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 .
Status of Claims
This is in response to applicant’s filing date of December 16, 2024, and preliminary amendment filed on July 3, 2025. Claims 2-14 were cancelled; and Claims 15-27 were added. Claims 1 and 15-27 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to Application DE10 2022 206 320.1, filed on June 23, 2022. The certified copy of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.55 has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 16, 2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority Prior-Filed Application
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application, PCT/EP2023/065460 filed on 6/09/2023, under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a " computer program " that can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. (See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 15-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta et al (US-20130245829-A1)(“Ohta”), provided by Applicant in the IDS filed on 12/16/2024, and Uwe Bonin (US-20180356815-A1)(“Bonin”).
As per claim 1, Ohta discloses a method (Figures 4-5.) for operating a robot (1) that comprises multiple joints (11, 12, 15), wherein during a movement of the robot caused by joint drives (12.1), for two or more, in particular all, joints (Ohta at Para. [0009] discloses “a method of controlling a robot having a manipulator formed by coupling a plurality of links at respective joint axes and having at least one redundant degree of freedom that is redundant with respect to task degrees of freedom is provided”.):
a current one-dimensional or multi-dimensional load variable value is determined for the corresponding joint (810) (Ohta at Figure 2, CPU 91, and Para. [0009] discloses determining a load variable at each link/joint of the manipulator 10:” the steps of: calculating load torque based on at least inertia force, centrifugal force or Coriolis force, and gravity force of the joint axis of each link, when link position and orientation allowed by the redundant degree of freedom is changed”.); and
based on this current load variable value and a one-dimensional or multi- dimensional predetermined limit value for the joint, a one-dimensional or multi- dimensional load value is determined for the joint (820) (Ohta at Figures 4-5 and Para. [0060]-[0061] disclosing determining a feedforward control value that produces a smallest ratio:” Reference is now made back to the flowchart of FIG. 4. In step S30, the CPU 91 calculates a torque feed-forward value that gives rise to the load torque that results in the smallest ratio, at the orientation parameter .phi. from which the load torque that provides the smallest ratio was calculated, namely, a motor current value for producing the above-described load torque, by a known method.[0061] In step S40, the CPU 91 provides the calculated torque feed-forward value, to a control command generated to the rotary actuator of each joint axis for achieving the end-effector position and orientation set in step S10 as target values”.);
wherein, based on the load values, an action of the robot is carried out to reduce one or more components of these load values (Ohta at Para. [0064] discloses changing the position and orientation to reduce the load at the link or joint:” the link position and orientation at which the ratio of the load torque to the rated torque of the first servomotor 41--the seventh servomotor 47 (rotary actuator) is minimized is obtained while the orientation parameter .phi. is being changed.”) and/or,
Ohta does not disclose, but Bonin discloses reducing based on the load values, a load situation of the robot is signaled and/or stored (Bonin at Para. [0023] discloses signaling a lower velocity and storing of load condition at certain limit ranges:” limitation operating mode a deceleration of the robot, in particular through or in a control or the control, in particular a velocity control, and/or in order to reach a velocity limit, is commanded and (this deceleration), in particular through or in a safety monitoring or the safety monitoring, is monitored, for as long as the robot exceeds a further velocity limit or this further velocity limit, predetermined or specific, in particular stored, in particular for, in particular only for, this further safety condition or this further limitation operating mode, which is slower, in particular lower, than the first velocity limit, [and wherein] in particular this (further limitation operating mode and velocity limit-based, in particular specific) deceleration of the robot is only commanded and/or monitored while the robot exceeds this further velocity limit or while this is (still, in particular continuously) being detected.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the safety reaction method taught in Bonin in the robot controller method of Ohta with a reasonable expectation of success, because this results in the robots being utilized as uniformly as possible over time which increases safety and interruptions (see Bonin at Paras. [0028]-[0029]).
As per claim 15, Ohta and Bonin disclose a method according to claim 1, characterized in that a predetermined speed of the robot, in particular when traveling along a track predetermined before determining the current load variable values, is reduced in order to reduce at least one component of the load values (Bonin at Para. [0023] discloses maintaining a safety condition by lowering the speed of the movement:” in particular through or in a safety monitoring or the safety monitoring, is monitored, for as long as the robot exceeds a further velocity limit or this further velocity limit, predetermined or specific, in particular stored, in particular for, in particular only for, this further safety condition or this further limitation operating mode, which is slower, in particular lower, than the first velocity limit”.).
As per claim 16, Ohta and Bonin disclose a method according to claim 15, characterized in that when the speed is reduced, the robot continues to follow the predetermined track and/or stops (Bonin at Para. [0028] discloses maintaining a trajectory and possibly bringing the movement to a stop condition:” a shutdown of the robot, in particular one that is within the course of the trajectory and/or motor-related, without subsequent interruption of a power supply, in particular at least of its actuators, in particular a so-called STOP 2”.).
As per claim 17, Ohta and Bonin disclose a method according to claim 1, characterized in that the robot, in particular after the speed reduction, carries out an evasive movement dependent on the load values in order to reduce at least one component of the load values, in particular deviates from a track predetermined before the determination of the current load variable values (Ohta at Para. [0070] discloses changing the position and orientation of the manipulator which under the broadest interpretation is a deviation from a track:” each time an orientation parameter indicative of the link position and orientation allowed by the redundant degree of freedom is sequentially changed, under a constraint of the end-effector position and orientation as target values described in a step of the task program. As in the illustrated embodiment, the load torque may further include at least one of the friction torque and the actuator inertia torque. Then, the computer 100 obtains the link position and orientation at which the ratio of the load torque to the rated torque of the rotary actuator is minimized, while the orientation parameter .phi. is being changed.”).
As per claim 18, Ohta and Bonin disclose a method according to claim 17, characterized in that the evasive movement comprises a movement of the robot antiparallel to a projection of load values to be reduced into a Cartesian working space of the robot (Ohta at Para. [0055], calculates the gravity effects at each axis using a world or cartesian coordinates, and Para. [0061] discloses changing position and orientation, i.e., antiparallel to the force of gravity, to minimize the ration or counter act the force of the load at each joint:” the CPU 91 provides the calculated torque feed-forward value, to a control command generated to the rotary actuator of each joint axis for achieving the end-effector position and orientation set in step S10 as target values, and generates the control command provided with the torque feed-forward value, to each of the PWM generators 51-57, as a command of the current control cycle.”).
As per claim 19, Ohta and Bonin disclose a method according to claim 17, characterized in that during the evasive movement a reference, fixed relative to the robot, of the robot continues to be held in a position and/or orientation predetermined by a track predetermined before the determination of the current load variable values (Ohta at Para. [0063] discloses that the variables such as position and orientation are performed and then a determination is made so as to be changed through a feed-forward controller:” the link position and orientation at which the ratio of the load torque to the rated torque of the first servomotor 41 to the seventh servomotor 47 is minimized, is obtained while the link position and orientation are changed. Then, a feed-forward value that gives rise to each load torque obtained when the ratio of the load torque to the rated torque of the first servomotor 41--the seventh servomotor 47 is minimized is provided or added to a control command generated to the first servomotor 41--the seventh servomotor 47 of each joint axis for achieving the end-effector position and orientation as target values.”).
As per claim 20, Ohta and Bonin disclose a method according to claim 1, characterized in that the load situation of the robot is signaled to an application program, which in response thereto causes the robot to carry out an application-program-specific action (Bonin at Para. [0072] discloses signaling to an application program at controller 2 to implement a specific action:” a (velocity) control of the robot control 2 reduces a maximum (permissible) target velocity for the TCP and the other point at the robot and/or the axes of the robot to a (first) velocity limit and checks whether the robot (already) maintains this (first) velocity limit, which for example is 25% of a maximum (permissible) velocity of the robot or has been set by the manufacturer as a default.”).
As per claim 21, Ohta and Bonin disclose a method according to claim 1, characterized in that when a component of the load values is in a predetermined range, an action of the robot is carried out, in particular an action to reduce this component of the load values, and that when the one component is in another predetermined range, another action of the robot is carried out, in particular another action to reduce the one component of the load values (Bonin at Para. [0025], target velocity, and Para. [0040] discloses an operating mode a safety limit is in place or is surpassed:” in particular as soon as the further safety condition is not fulfilled (any longer) or this is detected, in particular directly or as soon as the further safety condition is not fulfilled (any longer) or this is detected, or with a certain, in particular a predetermined, lag time.”); and/or
when another component of the load values is in a predetermined range, in particular the one predetermined range or another predetermined range, an action of the robot is carried out, in particular an action to reduce the other component and/or other action (Bonin at Para. [0028] discloses applying a corrective action such as braking or reduction in electrical power to effectuate a correction:” safety reaction can (respectively) comprise, in particular can be, a shutdown of the robot, in particular one that is not within the course of the trajectory and/or one that is caused by the introduction of brakes, in particular a shutdown of the robot with direct interruption of a power supply, in particular at least of its actuators, in particular a so-called STOP 0”.).
As per claim 22, Ohta and Bonin disclose a method according to claim 20, characterized in that at least one of the actions is predetermined by the application program, in particular is selected from multiple predetermined actions on the basis of a user input (Ohta at Figure 2, input device 82 with Para. [0040] that discloses receiving user input, and Figure 5, step S26, and Para. [0059] disclosing the controller causing corrective actions to be performed that would minimized a certain ratio:” CPU 91 calculates the ratio (load torque/rated torque) of each load torque calculated in step S24, to the rated torque of the motor of each joint axis, which is stored in advance in the storage unit 94, and derives an orientation parameter .phi. from which the load torque that provides the smallest ratio was calculated.”).
As per claim 23, Ohta and Bonin disclose a method according to claim 1,
characterized in that the stored load situation of the robot is used for an analysis after processing at least one work process, in particular multiple process cycles, of the robot (Ohta at Figure 4, step S30, and Paras. [0060][-0061] discloses a feedforward model to calculate a predictive torque value which under the broadest reasonable interpretation is the claimed analysis from the measured torque values:” In step S30, the CPU 91 calculates a torque feed-forward value that gives rise to the load torque that results in the smallest ratio, at the orientation parameter .phi. from which the load torque that provides the smallest ratio was calculated, namely, a motor current value for producing the above-described load torque, by a known method.”).
As per claim 24, Ohta and Bonin disclose a method according to claim 1, characterized in that the load variable value and/or load value for a joint depends on a torque and/or a speed at the joint and/or comprises at least one current and/or at least one time- integrated component (Bonin at Para. [0030] discloses using speed, integral, and other values to control the joints of the manipulator:” predetermined delay condition (in the (first) limitation operating mode and/or in the further limitation operating mode) can, in one embodiment, comprise, in particular be, a minimum current delay or velocity reduction or (negative) acceleration of the robot and/or a delay or velocity reduction or (negative) acceleration of the robot, in particular one that is minimum, average, and/or integral, within a certain, in particular predetermined, period, and or (a reaching of) a maximum velocity after a certain, in particular predetermined, period, in particular a maintaining of a predetermined deceleration profile, in particular undershooting of a predetermined deceleration ramp.”).
As per claim 25, Ohta and Bonin disclose a method according to claim 1, characterized in that the robot cooperates with at least one human during the movement caused by joint drives (Bonin at Para. [0016] discloses that the outline program applies to human and robot cooperation:” the robot is scheduled to collaborate with at least one person and is configured for this purpose, in particular with respect to hardware and/or software technology, in particular with respect to program technology, and is used for this purpose and is a so-called human-collaborating robot.”).
As per Claim 26, Ohta discloses a system for operating a robot (1) that comprises multiple joints (11, 12, 15) (Figure 2), wherein the system is set up to carry out a method according to claim 1 and/or comprises:
means for determining, for two or more joints, in particular for all joints, a current one-dimensional or multi-dimensional load variable value for the corresponding joint during a movement of the robot caused by joint drives based on at least one sensor value (Ohta at Figure 2, CPU 91, and Para. [0009] discloses determining a load variable at each link/joint of the manipulator 10:” the steps of: calculating load torque based on at least inertia force, centrifugal force or Coriolis force, and gravity force of the joint axis of each link, when link position and orientation allowed by the redundant degree of freedom is changed”.); and
means for determining, for these two or more joints, in particular for all joints, a one-dimensional or multi-dimensional load value for the corresponding joint during the movement of the robot caused by joint drives based on this current load variable value and on a one-dimensional or multi-dimensional predetermined limit value for the joint (Ohta at Figures 4-5 and Para. [0060]-[0061] disclosing determining a feedforward control value that produces a smallest ratio:” Reference is now made back to the flowchart of FIG. 4. In step S30, the CPU 91 calculates a torque feed-forward value that gives rise to the load torque that results in the smallest ratio, at the orientation parameter .phi. from which the load torque that provides the smallest ratio was calculated, namely, a motor current value for producing the above-described load torque, by a known method.[0061] In step S40, the CPU 91 provides the calculated torque feed-forward value, to a control command generated to the rotary actuator of each joint axis for achieving the end-effector position and orientation set in step S10 as target values”.); and
means for causing the robot to carry out, based on the load values, an action to reduce one or more components of these load values (Ohta at Para. [0064] discloses changing the position and orientation to reduce the load at the link or joint:” the link position and orientation at which the ratio of the load torque to the rated torque of the first servomotor 41--the seventh servomotor 47 (rotary actuator) is minimized is obtained while the orientation parameter .phi. is being changed.”), and/or .
Ohta does not disclose, but Bonin discloses means for signaling and/or storing a load situation of the robot based on the load values (Bonin at Para. [0023] discloses signaling a lower velocity and storing of load condition at certain limit ranges:” limitation operating mode a deceleration of the robot, in particular through or in a control or the control, in particular a velocity control, and/or in order to reach a velocity limit, is commanded and (this deceleration), in particular through or in a safety monitoring or the safety monitoring, is monitored, for as long as the robot exceeds a further velocity limit or this further velocity limit, predetermined or specific, in particular stored, in particular for, in particular only for, this further safety condition or this further limitation operating mode, which is slower, in particular lower, than the first velocity limit, [and wherein] in particular this (further limitation operating mode and velocity limit-based, in particular specific) deceleration of the robot is only commanded and/or monitored while the robot exceeds this further velocity limit or while this is (still, in particular continuously) being detected.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the safety reaction method taught in Bonin in the robot controller method of Ohta with a reasonable expectation of success, because this results in the robots being utilized as uniformly as possible over time which increases safety and interruptions (see Bonin at Paras. [0028]-[0029]).
As per claim 27, Ohta and Bonin disclose a computer program or computer program product, wherein the computer program or computer program product includes instructions, in particular stored on a computer-readable and/or non-volatile storage medium, which, when executed by one or more computers or a system, cause the computer(s) or system to carry out a method according to claim 1 (See above rejection of Claim 1.).
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Spenninger; Andreas et al. (US-20220388161-A1) FORCE MEASUREMENT AND FORCE GENERATION IN REDUNDANT ROBOT MANIPULATORS;
BURKHART STEFAN et al. (WO-2019110244-A1) STARTING A ROBOT ON A SPECIFIED WORKING PATH;
Zimmermann; Uwe et al. (US-20180071920-A1) Device And Method For Releasing An Operation Of A Machine;
Gulhar; Abhinav et al. (US-20160144509-A1) ROBOTIC DEVICES AND METHODS OF OPERATING ROBOTIC DEVICES;
INAGAKI; Shougo et al. (US-20160082593-A1) ROBOT CONTROLLER FOR AVOIDING PROBLEM REGARDING ROBOT AT THE TIME OF EMERGENCY STOP;
Hietmann; Gerhard et al. (US-20160016314-A1) Method And Apparatus For Controlling A Robot;
Murata, Kenji (US-20030192758-A1) Robot;
Harima; Taro (US-6092004-A) Robot speed computing apparatus and method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLIS B. RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8920. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am to 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 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 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.
/ELLIS B. RAMIREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights