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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 18/846,878 and the preliminary amendments filled on 04/22/2025.
Claims 13-30 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 19 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On lines 2 and 5 of claim 19, the acronym word, “CAD” should be presented for what it stands for. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is directed to a program pro product, and should be written in independent form including all the limitation s of claim 12 and should apparently overcome the rejection set forth below under 35 U.S.C. 101. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Comments
Claim 1 cites the phrase “visualization device” which is a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language, however, in claim 22 cites “the visualization device comprises at least one of a smartphone or glasses”, and in the specification, in Page 12, cites “a handheld device, preferably a handheld, tablet, smartphone, laptop or the like, and/or glasses, in particular Augmented Reality or Virtual Reality glasses”. Therefore, the phrase visualization device is a hardware and doesn’t invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim 14 cites the phrase “detection device” which is a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language, however, in claims 16-17 cites that the detection device includes at least one camera or distance meter like lidar, radar. Therefore, the detection device is a hardware and doesn’t invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Application Data Sheet to be filed in a proper form.
Drawing/Specification Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “visualization device”, “detection device”, “computer”, “computer-readable medium”, “computer program product”, “means for” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “means for obtaining..”, “means for defining..” and “means for moving…” in Claim 12 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The generic placeholder is not recognized as the names of a structure.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 12 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 29 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim elements “means” in claim 1; are limitations that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the corresponding entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such as one of ordinary skills in the art would understand which structures perform(s) the corresponding claim function in claim 29.
Therefore, the claim 29 is indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above from the 112(f) interpretation and 112 (b) rejection, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure for “means” to perform the corresponding claimed function in claim 29. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Therefore, the claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC § 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.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim 30 is directed to “A computer program product” for checking a safety configuration of a robot. Considering the open ended definition of the computer program product, it is computer software per se and is not a "process," a "machine," a "manufacture" or a "composition of matter," as defined in 35 USC § 101. In order to overcome 35 USC 101 rejection, the applicants are advised to amend the claim limitations as “A[[a]] non- transitory[[,]] computer-readable medium[[,]] having stored therein a computer program product comprising program code, when executed on a computer, causing the computer to carry out the method of claim 13.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 13-16, 18-19, 22, 26 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2019/0389066A1, this reference is from IDS) (hereinafter Jung) in view of Wu et al. (CN105945942, attached English translate NP document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Wu) (hereinafter Wu).
Claim 13. Jung teaches a method for checking a safety configuration of a robot (See Para. [0017], discloses “a method and system for a robot moving through an environment where safety is a concern”, and see Para. [0021], “when an interference is imminent, the motion of the robot may be slowed or stopped to prevent a physical collision”), comprising:
obtaining a computer-implemented, three-dimensional environment model (See Para. [0006], [0033], “display operational zones overlaid on real world images of the robot and any existing fixtures, where the display is updated as the user moves around the robot work cell with the AR device”, and Para. [0018], [0056], discloses “view an operational zones in 3D space”);
defining at least one protection region, working region, and/or tool monitoring region of the robot (See Para. [0008], [0016], discloses “define a safety zone for protection of the operator”, and/or see Para. [0019], “an operational zone 110 established as a safety zone for protection of the operator 102”);
visually displaying in an augmented reality, a virtual representation of the at least one protection region, working region, and/or tool monitoring region using a visualization device (See Para. [0044], discloses “AR device 620 and AR zone software to display the virtual operational zones overlaid on real-world items”. Additionally, see Claim 1 cites “displaying one or more operational zones, including providing a virtual display of the operational zones superimposed on images of the robot and other physical items in the work cell, where each of the operational zones includes control points used to define operational zone location, size and shape”);
evaluating a movement of the robot (See Para. [0018], “the speed and position of the robot are continuously checked against these zones to make sure the robot is always respecting the boundaries of the defined zones”); and
moving the robot away from and/or toward the at least one pose and/or the at least one section of the specified path based on the evaluation (See Para. [0052], “the robot controller 630 commands the robot 610 to move, and also provides the new robot position to the AR zone software. Also, as the robot 610 moves, the user can visually check for interferences between interference check zones defined for the parts of the robot 610 and physical items such as the table 614, where the virtual zones and the physical items are all visible in the display of the AR device 620.”).
Jung discloses in para. [0040], “the pose of the robot 610 including all joint centers used for interference check zone creation. nevertheless, Jung does not explicitly spell out where movement of the robot relative to this pose, or (b) at least one section of a specified path.
However, Wu teaches, evaluating movement of the robot relative to at least one pose, or at least one section of a specified path (See Para. [0016], [0020[, [0044], “performs robot motion simulation and collision detection; based on the results of the robot motion simulation and collision detection, it modifies the path points according to the given definitions to form a new robot motion trajectory and posture”, and/or see Para. [0026], [0033], [0054], “The extracted robot motion path primitives and their pose information are discretized to obtain path points, and the robot motion trajectory is generated in the robot's 3D virtual environment’. Additionally, see Para. [0018], “the API interface function of the 3D solid modeling software extracts the robot's motion path primitives and their pose information, and generating a motion trajectory [i.e., movement of the robot relative to the pose]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Jung with motion simulation in three dimension virtual environment as taught by Wu to incorporate the claimed invention in order to obtain a collision free robot’s motion trajectory and posture.
Claim 14. The teaching of Jung as modified by the teaching of Wu teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising:
detecting data of a real environment of the robot using a detection device (See Jung, Abstract, and/or Para. [0006], [0035]-[0036],discloses “The AR device [i.e., detecting device] receive robot’s position and other information from robot controller”, and/or see Para. [0042], “the AR zone software on the AR device 620 can perform the interference checks in real time as the robot 610 is moved through its programmed motions”. Additionally, see Wu, Para. [0051], “obtain the robot's motion path primitives and their pose information”);
wherein obtaining the environment model comprises determining the model on the basis of the detected data (See Jung, Para. [0006, “the AR device and software then display operational zones overlaid on real world images of the robot and any existing fixtures, where the display is updated as the user moves around the robot work cell with the AR device”. Additionally see Wu, Para. [0051], “Construct a three-dimensional virtual environment for the robot based on obtained motion path primitives and their pose information”, same as claimed).
Claim 15. The teaching of Jung as modified by the teaching of Wu teaches the method of claim 14, wherein at least one of:
the detection device is one of a portable or mobile detection device (See Fig. 6, Para. [0035], “where the AR device 620 is handheld device”);
the model is determined with the aid of at least one approximation of features detected with the detection device (Examiner Note: Optional claimed feature, and the examiner consider other limitation for prior art citation); or
the model is determined with the aid of at least one approximation of points detected with the detection device Examiner Note: Optional claimed feature, and the examiner consider other limitation for prior art citation).
Claim 16. The teaching of Jung as modified by the teaching of Wu teaches the method of claim 14, wherein at least one of:
the detection device is arranged on the visualization device (Note: Claim would require to consider one of a limitation, and the examiner considered other limitations for claim mapping);
the detection device is moved at least one of translationally or rotationally relative to the real environment to detect the data Note: Claim would require to consider one of a limitation, and the examiner considered other limitations for claim mapping;
the detection device includes at least one contact-free measuring distance meter; or the detection device includes at least one camera (See Jung, Para. [0035], “The AR device 620 comprises a camera”).
Claim 18. The teaching of Jung as modified by the teaching of Wu teaches the method of claim 13, wherein at least one of:
the environment model is determined on the basis of specified target data;
the environment model includes at least one three-dimensional geometry primitive in a specified relation to a real environmental obstacle (See Jung, Para. [0006, “the AR device and software then display operational zones overlaid on real world images of the robot and any existing fixtures, where the display is updated as the user moves around the robot work cell with the AR device”, same as claimed);
a model of the robot is determined on the basis of at least one of specified target data or a measurement of the robot;
the model of the robot includes at least one three-dimensional geometry primitive in a specified relation to a member of the robot; or
the model of the robot includes a computer-implemented model of a robot-guided tool or workpiece as a movable member of the robot (See Wu, Para. [0008], “establishes a 3D model in a computer and generates a motion trajectory from the interpolation points between virtual tool teaching points”).
Claim 19. The teaching of Jung as modified by the teaching of Wu teaches the method of claim 18, wherein at least one of:
the specified target data for determining the environment model comprises CAD data of the environment; or the specified target data for determining the robot model comprises at least one of: a) data of the specified path of the robot, or b) CAD data of the robot (see Wu, Para. [0015], “The system includes a terminal with an operating system for constructing a 3D virtual environment for the robot; it imports the robot's kinematic constraints, the 3D model of the robot's work object, and the 3D model of the robot and its tooling into the 3D virtual environment; it discretizes the extracted robot motion path primitives and their pose information; it extracts path points; it generates the robot's motion trajectory”).
Claim 22. The teaching of Jung as modified by the teaching of Wu teaches the method of claim 13, wherein at least one of:
the visualization device is at least one of mobile or portable (See Jung, Fig. 6, Para. [0035], discloses “AR device 620 [i.e., visualization device] comprises handheld device such as mobile phone, tablet device or robot teach pendant”, same as claimed);
the visualization device is configured as a handheld device See Jung, Fig. 6, Para. [0035], discloses “AR device 620 [i.e., visualization device] comprises handheld device such as mobile phone, tablet device or robot teach pendant”, same as claimed;
the visualization device comprises at least one of a smartphone or glasses; or the visualization device is configured to control the robot.
Claim 26. The teaching of Jung as modified by the teaching of Wu teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising:
modifying at least one of the at least one pose; the specified path; or at least one of the protection region, working region, or tool monitoring region, in response to the evaluation determining an intersection of at least a part of the robot with the protection region or an intersection volume (See Jung, Para. [0052], “the robot controller 630 commands the robot 610 to move, and also provides the new robot position to the AR zone software. From the robot position information, the AR zone software can update the position of any interference check zones, and identify any interference conditions between interference check zones and other operational zones. Interference conditions are highlighted in the AR display, and also may be configured to cause the motion of the robot 610 to stop”. Additionally, see Wu, Para. [0020], “If a collision occurs, the path points are automatically modified to form a new robot motion trajectory and posture”).
Claim 29 is a system claim and having substantially the same technical features as claim 1, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 29 is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claim 1.
Claim 30. The teaching of Jung as modified by the teaching of Wu teaches a computer program product for checking a safety configuration of a robot, the computer program product comprising program code stored on a non- transitory, computer-readable medium, the program code, when executed on a computer, causing the computer to carry out the method of claim 13 (See Jung, Para. [0055], “one or more computing devices having a processor and a memory module, including algorithms configured in non-volatile memory for controlling motions and tasks of a robot”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2019/0389066A1, this reference is from IDS) (hereinafter Jung) in view of Wu et al. (CN105945942, attached English translate NP document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Wu) (hereinafter Wu) and further in view of Leong (US2022/0410394 A1).
Claim 17. The teaching of Jung as modified by the teaching of Wu teaches the method of claim 16, wherein at least one of:
the at least one contact-free measuring distance meter comprises at least one lidar, radar, or ultrasonic distance meter; or
the at least one camera comprises at least one of a camera system or an image evaluation system (See Jung, Para. [0035], “the AR device 620 is preferably a headset wearable by a user 612, where the headset includes a camera which overlay computer-generated 3D images”.
Nevertheless, Jung does not explicitly spell out “3D camera”.
However, Leong (US2022/0410394 A1) teaches, “3D Camera” [See Para. [0043], “3D sensor to capture 3D images of environment”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Jung in view of the teaching of Wu with a 3D sensor/camera as taught by Leong to in order to capture 3D image of environment for a creation or management of robot trajectory points.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2019/0389066A1, this reference is from IDS) (hereinafter Jung) in view of Wu et al. (CN105945942, attached English translate NP document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Wu) (hereinafter Wu) and further in view of Safronov et al (W)2019096479A1) (hereinafter Safronov).
Claim 20. The teaching of Jung as modified by the teaching of Wu teaches the method of claim 13,
where Wu, Para. [0042], discloses “acquire 3D models of robot work objects and robots and their tooling, as well as robot motion path primitives and their pose information”. Additionally, Wu discloses in Para. [0018], “generating a basic primitive model and automatically selecting and generating a motion trajectory, the above basic primitive model and motion trajectory are transformed into the robot's 3D virtual environment through coordinate transformation”), nevertheless, Wu fails to explicitly spell out, wherein obtaining the environment model comprises at least one of:
determining the environment model based on the robot ;
determining the environment model based on a model of the robot; or determining the environment model based on a selection of an environment region by an inspector.
However, Safronov teaches in para. [0012]-[0013], “Determining an environmental model based on or depending on this recorded environmental contour”, and see Para. [0049], discloses “the environmental model and/or the free space is aligned or positioned and/or oriented relative to a robot arm-fixed, in particular robot arm base or flange-fixed, reference, in particular a reference (coordinate) system, in such a way that a deviation between the robot arm-fixed element(s) identified in the captured environmental contour and their pose, which results from the captured position of the robot arm, is minimized”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Jung in view of the teaching of Wu with determination of environment model as taught by Satronov to incorporate the claimed invention in order to improve the operation of a robot arrangement.
Claim 21. The teaching of Jung as modified by the teaching of Wu and Satronov teaches the method of claim 20, wherein:
determining the environment model based on the robot comprises determining the environment model based on robot data (See Jung, Para. [0049], discloses “the environmental model and/or the free space is aligned or positioned and/or oriented relative to a robot arm-fixed, in particular robot arm base or flange-fixed); or
determining the environment model based on the robot comprises determining the environment model based on robot data detected using a detection device.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2019/0389066A1, this reference is from IDS) (hereinafter Jung) in view of Wu et al. (CN105945942, attached English translate NP document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Wu) (hereinafter Wu) and further in view of Humphries (US 2016/0110838A1).
Claim 23. The teaching of Jung as modified by the teaching of Wu teaches the method of claim 13, but fails to tech the method that further comprising:
outputting at least one parameter as a virtual watermark during the visually displaying of the virtual representation.
However, Humphries teaches, outputting at least one parameter as a virtual watermark during the visually displaying of the virtual representation (See para. [0092], “a method of watermarking video images of a particular instance of a virtual environment, wherein the physical property has a visible effect on the appearance of the virtual objects, and rendering for display the virtual environment”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Jung in view of the teaching of Wu with watermarking image of a virtual environment as taught by Humphries to incorporate the claimed invention in order to identify the source.
Claim 24. The teaching of Jung as modified by the teaching of Wu and Humphries teaches the method of claim 23, wherein at least one of:
the at least one parameter is at least one of:
a checksum of the safety configuration from the robot controller (See Jung, Para. [0008], [0019], “an operational zone established as a safety zone for protection of the operator”, and/or see Para. [0016], “define safety zones and other types of spatial zones which are relevant to the motion of the robot—such as a zone which the robot is prohibited from entering”),
a date,
a time,
a serial number of the robot controller,
a serial number of the robot,
a speed for the at least one section of a path and/or for a section, in particular a point, of the path that is moved away from or towards during visualization, or
a value of a distance for a selected section of the path from the at least one protection region, working region, and/or tool monitoring region and/or for a section, in particular a point, of the path that is simulated during visualization; or
the virtual watermark is output at least one of numerically, acoustically, or symbolically.
Claims 25 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2019/0389066A1, this reference is from IDS) (hereinafter Jung) in view of Wu et al. (CN105945942, attached English translate NP document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Wu) (hereinafter Wu) and further in view of However, Linnell (US 2015/0246443 A1).
Claim 25. The teaching of Jung as modified by the teaching of Wu teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising, when moving away from and/or toward the at least one pose and/or the at least one section of the path(See Jung, Para. [0024], [0042]-[0043], [0052], “the actual robot 300 is physically moved through its programmed motions while the interference check zones 310-318 and the permitted zone 320 are mathematically evaluated and results are displayed using the augmented reality system”), at least one of:
issuing a warning is in response to a determination that a distance of at least a part of the robot from a defined protection region lies in a specified warning region; or
issuing a warning is in response to a determination of an intersection of at least a part of the robot with the protection region or an intersection volume (See Jung, Para. [0053], “report [i.e., warning] an interference condition between interference check zones for robot parts and other operation zones which are fixed, and caused the motion of the robot to stop). The examiner note that Jung doesn’t explicitly spell out issuing warning, instead it reports interference condition. However, Linnell (US 2015/0246443 A1) discloses in Para. [0035], [0101], create a warning signal if an object is detected in a periphery of the danger zone”, and see Para. [0113], “the preview may send a warning signal when the motion path of the robot tool would approach or exceed a predefined constraint of the robotic device”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Jung in view of the teaching of Wu with warning signal as taught by Linnell to incorporate the claimed invention in order to avoid danger.
Claim 27. The teaching of Jung as modified by the teaching of Wu and Linnell teaches the method of claim 25, further comprising evaluating a movement of the robot relative to a pose and/or a section of the specified path for which a warning is issued using the virtual representation (See Linnell, Para. see Para. [0113], “the preview may send a warning signal when the motion path of the robot tool would approach or exceed a predefined constraint of the robotic device).
Claim 28. The teaching of Jung as modified by the teaching of Wu teaches the method of claim 26, further comprising:
checking a virtual representation of the modified at least one protection region, working region, and/or tool monitoring region in the augmented reality using the visualization device (See Jung, Para. [0002], “modify robot operational zones and boundaries, such as safety zones, where zones are displayed and manipulated using computer graphics overlaid on a real-world view, the graphics are continuously updated as the device/user position is tracked, and overlay of zones over real-world objects happens automatically”); and
issuing a warning signal for at least one of the modified pose or a section of the modified path in response to a determination that a distance of at least a part of the robot from the modified at least one protection region, working region, or tool monitoring region is in a warning region.
Nevertheless, the teaching of Jung as modified by the teaching of Wu doesn’t explicitly spell out, where issuing a warning signal for at least one of the modified pose or a section of the modified path in response to a determination that a distance of at least a part of the robot from the modified at least one protection region, working region, or tool monitoring region is in a warning region.
However, Linnell teaches, issuing a warning signal for at least one of the modified pose or a section of the modified path in response to a determination that a distance of at least a part of the robot from the modified at least one protection region, working region, or tool monitoring region is in a warning region (See Para. [0035], “a warning signal may be provided to the user when the demonstrated movements are approaching or have exceeded one or more predefined constraints of the robotic device. Accordingly, the user may be able to adjust movements of the demonstration tool in order to stay within the feasible range of motion of the robotic device”, and/or see Para. [0113], “the preview may send a warning signal when the motion path of the robot tool would approach or exceed a predefined constraint of the robotic device. Examples of displayed information may include the robot's joint positions, joint velocities, and joint accelerations relative to the robot's physical limits, as well as warnings about singularities”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Jung in view of the teaching of Wu with warning signal as taught by Linnell to incorporate the claimed invention in order to avoid danger.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights