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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
Application 19/086,177 was filed on 03/21/2025 and claims benefit to Japan Application No. JP2024-050691, filed 03/27/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/01/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“monitoring element” in claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 17, 18, 19, and 20;
“path generation element” in claims 1-6, 8, 11, 14-17, and 20;
“interference region update element” in claim 3;
“robot control element” in claims 14, and 16;
“monitoring condition acquisition element” in claim 17;
“trajectory control execution element” in claims 18, and 19;
“third unit” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing 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.
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.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, applicant provides the claimed limitation, “the monitoring condition includes information regarding an interference region of the robot”, however, based on currently provided claim language, it is unclear whether the claim limitation “interference region of the robot” is referring to the claim limitation “interference region in a vicinity of the robot” in claim 2. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited. The examiner assumes “the monitoring condition includes information regarding the interference region of the robot” for further examination.
Regarding claim 5, applicant provides the claimed limitation, “the monitoring condition includes coasting amount information regarding a coasting amount of the robot when power supply to a motor of the robot is shut off during an operation of the robot”, however, based on currently provided claim language, the term “coasting amount information” is not defined. The claims vaguely recite that “coasting amount information” is “a coasting amount of the robot when power supply to a motor of the robot is shut off” which is not a clear recitation. It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the term “coasting amount” encompasses as it is unclear what quantity is being measured. Moreover, the relationship between the monitoring condition and coasting amount is unclear. It is unclear whether the monitoring condition is based on the coasting amount, the monitoring condition is a threshold, or the monitoring condition merely includes the coating amount as a parameter. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 5 , applicant further provides the claimed limitation, “the monitoring element has a safety function in which a position that the robot reaches by coasting when the power supply to the motor of the robot is shut off at a future timing of the robot is predicted based on a value related to the robot and the coasting amount information and the power supply to the motor of the robot is shut off when the position predicted is included in the interference region indicated by the information regarding the interference region included in the monitoring condition”. The scope of the claim cannot be ascertained. It is unclear whether the claimed “when the power supply to the motor of the robot is shut off at a future timing of the robot” modify the safety function. It is also unclear whether the claimed “the power supply to the motor of the robot is shut off when the position predicted is included in the interference region indicated by the information regarding the interference region included in the monitoring condition” modify the safety function. Moreover, the term “a value related to the robot” and “the coasting amount information” are not defined. It is unclear how to determine the position of the robot based on “a value related to the robot” and “the coasting amount information”. Moreover, the scope of the claim is indefinite. The coasting position of the robot is determined based on “a value related to the robot” and “coasting amount information” “when the power supply to the motor of the robot is shut off at a future timing”. However, the claim appears to recite that the power supply is shut off immediately when the robot’s coasting position is predicted to be in interference region. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected with the same rational as discussed in claim 5 rejection.
Regarding claims 8 and 14, applicant provides claimed limitation, “a first unit which includes the monitoring element” and “the first unit includes a robot control element which controls the robot, and
the robot control element operates the robot according to the operation path generated by the path generation element.” However, the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained. Based on figure 8 of the specification, the monitoring element and the robot control element are in different units such as functional safety unit 34 and robot control unit 32. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, applicant provides the claimed limitation, “a second unit which includes the path generation element” and “wherein the second unit gives an order to the robot based on the operation path generated by the path generation element”, however, based on currently provided claim language, the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained. Paragraphs [0064, 0082] of the specification states the robot control element 600 or the robot controller 30 may create an order for the robot. Based on figure 8 of the specification, the monitoring element and the robot control element are in different units such as functional safety unit 34 and robot control unit 32. It is unclear what the second unit is referring to and further how the second unit gives an order to the robot based on the operation path generated by the path generation element. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited. The examiner assumes the claimed “gives an order” is referring to “instruct” for further examination.
Regarding claim 18, applicant provides the claimed limitation, “a monitoring element which has a safety function of monitoring that a robot satisfies a monitoring condition and shutting off power supply to a motor of the robot when it is predicted that the robot does not satisfy the monitoring condition”, however, based on currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the claimed “it is” is referring to and further how the claimed “it is” is applied to predict the robot does not satisfy the monitoring condition. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 20, applicant provides the claimed limitation, “acquiring, by a path generation element, a monitoring condition used by a monitoring element which monitors the robot during runtime, based on the monitoring condition”, however, based on currently provided claim language, it is unclear the claimed “based on the monitoring condition” modifies the acquiring operation or the monitoring operation? If the claimed “based on the monitoring condition” modifies the acquiring operation, it is unclear how to acquire a monitoring condition based on the monitoring condition. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 20, applicant further provides the claimed limitation, “generating a path by the path generation element generating an operation path of the robot by using the monitoring condition”, however, based on currently provided claim language, it is unclear the claimed “operation path” is referring to the claimed “a path”. It is unclear whether the path generation element generates the path for the robot or the monitoring condition generates the path. Should the claim recite “generating, by the path generation element, an operation path of the robot based on the monitoring condition”? Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
The dependent claims are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hopkinson et al. (US 20220126451 A1, hereinafter “Hopkinson”).
Regarding claim 1, Hopkinson discloses a system comprising:
a monitoring element which monitors a robot during runtime, based on a monitoring condition (Hopkinson, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0067, 0069-0071], the processor-based workcell safety system 130 monitors a robot 102a/102b during runtime based on safety monitoring rules 125c/sensor state rule 125a/system validation rules 125b); and
a path generation element which generates an operation path of the robot by using the monitoring condition used by the monitoring element (Hopkinson, see at least Figs. 1, 3, 5-8, par. [0067-0072, 0074], “The motion planners 110 may optionally take into account representations of a priori static objects represented by static object data 118 and/or perception data 120 when producing motion plans 116. Optionally, the motion planners 110 may take into account the safety monitoring rules 125c implemented by the processor-based workcell safety system 130 when generating motion plans. Optionally, the motion planners 110 may take into account a state of motion of other robots 102 at a given time, for instance whether or not another robot 102 has completed a given motion or task, and allowing a recalculation of a motion plan based on a motion or task of one of the other robots being completed, thus making available a previously excluded path or trajectory to choose from. Optionally, the motion planners 110 may take into account an operational condition of the robots 102, for instance an occurrence or detection of a failure condition, an occurrence or detection of a blocked state, and/or an occurrence or detection of a request to expedite or alternatively delay or skip a motion-planning request”).
Regarding claim 2, Hopkinson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Hopkinson further teaches wherein the path generation element includes information regarding an interference region in a vicinity of the robot, and generates the operation path by using the monitoring condition in addition to the interference region (Hopkinson, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0074], “The motion planners 110 are operable to dynamically produce motion plans 116 to cause the robots 102 to carry out tasks in an environment, while taking into account the planned motions (e.g., as represented by respective motion plans 116 or resulting swept volumes) of the other ones of the robots 102 and … taking into account the rules and conditions employed by the processor-based workcell safety system 130. The motion planners 110 … take into account representations of a priori static objects represented by static object data 118 and/or perception data 120 when producing motion plans 116. … the motion planners 110 … take into account the safety monitoring rules 125c implemented by the processor-based workcell safety system 130 when generating motion plans.”).
Regarding claim 3, Hopkinson teaches all the limitations of claims 1-2 as discussed above. Hopkinson further teaches further comprising an interference region update element which updates the information regarding the interference region, based on real-time sensing information from a sensor (Hopkinson, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0054, 0055], “The optional perception sensors (e.g., camera 122a, 122b) provide raw perception information (e.g., point cloud) to perception subsystem 124. The optional perception subsystem 124 may process the raw perception information, and resulting perception data may be provided as a point cloud, an occupancy grid, boxes (e.g., bounding boxes) or other geometric objects, or a stream of voxels (i.e., a “voxel” is an equivalent to a 3D or volumetric pixel) that represent obstacles that are present in the environment … The perception data 120 may represent which voxels or sub-volumes (e.g., boxes) are occupied in the environment at a current time (e.g., run time)”), wherein the path generation element generates the operation path by using the information, which is updated, regarding the interference region and the monitoring condition (Hopkinson, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0074], “The motion planners 110 are operable to dynamically produce motion plans 116 to cause the robots 102 to carry out tasks in an environment, while taking into account the planned motions (e.g., as represented by respective motion plans 116 or resulting swept volumes) of the other ones of the robots 102 and … taking into account the rules and conditions employed by the processor-based workcell safety system 130… The motion planners 110 … take into account representations of a priori static objects represented by static object data 118 and … perception data 120 when producing motion plans 116 ... the motion planners 110 … take into account the safety monitoring rules 125c implemented by the processor-based workcell safety system 130 when generating motion plans”).
Regarding claim 4, Hopkinson teaches all the limitations of claims 1-2 as discussed above. Hopkinson further teaches wherein the monitoring condition includes information regarding an interference region of the robot (Hopkinson, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0071], “The safety monitoring rules 125c specify rules, conditions, values of parameters and/or other criteria used to assess the operational environment for violations of specified safety criteria. For example, the safety monitoring rules 125c may specify rules or criteria that requires a specific condition to be maintained between a robot or portion thereof and an object that is a human or which might be a human. For instance, the safety monitoring rules 125c may specify that there be at least one defined unit of measurement (e.g., region of a grid) between the object (e.g., human) and a portion of a robot or path or trajectory of a robot, for instance over a time it will take the robot to move along the path or trajectory … The processor-based workcell safety system 130 may determine whether the position, path or trajectory of the human and the position, path or trajectory of the robot(s) 102a, 102b will violate one or more of the safety monitoring rules 125c”), and
the path generation element generates the operation path such that the robot does not interfere with the interference region indicated by the information regarding the interference region included in the path generation element and the robot does not interfere with the interference region indicated by the information regarding the interference region included in the monitoring condition (Hopkinson, see at least Figs. 1, 3, par. [0072, 0074, 0100-0104, 0109], the motion planners 110/304 is configured to generate motion plans based on determining whether any position or movements of the object will violate a safety rule (e.g., result in a human or portion thereof passing too close to a robot or robots as defined by the safety monitoring rules 125c) and performing collision detection or analysis to determine whether a transition or motion of a given robot 302 or portion thereof will result in a collision with an obstacle based on a hierarchy of geometric (e.g., spheres) representation of the volume swept by the robots 302 or portions thereof during movement).
Regarding claim 6, Hopkinson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Hopkinson further teaches wherein the monitoring element has a function of using a plurality of monitoring conditions while switching between the monitoring conditions (Hopkinson, see at least Figs. 1, 3, 5-8, par. [0067, 0069-0071, 0104- 0106, 0137, 0153, 0171, 0095], the processor-based workcell safety system 130 monitors a robot 102a/102b during runtime based on safety monitoring rules 125c/sensor state rule 125a/system validation rules 125b in response to a powering ON of a processor-based workcell safety system 200, robot control system 300 and/or robot 102, or a call or invocation from a calling routine), and
the path generation element generates the operation path by using the monitoring condition, which is used by the monitoring element when generating the operation path, among the plurality of monitoring conditions (Hopkinson, see at least Figs. 1, 3, 5-8, par. [0067-0072, 0074], “The motion planners 110 may optionally take into account representations of a priori static objects represented by static object data 118 and/or perception data 120 when producing motion plans 116. Optionally, the motion planners 110 may take into account the safety monitoring rules 125c implemented by the processor-based workcell safety system 130 when generating motion plans. Optionally, the motion planners 110 may take into account a state of motion of other robots 102 at a given time, for instance whether or not another robot 102 has completed a given motion or task, and allowing a recalculation of a motion plan based on a motion or task of one of the other robots being completed, thus making available a previously excluded path or trajectory to choose from. Optionally, the motion planners 110 may take into account an operational condition of the robots 102, for instance an occurrence or detection of a failure condition, an occurrence or detection of a blocked state, and/or an occurrence or detection of a request to expedite or alternatively delay or skip a motion-planning request”).
Regarding claim 7, Hopkinson teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 6 as discussed above. Hopkinson further teaches wherein the monitoring element uses the plurality of monitoring conditions while switching between the monitoring conditions based on sensing information from a sensor (Hopkinson, see at least Figs. 1, 2, 5-8, par. [0066-0072, 0074, 0076, 0079], the processor-based workcell safety system 130/200 is configured to execute instructions that execute the various algorithms set out here, for example those of methods 500, 600, 700, and 800 (FIGS. 5, 6, 7 and 8, respectively) based on sensor data captured via sensors 132/232).
Regarding claim 8, Hopkinson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Hopkinson further teaches comprising: a first unit which includes the monitoring element (Hopkinson, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0056], the robotic system 100 may include one or more processor-based workcell safety systems 130); and
a second unit which includes the path generation element (Hopkinson, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0050], the robotic system 100 may include one or more robot control systems 109a, 109b (two shown, collectively 109) which include one or more motion planners, for example a respective motion planner 110a, 110b (two shown, collectively 110) for each of the robots 102a, 102b respectively).
Regarding claim 9, Hopkinson teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as discussed above. Hopkinson further teaches further comprising the robot (Hopkinson, see at least Fig. 1, the robots 102a, 102b).
Regarding claim 10, Hopkinson teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as discussed above. Hopkinson further teaches wherein the first unit is a computing device which includes one or more first processors and a first memory and is independently operable (Hopkinson, see at least Figs. 1, 2, par. [0056, 0066, 0067], one or more processor-based workcell safety systems 130/200 include one or more processors 134/222 and memory 224a; par. [0023], “A safety certified operational environment or workcell could be decomposed into: i) a functional system (i.e., robot control system) that operates the robots; and ii) a processor-based workcell safety system that ensures safety … This separation of operations is useful for a variety of reasons, most notably because it enables the design of the functional robot motion planning and/or control system to be independent of the design of the processor-based workcell safety system”), and
the second unit is a computing device which includes one or more second processors and a second memory and is independently operable (Hopkinson, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0003, 0050], processor-based robot control systems 109a/109b and memory; par. [0023], “A safety certified operational environment or workcell could be decomposed into: i) a functional system (i.e., robot control system) that operates the robots; and ii) a processor-based workcell safety system that ensures safety … This separation of operations is useful for a variety of reasons, most notably because it enables the design of the functional robot motion planning and/or control system to be independent of the design of the processor-based workcell safety system”).
Regarding claim 11, Hopkinson teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 10 as discussed above. Hopkinson further teaches wherein the monitoring element is implemented by the one or more first processors, and the path generation element is implemented by the one or more second processors (Hopkinson, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0023], “A safety certified operational environment or workcell could be decomposed into: i) a functional system (i.e., robot control system) that operates the robots; and ii) a processor-based workcell safety system that ensures safety. The functional system can include one or more sensors and a processor-based system comprising one or more processors communicatively coupled to the sensors and which perform motion planning and/or control of one or more robots. The processor-based workcell safety system can likewise include one or more sensors and a processor-based system comprising one or more processors communicatively coupled to the sensors and which perform safety analysis”).
Regarding claim 12, Hopkinson teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, 10 and 11 as discussed above. Hopkinson further teaches wherein the first memory stores the monitoring condition (Hopkinson, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0067, 0069, 0071], the processor-based workcell safety system 130 may store one or more sets of sensor state rules 125a, one or more sets of system validation rules 125b, and one or more sets of safety monitoring rules 125c on at least one non-transitory processor-readable media), and
the second memory is synchronized in content with the first memory (Hopkinson, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0025, 0072], “the processor-based workcell safety system 130 may provide the robot control systems 109a, 109b and/or the motion planners 110a, 110b access to one or more of sets of safety monitoring rules 125c”).
Regarding claim 13, Hopkinson teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, 10, 11 and 12 as discussed above. Hopkinson further teaches wherein the first memory has a first write region for writing data and a first read region for reading data, the second memory has a second write region for writing data and a second read region for reading data, the first unit transmits a content of the first write region to the second unit at a constant cycle by network communication, and the second unit transmits a content of the second write region to the first unit at a constant cycle by network communication (Hopkinson, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0088], “The robot control system(s) 300 may optionally be communicatively coupled, for example via at least one communications channel (e.g., transmitter, receiver, transceiver, radio, router, Ethernet), to receive signals and/or data from the processor-based workcell safety system 130 (FIG. 1) or processor-based workcell safety system 200 (FIG. 2), for example including signals to stop robot operation, to slow robot operation, to indicate an area or region as occluded, and/or to access safety monitoring rules 125c (FIG. 1)”).
Regarding claim 14, Hopkinson teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as discussed above. Hopkinson further teaches wherein the first unit includes a robot control element which controls the robot (Hopkinson, see at least Figs. 1, 3, par. [0089], one or more motion controllers (e.g., motor controllers) 320/robot control systems 109a-b), and the robot control element operates the robot according to the operation path generated by the path generation element (Hopkinson, see at least Figs. 1, 3, par. [0050, 0089], one or more motion controllers (e.g., motor controllers) 320 (only one shown) that receive control signals, for instance in the form of motion plans 110a-b/306, and that provide drive signals to drive the actuators 318).
Regarding claim 15, Hopkinson teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as discussed above. Hopkinson further teaches wherein the second unit gives an order to the robot based on the operation path generated by the path generation element (Hopkinson, see at least par. [0003], “The robot control system may determine and/or execute motion plans to cause a robot to execute a series of tasks”).
Regarding claim 16, Hopkinson teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as discussed above. Hopkinson further teaches further comprising a third unit which includes a robot control element which controls the robot, wherein the robot control element operates the robot according to the operation path generated by the path generation element (Hopkinson, see at least Figs. 1, 3, par. [0050, 0089], one or more motion controllers (e.g., motor controllers) 320 (only one shown) that receive control signals, for instance in the form of motion plans 110a-b/306, and that provide drive signals to drive the actuators 318).
Regarding claim 17, Hopkinson discloses a unit comprising:
a monitoring condition acquisition element which acquires a monitoring condition used by a monitoring element having a function of monitoring a robot during runtime based on the monitoring condition (Hopkinson, see at least Figs. 1, 3, par. [0072], “the processor-based workcell safety system 130 may provide the robot control systems 109a, 109b and/or the motion planners 110a, 110b access to one or more of sets of safety monitoring rules 125c”; par. [0088], “The robot control system(s) 300 may optionally be communicatively coupled, for example via at least one communications channel (e.g., transmitter, receiver, transceiver, radio, router, Ethernet), to receive signals and/or data from the processor-based workcell safety system 130 (FIG. 1) or processor-based workcell safety system 200 (FIG. 2), for example including signals … to access safety monitoring rules 125c (FIG. 1)”); and
a path generation element which generates an operation path of the robot by using the monitoring condition (Hopkinson, see at least Figs. 1, 3, par. [0050, 0085], motion planner 110a, 110b,304).
Regarding claim 18, Hopkinson discloses a system comprising:
a monitoring element which has a safety function of monitoring that a robot satisfies a monitoring condition (Hopkinson, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0071], “the processor-based workcell safety system 130 may store one or more sets of safety monitoring rules 125c on at least one non-transitory processor-readable media. The safety monitoring rules 125c specify rules, conditions, values of parameters and/or other criteria used to assess the operational environment for violations of specified safety criteria … The processor-based workcell safety system 130 may determine whether the position, path or trajectory of the human and the position, path or trajectory of the robot(s) 102a, 102b will violate one or more of the safety monitoring rules 125c“) and shutting off power supply to a motor of the robot when it is predicted that the robot does not satisfy the monitoring condition (Hopkinson, see at least Figs. 1, 3, 8, par. [0071], “In response to detecting a violation of the safety monitoring rules 125c, the processor-based workcell safety system 130 may provide one or more signals that cause a stoppage, slowdown, introduction of a precautionary occlusion, or otherwise inhibit operation of one or more of the robots 102a, 102b”; par. [0179], “For example, the at least one processor 322 of the processor-based robot control system 300 may provide signals to one or more motion controllers 320 (FIG. 3) for example motor controllers that control movement (e.g., control motors) of one or more robots 102 (FIG. 1)”); and
a trajectory control execution element which executes trajectory control of the robot by using the monitoring condition (Hopkinson, see at least Figs. 1, 3, 8, par. [0151], “In response to determination that the safety monitoring rules 125c (FIG. 1) were not violated, at 520 the at least one processor 222 provides a signal to at least in part control operation of the robot(s) 102, allowing operation or movement of the robot(s). For example, the at least one processor 222 may provide a signal that allows one or more robots 102 to move, for instance a signal to a robot control system 109a, 109b (FIG. 1) or a motion controller 320 (FIG. 3) of the robot(s) 102”).
Regarding claim 20, Hopkinson discloses A manufacturing method of manufacturing, by a robot, an object to be manufactured, the manufacturing method comprising:
acquiring, by a path generation element, a monitoring condition used by a monitoring element which monitors the robot during runtime, based on the monitoring condition (Hopkinson, see at least Figs. 1, 3, 8, par. [0072, 0088, 0096. 0172], “At 804, at least one processor 322 (FIG. 3) of the processor-based robot control system 300 accesses a stored set of the safety monitoring rules 125c (FIG. 1) that are implemented by the processor-based workcell safety system 200 (FIG. 2)”);
generating a path by the path generation element generating an operation path of the robot by using the monitoring condition (Hopkinson, see at least Figs. 1, 3, 8, par. [0074, 0175], “At 812, at least one processor 322 of the processor-based robot control system 300 determines a motion plan for the at least one robot 102 (FIG. 1) based at least in part on the safety monitoring rules 125c (FIG. 1) for the processor-based safety system 200 (FIG. 2), and optionally based in part on the predicted behavior of a person, if any, in the operational environment 104”);
starting, by the monitoring element, monitoring the robot based on the monitoring condition (Hopkinson, see at least Figs. 1, 3, 8, par. [0067-0071], the processor-based workcell safety system 130 is configured to monitor the robots 102a/102b based on the safety monitoring rules 125c); and
controlling the robot based on the operation path generated in the generating the path (Hopkinson, see at least Figs. 1, 3, 8, par. [0179], “At 814, at least one processor 322 of the processor-based robot control system 300 causes the at least one robot 102 to move according to the determined motion plan”).
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 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkinson et al. (US 20220126451 A1 , hereinafter “Hopkinson”) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, and 18 above, in view of Maehara eat al. (US 8812159 B2, hereinafter Maehara), and further in view of Kamiya (JP2009178835A).
Regarding claim 5, Hopkinson teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 2 and 4 as discussed above. Hopkinson fails to explicitly teach wherein the monitoring condition includes coasting amount information regarding a coasting amount of the robot when power supply to a motor of the robot is shut off during an operation of the robot, the monitoring element has a safety function in which a position that the robot reaches by coasting when the power supply to the motor of the robot is shut off at a future timing of the robot is predicted based on a value related to the robot and the coasting amount information and the power supply to the motor of the robot is shut off when the position predicted is included in the interference region indicated by the information regarding the interference region included in the monitoring condition, and the path generation element generates the operation path such that, at each timing of the operation path, the position that the robot reaches by coasting when the power supply to the motor of the robot is shut off is not included in the interference region indicated by the information regarding the interference region included in the monitoring condition.
Maehara teaches to calculate a post-coasting predicted position of a robot based on estimated coasting angles and speed of the robot when the robot is stopped due to an emergency stop at the next target position (Maehara, see at least Figs. 1, 4, col. 6); if the post-coasting predicted position will come into contact with the virtual safety protection barrier, the power supply is stopped (Maehara, see at least Figs. 1, 4, col. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the system of Hopkinson to include, calculate a post-coasting predicted position of a robot based on estimated coasting angles and speed of the robot when the robot is stopped due to an emergency stop at the next target position; if the post-coasting predicted position will come into contact with the virtual safety protection barrier, the power supply is stopped, as taught by Maehara. This modification would allow to stop the robot immediately upon detection of abnormality.
The combination of Hopkinson and Maehara fails to explicitly teach the path generation element generates the operation path such that, at each timing of the operation path, the position that the robot reaches by coasting when the power supply to the motor of the robot is shut off is not included in the interference region indicated by the information regarding the interference region included in the monitoring condition.
Kamiya teaches to calculate an abnormal stopping position of a robot based on a current trajectory command value for the robot at predetermined intervals for an abnormal stop control (Kamiya, see at least par. [0006-0009, 0021]); when the calculated abnormal stopping position of the robot is located within a prohibited area, Makiya further teaches to modify the command value to reduce robot’s speed and correct robot’s trajectory so that the calculated abnormal stopping position of the robot is outside the prohibited area (Kamiya, see at least par. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the combination of Hopkinson and Maehara to include, calculate an abnormal stopping position of a robot based on a command value for the robot at predetermined intervals; when the calculated abnormal stopping position of the robot is located within a prohibited area, the control system is configured to modify the command value to reduce robot’s speed and correct robot’s trajectory so that the calculated abnormal stopping position of the robot is outside the prohibited area, as taught by Kamiya. This modification would allow to prevent the robot from reaching prohibited area based on the robot's operating characteristics and planned operations (Kamiya, see at least par. [0007]).
Regarding claim 19, Hopkinson teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as discussed above. Hopkinson further teaches wherein the monitoring condition includes information regarding an interference region of the robot (Hopkinson, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0071], “The safety monitoring rules 125c specify rules, conditions, values of parameters and/or other criteria used to assess the operational environment for violations of specified safety criteria. For example, the safety monitoring rules 125c may specify rules or criteria that requires a specific condition to be maintained between a robot or portion thereof and an object that is a human or which might be a human. For instance, the safety monitoring rules 125c may specify that there be at least one defined unit of measurement (e.g., region of a grid) between the object (e.g., human) and a portion of a robot or path or trajectory of a robot, for instance over a time it will take the robot to move along the path or trajectory … The processor-based workcell safety system 130 may determine whether the position, path or trajectory of the human and the position, path or trajectory of the robot(s) 102a, 102b will violate one or more of the safety monitoring rules 125c”); the trajectory control execution element executes trajectory control of the robot by using the information regarding the interference region (Hopkinson, see at least Figs. 1, 3, 8, par. [0151], “In response to determination that the safety monitoring rules 125c (FIG. 1) were not violated, at 520 the at least one processor 222 provides a signal to at least in part control operation of the robot(s) 102, allowing operation or movement of the robot(s). For example, the at least one processor 222 may provide a signal that allows one or more robots 102 to move, for instance a signal to a robot control system 109a, 109b (FIG. 1) or a motion controller 320 (FIG. 3) of the robot(s) 102”).
Hopkinson fails to explicitly teach coasting amount information regarding a coasting amount of the robot when the power supply to the motor of the robot is shut off during an operation of the robot; the monitoring element has the safety function in which a position that the robot reaches by coasting when the power supply to the motor of the robot is shut off at a future timing of the robot is predicted based on a value related to the robot and the coasting amount information and the power supply to the motor of the robot is shut off when the position predicted is included in the interference region, and the trajectory control execution element executes trajectory control of the robot by using the information regarding the interference region and the coasting amount information.
Maehara teaches to calculate a post-coasting predicted position of a robot based on estimated coasting angles and speed of the robot when the robot is stopped due to an emergency stop at the next target position (Maehara, see at least Figs. 1, 4, col. 6); if the post-coasting predicted position will come into contact with the virtual safety protection barrier, the power supply is stopped (Maehara, see at least Figs. 1, 4, col. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the system of Hopkinson to include, calculate a post-coasting predicted position of a robot based on estimated coasting angles and speed of the robot when the robot is stopped due to an emergency stop at the next target position; if the post-coasting predicted position will come into contact with the virtual safety protection barrier, the power supply is stopped, as taught by Maehara. This modification would allow to stop the robot immediately upon detection of abnormality.
The combination of Hopkinson and Maehara fails to explicitly teach the trajectory control execution element executes trajectory control of the robot by using the information regarding the interference region and the coasting amount information.
Kamiya teaches to calculate an abnormal stopping position of a robot based on a current trajectory command value for the robot at predetermined intervals for an abnormal stop control (Kamiya, see at least par. [0006-0009, 0021]); when the calculated abnormal stopping position of the robot is located within a prohibited area, Makiya further teaches to modify the command value to reduce robot’s speed and correct robot’s trajectory so that the calculated abnormal stopping position of the robot is outside the prohibited area (Kamiya, see at least par. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the combination of Hopkinson and Maehara to include, calculate an abnormal stopping position of a robot based on a command value for the robot at predetermined intervals; when the calculated abnormal stopping position of the robot is located within a prohibited area, the control system is configured to modify the command value to reduce robot’s speed and correct robot’s trajectory so that the calculated abnormal stopping position of the robot is outside the prohibited area, as taught by Kamiya. This modification would allow to prevent the robot from reaching prohibited area based on the robot's operating characteristics and planned operations (Kamiya, see at least par. [0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG DANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1049. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/TRANG DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights