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 .
Contingent Limitations
Claims 2 and 3 comprise contingent limitations recited in phrases “when…”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The conditions followed the phrase “if” may not be met, hence the corresponding steps may not be required to be conducted. Therefore, these limitations have no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04 (II) for details.
Since Applicant is believed to intend to have the patentable weight in the claims, for continuing examination purpose the phrase “wherein the safety signal is output when a hazardous situation is recognized in the simulation” in claim 2 have been construed as “wherein the safety signal is output [[when]] in response to a hazardous situation [[is]] being recognized in the simulation”.
Since Applicant is believed to intend to have the patentable weight in the claim 3, for continuing examination purpose the phrase “wherein the safety signal is output when a safety function of the simulation and the real safety function produce inconsistent results” in claim 3 have been construed as “wherein the safety signal is output [[when]] in response to a safety function of the simulation and the real safety function producing inconsistent results”.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 recites “a stateful message system”, but claim 7 recites “the stateful communication system”. To be consistent, the claim 6 should be amended to comprise “a stateful communication system”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 13-15 are 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 13 recites a limitation “one of a light barrier, light scanner, light grid, laser scanner, FMCW LIDAR, and a camera”. The plain meaning of phrase “at least one of A and B” is “at least one of A and at least one of B” (for more details please see SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and/or Ex parte Jung, 2016-008290 (PTAB Mar. 22, 2017)). According to the disclosure of the specification, the intended meaning of the limitation should be one of the recited sensor device. For continuing examination purpose, this limitation in the claims has been construed as "one of a light barrier, light scanner, light grid, laser scanner, FMCW LIDAR, [[and]] or a camera”.
Claim 14 recites a limitation “one of a temperature sensor, throughflow sensor, filling level sensor, and a pressure sensor”. The plain meaning of phrase “at least one of A and B” is “at least one of A and at least one of B” (for more details please see SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and/or Ex parte Jung, 2016-008290 (PTAB Mar. 22, 2017)). According to the disclosure of the specification, the intended meaning of the limitation should be one of the recited sensor device. For continuing examination purpose, this limitation in the claims has been construed as " one of a temperature sensor, throughflow sensor, filling level sensor, [[and]] or a pressure sensor”.
The term “at least indirectly” in claim 15 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how and whether a connection can be categorized as a “at least indirectly” connection. For continuing examination purpose, the term is construed as being deleted.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreoni (US 20230196495 A1, hereinafter as “Andreoni”) in view of HOFMANN (US 20220244995 A1, hereinafter as “HOFMANN”).
Regarding claim 1, Andreoni teaches:
A method ([Abstract]) of safeguarding at least one machine (robot 20 in FIG. 1 and [0025]) that is monitored by at least one sensor (sensors 102 in FIG. 1 and [0025]) that generates sensor data with respect to the machine, wherein movements of a machine model of the machine are carried out in a simulation and synthetic sensor data of a sensor model of the sensor are generated (FIG. 4 and [0039]: “At step 410, the analysis module 134 generates two synthetic depth maps, sdr1 and sdr2, from the camera intrinsic and extrinsic parameters input at step 402, the robot model information input at step 404, and the current position information from the robot TF tree input at step 406. Briefly, the robot TF tree is a series of three-dimensional spatial transformations that describe the position in the space of every link of the robot 20. The synthetic depth maps, sdr1 and sdr2, contain robot pixel information and are created from the perspective of the first and second cameras (using the camera parameters) to simulate the vision of the first camera and the second camera, respectively”. This teaches to simulate the robot movement based on its model, and generate synthetic sensor data Sdr1 and Sdr2 based on sensor model), and wherein a plurality of safety functions are performed in the simulation in which an evaluation is made by a safety related evaluation of the simulation whether a hazardous situation is present (FIG. 4 and [0041-0042]: “At step 414, the analysis module 134 compares the valid robot pixel depths between the first depth map, d1, and the corresponding robot pixel depths in the first synthetic depth map, sdr1. Similarly, the analysis module 134 compares the valid robot pixel depths between the second depth map, d2, and the corresponding robot pixel depths in the second synthetic depth map, sdr2, to determine whether any significant differences in the respective depth values is present. ….. if the analysis module 134 finds any significant differences in the data comparison, that is, one or both match rates do not exceed the predefined threshold, then the verification process fails”. This teaches to compare simulated data with real measured data and determine a failure if the difference is more than a limit) to output a safety signal to the machine to trigger a safety response in the case of a hazardous situation ([0044]: “Upon a verification failure, the analysis module 134 (or other component of the controller unit 112) may send a signal to the robot controller 302 to take an appropriate action, such as to deactivate the robot 20, slow down the robot movement, or take any other suitable action to alter the robot's trajectory and minimize the risk of potential injury to the person 10”).
Andreoni teaches all the limitations except that the safety functions are each individually implemented per se in a container for this purpose.
However, HOFMANN teach in analogous art:
safety functions are each individually implemented per se in a container for this purpose (FIG. 3 and [0076]: “logic units 28 are preferably virtualized within containers, that is are containerized. Each sub-node 30 therefore has one or more containers, with preferably one logic unit 28 each. There are two logic units 28 in the example of FIG. 3, namely a safety functional unit 32 and a diagnostic unit 24, each in their own container and also sub-nodes 30”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Andreoni based on the teaching of HOFMANN, to make the method wherein the safety functions are each individually implemented per se in a container for this purpose. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help develop application “independently”, as HOFMANN suggests in [0011].
Regarding claim 2, Andreoni-HOFMANN teach(es) all the limitations of the base claim it depends on.
Andreoni further teaches:
the safety signal is output in response to a hazardous situation being recognized in the simulation ([0044]: “Upon a verification failure, the analysis module 134 (or other component of the controller unit 112) may send a signal to the robot controller 302 to take an appropriate action, such as to deactivate the robot 20, slow down the robot movement, or take any other suitable action to alter the robot's trajectory and minimize the risk of potential injury to the person 10”).
Regarding claim 3, Andreoni-HOFMANN teach(es) all the limitations of the base claim it depends on.
Andreoni further teaches:
the sensor data of the sensor are evaluated by at least one real safety function, and wherein the safety signal is output in response to a safety function of the simulation and the real safety function producing inconsistent results (FIG. 4 and [0041-0042]: “At step 414, the analysis module 134 compares the valid robot pixel depths between the first depth map, d1, and the corresponding robot pixel depths in the first synthetic depth map, sdr1. Similarly, the analysis module 134 compares the valid robot pixel depths between the second depth map, d2, and the corresponding robot pixel depths in the second synthetic depth map, sdr2, to determine whether any significant differences in the respective depth values is present. ….. if the analysis module 134 finds any significant differences in the data comparison, that is, one or both match rates do not exceed the predefined threshold, then the verification process fails”).
Regarding claim 4, Andreoni-HOFMANN teach(es) all the limitations of the base claim it depends on.
HOFMANN further teaches:
a environment is implemented by the respective safety function, in its container ([0034]: “The at least one logic unit is preferably implemented as a container. The logic units are then encapsulated or containerized and are runnable on practically any desired hardware. The otherwise customary relationship between the safety function and its implementation on fixed hardware is broken up so that the flexibility and process stability are very considerably increased. The runtime environment coordinates or orchestrates the containers having the logic units located therein among one another. There are at least two abstraction layers, on the one hand a respective container layer (container runtime) and on the other hand an orchestration layer of the runtime environment disposed thereabove”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Andreoni based on the teaching of HOFMANN, to make the method wherein a simulation environment is implemented by the respective safety function, in its container. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help develop application “independently”, as HOFMANN suggests in [0011].
Regarding claim 5, Andreoni-HOFMANN teach(es) all the limitations of the base claim it depends on.
Andreoni further teaches:
the safety functions are performed in a respective one of a plurality of different simulation environments (FIG. 4 and [0041-0042]: “At step 414, the analysis module 134 compares the valid robot pixel depths between the first depth map, d1, and the corresponding robot pixel depths in the first synthetic depth map, sdr1. Similarly, the analysis module 134 compares the valid robot pixel depths between the second depth map, d2, and the corresponding robot pixel depths in the second synthetic depth map, sdr2, to determine whether any significant differences in the respective depth values is present. ….. if the analysis module 134 finds any significant differences in the data comparison, that is, one or both match rates do not exceed the predefined threshold, then the verification process fails”. This teaches safety functions are performed in d1/sdr1 and d2/sdr2 simulation environments respectively).
Regarding claim 8, Andreoni-HOFMANN teach(es) all the limitations of the base claim it depends on.
HOFMANN further teaches:
the containers with the safety functions are managed in a performance environment with at least one computing node by a container orchestration system ([0034]: “he at least one logic unit is preferably implemented as a container. The logic units are then encapsulated or containerized and are runnable on practically any desired hardware. The otherwise customary relationship between the safety function and its implementation on fixed hardware is broken up so that the flexibility and process stability are very considerably increased. The runtime environment coordinates or orchestrates the containers having the logic units located therein among one another. There are at least two abstraction layers, on the one hand a respective container layer (container runtime) and on the other hand an orchestration layer of the runtime environment disposed thereabove”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Andreoni based on the teaching of HOFMANN, to make the method wherein the containers with the safety functions are managed in a performance environment with at least one computing node by a container orchestration system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help develop application “independently”, as HOFMANN suggests in [0011].
Regarding claim 9, Andreoni-HOFMANN teach(es) all the limitations of the base claim it depends on.
HOFMANN further teaches:
the performance environment is implemented on at least one sensor, a programmable logic controller, a machine controller, a processor device in a local network, an edge device, and/or in a cloud ([0035]: “The runtime environment is preferably implemented on at least one sensor, a programmable logic controller, a machine controller, a processor device in a local network, an edge device and/or in a cloud”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Andreoni based on the teaching of HOFMANN, to make the method wherein the performance environment is implemented on at least one sensor, a programmable logic controller, a machine controller, a processor device in a local network, an edge device, and/or in a cloud. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help “increase the overall flexibility of safety applications”, as HOFMANN suggests in [0015].
Regarding claim 11, Andreoni-HOFMANN teach(es) all the limitations of the base claim it depends on.
Andreoni further teaches:
the at least one sensor is configured as an optoelectronic sensor ([0025]: “the sensors 102 may include three-dimensional time-of-flight cameras, stereo vision cameras, three-dimensional LIDAR sensor or other radar-based sensors”), as an ultrasound sensor, inertia sensor, capacitive sensor, magnetic sensor, inductive sensor, UWB sensor, or as a process parameter sensor.
Regarding claim 12, Andreoni-HOFMANN teach(es) all the limitations of the base claim it depends on.
Andreoni further teaches:
a plurality of the same or different sensors are provided ([0025]: “The workspace 100 is monitored by one or more sensors 102 arranged to collectively cover and monitor the workspace 100, particularly those regions of the workspace 100 where the person 10 and robot 20 interact collaboratively”).
Regarding claim 13, Andreoni-HOFMANN teach(es) all the limitations of the base claim it depends on.
Andreoni further teaches:
the optoelectronic sensor is one of a light barrier, light scanner, light grid, laser scanner, FMCW LIDAR, or a camera ([0025]: “the sensors 102 may include three-dimensional time-of-flight cameras, stereo vision cameras, three-dimensional LIDAR sensor or other radar-based sensors”).
Claim 15 recites a safety device conducting operational steps of the method in claim 1 with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreoni (in view of HOFMANN, and in further view of ANDERSEN (US 20220326762 A1, hereinafter as “ANDERSEN”).
Regarding claim 14, Andreoni-HOFMANN teach(es) all the limitations of the base claim it depends on, but do not teach the process parameter sensor is one of a temperature sensor, throughflow sensor, filling level sensor, or a pressure sensor.
However, ANDERSEN teaches in analogous art:
the process parameter sensor is one of a temperature sensor, throughflow sensor, filling level sensor, or a pressure sensor ([0219]: “In this and other industrial safety system related contexts, the proximity detection and even (simulated or actual) pressure sensing capabilities enabled by certain example embodiments is advantageous compared to force sensors, e.g., because the system can be trained or otherwise programmed to distinguish between different proximities, bumping into a human (which might cause a mitigation plan such as movement away from an area, a safety system being activated, etc.) and bumping into inanimate and or other objects like cardboard boxes (e.g., where there might not be a need to change plans or operations), etc.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Andreoni-HOFMANN based on the teaching of ANDERSEN, to make the method wherein the process parameter sensor is one of a temperature sensor, throughflow sensor, filling level sensor, or a pressure sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help “distinguish … bumping into a human (which might cause a mitigation plan such as movement away from an area, a safety system being activated, etc.) and bumping into inanimate and or other objects like cardboard boxes (e.g., where there might not be a need to change plans or operations), etc.”,, as ANDERSEN suggests in [0219].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
AMS (US 20220300875 A1): teaches a system having at least one plant system having at least a plurality of agents, having at least a plurality of autonomous mobile robots, movable machinery, and a plurality of sensors for the generation of data for use for a safety relevant securing of the plant system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES CAI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights