DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s argument/remarks filed on 07/31/2026, claims 1-15 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Applicant's arguments with respect to amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant has amended claim 1.
Response to Argument
Regarding applicant’s arguments with respect to the amendment of the claim 1 (page 8, par. 1 – page 10, par. 1), applicant is kindly invited to consider the Office Action below to review the new ground of rejection, cited sections of the prior art(s) and motivation.
Regarding applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 12 (page 10, par. 2), the examiner respectfully disagreed with applicant statement because the claim had not been amended as claim 1 and its rejection is maintained. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the Office Action below to review the ground of rejection and cited sections of the prior art(s).
Regarding applicant’s arguments with respect to depended claims (page 11, par. 1 – page 12, par. 1), the examiner respectfully disagreed with applicant statement for the same reason presented above. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the Office Action below to review the ground of rejection and cited sections of the prior art(s).
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2023/0182299 A1) in view of Primessnig (US 2015/0148958 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Lin et al. disclose a robot online auto-interlock strategy method, comprising:
recording, by one or more processors (e.g., computer 130 / controllers (112/102) – par. 24), a plurality of configurations of a machine, each configuration representing a sequence of movements performed by the machine during execution of a task (e.g., storing robot movements / motion segments that would occupy at some point at a cumulative volume envelope via motion program (par. 34, 40 and par. 82); for instance, Figure 4 shows the robot’s volume envelope of the robot’s tool path(s) (par. 34 and 29) );
calculating, by the one or more processors (e.g., computer 130 / controllers (112/102) – par. 24), based on the plurality of recorded configurations, a plurality of volumes occupied by the machine during execution of the task (e.g., computing multiple of volumes occupy by the robot at some point and incrementally add them to a cumulative volume envelope as the robot moves through steps of its motion program (par. 34) to perform task(s) (par. 44 and 6));
combining, by the one or more processors (e.g., computer 130 / controllers (112/102) – par. 24), the plurality of volumes to generate a swept volume occupied by the machine during execution of the task (e.g., computing swept volume from available upcoming motion segments / movements for the robot (par. 40, 44, 42) based on the cumulative volume envelope, which covers combining the plurality of volumes to compute the swept volume – par. 34 and 44);
However, Lin et al. failed to specifically disclose (i) recoding sequence of movement that have been perform by the machine and (ii) detecting a collision event involving the machine;
However, Primessnig teaches a robot apparatus configured to (i) record a trajectory of a robot (par. 27-28) while performing a task and (ii) detect clash of a robot with another object – e.g., a failure case (par. 3 and 39) and enable the robot to move along a backward trajectory to a last position or start position (par. 20, 29 and Figure 1f and 4b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the computer / controller of the robot, taught by Lin et al., such that the robot is configured to record a trajectory of a robot while performing a task and (ii) detect clash of a robot with another object and enable the robot to move along a backward trajectory to a last position or start position, in view of Primessnig, with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of avoiding damage to the robot (par. 3) without colliding with the object / workpiece again as the robot returns to a last / start position (par. 39).
Lin et al., as modified by Primessnig, teach in response to detecting collision event (e.g., in the event of detecting clash of a robot with another object (Primessnig’s par. 3 and 39) / deadlock, which includes collision – Lin et al.’s par. 26), determining, by the one or more processors (e.g., computer 130 / controllers (112/102) – par. 24), based on the swept volume, a recovery sequence of movements for the machine (e.g., determining a “reverse course” or “backwards” trajectory for the robot to allow collision-free motion to resume ( Lin et al.’s par. 26 and 28) – for instance, enable the robot to move along a backward trajectory to a last position or start position (Primessnig’s par. 20, 29 and Figure 1f and 4b) ; and
using, by the one or more processors, the recovery sequence of movements to lead the machine back to a predefined known safe position after the collision event occurred (e.g., using the determined “reverse course” or “backwards” trajectory, the robot backs up to a previous position to allow collision-free motion to resume – Lin et al.’s par. 26 and 28).
Regarding claim 2, Lin et al. disclose a robot online auto-interlock strategy method, wherein combining the plurality of volumes to generate the swept volume further comprises
wherein the swept volume is a collision-free volume occupied by the machine during the execution of the task (e.g., implement swept volume from available upcoming motion segments / movements for the robot (par. 40 and 44) to allow collision-free motion (par. 26) ); and/or
Regarding claim 5, Lin et al. disclose a robot online auto-interlock strategy apparatus wherein recording the plurality of configurations comprises recording the plurality of configurations at a predefined frequency until a predefined event occurs ( e.g., storing robot movements / motion segments within a memory from the start to the end events (par. 82-83, 34, 40), which covers storing the movements / motion segments at a predetermined frequency) .
Regarding claim 6, Lin et al. disclose a robot online auto-interlock strategy apparatus further comprising storing the plurality of configurations in a list or ring buffer with a predefined length or storage capacity ( e.g., storing robot movements / motion segments within a memory (par. 82-83, 34, 40), which covers storing the movements / motion segments in a list or ring buffer with a predefined length or storage capacity) .
Regarding claim 9, Lin et al. disclose a robot online auto-interlock strategy apparatus wherein each of the recorded plurality of configurations includes a timestamp associated with the recorded configuration. ( e.g., storing robot movements / motion segments within a memory from the start to the end events (par. 82-83, 34, 40), which covers a timestamp associated with the recorded configuration).
Regarding claim 10, Lin et al. disclose a robot online auto-interlock strategy apparatus further comprising: in response to the collision event (in the event of deadlock (par. 26), which includes collision),
determining by the one or more processors (e.g., computer 130 / controllers (112/102) – par. 24), based on the timestamps associated with each configuration, the recovery sequence of movements for the machine (e.g., the robot moves backward to allow collision-free motion to resume (par. 26 and 28), which covers determining backward movement); ceasing execution of the task (e.g., as the robot moves backward to allow collision-free motion to resume (par. 26 and 28), the robot stops execution of its current task); and
using, by the one or more processors (e.g., computer 130 / controllers (112/102) – par. 24), the recovery sequence of movements to reverse the machine back to the predefined known safe position after the collision event occurred (e.g., the robot backs up to a previous position to allow collision-free motion to resume during deadlock event – par. 26 and 28).
Regarding claim 13, Lin et al. disclose a robot online auto-interlock strategy apparatus, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more of the processors to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1 (e.g., e.g., computer 130 / controllers (112/102) configured to start instruction during execution of the robot’s motion program - par. 83-84).
Regarding claim 14, Lin et al. disclose non-transitory computer readable medium (a memory – par. 82 and 90) having processor-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor (e.g., for storing software applications and modules to be executed by computer 130 / controllers (112/102) - par. 90 ), cause the at least one processor to perform the method according to claim 1 (e.g., to perfume motion segment swept volume (par. 90) in accordance to steps of claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, A computer program product (e.g., a memory – par. 82 and 90), comprising a computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable program code stored therein said program code executable by a processor (the memory configured to store software applications and modules to be executed by computer 130 / controllers (112/102) - par. 90) of a computer system to implement a method, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method according to claim 1 (e.g., to perfume motion segment swept volume (par. 90) in accordance to steps of claim 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2023/0182299 A1) in view of Primessnig (US 2015/0148958 A1) and Konidaris et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0001472 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Lin et al., as modified by Primessnig (US 2015/0148958 A1), failed to specifically disclose wherein the machine model includes at least one of: a kinematic chain, a Denavit-Hartenberg, DH, convention, a kinematic model in simulation description format, SDFormat, and a geometric model of the machine.
However, Konidaris et al. teach a robot motion planning apparatus for implementing a geometric model for swept volume of each robot movement (par. 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to further modify the computer / controller of the robot, as taught by the combination of Lin et al. in view of Primessnig, such that the robot is configured to implement a geometric model for swept volume of each robot movement, in view of Konidaris et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of detecting collision (par. 24) while producing a low-power, low-cost hardware architecture capable of performing real-time motion planning for a robot (par. 5).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2023/0182299 A1) in view of Primessnig (US 2015/0148958 A1) and Shanmugham (Pat. No.: US 6630884 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Lin et al. disclose a robot online auto-interlock strategy apparatus further comprising: in response to the collision event (e.g., in the event of deadlock (par. 26), which includes collision)), ceasing execution of the task (e.g., the robot moves backward to allow collision-free motion to resume (par. 26 and 28), which covers stop execution of robot task).
However, Lin et al., as modified by Primessnig (US 2015/0148958 A1), failed to specifically disclose ceasing recording of further configurations of the machine in response to a collision event.
However, Shanmugham teach a mechanism / process to stop recording after an impact event (abstract and col. 3, lines 46-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to further modify the computer / controller of the robot, as taught by the combination of Lin et al. in view of Primessnig, such that the computer / controller of the robot is configured to stop recording robot operation after an impact event, in view of Shanmugham, with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of proving safety to surveillance system that record data before an impact event (col. 1, lines 6-9).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2023/0182299 A1) in view of Primessnig (US 2015/0148958 A1) and Cordoba et al. (US 2018/0080841 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lin et al., as modified by Primessnig (US 2015/0148958 A1), failed to specifically disclose wherein the collision event is detected based on data from at least one of: a mechanical switch, a pressure sensor, a torque sensor, an optical sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a camera device, and/or a LiDAR device.
However, Cordoba et al. teach a robot configured to sense occurrence of collision via a pressure sensor while performing a particular task (par. 126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to further modify the computer / controller of the robot, as taught by the combination of Lin et al. in view of Primessnig, such that the robot is configured to sense occurrence of collision via a pressure sensor while performing a particular task, in view of Cordoba et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of accurately and precisely measure force and /or torque within the robotic arm to successfully operate and control of some mechanical and electromechanical systems of the robot (par. 3).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2023/0182299 A1) in view of Primessnig (US 2015/0148958 A1) and Hansen et al. (US 2022/0152824 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lin et al., as modified by Primessnig (US 2015/0148958 A1), failed to specifically disclose wherein the motion planning algorithm includes any one of or combination of: graph search algorithms, sample-based algorithms, interpolating curve algorithms, and/or machine learning, ML, -based algorithms.
However, Hansen et al. teach a robotic system configured to implement artificial intelligent (AI) / machine learning to generate motion planning (par. 36 and 50) for a robot to perform a task (par. 3 and 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to further modify the computer / controller of the robot, as taught by the combination of Lin et al. in view of Primessnig, such that the robot is configured to implement artificial intelligent (AI) / machine learning to generate motion planning for a robot to perform a task, in view of Hansen et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of grasping and manipulating objects and moving the object along a collision-free path (par. 3 and abstract).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2023/0182299 A1)
Regarding claim 12, Lin et al. disclose a robot online auto-interlock strategy apparatus, comprising:
at least one machine configured to perform a task (e.g., robot(s) configured to perform tasks – for instance, welding, spray painting, etc. (par. 25 and 44));
at least one recording device communicatively connected to the machine (e.g., a memory connected to the robot controller – par. 82 and 90), wherein the recording device is configured to:
store a plurality of configurations of the machine, each configuration representing a sequence of movements performed by the machine during execution of the task (e.g., storing robot movements / motion segments that would occupy at some point at a cumulative volume envelope via motion program (par. 34, 40 and par. 82); for instance, Figure 4 shows the robot’s volume envelope of the robot’s tool path(s) (par. 34 and 29) ); and
a machine recovery device (e.g., computer 130 / controllers (112/102) – par. 24) configured to:
receive the stored plurality of configurations of the machine from the recording device (e.g., the computer 130 / controllers (112/102) receives swept volume for each motion segment which is available and definite (par. 46), for instance, from a memory (par. 82-83) );
calculate based on the plurality of recorded configurations a plurality of volumes occupied by the machine during execution of the task (e.g., computing multiple of volumes occupy by the robot at some point and incrementally add them to a cumulative volume envelope as the robot moves through steps of its motion program (par. 34) to perform task(s) (par. 44 and 6));
combine the plurality of volumes to generate a swept volume occupied by the machine during the execution of the task (e.g., computing swept volume from available upcoming motion segments / movements for the robot (par. 40, 44, 42) based on a cumulative volume envelope, which covers combining the plurality of volumes to compute the swept volume – par. 34 and 44);
in response to a collision event (e.g., in the event of deadlock (par. 26), which includes collision – par. 26), determine based on the swept volume, a recovery sequence of movements for the machine (e.g., determining a “reverse course” or “backwards” trajectory for the robot to allow collision-free motion to resume – par. 26 and 28); and
use the recovery sequence of movements to lead the machine back to a predefined known safe position after the collision event occurred (e.g., using the determined “reverse course” or “backwards” trajectory, the robot backs up to a previous position to allow collision-free motion to resume – par. 26 and 28).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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 art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schlaich et al. (US 20140025204 A1) is directed to a robot apparatus configured to recognize collision and perform emergency stop / standstill.
McGee et al. (US 20120215351 A1) is directed to robot configured to detect a collision between a robot and one or more obstacles and prevent deadlocks
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jorge O. Peche whose telephone number is (571)270-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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 H. 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.
/Jorge O Peche/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights