry of data such as allowing for a revised scan by the robot 102 of the physical environment 350 for updating the world map 242." in par. 0075) ;
. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Hofmann to incorporate the teachings of Szarski wherein a user can pause the robot and cause it to enter a mode where it rescans the environment to update the world map. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Szarski would be to reduce the risk of colliding with workpieces in the robot’s environment (see par. 0068)
Regarding Claim 23, Hofmann teaches:
a method for the safe operation of a machine that has a movable machine part comprising a hazardous section, (see at least "This is a computer-implemented method that runs, for example, in its own safety controller that is connected to the at least one distance sensor and the machine. An implementation in machine control or a distributed implementation is also conceivable." in par. 0020) wherein the method comprises:
- the movable machine part moving according to a sequence program predefined for the machine; (see at least "During operation, the distance values measured by the distance sensors 12 a- bare compared to distance thresholds. Depending on the position of the robot arm 10 on its movement path, fixed, predefined distance thresholds (DSDT, Default Safety Distance Threshold) or adapted distance thresholds (ASDT, Application-Specific Distance Threshold) are used for this purpose." in par. 0043) and
- an environment of the hazardous section being monitored(see at least "The external camera 30 preferably monitors the robot arm 10 and its surroundings in a stationary manner from a fixed outside perspective. It would also be possible to move the external camera 30 and thus successively record the topography. This is because shadowing can occur as a result of the central perspective of the external camera 30, and the topography is incompletely captured from only one external perspective. Such gaps can be plausiblely filled by inter- or extrapolation or by previous detections. Insofar as the robot arm 10 itself is the cause of the shading, it can be moved at least during a preliminary detection of the topography in order to shadow and release other regions in each case." in par. 0052),
wherein, in the event of an engagement of an object into a defined protective volume within the monitored environment, a safety-related reaction is triggered that comprises the movement of the movable machine part being stopped if the engagement exceeds a defined engagement threshold of the protective volume (see at least "If a person, for example, grasps the region secured by means of the protective bell 16 with his hand 18 and thus interrupts one of the sight beams 14 at a shorter distance than the associated distance threshold, the protective bell 16 is considered to be injured. Therefore, a safety-directed reaction of the robot 10 is triggered, which may consist of a deceleration, avoidance or an emergency stop depending on the violated distance thresholds." in par. 0044) ;
wherein the protective volume is variable, namely depending on the current position of the hazardous section, to permit a scheduled approach of the hazardous section to one or more objects (see at least "As already mentioned, the distance thresholds are preferably set to a predefined fixed value during a movement of the robot arm 10 in the free space. The protective bell 16 thus has a fixed extension. However, if the end effector approaches a working surface 20 or an object 22, the protective bell 16 would virtually abut and incorrectly trigger the safety function. Therefore, the distance thresholds are successively reduced in such phases of the approach and are extended again during the subsequent rearward movement." in par. 0045), and
wherein the protective volume is taught:
- in that an initial protective volume is first predefined (see at least "As already mentioned, the distance thresholds are preferably set to a predefined fixed value during a movement of the robot arm 10 in the free space. The protective bell 16 thus has a fixed extension. " in par. 0045 );
- in that the machine is controlled so that the movable machine part moves according to the predefined sequence program while the environment of the hazardous section is monitored (see at least "As already mentioned, the distance thresholds are preferably set to a predefined fixed value during a movement of the robot arm 10 in the free space. The protective bell 16 thus has a fixed extension. However, if the end effector approaches a working surface 20 or an object 22, the protective bell 16 would virtually abut and incorrectly trigger the safety function. Therefore, the distance thresholds are successively reduced in such phases of the approach and are extended again during the subsequent rearward movement." in par. 0045);
the movement is continued in a path-following manner, so that the hazardous section moves along a movement path which corresponds to the sequence program and along which movement path the movable machine part would also move without the object engaging into the protective volume and the teach-in mode being started, and, - while the movement of the movable machine part is so continued, position data of objects in the environment of the hazardous section are acquired, and - in that the protective volume is defined based on the acquired position data. (see at least "As already mentioned, the distance thresholds are preferably set to a predefined fixed value during a movement of the robot arm 10 in the free space. The protective bell 16 thus has a fixed extension. However, if the end effector approaches a working surface 20 or an object 22, the protective bell 16 would virtually abut and incorrectly trigger the safety function. Therefore, the distance thresholds are successively reduced in such phases of the approach and are extended again during the subsequent rearward movement." in par. 0045 and " FIG. 4 shows an exemplary topography or 3D contour of the environment of the robot arm 10 with a virtual protective bell 16 adapted thereto. the topography is determined by the working surface 20 and objects 22 located thereon, wherein an elevation 32 is shown here by way of example for arbitrary 3D contours. The protective bell 16 is illustrated in this example by protective surfaces which can be regarded as viewing beams 14 with a particular cross section or can also be scanned by geometric beams. The topography is known by preliminary measurement and/or continuous measurement using at least one topography sensor according to FIG. 3 or in another way, for example from a 3D or CAD model of the robot cell of the robot arm 10. " in par. 0056)
Hofmann does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Szarski does teach:
- in that, when the movement of the movable machine part is stopped as a result of an object engaging into the initial protective volume, a teach-in mode is started by means of a first user input, (see at least " In some examples, the robotic system 100 may be configured to allow for manual pausing of the robot operations at any point. Such manual pausing may allow for manual entry of data such as allowing for a revised scan by the robot 102 of the physical environment 350 for updating the world map 242." in par. 0075)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Hofmann to incorporate the teachings of Szarski wherein a user can pause the robot operation and cause it to enter a mode where it rescans the environment to update the world map. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Szarski would be to reduce the risk of colliding with workpieces in the robot’s environment (see par. 0068)
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann et al (EP3988256, hereinafter Hofmann, see attached translation) in view of Szarski et al (US 20190291275, hereinafter Szarski) and Brooks et al (US 20140067121, hereinafter Brooks)
Regarding Claim 5, Hofmann as modified by Szarski teaches:
the method according to claim 1,
Hofmann and Szarski do not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Brooks does teach:
wherein, in the teach-in mode, the movement of the movable machine part is continued in a risk-reduced manner (see at least "Whenever a person touches any of these user interface components 220, 222, 224 the robot switches into training mode; in this mode, it will only move (and then only slowly) upon explicit request from the user. The training mode allows users to physically interact with the robot, e.g., so as to demonstrate the performance of various tasks to the robot. For instance, the user may grasp the robot's arm 206 by the wrist cuff 224 and guide it through certain motions for picking up, moving, or manipulating an object. " in par. 0029) .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Hofmann as modified by Szarski to incorporate the teachings of Brooks wherein the robot’s speed is reduced when it is in the training mode. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Brooks would be to increase safety during the training mode when a person is very close to the robot (see par. 0010).
Regarding Claim 6, Hofmann as modified by Szarski and Brooks teaches:
the method according to claim 5,
Hofmann and Szarski do not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Brooks does teach:
wherein the movement of the movable machine part is continued at a reduced speed compared to a speed corresponding to the predefined sequence program (see at least " In some embodiments, a third, even lower speed setting is used in training mode; that is, when the robot receives user input via any of the mechanical controls on its body (e.g., controls 220, 222, 224) (step 410), which may occur with the person's torso and head in or outside the zone of danger, the robot switches into a mode in which it operates at very low speeds and, typically, only in direct response to user input. This control scheme facilitates seamless switching between a robot working independently (at the highest speed), working collaboratively with a human (at a lower speed), and interacting with a human in training mode (at the lowest speed)." in par. 0036).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Hofmann as modified by Szarski to incorporate the teachings of Brooks wherein the robot’s speed is reduced when it is in the training mode. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Brooks would be to increase safety during the training mode when a person is very close to the robot (see par. 0010).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann et al (EP3988256, hereinafter Hofmann, see attached translation) in view of Szarski et al (US 20190291275, hereinafter Szarski) and Jaquez et al (US 10558214, hereinafter Jaquez)
Regarding Claim 11, Hofmann as modified by Szarski teaches:
the method according to claim 1,
Hofmann and Szarski do not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Jaquez does teach:
wherein, if the first user input is absent after the movement of the movable machine part has been stopped as a result of an object engaging into the protective volume, the movement of the movable machine part is not continued as long as the object engages into the protective volume (see at least “The robot may be in the holding mode, allowing a human operator to instruct the robot to pause at the location spaced from the pose and having the operator perform the task on the at least one item even though the robot has not reached the pose. The human operator may pause continued operation, causing the robot to provide a second signal different from the first signal to indicate that continued operation of the robot has been paused. In the holding mode, the robot my provide the human operator the ability to instruct the robot to bypass the pose without performing the task on the at least one item. In the holding mode, the robot may provide the human operator the ability to instruct the robot to remain in the holding mode until the robot detects that the pose is no longer obstructed by the object. In the holding mode, the robot may provide on a display inputs to allow the operator to select one of pausing continued operation of the robot, bypassing the pose, or remaining in the holding mode.” In col. 2 lines 6-23 and " When robot 604 is in the proximity of the destination pose, using its LIDAR or another sensor such as its optical cameras, it determines if the destination pose is blocked by another robot a human, or an object. In the example of FIG. 9, robot 600, is positioned at or obstructing the location of the destination pose. When an object is detected by robot 604 to be obstructing the destination pose, robot 604 may stop its movement toward the pose at a location 608 spaced a distance, D, from the pose. It can vary how far the robot stops from a blocked destination pose location, but it may be based in part on the size of the blocking object as well as other factors. A typical distance may be 1-3 meters from the blocking object" in col. 9 lines 45-57 ) .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Hofmann as modified by Szarski to incorporate the teachings of Jacquez wherein when the robot enters a holding mode due to an obstruction blocking its path, it will stay there and wait until a user indicates to either bypass the obstruction or continue waiting. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Jaquez would be to avoid wasted downtime of the robot (see col. 10 line 60 to col. 11 line 3), which improves efficiency.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann et al (EP3988256, hereinafter Hofmann, see attached translation) in view of Szarski et al (US 20190291275, hereinafter Szarski) and Vu et al (US 20230191635, hereinafter Vu)
Regarding Claim 18, Hofmann as modified by Szarski teaches:
the method according to claim 1,
Hofmann and Szarski do not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Vu does teach:
wherein the protective volume can be adapted for a scheduled approach to changed objects by repeating the teaching-in, wherein the last taught protective volume is predefined as the initial protective volume during the repeated teaching-in (see at least " For example, a “teaching” step in system configuration may simply supply images or key features of a workpiece to analysis module 342, which searches for matching configurations in space map 345, or may instead involve training of a neural network to automatically classify workpieces as such in the space map. In either case, only objects that accurately match the stored model are treated as workpieces, while all other objects are treated as humans." in par. 0057 and “In some situations a foreign object enters the workspace, but subsequently should be ignored or treated as a workpiece. For example, a stack of boxes that was not present in the workspace at configuration time may subsequently be placed therein. This type of situation, which will become more common as flexible systems replace fixed guarding, may be addressed by providing a user interface (e.g., shown in display 320 or on a device in wireless communication with control system 112) that allows a human worker to designate the new object as safe for future interaction. Of course, analysis module 342 and control routines 350 may still act to prevent the machinery from colliding with the new object, but the new object will not be treated as a potentially human object that could move towards the machinery, thus allowing the system to handle it in a less conservative manner.” In par. 0060 and “These image-based monitoring techniques often rely on being run at each system cycle, and on the assumption that the system was in a safe state at the previous cycle. Therefore, a test may be executed when robot 402 is started — for example, confirming that the robot is in a known, pre-configured “home” position and that all joint velocities are zero. It is common for automated equipment to have a set of tests that are executed by an operator at a fixed interval, for example, when the equipment is started up or on shift changes. Reliable state analysis typically requires an accurate model of each robot link. This model can be obtained a priori, e.g. from 3D CAD files provided by the robot manufacturer or generated by industrial engineers for a specific project. However, such models may not be available, at least not for the robot and all of the possible attachments it may have.” In par. 0072) .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Hofmann as modified by Szarski to incorporate the teachings of Vu wherein the operator periodically retrains and tests that the work cell monitoring system is properly detecting the environment of the robot. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Vu would be to improve reliability of state analysis for the monitoring system (see par. 0072)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art comes from Hofmann, Szarski, and Vu but the prior art does not appear to teach “wherein, in the teach-in mode, the movement of the movable machine part is stopped as soon as no object engages into the initial protective volume anymore and the teach-in mode can then be terminated by means of the second user input.” in combination with all of the other limitations in the claim.
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 DYLAN M KATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2776. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs. 8:00-6:00.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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.
/DYLAN M KATZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3657