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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 statements (IDS’s) submitted on 9/13/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 18 - 27 & 30 - 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirill (WO 2019096479 A1) in view of Dale (US 2021/0298846 A1).
Regarding Claim 18:
Kirill discloses: A method for ascertaining at least one border for operating a robot, the method comprising: (Kirill discloses in at least Paragraph 0003 a method for operating a robot arrangement, including the detection of environmental contours and the generation of an environmental model based on such as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0030 & 0049)
detecting data of real surroundings of the robot using a detection device, in particular a mobile or portable detection device; (Kirill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0030 & 0039 wherein an environmental contour may be detected through the use of a sensor, such as a 3D camera [i.e. detecting data of real surroundings of the robot using a detection device], the sensor being embodied as a smartphone in an embodiment [i.e. in particular a mobile or portable detection device])
ascertaining a first surroundings contour on the basis of the detected data; (Kirill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0030, 0041, & 0042 wherein an environmental contour may be detected based on information acquired form the sensor, with image recognition techniques being used to identify elements in the captured environment [i.e. ascertaining a first surroundings contour on the basis of the detected data])
ascertaining a first border of a first spatial area to be monitored on the basis of the ascertained first surroundings contour; (Kirill discloses in at least Paragraph 0056 wherein based on the detected environmental contour, and an environmental model or free space for the movement of the robot may be determined on the basis of the environmental contour [i.e. a first spatial area to be monitored on the basis of the ascertained first surroundings contour], with at least Paragraph 0058 of Kirill disclosing wherein a fine contour may be further defined in order to determine a refined free and collision space. At least Paragraph 0134 of Kirill discloses wherein the free space may be defined by a boundary [i.e. a first border of a first spatial area])
Kirill however appears to be silent regarding:
monitoring the robot for exceeding the ascertained first border during operation of the robot; and
switching operation of the robot to a first operating mode of the robot in response to a detection that the first border is exceeded.
However Dale teaches wherein a robot equipped with a tool is monitored for determining if a virtual boundary is exceeded, and the robot is controlled in the event of said boundary being determined to be exceeded.
monitoring the robot for exceeding the ascertained first border during operation of the robot; and (However Dale teaches in at least Paragraphs 0140 & 0141 wherein a virtual boundary definition is checked against the current state of a tool connected to a robot in order to determine compliance with the virtual boundary, specifically if the virtual boundary is violated, in order to trigger a recovery mode as taught in at least Paragraph 0142 of Dale [i.e. monitoring the robot for exceeding the ascertained first border during operation of the robot])
switching operation of the robot to a first operating mode of the robot in response to a detection that the first border is exceeded. (However Dale teaches in at least Paragraphs 0142 & 0144 – 0146 wherein in response to a tool being in violation of the virtual boundary, a recovery mode is enabled, including highly damping movement of the robot, as well as disabling the tool drive such that machining is not allowed [i.e. switching operation of the robot to a first operating mode of the robot in response to a detection that the first border is exceeded])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kirill by incorporating the control of the robot in a recovery mode based on a virtual boundary being crossed as taught by Dale.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Dale in at least Paragraphs 0144 – 0146, a robot tool may be controlled only within an allowed region, improving the safety of control of the robot with respect to a defined boundary.
Regarding Claim 19:
The method of claim 18, further comprising: ascertaining a second border of a second spatial area based on the first surroundings contour or a second surroundings contour ascertained on the basis of the detected data.
Kirill does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a second border of a second spatial area is ascertained based on the first surroundings contour or a second surroundings contour ascertained on the basis of the detected data.
However Dale teaches in at least Paragraph 0174 wherein a standard and extended boundary around an area may be determined, the extended boundary having dimensions greater in magnitude than the standard boundary around the same area [i.e. ascertaining a second border of a second spatial area based on the first surroundings contour].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kirill by incorporating the determination of an extended border as taught by Dale.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Dale in at least Paragraph 0174, an extended boundary with increased room for maneuvering may be provided, improving the user ability to operate the robot within a desired operational range.
Regarding Claim 20:
The method of claim 19, further comprising: monitoring the robot for exceeding the ascertained second border during operation of the robot; and switching to a second operating mode of the robot in response to a detection that the second border is exceeded.
Kirill does not appear to specifically disclose monitoring the robot for exceeding the ascertained second border during operation of the robot; and switching to a second operating mode of the robot in response to a detection that the second border is exceeded.
However Dale teaches in at least Paragraphs 0116 & 0117 wherein each virtual constraint may have different associated configuration settings, including wherein the tuning parameters may oppose motion of the robot with different forces based on different distance offset constraints [i.e. a second operating mode of the robot in response to a detection that the second border is exceeded].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kirill by incorporating the different configuration of robot responses based on different borders as taught by Dale.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Dale in at least Paragraphs 0116 & 0117, the movement of the robot may be differently constrained based on different boundary conditions, improving the utility in defining different virtual constraints.
Regarding Claim 21:
The method of claim 19, wherein at least one of the first surroundings contour or the second surroundings contour is ascertained with the aid of at least one approximation of features detected with the aid of the detection device.
Kirill discloses in at least Paragraph 0100 wherein the environmental model is determined based on detected environmental points [i.e. the first contour is ascertained with the aid of at least one approximation of features detected with the aid of the detection device].
Regarding Claim 22:
The method of claim 21, wherein features detected with the aid of the detection device are points of the real surroundings.
Kirill discloses in at least Paragraph 0100 wherein the environmental model is determined based on detected environmental points [i.e. features detected with the aid of the detection device are points of the real surroundings].
Regarding Claim 23:
The method of claim 19, wherein at least one of the first border or the second border is ascertained based on at least one of: a user input; or at least one of a specified position or a specified distance from the surroundings contour.
Kirill does not appear to specifically disclose wherein at least one of the first border or the second border is ascertained based on at least one of a user input, or at least one of a specified position or a specified distance from the surroundings contour.
However Dale teaches in at least Paragraph 0174 wherein a standard and extended boundary around an area may be determined, the extended boundary having dimensions greater in magnitude than the standard boundary around the same area [i.e. the first and second border are ascertained based on a specified distance from the surroundings contour].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kirill by incorporating the determination of an extended border as taught by Dale.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Dale in at least Paragraph 0174, an extended boundary with increased room for maneuvering may be provided, improving the user ability to operate the robot within a desired operational range.
Regarding Claim 24:
The method of claim 23, wherein the user input comprises a user selection from at least one of suggested surroundings contours or suggested borders.
Kirill does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the user input comprises a user selection from at least one of suggested surroundings contours or suggested borders.
However Dale teaches in at least Paragraphs 0170 – 0172 wherein the user may select a virtual boundary from a plurality of virtual boundaries, and further teaches in at least Paragraphs 0081 & 0082 wherein virtual boundaries may be configured relative to a 3D model, including defining the virtual boundaries based on a size, shape, and/or volume of an implement, said boundaries being created pre-operatively [i.e. the user input comprises a user selection from at least one of suggested surroundings contours or suggested borders].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kirill by incorporating the user selection of boundaries as taught by Dale.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Dale in at least Paragraphs 0170 – 0172, the user may reliably set a desired boundary, improving the control of the robot within a specified region.
Regarding Claim 25:
The method of claim 20, wherein the robot is stopped or moved at a changed speed in at least one of the first operating mode or the second operating mode.
Kirill does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the robot is stopped or moved at a changed speed in at least one of the first operating mode or the second operating mode.
However Dale teaches in at least Paragraphs 0142 & 0144 – 0146 wherein in response to a tool being in violation of the virtual boundary, a recovery mode is enabled, including highly damping movement of the robot, as well as disabling the tool drive such that machining is not allowed [i.e. the robot is stopped or moved at a changed speed in at least one of the first operating mode or the second operating mode].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kirill by incorporating the control of the robot in a recovery mode to stop or damp robot motion based on a virtual boundary being crossed as taught by Dale.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Dale in at least Paragraphs 0144 – 0146, a robot tool may be controlled only within an allowed region, improving the safety of control of the robot with respect to a defined boundary.
Regarding Claim 26:
The method of claim 25, wherein the changed speed is a reduced speed.
Kirill does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the changed speed is a reduced speed.
However Dale teaches in at least Paragraphs 0142 & 0144 – 0146 wherein in response to a tool being in violation of the virtual boundary, a recovery mode is enabled, including highly damping movement of the robot [i.e. the changed speed is a reduced speed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kirill by incorporating the control of the robot in a recovery mode to damp robot motion based on a virtual boundary being crossed as taught by Dale.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Dale in at least Paragraphs 0144 – 0146, a robot tool may be controlled only within an allowed region, improving the safety of control of the robot with respect to a defined boundary.
Regarding Claim 27:
The method of claim 20, further comprising at least one of: in response to a collision event, specifying a modified behavior of the robot in at least one of the first operating mode or the second operating mode; or issuing at least one of an optical warning signal or an acoustic warning signal in response to switching to the first or second operating mode.
Kirill does not appear to specifically disclose issuing at least one of an optical warning signal or an acoustic warning signal in response to switching to the first or second operating mode.
However Dale teaches in at least Paragraphs 0106, 0144, 0172, & 0178 wherein user feedback is generated for display to a user responsive to the robot tool being in violation of the second virtual boundary, said feedback including visual guidance or a visual user message being displayed indicating the boundary constraint violation condition [i.e. issuing an optical warning signal in response to switching to the first or second operating mode].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kirill by incorporating the output of a visual warning based on a boundary being violated as taught by Dale.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Dale in at least Paragraph 0144, the user may be notified of a boundary violation condition, improving the user awareness of the abnormal condition of the tool.
Regarding Claim 30:
The method of claim 18, wherein at least one of: the method comprises moving the detection device at least one of translationally, rotationally, or manually relative to the real surroundings; or the detection device includes at least one of: at least one contact-free distance measuring meter, at least one camera, or an image evaluation device.
Kirill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0030 & 0039 wherein an environmental contour may be detected through the use of a sensor, such as a 3D camera [i.e. the detection device comprises a camera].
Regarding Claim 31:
The method of claim 30, wherein at least one of: the at least one contact-free distance measuring meter is at least one lidar, at least one radar, or at least one ultrasonic distance meter; or the at least one camera is a 3D camera system.
Kirill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0030 & 0039 wherein an environmental contour may be detected through the use of a sensor, such as a 3D camera [i.e. the at least one camera is a 3D camera system].
Regarding Claim 32:
The method of claim 19, further comprising: monitoring whether the robot exceeds at least one of the ascertained first border or the ascertained second border based on at least one of detected joint positions or a computer-implemented model of the robot.
Kirill does not appear to specifically disclose monitoring whether the robot exceeds at least one of the ascertained first border or the ascertained second border based on at least one of detected joint positions or a computer-implemented model of the robot.
However Dale teaches in at least Paragraphs 0167 & 0168 wherein a virtual boundary violation check may be performed by modeling the features associated with the tool relative to the virtual boundary [i.e. monitoring whether the robot exceeds at least one of the ascertained first border or the ascertained second border based on a computer-implemented model of the robot].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kirill by incorporating the use of a model to determine if a virtual border is violated as taught by Dale.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Dale in at least Paragraphs 0167 & 0168, the movement of the tool relative to the virtual boundary may be ascertained, improving the monitoring of potential boundary violations.
Regarding Claim 33:
The method of claim 19, wherein ascertaining at least one of the first border or the second border comprises ascertaining based on at least one three- dimensional geometry primitive that has a specified relation to the first surroundings contour or the second surroundings contour.
Kirill discloses in at least Paragraph 0100 wherein the environmental model may be determined based on geometric object primitives, however does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the first or second border is ascertained based on at least one three-dimensional geometry primitive that has a specified relation to the first surroundings contour or the second surroundings contour.
However Dale teaches in at least Paragraphs 0081 & 0082 wherein virtual boundaries may be configured relative to a 3D model, which is associated with real patient anatomy [i.e. ascertaining at least one of the first border or the second border comprises ascertaining based on at least one three- dimensional geometry primitive that has a specified relation to the first surroundings contour].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kirill by incorporating the use of a 3D model associated with patient anatomy to define a virtual boundary as taught by Dale.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Dale in at least Paragraphs 0081 & 0082, the virtual boundaries may be configured in a manner appropriate to the tool and the area desired for movement, improving the boundary configuration of the robot device.
Regarding Claim 34:
The method of claim 33, wherein the specified relation to the first surroundings contour or the second surroundings contour is a spatial position.
Kirill does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the specified relation to the first surroundings contour or the second surroundings contour is a spatial position.
However Dale teaches in at least Paragraphs 0081 & 0082 wherein virtual boundaries may be configured relative to a 3D model, including defining the virtual boundaries based on a size, shape, and/or volume of an implement [i.e. the specified relation to the first surroundings contour or the second surroundings contour is a spatial position].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kirill by incorporating the definition of virtual boundaries based on implement dimensions as taught by Dale.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Dale in at least Paragraphs 0081 & 0082, the virtual boundaries may be configured in a manner appropriate to the tool and the area desired for movement, improving the boundary configuration of the robot device.
Regarding Claim 35:
The method of claim 19, wherein ascertaining at least one of the first surroundings contour or the second surroundings contour comprises ascertaining based on at least one of: the robot, in particular data of the robot detected by the detection device; a computer-implemented model of the robot; or a specification by a user of an area of surroundings to be detected.
