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 .
Status of Claims
This is a nonfinal in response to an RCE filed on 02/23/2026. Claims 1-19 remain pending. Claims 1, 11, and 13 have been amended.
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.
Claims 1-6, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shapiro et al (US 20110153080 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Shapiro)
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 13, Shapiro teaches a method of controlling an industrial device comprising a manipulator (See at least Shapiro Paragraphs 0004 and 0022), the method including:
a control system for controlling an industrial device comprising a manipulator (See at least Shapiro Paragraphs 0004 and 0022), the control system including at least one data processing device and at least one memory having at least one computer program stored thereon (See at least Shapiro Paragraphs 0033, 0106, and Figure 1, the instructions are interpreted as the computer program), the at least one computer program having program code which, when executed by the at least one data processing device, causes the at least one data processing device to perform the steps of (See at least Shapiro Paragraphs 0033 and 0106, the instructions are computer-readable, which is interpreted as program code):
an industrial device comprising a manipulator (See at least Shapiro Paragraph 0022) and a control system including at least one data processing device and at least one memory having at least one computer program stored thereon (See at least Shapiro Paragraphs 0033, 0106, and Figure 1, the instructions are interpreted as the computer program), the at least one computer program having program code which, when executed by the at least one data processing device, causes the at least one data processing device to perform the steps of (See at least Shapiro Paragraphs 0033 and 0106, the instructions are computer-readable, which is interpreted as program code):
providing, in a control system, a plurality of consecutive target points for the manipulator (See at least Shapiro Paragraphs 0018, 0025, 0053, 0056, and Figure 3, the waypoints l2-l4 are interpreted as target points);
providing a plurality of alternative zone groups simultaneously in the control system, where each zone group includes at least one zone associated with a target point (See at least Shapiro Paragraphs 0053, 0056, and Figure 3, each target point has 4 alternative zone groups);
for each zone group, evaluating, by the control system, a performance value of a performance parameter of the industrial device (See at least Shapiro Paragraphs 0056-0058, and 0063, the cycle time, which is interpreted as a performance parameter, is evaluated), the performance parameter being associated with execution by the manipulator of a movement path associated with the target points and the at least one zone (See at least Shapiro Paragraphs 0056-0058, 0063, and Figure 3, the cycle time is associated with execution of the path along the target points with the zones);
selecting one of the zone groups based on the evaluation (See at least Shapiro Paragraphs 0063, 0073-0074, and Figure 5, the zone that corresponds to the lowest cycle time is selected); and
controlling the industrial device based on the selected zone group (See at least Shapiro Paragraphs 0016, 0025-0026, and 0074, the selected zone group is returned for use by a robotic programmer that seeks a path for moving the robot/industrial device from the source to target configuration), the control including executing the movement path associated with the selected zone group by the manipulator (See at least Shapiro Paragraphs 0016, 0025-0026, and 0074, the selected zone group is returned for use by a robotic programmer for executing a path for the robot to move from the source to target configuration).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Shapiro teaches wherein each zone group comprises one or more fly-by zones (See at least Shapiro Paragraphs 0019 and 0056, the zones are fly by zones), and wherein the performance parameter is associated with execution by the manipulator of a movement path created based on the target points and the at least one fly-by zone of the zone group (See at least Shapiro Paragraphs 0019, 0056-0058, 0063, and Figure 3, the cycle time/performance parameter is associated with execution of the path along the target points with the fly by zones).
Regarding Claim 3, Shapiro teaches for each zone group, creating a movement path based on the target points and the at least one fly-by zone of the zone group (See at least Shapiro Paragraphs 0019, 0056-0060, 0073, and Figure 3, paths are created using fly-by zones for each target point).
Regarding Claim 4, Shapiro teaches the evaluation is made based on the created movement paths (See at least Shapiro Paragraphs 0056-0058, 0063, and 0073-0074, the cycle time, which is interpreted as a performance parameter, is evaluated based on the paths).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, Shapiro teaches wherein the evaluation comprises, for each movement path, simulating the control of the industrial device (See at least Shapiro Paragraphs 0073-0074, and 0086, the evaluation comprises simulating each motion path).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, Shapiro teaches providing at least one additional zone group based on the evaluation, and wherein the selection is made also based on the at least one additional zone group (See at least Shapiro Paragraphs 0074-0075, and Figure 5, new paths with additional zones are generated based on the evaluation in 508, and the new paths with the additional zones are selected after simulation).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro in view of Liang et al (US 20150306768 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Liang)
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Shapiro fails to disclose receiving a selection indicative of the performance parameter among a plurality of different performance parameters from a user prior to evaluating the performance values.
However, Liang teaches receiving a selection indicative of the performance parameter among a plurality of different performance parameters from a user prior to evaluating the performance values (See at least Liang Paragraphs 0053-0054, the user selects the parameters to be evaluated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Shapiro with Liang to have the user select the performance parameters prior to evaluation. This modification, as taught by Liang, would cause the system to evaluate the motion based on the evaluation criterion selected by the user (See at least Liang Paragraphs 0053-0054), thus, generating a motion according to the user’s preference making the system more desirable to users.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro in view of Heim et al “Trajectory optimization of industrial robots with application to computer-aided robotics and robot controllers” (Hereinafter referred to as Heim)
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Shapiro fails to disclose determining an actual performance value of the performance parameter based on the control of the industrial device; and
modifying the selected zone group based on the actual performance value.
However, Heim teaches determining an actual performance value of the performance parameter based on the control of the industrial device (See at least Heim Pages 413-415 Section 3. ON-LINE ROBOT CONTROLLERS AND INTERNAL PATH PLANNING METHODS, and Pages 416-418 section 5.2 Comparison of ROBCAD/RRS Simulation with the Real Robotic System, the time for the real robot to execute the trajectory is interpreted as the actual performance value); and
modifying the selected zone group based on the actual performance value (See at least Heim Pages 413-415 Section 3. ON-LINE ROBOT CONTROLLERS AND INTERNAL PATH PLANNING METHODS, and Pages 416-418 section 5.2 Comparison of ROBCAD/RRS Simulation with the Real Robotic System, the radii of the fly-by zones are modified to the optimal value of 5 cm based on the experiments/actual performance values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Shapiro with Heim to modify the select zone group based on the actual performance value. Heim teaches the smaller the zones, the slower the robot movement and the larger the zones, the larger the deviation from the optimal path (See at least Heim Pages 413-415 Section 3. ON-LINE ROBOT CONTROLLERS AND INTERNAL PATH PLANNING METHODS). By modifying the selected zone group based on the actual performance value, as taught by Heim, the zones are optimally generated at a radius of 5cm so that the zones are not too big, causing a large deviation from the path, or too small, causing slow movement of the robot (See at least Heim Pages 413-415 Section 3. ON-LINE ROBOT CONTROLLERS AND INTERNAL PATH PLANNING METHODS), thus, generating an optimal trajectory.
Claims 9-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro in view of Norrlof et al (WO 2020/007458 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Norrlof)
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Shapiro fails to disclose wherein the at least one zone comprises one or more reorientation zones and wherein the method further includes controlling reorientation of an end effector of the manipulator based on the reorientation zones when executing the movement path by the manipulator.
However, Norrlof teaches wherein the at least one zone comprises one or more reorientation zones (See at least Norrlof Page 8 lines 11-18, the orientation blending zone for initiating a reorientation of a tool is interpreted as the reorientation zone), and wherein the method further includes controlling reorientation of an end effector of the manipulator based on the reorientation zones when executing the movement path by the manipulator (See at least Norrlof Page 8 lines 11-18, and Page 17 lines 10-23, the tool/end effector is reorientated in the reorientation/orientation blending zone when executing the movement path).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Shapiro with Norrlof to have one or more reorientation zones. This modification, as taught by Norrlof, would designate a zone for the end effector of the manipulator to be reoriented (See at least Norrlof Page 8 lines 11-18, and Page 17 lines 10-23), thus, improving the control of the manipulator.
Regarding Claims 10 and 19, Shapiro fails to disclose wherein the at least one zone comprises one or more secondary zones and wherein the method further includes controlling actuation of a secondary actuator of the industrial device based on the secondary zones when executing the movement path by the manipulator.
However, Norrlof teaches wherein the at least one zone comprises one or more secondary zones (See at least Norrlof Page 8 line 11-Page 9 line 6, the external device blending zone is interpreted as a secondary zone), and wherein the method further includes controlling actuation of a secondary actuator of the industrial device based on the secondary zones when executing the movement path by the manipulator (See at least Norrlof Page 8 line 11-Page 9 line 6, and Page 17 lines 10-23, the external device/secondary actuator is operated in the external device blending zone when executing the movement path).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Shapiro with Norrlof to have one or more secondary zones. This modification, as taught by Norrlof, would designate a zone for an external device of the manipulator to be operated (See at least Norrlof Page 17 lines 10-23), thus, improving the control of the industrial device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11, and 13 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. The independent claims are now rejected over Shapiro, which teaches a plurality of alternative zone groups simultaneously in the control system, evaluating a performance parameter for each zone group, selecting a zone group based on the evaluation, and controlling the industrial device based on the selected zone group. Therefore, claims 1-19 still remain rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached at 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights