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 1-13 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/649,295 filed on 05/17/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/14/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because reference numbers, labels, and details are smudged and unclear in figures 1-8. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 9, 12, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 12, and 13, “an autonomous robot” should read “a robot” to avoid lacking of antecedent basis;
In claim 8, --or-- should be added after “range;”;
In claim 9, --a—should be removed after “inappropriate;”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2-4 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 2, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “recoverable condition” and further how the claimed “recoverable condition” is applied to determine whether an event is a recoverable condition or not. Therefore, this renders the claims indefinite.
Dependent claims 3 and 4 are also rejected under this section for being dependent on previously rejected based claim 2.
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, 2, 4-8, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Niemueller et al. (US 20220402123 A1, hereinafter “Niemueller”).
Regarding claim 1, Niemueller discloses a method of detecting and correcting an operational anomaly in an autonomous robot (Niemueller, see at least Figs. 5, 7, abstract, par. [0028, 0096]), comprising:
receiving an indication of an anomaly, the anomaly impeding performance of a robot from fulfilling a prescribed task in a workcell of the robot (Niemueller, see at least Figs. 5, 6C, 7, par. [0089-0096, 0124-0130, 0141, 0144, 0147, 0117-0118], receiving a status message to represent a sense observation, e.g., a discrepancy between motor control command to control joints of robot arm and status of the motor, a person has been detected in the workcell);
determining, based on the anomaly, a need for a recovery (Niemueller, see at least par. [0032], “As another example, if the state value of a robotic gripper changes from a held object being sensed to not being sensed, the system can trigger a recovery action to pick up the dropped object before continuing”; par. [0144], a discrepancy between motor control command and status of the motor);
mapping, based on the anomaly, at least one remedial action corresponding to the recovery (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 5, par. [0095-0096], “At step 7, if an execution monitoring rule set detects a fault or another exception, the planning subsystem can be invoked to generate a recovery action or a correction plan”; Fig. 7, par. [0131], the execution engine subsystem identifies one or more actions corresponding to the emitted events such as fault event); and
receiving a command to commence the remedial action (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 7, step 770, par. [0133], “The execution engine subsystem initiates performance of the one or more actions by a robot”).
Regarding claim 2, Niemueller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Niemueller further teaches wherein the indication of the anomaly is defined by an event received from the robot, further comprising:
determining if the event indicates a human safety event (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 6C, par. [0118-0119], “the system generates a new message to represent a new observation that a person has been detected in the workcell”); and
if not, determining if the event indicates a recoverable condition (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 5, par. [0096], “At step 7, if an execution monitoring rule set detects a fault or another exception, the planning subsystem can be invoked to generate a recovery action or a correction plan”).
Regarding claim 4, Niemueller teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as discussed above. Niemueller further teaches wherein determining the need for recovery further comprises:
measuring a joint torque indicative of a force exerted by a robotic joint (Niemueller, see at least par. [0054, 0059], measuring a joint torque indicative of a force exerted by a robotic joint based on input from sensor such as force sensor); and
computing if the joint torque exceeds an acceptable threshold (Niemueller, see at least par. [0120, 0141, 0147], “For example, if a particular torque value received by an actuator feedback controller is outside of an acceptable range, the actuator feedback controller can either modify it to be within range or enter a fault state”).
Regarding claim 5, Niemueller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Niemueller further teaches wherein receiving the indication further comprises:
receiving at least one of a status indicator or a variance value (Niemueller, see at least Figs. 5, 6C, 7, par. [0089-0096, 0124-0130, 0141, 0144, 0147, 0117-0118], receiving a message to represent a new observation that could affect operation of robot, e.g., a discrepancy between motor control command to control joints of robot arm and status of the motor, a person has been detected in the workcell);
comparing the status indicator or variance value to a set of rules indicative of a need for recovery (Niemueller, see at least Figs. 5, 6C, 7, par. [0096, 0130], comparing the new observation causes a pattern of a rule to be matched such as rule set detects a fault or another exception); and
matching the status indicator or the variance value to at least one of the rules of the set or rules (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 5, 6C, 7, par. [0095], “the execution engine subsystem 510 maps the received events to rules”); and
mapping the matched rule to a remedial action for implementing the recovery (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 5, 6C, 7, par. [0096], “if an execution monitoring rule set detects a fault or another exception, the planning subsystem can be invoked to generate a recovery action or a correction plan”).
Regarding claim 6, Niemueller teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 5 as discussed above. Niemueller further teaches wherein the status indicator is indicative of at least one of:
a non-safety protective stop (Niemueller, see at least par. [0023], “each robot can expect a command from the robot interface subsystem 160 at a particular frequency, e.g., 100 Hz or 1 kHz. If the robot does not receive a command that is expected, the robot can enter a fault mode and stop operating”),
a pick/placement error (Niemueller, see at least par. [0032], “if the state value of a robotic gripper changes from a held object being sensed to not being sensed, the system can trigger a recovery action to pick up the dropped object before continuing”),
a machine fault (Niemueller, see at least par. [0147], “if a particular torque value received by an actuator feedback controller is outside of an acceptable range”).
Regarding claim 7, Niemueller teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 5 as discussed above. Niemueller further teaches wherein the variance value is indicative of a sensor reading from a sensor in the workcell (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0022, 0054], one or more sensors 171a-n making observations within the workcell 170), the sensor reading falling outside of a value consistent with normal operation in performing the prescribed task (Niemueller, see at least par. [0054, 0147], “a particular torque value received by an actuator feedback controller is outside of an acceptable range”).
Regarding claim 8, Niemueller teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 5 as discussed above. Niemueller further teaches wherein the variance value is indicative of at least one of:
a measurement falling outside a normal range (Niemueller, see at least par. [0147], “a particular torque value received by an actuator feedback controller is outside of an acceptable range”);
a sensed value deviating from a range (Niemueller, see at least par. [0032], “if the state value of a robotic gripper changes from a held object being sensed to not being sensed, the system can trigger a recovery action to pick up the dropped object before continuing”).
Regarding claim 11, Niemueller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Niemueller further teaches further comprising deploying a recipe to the workcell, the recipe indicative of robotic instruction performable by the robot for achieving the prescribed task (Niemueller, see at least par. [0025], “The overall goal of the offline planner 120 is to generate, from a definition of one or more tasks to be performed, a plan that will be executed by the robots 170a-n to accomplish the tasks. In this specification, a plan is data that assigns each task to at least one robot. A plan also specifies, for each robot, a sequence of actions to be performed by the robot”).
Regarding claim 13, Niemueller discloses a computer program embodying program code on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that, when executed by a processor, performs steps for implementing a method of detecting and correcting an operational anomaly in an autonomous robot (Niemueller, see at least Figs. 5, 7, abstract, par. [0028, 0096, 0154]), the method comprising:
receiving an indication of an anomaly, the anomaly impeding performance of a robot from fulfilling a prescribed task in a workcell of the robot (Niemueller, see at least Figs. 5, 6C, 7, par. [0089-0096, 0124-0130, 0141, 0144, 0147, 0117-0118], receiving a status message to represent a sense observation, e.g., a discrepancy between motor control command to control joints of robot arm and status of the motor, a person has been detected in the workcell);
determining, based on the anomaly, a need for a recovery (Niemueller, see at least par. [0032], “As another example, if the state value of a robotic gripper changes from a held object being sensed to not being sensed, the system can trigger a recovery action to pick up the dropped object before continuing”; par. [0144], a discrepancy between motor control command and status of the motor);
mapping, based on the anomaly, at least one remedial action corresponding to the recovery (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 5, par. [0095-0096], “At step 7, if an execution monitoring rule set detects a fault or another exception, the planning subsystem can be invoked to generate a recovery action or a correction plan”; Fig. 7, par. [0131], the execution engine subsystem identifies one or more actions corresponding to the emitted events such as fault event); and
receiving a command to commence and perform the remedial action (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 7, step 770, par. [0133], “The execution engine subsystem initiates performance of the one or more actions by a robot”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niemueller et al. (US 20220402123 A1, hereinafter “Niemueller”) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Tsuboi et al. (US 20170007336 A1, hereinafter “Tsuboi”).
Regarding claim 3, Niemueller teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as discussed above. Niemueller further teaches to determining the need for recovery based on whether torque value received by an actuator feedback controller is outside of an acceptable (Niemueller, see at least par. [0120, 0141, 0147]). However, Niemueller fails to explicitly teach measuring a joint current providing power to a robotic joint, and computing if the joint current exceeds an acceptable threshold.
Tsuboi teaches to detect a determining the need for recovery based on detecting a malfunction of each joint unit by measuring whether detection values from current sensor 182 exceeds a threshold value (Tsuboi, see at least Figs. 1, 6, 8, par. [0090, 0119, 0159-0164]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Niemueller to include, measuring a joint current providing power to a robotic joint, and computing if the joint current exceeds an acceptable threshold, as taught by Tsuboi. This modification allows to avoid the malfunction in the arm unit and a situation that would endanger the surgeon and the patient due to unexpected motion of the arm unit.
Regarding claim 9, Niemueller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Niemueller further teaches further comprising:
engaging with an application programming interface (API) of the robot (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0021-0023], “… robot interface subsystem 160 is a real-time software control system …”), the API configured for transmitting commands to the robot (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0022, 0028], “…the execution system 110 provides commands 155 to be executed by the robot interface subsystem 160, which drives one or more robots, e.g., robots 170a-n, in a workcell 170…”) and for receiving the indication of the anomaly (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0022, 0028], the robot interface subsystem 160 is configured to receive data input from sensors and status message 135 from the execution subsystem 110);
determining that the robot has ceased to perform the prescribed task based on the anomaly (Niemueller, see at least par. [0023, 0024], the robot ceases due to not receive a command that is expected at a particular frequency);
commencing the at least one remedial action, the remedial action correcting the anomaly (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 7, step 770, par. [0033, 0133], the execution engine subsystem initiates performance of the one or more actions by a robot in response to recovery plan to address situations where a required state of a particular execution rule set is suddenly not met).
Niemueller fails to explicitly teach concluding, based on the determination of the need for recovery, that a stoppage is inappropriate; and restarting the prescribed task following completion of the remedial action.
Tsuboi teaches concluding, based on the determination of the need for recovery, that a stoppage is inappropriate (Tsuboi, see at least Fig. 7, par. [0150, 0151], determining whether or not the malfunction allows for continued usage of the functions of the arm unit 120); restarting the prescribed task following completion of the remedial action (Tsuboi, see at least Fig. 7, par. [0068, 0151], “the driving of the joint units 130 other than the joint unit 130 where the malfunction was detected is controlled, and the arm unit 120 is driven in a state of lowered degrees of freedom compared to the original degrees of freedom”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Niemueller to include, concluding, based on the determination of the need for recovery, that a stoppage is inappropriate, and restarting the prescribed task following completion of the remedial action, as taught by Tsuboi. This modification allows to maintain functions of the robot arm apparatus as much as possible and prioritize the direct continuance of the robot operation.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niemueller et al. (US 20220402123 A1, hereinafter “Niemueller”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsuboi et al. (US 20170007336 A1, hereinafter “Tsuboi”).
Regarding claim 10, Niemueller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Niemueller fails to explicitly teach wherein commencing the remedial action further comprises: identifying a restart point for commencing robotic activity for completing the prescribed task, and commencing the robotic activity from the identified restart point.
Gaydarov teaches to identifying a restart point for commencing robotic activity for completing the prescribed task (Gaydarov, see at least Fig. 9, par. [0008, 0097, 0106, 0111], “the system can determine which tasks have been completed prior to the fault, and can generate a resume process definition graph, e.g., an underconstrained process definition graph, for the tasks that have not been completed. The system can again apply transforms to the resume process definition graph until a schedule is generated to complete the rest of the tasks. The resume process definition graph includes one or more motion nodes that cause a robot to move from the recovery position to a position of a first task that has not been completed yet”), and commencing the robotic activity from the identified restart point (Gaydarov, see at least Fig. 9, par. [0113], causing the robot to resume regular operation from the position of the first task that has not been completed yet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Niemueller to include, identifying a restart point for commencing robotic activity for completing the prescribed task, and commencing the robotic activity from the identified restart point, as taught by Gaydarov. This modification allows to perform a faster and more efficient response to the fault, without operator intervention, and to automatically complete a task without having to rerun the whole plan from the start while indicating which tasks have been completed so they are not executed again.
Regarding claim 12, Niemueller discloses a system for detecting and correcting an operational anomaly in an autonomous robot (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0021], system 100), comprising:
a robot disposed in a workcell (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 1, robots 170a-n disposed in workcell 170) and responsive to a recipe from a central server Niemueller, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0025, 0029, 0163], “Thus, in some implementations, the offline planner 120 is implemented by a cloud-based computing system having many, possibly thousands, of computers. The offline planner 120 is thus commonly physically remote from a facility that houses the workcell 170”), the recipe including predetermined instructions for a prescribed task (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0025], “The overall goal of the offline planner 120 is to generate, from a definition of one or more tasks to be performed, a plan that will be executed by the robots 170a-n to accomplish the tasks. In this specification, a plan is data that assigns each task to at least one robot. A plan also specifies, for each robot, a sequence of actions to be performed by the robot”);
an interface to the robot for receiving an indication of an anomaly (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0021-0023], “… robot interface subsystem 160 is a real-time software control system …”; par. [0022, 0028], the robot interface subsystem 160 is configured to receive data input from sensors and status message 135 from the execution subsystem 110), the anomaly impeding performance of a robot from fulfilling a prescribed task in a workcell of the robot (Niemueller, see at least Figs. 5, 6C, 7, par. [0089-0096, 0124-0130, 0141, 0144, 0147, 0117-0118], receiving a status message to represent a sense observation, e.g., a discrepancy between motor control command to control joints of robot arm and status of the motor, a person has been detected in the workcell);
at least one sensor configured to communicate, to the robot, an indication of an anomaly (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0022], one or more sensors 171a-n making observations within the workcell 170);
a set of rules for determining, based on the anomaly, a need for a recovery (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0029, 0030, 0096], execution rule sets 165 detects a fault or another exception);
mapping, based on the anomaly, at least one remedial action corresponding to the recovery (Niemueller, see at least Figs. 1, 7, par. [0095, 0096. 0130], emits an event when a fact update causes a pattern of a rule to be matched such as detecting a fault); and
a recovery sequence, the recovery sequence responsive to a command to commence the remedial action (Niemueller, see at least Fig. 7, par. [0095, 0096, 0131], identifying one or more actions corresponding for the pattern that caused the faulty event).
Niemueller fails to explicitly teach the remedial action for reestablishing the prescribed task based on a point of failure determined by the anomaly.
Gaydarov teaches to generate a recovery sequence that includes remedial action for reestablishing the prescribed task based on a point of failure determined by the anomaly (Gaydarov, see at least Fig. 9, par. [0008, 0097, 0106, 0111], “the system can determine which tasks have been completed prior to the fault, and can generate a resume process definition graph, e.g., an underconstrained process definition graph, for the tasks that have not been completed. The system can again apply transforms to the resume process definition graph until a schedule is generated to complete the rest of the tasks. The resume process definition graph includes one or more motion nodes that cause a robot to move from the recovery position to a position of a first task that has not been completed yet”; par. [0113], causing the robot to resume regular operation from the position of the first task that has not been completed yet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Niemueller to include, the remedial action for reestablishing the prescribed task based on a point of failure determined by the anomaly, as taught by Gaydarov. This modification allows to perform a faster and more efficient response to the fault, without operator intervention, and to automatically complete a task without having to rerun the whole plan from the start while indicating which tasks have been completed so they are not executed again.
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