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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-45 of U.S. Patent No. 12,066,810. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Independent claims 1, 22 of the present of application are broader in scope and thus encompass the subject matter already claimed in allowed US patent application 17/358,108 (Subject to be published as US Patent No: 12,066,810 on Aug. 20, 2024).
Specially, claims 1, 16, and 31 of the parent application recites a method, apparatus, corresponding to claims 1, and 22 of the present of application with more details claimed in the parent application that would render the broader claims of the present of application obvious. For instance: claimed recite “a system for continuously monitoring a workcell during operation of industrial machinery, the system comprising: a safety system comprising at least one sensor and supporting software and/or hardware for acquiring image data associated with the workcell; a monitoring system for detecting a parameter value associated with the safety system; and a controller configured to: determine whether the image data is valid based at least in part on the detected parameter value; and cause an alert to be issued responsive to determining that the image data is invalid”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-11, 17-22, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DEDKOV et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0073358).
Claim 1, DEDKOV discloses a system for continuously monitoring a workcell during operation of industrial machinery, the system comprising: a safety system comprising at least one sensor (See Fig. 1, Sensor system 101, 102) and supporting software and/or hardware for acquiring image data associated with the workcell (par [0055-0056] software and/or hardware for acquiring image data associated with the workcell to ensuring safe operation of industrial machinery in a workcell include disposing multiple image sensor proximate); a monitoring system for detecting a parameter value associated with the safety system (par [0049, 0056] discloses of 3D sensor with monitoring system for detecting a parameter value associated with the safety system); and a controller configured to: determine a status of the safety system based at least in part on the detected parameter value (par [0058, 0062, 0071] provided a status of the safety system based at least in part on the detected parameter value, for example: used metrics are recalculated in real time. If the metrics or deviations of the metrics from initial metric values); and cause an alert to be issued responsive to determining that the image data is invalid (par [0060, 0064, 0071-0072] disclosed in detail of an alert to be issued responsive to determining that the image data is invalid based on detect of occlusion caused by object relative to the sensor if an error condition triggered to detect, for example: software and/or hardware for acquiring image data associated with the workcell to ensuring safe operation of industrial machinery in a workcell).
Claim 2, DEDKOV further disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein determining whether the image data is valid comprises: performing background validation on the image data based on the detected parameter value (par [0049, 0056, 0058, 0062] discloses of 3D sensor with monitoring system for detecting a parameter value associated with the safety system, and provided a status of the safety system based at least in part on the detected parameter value); performing consistency validation on the image data based on the detected parameter value; or checking whether the detected parameter value is within a predetermined range ((par [0049, 0056, 0058, 0062] discloses of 3D sensor with monitoring system for detecting a parameter value associated with the safety system with the detected parameter value).
Claim 5, 25, DEDKOV further discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the monitoring system comprises at least one timer for recording a total cumulative operating time of at least one sensor, the timer being configured to transmit a signal to the controller when a predetermined total cumulative operating time has been exceeded (par [0051] “registration object(s) 120 standing in the workspace or passing throughout the workspace over a period of time (step 314)”).
Claim 6, DEDKOV further discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein at least one sensor is a 3D sensor (par [0038] the sensors 102 where a 3D representation of the workspace 100 may be generated using 2D or 3D ray tracing, where the intersections of the 2D or 3D rays emanating from the sensors 102).
Claim 7, DEDKOV further discloses the system of Claim 6, wherein the 3D sensor is a time-of-flight (TOF) sensor (par [0037]).
Claim 8, DEDKOV further discloses the system of Claim 7, wherein the TOF sensor comprises a module for self-detecting errors of signals therein (par [0069, 0071].
Claim 9, DEDKOV further discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the monitoring system comprises a safety-rated protocol for detecting errors occurring during data transmission between at least one sensor, the supporting software and/or hardware, and the controller (par [0055-0056, 0069, 0071] the data acquired by the sensors 102.sub.1-3 can be used to improve the accuracy of the 2D or 3D CAD model by incorporating, for example, robot dress packages and/or end effectors as part of the model. In one embodiment, the 2D or 3D CAD model can also be overlaid on top of the point cloud data or visual image acquired by the sensors 102.sub.1-3 on the user interface shown on the display 220 as an alignment aid).
Claim 10, DEDKOV further discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the acquired image data comprises a plurality of voxels, the controller being further configured to classify the voxels into moving voxels corresponding to moving elements in the workcell and static voxels corresponding to static elements in the workcell (par [0038, 0041, 0056] in digital form (e.g., as pixels or voxels, or as depth maps), images obtained by the sensors 102, the machinery in the workspace as further described below; and an input module 241 for receiving one or more external input data from, for example, the display 220).
Claim 11, DEDKOV further discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the acquired image data comprises a plurality of surfaces and normal thereto, the controller being further configured to classify surfaces as corresponding to moving elements in the workcell or corresponding to static elements in the workcell (par [0010, 0055-0056] in 3D may be utilized for sensor registration. Alternatively, each sensor may record images of one or more people, moving equipment or other registration object(s) standing in the workspace or passing throughout the workspace over a period of time).
Claim 17, DEDKOV further discloses the system of Claim 1, further comprising memory for storing a plurality of configurations associated with the industrial machinery, the controller being further configured to (i) determine, based on the acquired image data, a configuration associated with the industrial machinery during operation thereof, and (ii) cause the alert to be issued upon determining that the configuration determined in step (i) does not match any of the configurations stored in the memory (See par [0045, 0051, 0060, 0064, 0071-0072] disclosed in detail of an alert to be issued responsive to determining that the image data is invalid based on detect of occlusion caused by object relative to the sensor if an error condition triggered to detect, for example: software and/or hardware for acquiring image data associated with the workcell to ensuring safe operation of industrial machinery in a workcell).
Claim 18, DEDKOV further discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to determine, based on the acquired image data, whether speed and safety monitoring requirements are violated and, if so, to cause the alert to be issued. (par [0069, 0071]).
Claim 19, DEDKOV further discloses the system of Claim 18, wherein the controller is further configured to determine whether, in response to a command, the industrial machinery stopped within a prescribed distance and stopping time conforming to speed and separation monitoring requirements. (par [0069]).
Claim 20, DEDKOV further discoses the system of Claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to analyze the image data and, based thereon, (i) detect and classify objects in the workcell, and (ii) cause the alert to be issued if an observed behavior of an identified object is inconsistent with its classification (par [0045, 0051, 0058, 0060, 0066, 0071-0072] disclosed in detail of an alert to be issued responsive to determining that the image data is invalid based on detect of occlusion caused by object relative to the sensor if an error condition triggered to detect, for example: software and/or hardware for acquiring image data associated with the workcell to ensuring safe operation of industrial machinery in a workcell).
Claim 21, DEDKOV further discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to analyze the image data and, based thereon, (i) detect and classify objects in the workcell, (ii) detect and classify static objects in the workcell, and (iii) cause the alert to be issued if an identified object is observed to appear or disappear unexpectedly (par [0045, 0051, 0058, 0060, 0066, 0071-0072] disclosed the performing in detail of an alert to be issued responsive to determining that the image data is invalid based on detect of occlusion caused by object relative to the sensor if an error condition triggered to detect, for example: software and/or hardware for acquiring image data associated with the workcell
Claim 22, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEDKOV et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0073358) in view of Denenberg et al. (US Pub No. 20200077074).
Claim 3, 23, DEDKOV discloses all the limitations in claim 1 above, Denenberg discloses wherein the monitoring system comprises at least one temperature sensor for monitoring a temperature associated with the at least one sensor (par [0028, 0042-0044, 0056] disclosed the system further comprises at least one temperature sensor, and the 3D sensors are responsive to the temperature sensor(s) and modify their respective output arrays in accordance therewith. Similarly, the system may further comprise at least one humidity sensor, in which case the 3D sensors will be responsive to the humidity sensor(s) and modify their respective output arrays). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide of Denenberg to the system of in order to depth-sensing computer vision system for calibrating a sensor array for 3D.
Claim 4, 24, DEDKOV discloses all the limitation in claim 1 above, wherein the monitoring system comprises at least one humidity sensor for monitoring humidity associated with an environment of at least one sensor (par [0028, 0042-0044, 0056] disclosed the system further comprises at least one temperature sensor, and the 3D sensors are responsive to the temperature sensor(s) and modify their respective output arrays). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide of Denenberg to the system of in order to depth-sensing computer vision system for calibrating a sensor array for 3D.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16 are 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.
Claim 12, the system of Claim 10, wherein the controller is further configured to compare the static voxels acquired during operation of the industrial machinery against the static voxels acquired prior to operating the industrial machinery and, based thereon, determine a position shift associated with each of the static voxels.
Claim 13, the system of Claim 11, wherein the controller is further configured to compare static surfaces acquired during operation of the industrial machinery against static surfaces acquired prior to operating the industrial machinery and, based thereon, determine a position shift associated with each of the static surfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC HUU DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7920. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, JEANETTE PARKER can be reached at 571-270-3647. 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.
/PHUOC H DOAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights