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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/07/2024 and 08/28/2024.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application EP23194104 filed on 08/29/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “two sequences” without antecedent basis which renders the claim indefinite.
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 1, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
Yes claims 1, 18 are directed towards a method, device respectively.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The process in claims 1, 18 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pen and paper and as such is directed toward and abstract idea. The claim consists of safeguarding a cooperation zone, this is similar to a human monitoring the machine to safeguard any collisions. Evaluating the protected field intrusions to safeguard the machine is similar to a human evaluating a collision since the person and robot are in same zone and thus may stop the robot. Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding actual determination of the attitude of the robot.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
An additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1, 18 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations include monitoring the protective fields are is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The machine device are considered at the apply it level technology. The sensors are considered generic linking.
Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer at the “apply it level”, which is indicative of the abstract solution having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1,18 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations include monitoring the protective fields are is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The machine device are considered at the apply it level technology. The sensors are considered generic linking.. See Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1,18: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that the claims are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2-6, 19-20 recite the robot which is apply it level and the sensors which are monitoring at a high level of generality which is data gathering.
Claims 7-8 are part of the abstract idea similar to a human determining if the person is too close to the robot then it is not a permitted state.
Claim 9, does not contain any step, the machine is not controlled to be restricted.
Claims 10, the warning is a signal which is data gathering.
Claim 11, the safeguarding is recited with high level of generality and is could simply be an alert which is data gathering.
Claims 14-17 just define zones which can be done by a human being and the sensors are generic linking gathering data.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kuka (US20220219323) in view of Iida (US20170326734).
Regarding claim 1, Kuka teaches a method for contactless safeguarding at a cooperation zone of a machine, wherein an access zone for a worker is arranged at a first side of the cooperation zone and a working zone of the machine is arranged at a second side different from the first side, wherein a plurality of protected fields configured in the environment of the cooperation zone are monitored for protected field intrusions by at least one optoelectronic sensor and at least two of the protected fields are arranged in a first sequence starting from the first side such that a worker sequentially intrudes into these protected fields when approaching the cooperation zone, wherein the protected field intrusions are evaluated to safeguard the machine in the case of an unpermitted combination of protected field intrusions ([0077] disclosing the camera sensor. Fig. 1 disclosing the person entering from an access zone at one side and the robot working at another zone. [0010]-[0022] disclosing the cooperation between a robot and a human wherein as the distance between the robot and the human is decreased, the speed is slowed more and more, this successive reduction in speed as stated in [0022] is a combination of a series of fields. See further in [0023] defining a cooperative region when the distance reaches the fourth limit for example as the cooperative region where the speed is reduced for cooperation thus that is the cooperative zone and at least the first, second, third regions to reach that would be the side where the person is moving in that direction towards the fourth region, i.e., protective regions. [0040]-[0046] further defines the minimum distance as being determined based on the sequential fields of areas, thus from the citations it is interpreted that the robot is controlled to be safeguarded to slow down or stop based on the sequence combination of fields that both robot and the human cooperate in… for instance in figure 1, if the minimum distance is shown based on the safety regions shown in the image as the empty space between the robot 2 and the person F6,1 , then that empty space that is not greyed out would be the space falling below the fourth region and would be the cooperative zone between the side of the human and the working side of the machine.. in at least [0020] disclosing the stopping in when the when the distance falls below a fourth limit for instance, thus that would be considered the unpermitted combination sequence, or in [0021] disclosing the combination of reducing the speed as the distance decreases and only stops when the robot comes in contact with an obstacle),
and wherein at least two of the protected fields are arranged in a second sequence starting from the second side ([0040]-[0046] and at least figure 1 shows the robot operated within the plurality of zones sequentially from the other side opposite to the person).
Since the cooperative zone in Kuka is defined based on the minimum distance with respect to the person approaching the robot, Kuka does not explicitly teach that the machine sequentially intrudes the protected fields when approaching the cooperation zone.
Iida teaches that the machine sequentially intrudes the protected fields when approaching the cooperation zone ([0145-[0154] disclosing the protective fields containing at least two fields to enable reduction of speed of the machine as it approaches a zone where a human is cooperating with the machine).
The combination of Iida with Kuka improves safety by incorporating the motion of the machine into zones to further avoid colliding with the human at high speeds and avoiding injuries as taught by Iida [0045]-[0054].
Regarding claim 2, Kuka as modified by Iida teaches the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the machine comprises at least one robot (Kuka [0010]-[0023], figure 1 disclosing at least one robot). however, Kuka teaches the camera and the
Regarding claim 5, Kuka as modified by Iida teaches the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein at least two optoelectronic sensors each monitor some of the protected fields; and wherein at least one protected field is monitored by both optoelectronic sensors and is therefore monitored at an elevated safety level (Kuka [0077] disclosing the at least two sensors monitoring each field).
Regarding claim 6, Kuka as modified by Iida teaches the method in accordance with claim 5, wherein one protected field comprises the cooperation zone and this protected field is monitored by both optoelectronic sensors (Kuka [0010]-[0055] disclosing the cooperative zone is amongst the zones that are monitored and where speed is slowed for cooperation, [0077] disclosing the sensors monitor all zones including the cooperation zone).
Regarding claim 14, Kuka as modified by Iida teaches the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the first sequence comprises, from the outside to the inside with respect to the cooperation zone, a first protected field , a second 20 protected field, and a third protected field y , the cooperation zone is monitored by a fourth protected field and the second sequence, ([Kuka [0010]-[0046] disclosing a plurality of the fields including a first distance, second distance, third distance and fourth distance from one side).
Iida further teaches starting from the inside to the outside of the cooperation zone, comprises a fifth protected field and a sixth protected field ([0145-[0154] disclosing the protective fields containing at least two fields to enable reduction of speed of the machine as it approaches a zone where a human is cooperating with the machine).
The combination of Iida with Kuka improves safety by incorporating the motion of the machine into zones to further avoid colliding with the human at high speeds and avoiding injuries as taught by Iida [0045]-[0054].
Regarding claim 18, Kuka teaches monitoring device for contactless safeguarding at a cooperation zone of a machine, wherein an access zone for a worker is arranged at a first side of the cooperation zone and a working zone of the machine is arranged at a second side different from the first side, wherein the monitoring device has at least one safe optoelectronic sensor having a light receiver for generating a received signal and has a control and evaluation unit that is configured to monitor a plurality of protected fields configured in the environment of the cooperation zone for protected field intrusions with reference to the received signal, wherein the protected fields are configured such that at least two of the protected fields are arranged in a first sequence starting from the first side such that a worker sequentially intrudes into these protected fields when approaching the cooperation zone, and wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the protected field intrusions to safeguard the machine in the case of an unpermitted combination of protected field intrusions ([0077] disclosing the camera sensor. Fig. 1 disclosing the person entering from an access zone at one side and the robot working at another zone. [0010]-[0022] disclosing the cooperation between a robot and a human wherein as the distance between the robot and the human is decreased, the speed is slowed more and more, this successive reduction in speed as stated in [0022] is a combination of a series of fields. See further in [0023] defining a cooperative region when the distance reaches the fourth limit for example as the cooperative region where the speed is reduced for cooperation thus that is the cooperative zone and at least the first, second, third regions to reach that would be the side where the person is moving in that direction towards the fourth region, i.e., protective regions. [0040]-[0046] further defines the minimum distance as being determined based on the sequential fields of areas, thus from the citations it is interpreted that the robot is controlled to be safeguarded to slow down or stop based on the sequence combination of fields that both robot and the human cooperate in… for instance in figure 1, if the minimum distance is shown based on the safety regions shown in the image as the empty space between the robot 2 and the person F6,1 , then that empty space that is not greyed out would be the space falling below the fourth region and would be the cooperative zone between the side of the human and the working side of the machine.. in at least [0020] disclosing the stopping in when the when the distance falls below a fourth limit for instance, thus that would be considered the unpermitted combination sequence, or in [0021] disclosing the combination of reducing the speed as the distance decreases and only stops when the robot comes in contact with an obstacle. [0030]-[0035] disclosing the sensors being camera or a laser device for sending signals),,
and wherein the protected fields are configured such that at least two of the protected fields are arranged in a second sequence starting from the second side ([0040]-[0046] and at least figure 1 shows the robot operated within the plurality of zones sequentially from the other side opposite to the person).
Since the cooperative zone in Kuka is defined based on the minimum distance with respect to the person approaching the robot, Kuka does not explicitly teach that the machine sequentially intrudes the protected fields when approaching the cooperation zone.
Iida teaches that the machine sequentially intrudes the protected fields when approaching the cooperation zone ([0145-[0154] disclosing the protective fields containing at least two fields to enable reduction of speed of the machine as it approaches a zone where a human is cooperating with the machine).
The combination of Iida with Kuka improves safety by incorporating the motion of the machine into zones to further avoid colliding with the human at high speeds and avoiding injuries as taught by Iida [0045]-[0054].
Regarding claim 15, Kuka as modified by Iida teaches the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein two optoelectronic sensors monitor five protected fields W, A, B, C, D, namely the one optoelectronic sensor in the access zone monitors an outer first protected field W, a second protected field A enclosing the zone between the first protected field W and the cooperation zone, and a 30 fourth protected field C adjoining in the working zone and comprising the cooperation zone and the other optoelectronic sensor in the working zone monitors an outer fifth protected field D and a third protected field B comprising the cooperation zone and projecting into the access zone ([0030]-[0035] disclosing the two sensors monitoring all the areas thus the first sensor monitors the first and second and forth fields and the second sensors monitors all the fields).
Iada further teaches the plurality of zones for the robot side ([0145-[0154] disclosing the protective fields containing at least two fields to enable reduction of speed of the machine as it approaches a zone where a human is cooperating with the machine).
The combination of Iida with Kuka improves safety by incorporating the motion of the machine into zones to further avoid colliding with the human at high speeds and avoiding injuries as taught by Iida [0045]-[0054]. It would be obvious to utilize the sensors of Kuda with the zones of Iida yielding predictable results and monitoring the robot movement into zones improving safety.
Regarding claim 16, Kuka as modified by Iida teaches the method in accordance with claim 15, wherein the monitoring processes of the two sensors overlap at least in the fourth protected field C so that a higher safety level is reached here ([0030]-[0035] disclosing the two sensors monitors all the fields in an overlapping manner).
Regarding claim 17, Kuka as modified by Iida teaches the method in accordance with claim 15, wherein the first protected field W is monitored as a functional first protected field a, the second protected field A without the third protected field B as a second functional protected field 8, the third protected field B without the fourth protected field C as a functional third protected field y, an overlap zone of the third protected field B with the fourth protected field C as a functional fourth protected field 5, the fourth protected field C without the third protected field B as a functional fifth protected field , and the fifth protected field D without the fourth protected field C as a sixth protected field C (Kuka [0010]-[0047] disclosing the plurality of zones).
Iida further teaches the plurality of zones for the robot side Iada further teaches the plurality of zones for the robot side ([0145-[0154] disclosing the protective fields containing at least two fields to enable reduction of speed of the machine as it approaches a zone where a human is cooperating with the machine).
The combination of Iida with Kuka improves safety by incorporating the motion of the machine into zones to further avoid colliding with the human at high speeds and avoiding injuries as taught by Iida [0045]-[0054]. It would be obvious to utilize the sensors of Kuda with the zones of Iida yielding predictable results and monitoring the robot movement into zones improving safety.
Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2, see above rejection.
Claims 3, 4, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kuka (US20220219323) in view of Iida (US20170326734) and Braune (US20190378264).
Regarding claim 3, Kuka as modified by Iida teaches the method in accordance with claim 1, and wherein the protected fields are three-dimensional protected fields ([0040] disclosing three dimensional fields).
Kuka as modified by Iida does not teach wherein the optoelectronic sensor is a 3D sensor.
Braun teaches wherein the optoelectronic sensor is a 3D sensor ([0021] disclosing the 3d camera).
The combination/substitution of the 3d camera of Braune with the camera of Kuka yielding predictable results in order to detect the distance of an object in all dimensions to avoid colliding with the robot thus improving safety.
Regarding claim 4, Kuka as modified by Iida and Braune teaches the method in accordance with claim 3, wherein the optoelectronic sensor is a time of flight camera.
Specifically, Braune teaches the optoelectronic sensor is a time of flight camera ([0021], [0045] disclosing the time of flight camera as the 3d sensor).
It would be obvious to combine/substitute the time of flight camera as the 3d sensor yielding predictable results as it would be preferred to use technique of time of flight principle with direct time of flight measurement of light signals as taught by Braune [0021] and as an obvious design choice of a 3d camera.
Regarding claim 20, Regarding claim 4, Kuka as modified by Iida teaches the method in accordance with claim 3, but does not teach wherein the optoelectronic sensor is a 3d camera.
Specifically, Braune teaches the optoelectronic sensor is a 3d camera ([0021], [0045] disclosing the time of flight camera as the 3d sensor).
It would be obvious to combine/substitute the time of flight camera as the 3d sensor yielding predictable results as it would be preferred to use technique of time of flight principle with direct time of flight measurement of light signals as taught by Braune [0021] and as an obvious design choice of a 3d camera.
Claims 7, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kuka (US20220219323) in view of Iida (US20170326734) and Andreoni (US20230202037).
Regarding claim 7, Kuka as modified by Iida teaches the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein it is considered a permitted combination of protected field intrusions when protected fields of the first sequence and/or of the second sequence are infringed sequentially from the outside to the inside, with inside designating the cooperation zone, (Kuka [0010]-[0046] disclosing the person moving sequentially in a permitted sequence including between a first and second and third distance wherein the fourth distance remaining between the cooperative zone and the sequence. Since the minimum distance remaining is determined by the protected fields, thus the at least fourth distance remaining is indicative of the at least one field remaining).
Andreoni further teaches but with a minimum number of protected fields without a protected field intrusion remaining between protected fields of the two sequences here ([0050]-[0051] disclosing multiple zones wherein the permitted zone for instance 410 does not cause any change in robot behavior since it includes at least another two regions closer to the robot as protective regions).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Andreoni yielding predictable results in order to suppress unnecessary control of the robot when a collision is not expected with a person based on the regions as taught by Andreoni [0050]-[0052].
Regarding claim 9, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni teaches the method in accordance with claim 7,
Specifically, Andreoni teaches wherein the machine continues to work without any restriction of its work speed on observing a minimum number of two ([0050]-[0051] disclosing multiple zones wherein the permitted zone for instance 410 does not cause any change in robot behavior since it includes at least another two regions closer to the robot as protective regions).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Andreoni yielding predictable results in order to suppress unnecessary control of the robot when a collision is not expected with a person based on the regions as taught by Andreoni [0050]-[0052].
Regarding claim 11, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni further teaches the method in accordance with claim 7, wherein the machine is safeguarded when a minimum number has not been observed.
Specifically, Andreoni teaches wherein the machine is safeguarded when a minimum number has not been observed ([0050]-[0051] disclosing when no more zones are available and the robot is in immediate proximity to the robot at 404 to stop the robot).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Andreoni yielding predictable results in order to progressively slow down the robot until the danger is great thus improving the efficiency of the robot work and unnecessarily stopping the robot when there is no danger of collision.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kuka (US20220219323) in view of Iida (US20170326734) and Andreoni (US20230202037) and Ooshima (US20240165811) and Moriyama (US20220288784).
Regarding claim 8, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni teaches the method in accordance with claim 7, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni does not teach wherein, when a protected field of the first sequence is infringed (Andreoni [0050]-[0052] disclosing the first sequence of infringement).
Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni does not teach the machine may no longer intrude into a protected field associated with the first sequence corresponding to the minimum number and the machine retreats therefrom provided that it already intrudes into the associated protected field associated with the first sequence corresponding to the minimum number.
Ooshima teaches the machine may no longer intrude into a protected field ([0062]-[0063] disclosing the machine does not enter into a protected field with a human being intruding ).
The combination of Ooshima is obvious yielding predictable results thus avoiding the motion of the robot into an occupied area avoiding collision and improving human safety.
Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni does not teach and the machine retreats therefrom provided that it already intrudes into the associated protected field.
Moriyama teaches and the machine retreats therefrom provided that it already intrudes into the associated protected field ([0033]-[0034] disclosing retreating from the work area in response to a person entering).
The combination of Moriyama is obvious yielding predictable results in order to retreat the robot until a person exits the area thus improving the safety of a person.
Claims 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kuka (US20220219323) in view of Iida (US20170326734) and Andreoni (US20230202037) and Takai (US20210157326).
Regarding claim 10, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni teaches the method in accordance with claim 7, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni does not teach wherein the worker receives a warning not to further approach the cooperation zone on observing only a minimum number of one.
Takai teaches wherein the worker receives a warning not to further approach the cooperation zone on observing only a minimum number of one ([0061]-[0062] disclosing the warning when there is still a prohibition zone after a restriction zone).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Takai yielding predictable results in order to warn a person so that the robot is not unnecessarily stopped if the person moves away [0061].
Regarding claim 12, Kuka as modified by Iida and Andreoni teaches the method in accordance with claim 7, wherein the machine restarts automatically as soon as the minimum number has been reestablished or a protected field is no longer infringed.
Specifically, Takai teaches wherein the machine restarts automatically as soon as the minimum number has been reestablished or a protected field is no longer infringed ([0061]-[0062] disclosing the resuming of the normal speed when the human is no longer in the protected field).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Takai yielding predictable results in order to warn a person so that the robot is not unnecessarily stopped if the person moves away [0061].
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kuka (US20220219323) in view of Iida (US20170326734) and Kim (US20100057252) and Moriyama (US20220288784).
Regarding claim 13, Kuka as modified by Iida teaches the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein, for the evaluation of the protected field intrusions and the measures therefore to be taken with respect to the machine, (Kuka [0010]-[0051] disclosing the transition of the machine into a limited speed based on a first intrusion into a first zone by a person and an additional second intrusion into a protected field and third additional intrusion and fourth additional intrucion);
While Kuka does not teach the finite state machine.
Kim teaches finite transition machine ([0070] disclosing the sequence of control based on the finite state machine).
the combination/substitution of transitioning of the robot based on FSM is obvious yielding predictable result in order to save computational power as taught by Kim [0070].
Kuka as modified by Iida and Kim does not teach and wherein the measures are a moving of the machine away from the cooperation zone in the second direction, a prohibition of intrusions into a protected field by the machine, and/or the canceling of a prohibition of intrusions into a protected field.
Moriyama teaches wherein the measures are a moving of the machine away from the cooperation zone in the second direction, a prohibition of intrusions into a protected field by the machine, and/or the canceling of a prohibition of intrusions into a protected field ([0033]-[0034] disclosing retreating from the work area in response to a person entering).
The combination of Moriyama is obvious yielding predictable results in order to retreat the robot until a person exits the area thus improving the safety of a person.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20100191372 disclosing a robot zone, a worker zone and a cooperative zone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B