Kirill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0097 & 0127 wherein determining the environmental model and/or the free space may be based on detecting a robot arm in the captured image and removing said robot arm from the environmental contours [i.e. ascertaining at least one of the first surroundings contour or the second surroundings contour comprises ascertaining based on the robot, in particular data of the robot detected by the detection device].
Regarding Claim 36:
Kirill discloses: A system for ascertaining at least one border for operating a robot, the system comprising: (Kirill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0003 & 0103 wherein a robot system arrangement is operated, including the detection of environmental contours and the generation of an environmental model based on such as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0030 & 0049))
a detection device, in particular a mobile or portable detection device, for detecting data of a real surroundings of the robot, (Kirill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0030 & 0039 wherein an environmental contour may be detected through the use of a sensor, such as a 3D camera [i.e. detecting data of real surroundings of the robot using a detection device], the sensor being embodied as a smartphone in an embodiment [i.e. in particular a mobile or portable detection device])
means for ascertaining a first surroundings contour based on the detected data; (Kirill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0030, 0041, & 0042 wherein an environmental contour may be detected based on information acquired form the sensor, with image recognition techniques being used to identify elements in the captured environment [i.e. means for ascertaining a first surroundings contour on the basis of the detected data])
means for ascertaining a first border of a first spatial area to be monitored on the basis of this ascertained first surroundings contour; (Kirill discloses in at least Paragraph 0056 wherein based on the detected environmental contour, and an environmental model or free space for the movement of the robot may be determined on the basis of the environmental contour [i.e. a first spatial area to be monitored on the basis of the ascertained first surroundings contour], with at least Paragraph 0058 of Kirill disclosing wherein a fine contour may be further defined in order to determine a refined free and collision space. At least Paragraph 0134 of Kirill discloses wherein the free space may be defined by a boundary [i.e. a first border of a first spatial area])
Kirill however appears to be silent regarding:
means for monitoring the robot for exceeding the ascertained first border during operation of the robot; and
means for switching operation of the robot to a first operating mode of the robot in response to a detection that the first border is exceeded.
However Dale teaches wherein a robot equipped with a tool is monitored for determining if a virtual boundary is exceeded, and the robot is controlled in the event of said boundary being determined to be exceeded.
means for monitoring the robot for exceeding the ascertained first border during operation of the robot; and (However Dale teaches in at least Paragraphs 0140 & 0141 wherein a virtual boundary definition is checked against the current state of a tool connected to a robot in order to determine compliance with the virtual boundary, specifically if the virtual boundary is violated, in order to trigger a recovery mode as taught in at least Paragraph 0142 of Dale [i.e. monitoring the robot for exceeding the ascertained first border during operation of the robot])
means for switching operation of the robot to a first operating mode of the robot in response to a detection that the first border is exceeded. (However Dale teaches in at least Paragraphs 0142 & 0144 – 0146 wherein in response to a tool being in violation of the virtual boundary, a recovery mode is enabled, including highly damping movement of the robot, as well as disabling the tool drive such that machining is not allowed [i.e. means for switching operation of the robot to a first operating mode of the robot in response to a detection that the first border is exceeded])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kirill by incorporating the control of the robot in a recovery mode based on a virtual boundary being crossed as taught by Dale.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Dale in at least Paragraphs 0144 – 0146, a robot tool may be controlled only within an allowed region, improving the safety of control of the robot with respect to a defined boundary.
Regarding Claim 37:
Kirill discloses: A computer program product comprising program code stored on a non- transitory, machine-readable data medium, the program code configured, when executed by a computer, to cause the computer to: (Kirill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0003, 0102, & 0103 a computer program product for operating a robot arrangement, including the detection of environmental contours and the generation of an environmental model based on such as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0030 & 0049, the computer program product including a CPU coupled with memory storing program instructions to be executed by the CPU)
detect data of real surroundings of the robot using a detection device; (Kirill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0030 & 0039 wherein an environmental contour may be detected through the use of a sensor, such as a 3D camera [i.e. detecting data of real surroundings of the robot using a detection device], the sensor being embodied as a smartphone in an embodiment)
ascertain a first surroundings contour on the basis of the detected data; (Kirill discloses in at least Paragraphs 0030, 0041, & 0042 wherein an environmental contour may be detected based on information acquired form the sensor, with image recognition techniques being used to identify elements in the captured environment [i.e. ascertaining a first surroundings contour on the basis of the detected data])
ascertain a first border of a first spatial area to be monitored on the basis of this ascertained first surroundings contour; (Kirill discloses in at least Paragraph 0056 wherein based on the detected environmental contour, and an environmental model or free space for the movement of the robot may be determined on the basis of the environmental contour [i.e. a first spatial area to be monitored on the basis of the ascertained first surroundings contour], with at least Paragraph 0058 of Kirill disclosing wherein a fine contour may be further defined in order to determine a refined free and collision space. At least Paragraph 0134 of Kirill discloses wherein the free space may be defined by a boundary [i.e. a first border of a first spatial area])
Kirill however appears to be silent regarding:
monitor the robot for exceeding the ascertained first border during operation of the robot; and
switch operation of the robot to a first operating mode of the robot in response to a detection that the first border is exceeded.
However Dale teaches wherein a robot equipped with a tool is monitored for determining if a virtual boundary is exceeded, and the robot is controlled in the event of said boundary being determined to be exceeded.
monitor the robot for exceeding the ascertained first border during operation of the robot; and (However Dale teaches in at least Paragraphs 0140 & 0141 wherein a virtual boundary definition is checked against the current state of a tool connected to a robot in order to determine compliance with the virtual boundary, specifically if the virtual boundary is violated, in order to trigger a recovery mode as taught in at least Paragraph 0142 of Dale [i.e. monitoring the robot for exceeding the ascertained first border during operation of the robot])
switch operation of the robot to a first operating mode of the robot in response to a detection that the first border is exceeded. (However Dale teaches in at least Paragraphs 0142 & 0144 – 0146 wherein in response to a tool being in violation of the virtual boundary, a recovery mode is enabled, including highly damping movement of the robot, as well as disabling the tool drive such that machining is not allowed [i.e. switching operation of the robot to a first operating mode of the robot in response to a detection that the first border is exceeded])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kirill by incorporating the control of the robot in a recovery mode based on a virtual boundary being crossed as taught by Dale.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Dale in at least Paragraphs 0144 – 0146, a robot tool may be controlled only within an allowed region, improving the safety of control of the robot with respect to a defined boundary.
Claim(s) 28 & 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirill (WO 2019096479 A1) in view of Dale (US 2021/0298846 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Huber (US 2021/0237278 A1).
Regarding Claim 28:
The method of claim 19, further comprising visually displaying a virtual representation of at least one of the first border or the second border in an augmented reality with the aid of a visualization device.
Kirill does not appear to specifically disclose visually displaying a border with the aid of an augmented reality visualization device.
However Huber teaches in at least Paragraph 0011 wherein an augmented reality interface may be provided to monitor the safety area of a robot, including as taught in at least Paragraph 0059 displaying a boundary area for the robot in a specific color [i.e. displaying a virtual representation of at least one of the first border or the second border in an augmented reality with the aid of a visualization device].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kirill by incorporating the visualization of boundaries using an augmented reality interface as taught by Huber.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Huber in at least Paragraph 0059, an operator can verify the boundary conditions for compliance with safety specifications, improving the definition of the boundary of the environment.
Regarding Claim 29:
The method of claim 28, wherein at least one of: the detection device is arranged on the visualization device; or the method further comprises visually displaying a virtual representation of at least one of the robot or a path of the robot in the augmented reality with the aid of the visualization device.
Kirill does not appear to specifically disclose displaying a virtual representation of at least one of the robot or a path of the robot in the augmented reality with the aid of the visualization device.
However Huber teaches in at least Paragraph 0011 wherein an augmented reality interface may be provided to monitor the safety area of a robot, including as taught in at least Paragraphs 0048, 0057, & 0059 displaying a projected cell space for a robot [i.e. visually displaying a virtual representation of the robot in the augmented reality with the aid of the visualization device].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kirill by incorporating the visualization of the robot using an augmented reality interface as taught by Huber.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Huber in at least Paragraph 0059, an operator can verify the boundary conditions for compliance with safety specifications, improving the definition of the boundary of the environment and the interactions of the boundary with the robot.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Lai (US 12,147,239 B2): Lai recites a method for dividing robot areas, including the assessment of environmental contours, and the determination of boundary lines based on said contours.
Denenberg (US 2021/0379762 A1): Denenberg recites a motion planning system for a robot, including determining a motion plan based on potential occupancy envelopes of the robot and a human operator in the vicinity. The potential occupancy envelopes may be based on position, velocity, acceleration, and geometry of the robot and surroundings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights