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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/11/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “sending control instructions to at least one effector of the robotic arm, for applying the trajectory profile of the center of mass of the load”. Based on the claim language, the claim should read, “sending control instructions to at least one end effector of the robotic arm, for applying the trajectory profile of the center of mass of the load”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “calculation unit” in claim 40.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to a review of the original specification,
Para 0028 cites the corresponding structure of calculation unit as integrated circuit, an ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit), a microcontroller, a microprocessor, a DSP (Digital Signal Processor), a processor, or a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit).
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
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.
Claim 21-40 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 21, the claim language recites “…determining a vertical acceleration time profile comprising, in each interval between the initial point, the end point, and a local extremum of altitude, an uninterrupted succession of a vertical acceleration phase and a vertical deceleration phase; and”. It’s unclear based on the claim language, what is meant by the interval between the initial point, the end point, and a local extremum of altitude. More specifically, interval between three things is recited in the claim language and it’s unclear how an interval between these three things is derived. Language such as “interval between” is normally accompanied by two things between which interval is provided. This makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. For the purpose of examination, Examiner considers the interval as any interval between any two of the initial point, the end point, and a local extremum of altitude.
Claim 21 further recites “sending control instructions to at least one effector of the robotic arm, for applying the trajectory profile of the center of mass of the load”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 24, the claim language recites “…wherein two successive phases of acceleration and deceleration are such that the speed at the end of the deceleration phase is equal to the speed at the start of the acceleration phase”. It’s unclear based on the claim language, which acceleration or deceleration that these acceleration and deceleration recited in claim 24 are referring to. More specifically, it’s unclear whether they are vertical or horizontal acceleration or deceleration. For the purpose of examination, Examiner considers the acceleration and deceleration as any acceleration including vertical or horizontal acceleration or deceleration.
Regarding claim 25, 27, 29, they similarly recite the acceleration and deceleration and raise similar clarity issue as provided in claim 24 above.
Claim 27 further recites “calculating the fourth time as a first time at which the absolute value of the acceleration takes a maximum value over the first vertical acceleration or deceleration phase;”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 also recites “calculating the fourth time as a first time at which the absolute value of the acceleration takes a maximum value over the first vertical acceleration or deceleration phase; calculating the sixth time as a first time at which the absolute value of the acceleration takes a maximum value over the first vertical acceleration or deceleration phase”. However, both the fourth time and sixth time are defined by the identical criteria as provided in the claim language. Therefore, it is unclear how both the fourth time and sixth time can be two distinct times while having the same defining criteria.
Regarding remaining dependent claims, these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon rejected base claims, and also inherit the deficiencies described above. Therefore, they are also rejected under this section for at least their dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Examiner notes wherein all claims have been addressed below in view of the prior art of record, as best understood by the Examiner, in light of the 35 USC 112 rejections provided herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 21 is directed to a method. Therefore, it is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to
determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The claim includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). It recites:
A method for the moving of a load from an initial point to an end point by a robotic arm comprising a plurality of segments, and, at the terminal end of said plurality of segments, at least one end effector capable of attaching the load, the method comprising:
- determining a trajectory of the center of mass of the load, between the initial point at an initial time and zero speed and the end point at a final time and zero speed, while passing through at least one local extremum of altitude at which the vertical speed of the center of mass of the load is zero, said determining of the trajectory comprising:
determining a vertical acceleration time profile comprising, in each interval between the initial point, the end point, and a local extremum of altitude, an uninterrupted succession of a vertical acceleration phase and a vertical deceleration phase; and
determining a horizontal acceleration time profile comprising an uninterrupted succession of at least one horizontal acceleration phase and at least one horizontal deceleration phase between a fourth time that is greater than or equal to the initial time and a sixth time that is less than or equal to the final time;
- sending control instructions to at least one effector of the robotic arm, for applying the trajectory profile of the center of mass of the load.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, determining a trajectory and acceleration in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing the activity using human mind. In the alternative, these activities can also be performed using pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for the moving of a load from an initial point to an end point by a robotic arm comprising a plurality of segments, and, at the terminal end of said plurality of segments, at least one end effector capable of attaching the load, the method comprising:
- determining a trajectory of the center of mass of the load, between the initial point at an initial time and zero speed and the end point at a final time and zero speed, while passing through at least one local extremum of altitude at which the vertical speed of the center of mass of the load is zero, said determining of the trajectory comprising:
determining a vertical acceleration time profile comprising, in each interval between the initial point, the end point, and a local extremum of altitude, an uninterrupted succession of a vertical acceleration phase and a vertical deceleration phase; and
determining a horizontal acceleration time profile comprising an uninterrupted succession of at least one horizontal acceleration phase and at least one horizontal deceleration phase between a fourth time that is greater than or equal to the initial time and a sixth time that is less than or equal to the final time;
- sending control instructions to at least one effector of the robotic arm, for applying the trajectory profile of the center of mass of the load.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional
limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of “sending control instructions”, it is considered a form of insignificant extra-solution activity using generic component without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner notes while the claim recites “sending control instructions … for applying the trajectory profile”, it is merely an intended use and the claim falls short of actually integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of sending control instructions amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of generic computer component is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Dependent claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, these dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the base claim.
Furthermore, claim 38 recites “A computer program comprising instructions for implementing the method according to claim 21 when this program is executed by a processor”. Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to “a computer program” which covers both statutory and non-statutory subject matter as the computer program may be construed to read on both non-transitory media and transitory signals. See MPEP 2106.03.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 27, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnoor (US 20040265110 A1) in view of Mueller (WO2008098707A2).
Regarding claim 21, Schnoor teaches a method for the moving of a load from an initial point to an end point (Fig 4, para 0048-50 wherein “[0050] The article 4.4 located at the first position, e.g. a conveying means 4.7 at the end of a production line, is initially briefly vertically raised at a. … Finally, the article 4.4 is slowly deposited on the pallet 4.6 (i)”) by a robotic arm comprising a plurality of segments, and, at the terminal end of said plurality of segments, at least one end effector capable of attaching the load (Fig 1), the method comprising:
determining a trajectory of the center of mass of the load, between the initial point at an initial time and zero speed and the end point at a final time and zero speed (Fig 4, 7, para 0041, 0047, 0066 wherein “With six axis robot kinematics according to FIG. 1a, a setting angle .psi., where the force F.sub.r during the movement of the article 1.4 almost completely acts as a normal force, can be implemented according to FIG. 1c solely by a path planning adapted to the centre of gravity position and weight of the article 1.4 to be handled”), while passing through at least one local extremum of altitude (Fig 4, 7) at which the vertical speed of the center of mass of the load is zero (Fig 4 wherein it is inherent that when the vertical speed changes from positive to negative as the object reaches the max altitude and begins descent, the vertical speed becomes 0 at least momentarily during transition from positive to negative vertical speed),
sending control instructions to at least one effector of the robotic arm, for applying the trajectory profile of the center of mass of the load (Fig 1, para 0001, 0049 wherein “[0001] The invention relates to a method for moving a multi-axle or multi-axis handling system with a plurality of drive and control devices for moving the axes”).
However, Schnoor fails to teach determining a vertical acceleration time profile comprising, in each interval between the initial point, the end point, and a local extremum of altitude, an uninterrupted succession of a vertical acceleration phase and a vertical deceleration phase; and determining a horizontal acceleration time profile comprising an uninterrupted succession of at least one horizontal acceleration phase and at least one horizontal deceleration phase between a fourth time that is greater than or equal to the initial time and a sixth time that is less than or equal to the final time.
Muller teaches determining a vertical acceleration time profile comprising, in each interval between the initial point, the end point, and a local extremum of altitude, an uninterrupted succession of a vertical acceleration phase and a vertical deceleration phase (Fig 3a-b, page 5 wherein the vertical acceleration is followed by vertical deceleration phase); and determining a horizontal acceleration time profile comprising an uninterrupted succession of at least one horizontal acceleration phase and at least one horizontal deceleration phase between a fourth time that is greater than or equal to the initial time and a sixth time that is less than or equal to the final time (Fig 3c, page 5 wherein the horizontal acceleration is followed by vertical deceleration phase between the initial time and final time of path).
Therefore, 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 Schnoor’s teachings of determining a trajectory of the center of mass of the load based on acceleration during the path to incorporate Muller’s teachings of determining a vertical acceleration time profile comprising, in each interval between the initial point, the end point, and a local extremum of altitude, an uninterrupted succession of a vertical acceleration phase and a vertical deceleration phase; and determining a horizontal acceleration time profile comprising an uninterrupted succession of at least one horizontal acceleration phase and at least one horizontal deceleration phase between a fourth time that is greater than or equal to the initial time and a sixth time that is less than or equal to the final time. Doing so would enable the object to be moved smoothly and efficiently (Muller page 2 wherein “The advantage here is that the movement is fast executable and continuous, so from beginning to end, limited jerk occur. The object moves smoothly on the parabola”).
Regarding claim 22, modified Schnoor teaches all the limitations of claim 21 including a horizontal or vertical acceleration or deceleration phase. However, Schnoor fails to teach wherein a horizontal or vertical acceleration or deceleration phase begins with an increase in the absolute value of the acceleration in a predefined jerk up to an acceleration of maximum absolute value over the phase, and ends with a decrease in the absolute value of the acceleration in the predefined jerk.
Muller further teaches wherein vertical acceleration phase begins with an increase in the absolute value of the acceleration in a predefined jerk up to an acceleration of maximum absolute value over the phase, and ends with a decrease in the absolute value of the acceleration (Fig 3a-c, at least page 3 9th para, page 4, 9th para, page 5, 3rd para wherein the vertical acceleration increases within the predefined jerk and then decreases; “In an advantageous refinement, a jerk-limited transition from the starting position to the throwing parabola section is included, in particular with a predefinable jerk”; “In FIG. 3a, it is shown that for the straight line section, the acceleration acting on the object in the vertical direction is increased from zero with limited jerk in the upward direction up to a maximum value. Then, the acceleration is lowered until the first zero crossing 31 and built up in the downward direction”; “Thus, a time optimum with limited jerk is achieved for the entire distance from the pickup position over the peak height to the dispensing position”).
Therefore, 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 Schnoor’s teachings of determining a trajectory and having a vertical acceleration phase to incorporate Muller’s teachings of increase in the absolute value of the acceleration in a predefined jerk up to a maximum absolute value, and a decrease in the acceleration in order to have wherein vertical acceleration phase begins with an increase in the absolute value of the acceleration in a predefined jerk up to an acceleration of maximum absolute value over the phase, and ends with a decrease in the absolute value of the acceleration in the predefined jerk. Doing so would enable the object to be moved smoothly and avoiding jerking motion during the path.
Regarding claim 27, modified Schnoor teaches calculating the fourth time as a first time at which the absolute value of the acceleration takes a maximum value over the first vertical acceleration or deceleration phase (Fig 3c wherein the acceleration climbs to maximum value during the acceleration phase);
calculating the sixth time as a first time at which the absolute value of the acceleration takes a maximum value over the first vertical acceleration or deceleration phase (Fig 3c wherein the acceleration decreases to maximum value during the deceleration phase).
Regarding claim 31, modified Schnoor teaches the trajectory of the center of mass of the load is defined in a vertical plane comprising the initial point and the end point (Schnoor, Fig 4, Muller Fig 2); and the horizontal acceleration profile is a one-dimensional acceleration profile (Muller, Fig 3, page 4 1st para wherein “In the following, for the sake of simplicity, reference will be made to a machine having a vertical axis y and a horizontal axis x, so that a two-dimensional movement of the object can be carried out”).
Claim(s) 24, 32, 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnoor (US 20040265110 A1) and Muller (WO2008098707A2) in view of Aldridge (US 20180101166 A1).
Regarding claim 24, modified Schnoor teaches two successive phases of acceleration and deceleration (Muller fig 3). However, Schnoor fails to teach wherein two successive phases of acceleration and deceleration are such that the speed at the end of the deceleration phase is equal to the speed at the start of the acceleration phase.
Aldridge teaches controlling the trajectory of a robot arm wherein two successive phases of acceleration and deceleration are such that the speed at the end of the deceleration phase is equal to the speed at the start of the acceleration phase (Fig 3A wherein the speed at the end of the deceleration phase and the speed at the start of the acceleration phase are both zero).
Therefore, 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 Schnoor’s teachings of two successive phases of acceleration and deceleration to incorporate Aldridge’s teachings that the speed at the end of the deceleration phase is equal to the speed at the start of the acceleration phase in order to have wherein two successive phases of acceleration and deceleration are such that the speed at the end of the deceleration phase is equal to the speed at the start of the acceleration phase. Doing so would enable the object to be moved smoothly and efficiently (Aldridge, para 0022 “Points can be used as point to point moves, where the robot velocity goes to zero at each point, or portions of a “spline” or path, where the controller creates a smooth “path” for the robot where the robot passes through all the indicated points in a smooth manner”).
Regarding claim 32, modified Schnoor teaches all the limitaions of claim 21 including the trajectory of the center of mass of the load.
However, modified Schnoor fails to teach the trajectory is defined in 3 dimensions; and the horizontal acceleration profile is a two-dimensional acceleration profile.
Aldridge teaches the trajectory of the load is defined in 3 dimensions (Fig 1, 0098 wherein “[0098] With a usable solution to the constant jerk motion profile in one dimension complete, the linear solution may be applied to a three-dimensional robot”).
Muller further teaches the horizontal acceleration profile is provided by the robot comprising multi-axis operation (page 3, 11th para wherein “Control program for a trajectory control of a two- or multi-axis machine, by means of which an object is movable, is that functional modules of different varieties can be assembled into a structure”).
Therefore, 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 Schnoor’s teachings of determining a trajectory of the center of mass of the load based on acceleration during the path to incorporate Aldridge’s teachings that the trajectory of the load is defined in 3 dimensions and Muller’s teachings that the horizontal acceleration profile is provided by the robot comprising multi-axis operation in order to have the trajectory of the center of mass of the load is defined in 3 dimensions between the initial point and the end point and the horizontal acceleration profile is a two-dimensional acceleration profile. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 38, modified Schnoor fails to teach computer program comprising instructions for implementing the method according to claim 21 when this program is executed by a processor.
Aldridge teaches computer program comprising instructions for implementing the method when this program is executed by a processor (0161).
Therefore, 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 Schnoor’s teachings of determining a trajectory of the center of mass of the load based on acceleration during the path to incorporate Aldridge’s teachings of computer program comprising instructions for implementing the method when this program is executed by a processor. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 39, modified Schnoor fails to teach non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which is stored a program for implementing the method according to claim 21 when this program is executed by a processor.
Aldridge teaches non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which is stored a program for implementing the method when this program is executed by a processor (0161).
Therefore, 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 Schnoor’s teachings of determining a trajectory of the center of mass of the load based on acceleration during the path to incorporate Aldridge’s teachings of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which is stored a program for implementing the method when this program is executed by a processor. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 40, modified Schnoor teaches at least one robotic arm comprising a plurality of segments, and, at the terminal end of said plurality of segments, at least one end effector capable of attaching the load (Fig 1).
However, Schnoor fails to teach at least one calculation unit configured to execute the method according to claim 21.
Aldridge teaches at least one calculation unit configured to execute the method (0161).
Therefore, 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 Schnoor’s teachings of determining a trajectory of the center of mass of the load based on acceleration during the path to incorporate Aldridge’s teachings of at least one calculation unit configured to execute the method. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAGAR KC whose telephone number is (571)272-7337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5 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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
/SAGAR KC/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
