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 . Claims 11-20 filed on 1/6/2025 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2021 133 582.5, filed on 12/17/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 6/13/2024 and 6/13/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 6/13/2024 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 6/13/2024 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 11 recites, “manually or automatically assigning the emergency-stop device to a range of effectiveness selected from several ranges of effectiveness of the digital process model;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of selecting/assigning a range of effectiveness from a list of ranges which can reasonably be performed using pen and paper/in the human mind and thus, falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 11 further recites, “integrating the emergency-stop device into the safety circuit of the robot system which lies within the selected range of effectiveness of the digital process model.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, states that an emergency stop is integrated into a safety circuit which can be reasonably interpreted as merely adjusting/manipulating values within the circuits programming and thus, just merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally claim 11 recites, “retrieving data containing information about a current spatial localization and a current configuration of at least one robot system of the several robot systems within the common automation system from a digital process model of the automation system;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 11 includes the limitations of, “starting an initialization routine which is designed and configured to integrate an emergency-stop device assigned to the initialization routine into a safety circuit of a specific robot system from among a number of several robot systems of a common automation system;” and “wherein the digital process model contains configuration data that describe common and/or separate ranges of effectiveness of the several robot systems within the common automation system;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, includes limitations which describe initializing a routine to begin the emergency stop integration and describing the contents of a digital process model which just generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Finally, the limitation of a “robot controller”, as generally recited merely represents generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering spatial and effectiveness range data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Dependent claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. For instance, claims 12, 17, and 20, include further limitations of assigning a selected range of effectiveness to a robot, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations which can reasonably be performed with pen and paper/in the human mind and thus fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 12-16 and 18-19, each include limitations of, describing further contents of the digital process model as it relates to time-related spatial localization and associated common range of effectiveness, further data production information, description that one of the robots is a mobile robot, wherein the initialization routine is manual, wherein the initialization routine is automatic, wherein the system includes protective fields within predefined boundaries, and how the predefined protective fields are modeled, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Further, the limitations of, “at least one first robot system with a first safety circuit”, “at least one second robot system with a second safety circuit”, and “a system controller”, as generally recited, merely represent generic computer components for implementing the abstract ideas.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering spatial and effectiveness range data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman et al. (US PGPUB 20190101901) in view of Waibel (US PGPUB 20220187444).
Regarding Claim 11; Zimmerman teaches; A method for assigning an emergency-stop functionality between at least one emergency-stop device and at least one robot system, the method comprising: (Zimmerman; at least paragraph [0007]; disclose a system and method for connecting a safety circuit of a production cell and a conveying means (i.e. robot system) which can be utilized to initiate emergency shutdowns of the production cell and conveying means)
in a robot controller, starting an initialization routine which is designed and configured to integrate an emergency-stop device assigned to the initialization routine into a safety circuit of a specific robot system from among a number of several robot systems of a common automation system; (Zimmerman; at least paragraphs [0044] and [0048]-[0050]; disclose wherein upon the conveying means enters a production station, safety circuits of the production station connect the safety circuits of the production station to the conveying means safety circuits, wherein the production station includes a plurality of additional industrial robots that are connected already to the stations safety circuits)
retrieving data containing information about a current spatial localization and a current configuration of at least one robot system of the several robot systems within the common automation system from a digital process model of the automation system; (Zimmerman; at least paragraph [0055]; disclose wherein the system and method includes identification technology for determining and tracking a current position of the conveying means)
manually or automatically assigning the emergency-stop device to a range of effectiveness selected from several ranges of effectiveness of the digital process model; and (Zimmerman; at least paragraphs [0048]-[0050] and [0066]-[0067]; disclose wherein the system and method includes adjusting/selecting a protection region (i.e. range of effectiveness) of the conveying means upon entry/exit of a production station)
integrating the emergency-stop device into the safety circuit of the robot system which lies within the selected range of effectiveness of the digital process model. (Zimmerman; at least paragraphs [0048]-[0050] and [0066]-[0067]; includes integrating the safety circuits of the conveying means with the production safety circuits which are controlled by the adjusted protection region of the conveying means, wherein integrating the conveying means safety circuits includes integrating emergency stop/shutdown capabilities of the conveying means while present within a production station).
Zimmerman appears to be silent on; wherein the digital process model contains configuration data that describe common and/or separate ranges of effectiveness of the several robot systems within the common automation system;
However, Waibel teaches; wherein the digital process model contains configuration data that describe common and/or separate ranges of effectiveness of the several robot systems within the common automation system; (Waibel; at least Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs [0170]-[0176]; disclose a workstation protection and control system and method in which the system models and tracks individual protected volumes (i.e. range of effectiveness) of a plurality of objects and robots within a common automation system)
Zimmerman and Waibel are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, production station monitoring and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of tracking a plurality of effective actuation ranges of a plurality of robots as disclosed by Waibel with the known system of a production station emergency stop and control system as taught by Zimmerman in order to provide a system that can provide warning/stop actuation of a robot in order to avoid a potential hazardous situation as disclosed by Waibel (paragraph [0175]).
Regarding Claim 12; the combination of Zimmerman and Waibel teach; The method of claim 11, wherein: the digital process model comprises data of a production process in which, for at least one production step, an interaction of at least one first machine, a first robot, or a first robot system with at least one second machine, a second robot, or a second robot system at a specific spatial localization at a specific point in time or for a specific period of time is planned; a common range of effectiveness is defined for the at least one production step at least for the planned point in time or the planned period of time; and manually or automatically assigning the emergency-stop device to a selected range of effectiveness comprises using the common range of effectiveness defined on the basis of the production process. (Zimmerman; at least paragraph [0016]; Waibel; at least [0204]-[0206]).
Regarding Claim 13; the combination of Zimmerman and Waibel teach; The method of claim 11, wherein the digital process model comprises data of a production process in which the ranges of effectiveness of several machines, robots, and/or robot systems are defined differently for various points in time or various periods of time. (Waibel; at least paragraphs [0204]-[0206]).
Regarding Claim 14; the combination of Zimmerman and Waibel teach; The method of claim 11, wherein: at least one machine, at least one robot, and/or at least one robot system is designed as a mobile system which has an emergency-stop device; and the current spatial localization of the mobile system is used for the manual or automatic assignment of the emergency-stop device of the mobile system to a range of effectiveness selected from the digital process model. (Zimmerman; at least paragraphs [0012]-[0016]).
Regarding Claim 15; the combination of Zimmerman and Waibel teach; The method of claim 11, wherein starting the initialization routine comprises manually starting the initialization routine by a human input command. (Waibel; at least paragraphs [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding Claim 16; the combination of Zimmerman and Waibel teach; The method of claim 11, wherein: starting the initialization routine comprises automatically starting the initialization routine; and assigning the emergency-stop device to a selected range of effectiveness is carried out automatically. (Zimmerman; at least paragraphs [0012]-[0016]).
Regarding Claim 17; the combination of Zimmerman and Waibel teach; The method of claim 16, wherein: the initialization routine is started automatically and the assignment of the emergency-stop device to a selected range of effectiveness is carried out automatically in response to a detection, by a sensor of the robot system having the emergency-stop device to be assigned, of the robot system into which safety circuit the emergency-stop device of the one robot system is to be integrated. (Zimmerman; at least paragraphs [0012]-[0016]).
Regarding Claim 18; the combination of Zimmerman and Waibel teach; The method of claim 16, wherein: the initialization routine is started automatically and the assignment of the emergency-stop device to a selected range of effectiveness is carried out automatically, in response to an overlap of a first protective field of a first machine, first robot, or first robot system with a predefined second protective field of a second machine, second robot, or second robot system; and the first protective field is predefined or derived from a process description. (Waibel; at least paragraphs [0202]-[0210]).
Regarding Claim 19; the combination of Zimmerman and Waibel teach; The method of claim 18, wherein at least one of the predefined first protective field or the predefined second protective field is at least one of: assigned to a range of effectiveness defined in the digital process model; or corresponds to a range of effectiveness defined in the digital process model. (Waibel; at least paragraphs [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding Claim 20; the combination of Zimmerman and Waibel teach; An automation system, comprising: at least one first robot system with a first safety circuit; (Zimmerman; at least paragraph [0044])
at least one second robot system with a second safety circuit; and (Zimmerman; at least paragraph [0045])
a system controller comprising a digital process model in which the at least one first robot system and the at least one second robot system are mapped; (Zimmerman; at least paragraphs [0041]-[0042] and [0048]-[0050]).
wherein the system controller is designed and configured to carry out the method of claim 11. (Zimmerman; at least paragraphs [0007]-[0008]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dai et al. (US PGPUB 20210205994): disclose a robot safety zone system and method in which an area assigned a working robot is capable of detecting the entry of a moving vehicle into its workspace, and in response, adjust a portion of the safety zone to accommodate the moving vehicle.
Lehner (US PGPUB 20210397153): disclose an operator portable terminal capable of connecting to a plurality of robot devices wherein the portable terminal is capable of determining and displaying effective operational ranges and allows the operator to initiate safety shutdown sequences in response to unsafe behavior of the robot devices.
Kogan (US PGPUB 20190210228): disclose a robot system and method that includes a handheld terminal for monitoring and controlling the robot within a designated safety range of motion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights