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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 and 37 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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 21-23, 25-26, 29-32, 35-39, 41 and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman et al. (US 2017/0225331 A1) in view of Lo et al. (US 2019/0381666 A1), Yonezaki et al. (US 2014/0297078 A1) and Berlin et al. (EP 3197645 B1)
As to claims 21 and 37, Sussman discloses a robot system/method comprising: a robotic arm (102) comprising a plurality of joints (para. 0022) connecting a base and a tool flange (para. 0022); a robot controller (112) configured to control the robotic arm; a safety system (114) configured to cause the robotic arm to enter a safe mode (para. 0030-0031) based on an evaluation performed on the safety system, wherein the robot controller and the safety system are on different hardware (Fig. 1, unit 112, 114); wherein the robot controller is configured to perform operations comprising: providing the at least one user-defined safety parameter range to the safety system (Fig. 5A, step 502-503); providing the value for the at least one user-defined safety parameter to the safety system (Fig. 5A, step 502-503); wherein the safety controller comprises a safety function configured to perform an evaluation to determine if the value for the at least one user-defined safety parameter is within the at least one user-defined safety parameter range (Fig. 5, step 512); and wherein the safety system is configured to cause the robotic arm to enter the safe mode when the value of the at least one user-defined safety parameter is determined to be outside the at least one user-defined safety parameter range (Fig. 5, steps 512 and 516). Sussman does not explicitly disclose the safety system comprising at least two independent safety controllers, the at least two independent safety controllers comprising a first safety controller and a second safety controller, the first safety controller being on different hardware than the second safety controller; receiving, via a user interface, at least one user-defined safety function, the at least one user-defined safety function comprising executable code for generating a value for at least one user-defined safety parameter; receiving at least one user-defined safety parameter range; providing the at least one user-defined safety parameter range to the safety system; generating the value for the at least one user-defined safety parameter by executing the at least one user-defined safety function; wherein the first safety controller and the second safety controller are configured to monitor each other and, if one of the first safety controller or the second safety controller is determined not to be operating properly based on the monitoring, the other of the first safety controller or the second safety controller is configured to cause the robotic arm to enter the safe mode. However, Lo teaches the safety system comprising at least two independent safety controllers, the at least two independent safety controllers comprising a first safety controller and a second safety controller, the first safety controller being on different hardware than the second safety controller” (para. 0048-0049). And Yonezaki teaches the first controller and the second safety controller are configured to monitor each other and, if one of the first safety controller or the second safety controller is determined not to be operating properly based on the monitoring, the other of the first safety controller or the second safety controller is configured to cause the robotic arm to enter the safe mode (Claim 1). Therefore, given the teaching of Lo and Yonezaki, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the system of Sussman by employing the well-known or conventional features of first safety controller and second safety controller, and monitoring each other and when one of the controllers fails, the other controller cause the system to enter safe mode, to provide a redundant safety system to monitor each other and enter safe mode when one of the controller fails. Berlin teaches the robot controller is configured to perform operations comprising: receiving, via a user interface, at least one user-defined safety function (Fig. 4, Safety Functions 1-5), the at least one user-defined safety function comprising executable code for generating a value for at least one user-defined safety parameter (Fig. 4, boundary value); receiving at least one user-defined safety parameter range (Fig. 4, Geometric range); generating the value for the at least one user-defined safety parameter by executing the at least one user-defined safety function (Fig. 4). Therefore, given the teaching of Berlin, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the system of Sussman by employing the well-known or conventional features of receiving user-defined safety function/parameter range, to enable the robot controller to receive user define safety function and parameter range.
As to claims 22 and 38, Lo further teaches wherein the first safety controller comprises a first implementation of the safety function, the second safety controller comprises a second implementation of the safety function, and the first implementation of the safety function is different than the second implementation of the safety function (para. 0048-0049).
As to claims 23 and 39, the use of confirmation for user input is well known and widely use, such as computer showing the confirmation of user inputting new password. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the system of Sussman by employing the well-known or conventional features of confirmation on user input, to show the user that the system receives the user input.
As to claims 25 and 41, Sussman further teaches wherein the robot controller is configured to receive at least one sensor signal indicating at least one of: a state of at least a part of the robotic arm; or a state of at least one external device; where the at least one user-defined safety function is configured to generate the at least one user-defined safety parameter based on the at least one sensor signal (para. 0030, 0034).
As to claim 26, Sussman further teaches a user interface for enabling a user to communicate with the robot system; wherein the user interface is configured to enable a user to specify the at least one user-defined safety function and is configured to display the at least one user-defined safety parameter (para. 0006, 0022, user interface).
As to claim 29, Sussman further teaches wherein the robot controller comprises a non-safety rated robot control system, meaning that the robot controller does not fulfill predefined safety standards relating to robot systems (0037-robotic controller does not have to be safety-rated).
As to claim 30, Sussman further teaches wherein the safety system comprises a safety rated robot safety system, meaning that the safety system fulfills predefined safety standards relating to robot systems ((para. 0007, feedback system that is safety-rated, 0022-0023, safety-rated controller/power circuitry, safety-rated component).
As to claim 31, Sussman further teaches a safety signal path between the robot controller and one or more safety controllers that are part of the safety system; and a sending controller in the robot system is configured to send a safety signal via the safety signal path to one or more receiving controllers in the robot system (Fig. 1, from safety system 114 to control unit 112).
As to claim 32, Sussman further teaches the sending controller is the robot controller and the one or more receiving controllers comprise at least one of the one or more safety controllers (Fig. 1, control unit 112, safety system 114, user interface 116).
As to claims 35 and 43, Sussman further teaches the at least one user-defined safety function is for a device that is connectable to the robotic arm but that is not part of the robotic arm (para. 0026-0028, sensors for feedback system can be connectable to the robotic arm).
As to claims 36 and 44, Sussman further teaches the at least one user-defined safety function is for a part of the robotic arm (para. 0026-0028, sensors for feedback system can be part of the robotic arm).
Claims 24, 33-34 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman, Lo, Yonezaki and Berlin, as applied to claims 21 and 37 above, further in view of Gupta et al. (US 2016/0379519 A1).
As to claims 24 and 40, Sussman, Lo and Berlin do not explicitly teach the safety range monitoring function is configured to monitor receipt of the at least one user-defined safety parameter and to cause the robotic arm to enter the safe mode when the at least one user-defined safety parameter has not been received. However, Gupta teaches monitor receipt of the at least one user-defined safety parameter and to cause the robotic arm to enter the safe mode when the at least one user-defined safety parameter has not been received (para. 0067). Therefore, given the teaching of Gupta it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the system of Sussman by employing the well-known or conventional features of enter the safe mode when the at least one user-defined safety parameter has not been received, to ensure the safety of robot operation.
As to claim 33, Gupta further teaches a receiving controller among the one or more receiving controllers is configured to cause the robotic arm to enter a stop mode when the safety signal is not received as expected (para. 0067).
As to claim 34, Gupta further teaches the safety signal is received as expected if the safety signal is received within a predetermined period of time that is based on when the safety signal is sent or if the safety signal is received in an expected pattern (para. 0067).
Claims 27-28 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sussman, Lo, Yonezaki and Berlin, as applied to claims 21 and 37 above, further in view of Oestergaard et al. (US 2018/0178380 A1).
As to claims 27-28 and 42, Sussman, Lo and Berlin do not explicitly teach the user interface comprises means for providing the executable code to the robot controller; and means for enabling installation of the executable code in the robot controller. However, Oestergaard teaches the user interface comprises means for providing the executable code to the robot controller; and means for enabling installation of the executable code in the robot controller (Abstract, para. 0028, claims 1-2). Therefore, given the teaching of Oestergaard it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the system of Sussman by employing the well-known or conventional features of providing user-defined safety software code to the robot controller, to enable the user can update/upgrade the robot with new functionalities.
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 Ce Li Li whose telephone number is (571)270-5564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-7PM.
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, Peter D Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
CE LI . LI
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661