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 .
Priority
The applicant’s claim to priority of DE10 2022 131 773.0 on 11/30/2022 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant filed an IDS on 6/26/25 and 5/27/25. Each has been annotated and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “leading contour” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: “evaluation and control unit”.
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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly 14) , teaches sensors. As written, this could include a variety of sensor known in the art, but according to the Specification, the sensor is only described as a radar sensor. Therefore, the limitation “sensor” lacks written description as only radar sensors are taught in the Specification.
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 5 and 17 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 5 (and similarly 17), the term “leading contour” is unclear as it is not in the drawings nor described sufficiently ascertain which contour is the leading contour.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fabio et al. (EP 3909727 A1 hereinafter Fabio).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly 14), Fabio teaches a safety device for safeguarding a danger zone of an articulated robot having a body part which, during operation, executes a rotary movement about an axis of rotation during robot operation and thereby defines a current direction of rotation, the safety device comprising (See at least: Fig. 1):
a plurality of sensors configured to be mechanically coupled to the body part such that the plurality of sensors move together with the body part in the current direction of rotation during robot operation (See at least: Figs. 1-2, and 6-7 item 14 “sensor”; “In the embodiment illustrated, the positioning unit comprises a four-bar linkage mechanism 24, which is constrained to the robot arm 10 and carries the support 22. The mechanism 24 operates to keep the support 22, and hence the sensors 14 arranged thereon, according to a pre-set orientation, so that the two rows of sensors 14 extend in respective vertical directions Z1, Z2, which are set at a distance apart in a horizontal direction Y (Figure 2). The sensors 14 define monitoring volumes S1, S2, which are symmetrical with respect to the direction Y and extend on opposite sides of the robot arm 10 so to set themselves over areas alongside the robot that extend from the margins of the work space L (Figure 4). In particular, with reference to Figure 3, the four-bar linkage mechanism 24 comprises a first lever 241, which is mounted at the coupling interface between the arm element 10I and the arm element 10II, and is fixed to the arm element 10I according to a horizontal orientation. The mechanism 24 further comprises a second lever 24II, which is mounted at the coupling interface between the arm element 10II and the arm element 10III, and is rotatable with respect to both of the two elements, about the axis of rotation X3, about which the arm element 10III is rotatably mounted on the arm element 10II. Finally, the mechanism 24 comprises a third lever 24III, which is rotatably connected at its opposite ends to the ends of the two levers 241 and 2411… In view of the foregoing, it emerges clearly that it is possible to provide monitoring volumes of any shape by putting together a given number of sections, determined by a corresponding number of presence sensors 14. ”); and
an evaluation and control unit configured to control the rotary movement of the body part in response to sensor signals from the plurality of sensors (See at least: Fig. 1 item 100 “control unit”),
wherein the plurality of sensors include a first sensor configured to monitor a first defined spatial sector and to generate a first sensor signal in response to an object being detected in the first spatial sector,
wherein the plurality of sensors include a second sensor configured to monitor a second defined spatial sector and to generate a second sensor signal in response to an object being detected in the second spatial sector,
wherein the plurality of sensors include a third sensor configured to monitor a third defined spatial sector and to generate a third sensor signal in response to an object being detected in the third spatial sector (See at least: Fig. 4 items S1 I, S1 II and S1 III),
wherein the first spatial sector, the second spatial sector, and the third spatial sector are different from each other,
wherein the first and second spatial sectors are adjacent to one another during robot operation,
wherein the second and third spatial sectors are adjacent to one another during robot operation, and
wherein the first spatial sector, the second spatial sector, and the third spatial sector are distributed around the axis of rotation during robot operation such that the first spatial sector, the second spatial sector and the third spatial sector follow one another in the current direction of rotation in response to the body part rotating about the axis of rotation (See at least: Fig. 4 items S1 I, S1 II and S1 III).
Regarding claim 2, Fabio teaches wherein the first, second, and third spatial sectors each define a pie-shaped configuration (See at least: Fig. 4) .
Regarding claim 3, Fabio teaches wherein: the first, second, and third spatial sectors each extend over an azimuthal opening angle and an elevational opening angle, and the azimuthal opening angle is greater than the elevational opening angle (See at least: Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4 (and similarly 16), Fabio teaches wherein: the body part has a leading contour in the current direction of rotation, the first spatial sector is arranged in front of the leading contour in the current direction of rotation, the second spatial sector is arranged in front of the first spatial sector in the current direction of rotation, the third spatial sector is arranged in front of the second spatial sector in the current direction of rotation, the evaluation and control unit is configured to selectively rotate the body part at a first rotational speed or at a second rotational speed about the axis of rotation, the rotational first speed is higher than the second rotational speed, and the evaluation and control unit rotates the body part at the first rotational speed about the axis of rotation in response to the first sensor signal indicating no object in the first spatial sector (See at least: Fig 4.; “For instance, according to an alternative embodiment illustrated in Figure 6, the positioning unit is constituted by a gyroscope system 44, comprising a rotor 441, rotatably mounted about an axis of rotation I, and a mobile frame 4411, which carries the rotor 441 and defines one or two axes of oscillation, about which the axis of rotation I can be oriented in space. The support 22 is mounted fixed to the module of the mobile frame that carries the rotor 44I. According to the characteristic operating mode of gyroscope systems, the axis of rotation I, and hence the support 22, remain in a pre-set orientation as a result of the angular momentum generated by the continuous rotation of the rotor 441 about the axis of rotation I, notwithstanding the movements of the robot arm 10 for executing the tasks assigned thereto.”).
Regarding claim 5 (and similarly 17), teaches wherein the evaluation and control unit is further configured to limit a current rotational speed of the body part about the rotational axis to the second rotational speed in response to the first sensor signal indicating an object in the first spatial sector (See at least: Fig. 1; “For instance, with reference to the application illustrated in Figures 1 to 4, the control unit 100 of the device can control operation of the robot arm 10, according to a mode of displacement at lower speeds at the moment when the sensors 14 detect that an operator is crossing the entry area A1, and then issue a command for complete arrest of the robot arm 10 at the moment when the sensors 14 detect the presence of the operator in the working area, close to the work space L, that is intercepted by the monitoring volume S1I.”). Regarding claim 9 (and similarly 19), Fabio teaches wherein: the first spatial sector includes a first detection area and a separate second detection area, the first detection area is closer to the first sensor than the second detection area, the first sensor is configured to generate separate first sensor signals for each of the first and second detection areas, and the evaluation and control unit is configured to control the rotation of the body part in response to the separate first sensor signals (See at least: Fig. 1; “For instance, with reference to the application illustrated in Figures 1 to 4, the control unit 100 of the device can control operation of the robot arm 10, according to a mode of displacement at lower speeds at the moment when the sensors 14 detect that an operator is crossing the entry area A1, and then issue a command for complete arrest of the robot arm 10 at the moment when the sensors 14 detect the presence of the operator in the working area, close to the work space L, that is intercepted by the monitoring volume S1I.”).
Regarding claim 10 (and similarly 20), Fabio teaches wherein: the plurality of sensors form a first sensor group and a second sensor group, the sensors of the first sensor group define a first plane during robot operation, the sensors of the second sensor group define a second plane during robot operation, and the first plane is vertically below the second plane (See at least: Fig. 4; “In view of the foregoing, it emerges clearly that it is possible to provide monitoring volumes of any shape by putting together a given number of sections, determined by a corresponding number of presence sensors 14. ”).
Regarding claim 11, Fabio teaches wherein the sensors of the first sensor group jointly monitor an azimuthal spatial region which omits the body part (See at least: Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Fabio teaches wherein the sensors of the second sensor group jointly monitor a further azimuthal spatial region which, as seen by the sensors of the second sensor group, extends behind the body part (See at least: Fig. 4). Regarding claim 13 (and similarly 21), Fabio teaches wherein: the body part is configured to execute a rotary movement over a defined rotary angle range during robot operation, and the first spatial sector, the second spatial sector, and the third spatial sector each cover a partial range of the defined rotary angle range (See at least: Figs. 1 and 4; “For instance, with reference to the application illustrated in Figures 1 to 4, the control unit 100 of the device can control operation of the robot arm 10, according to a mode of displacement at lower speeds at the moment when the sensors 14 detect that an operator is crossing the entry area A1, and then issue a command for complete arrest of the robot arm 10 at the moment when the sensors 14 detect the presence of the operator in the working area, close to the work space L, that is intercepted by the monitoring volume S1I.”).
Regarding claim 15, Fabio teaches wherein the plurality of sensors each monitor a pie-shaped spatial sector which, starting from the respective sensor, extends over an azimuthal opening angle which is greater than a respective opening angle in elevation (See at least: Fig. 4).
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 (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 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 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabio in view of Miyazawa et al. (US 20190143522 hereinafter Miyazawa).
Regarding claim 6 (and similarly 18), Fabio fails to teach the following limitation but Miyazawa teaches wherein the evaluation and control unit is further configured to reverse the current direction of rotation of the body part and to selectively rotate the body part at the first rotational speed about the axis of rotation in response to the third sensor signal indicating no object in the third spatial sector (See at least: [0071] via “When determining that the object comes into contact with or approaches the robot body section 1, the control device 5 sends signals to the driving sections 170 and performs a reduction of operating speed, an operation stop, or switching (reversal) of a moving direction of the robot arm 10. In this way, the control device 5 causes, on the basis of the signals exchanged with the proximity sensors 30, the robot arm 10 to perform an avoiding operation for avoiding the object or a stopping operation.” ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Fabio in view of Miyazawa to teach wherein the evaluation and control unit is further configured to reverse the current direction of rotation of the body part and to selectively rotate the body part at the first rotational speed about the axis of rotation in response to the third sensor signal indicating no object in the third spatial sector so the articulated robot can be rotated in the reverse direction when an object is detected in the area to avoid a collision, damage to the robot and/or collision with a person.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabio in view of Arth et al. (US 20130233044 hereinafter Arth).
Regarding claim 7, Fabio fails to teach the following limitation, but Arth teaches wherein: the evaluation and control unit includes a fail-safe first evaluation and control unit and a non-fail-safe second control unit, the second control unit is configured to control the movement of the body part in response to an operating program and in response to a binary enable signal from the first evaluation and control unit, and the first evaluation and control unit is configured to generate the binary enable signal in response to the first, second, and third sensor signals (See at least: [0036] In this refinement, the individual identification code is contained in at least one of the output signals. In this manner, the novel sensor arrangement can provide a higher level control unit with the individual identification code. In combination with binary signals, the refinement has the advantage that the integration of the individual identification code results in a dynamic output signal, which is advantageous with regard to fail-safe applications.; [0048] The controller 28 is illustrated here in the form of a safety controller which has a plurality of redundant signal processing channels 30a, 30b. The controller 28 accordingly has at least two redundant switching elements 32a, 32b. The signal processing channels 30a, 30b process input signals of the controller 28 and, on the basis of the input signals, generate control signals which are used to drive actuators in the installation 10. These actuators here include two contactors 34a, 34b, the normally open contacts of which are arranged in series between a power supply 36 and electrical drives of the robot 12. The controller 28 can use the contactors 34a, 34b to interrupt the power supply for the robot 12 in a fail-safe manner. [0049] Protection against a dangerous machine, such as the robot 12 here, is often achieved with the aid of a safety controller specially designed for the fail-safe application, while the operating procedure, i.e. the standard application, is controlled with the aid of a separate, non-fail-safe operation controller. However, there are also cases in which a safety controller also implements the standard application in addition to the fail-safe application. A suitable controller is, for example, the fail-safe controller PSS.RTM. 4000 from Pilz GmbH & Co. KG, Osffildern, Germany.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Fabio in view of Arth to teach wherein: the evaluation and control unit includes a fail-safe first evaluation and control unit and a non-fail-safe second control unit, the second control unit is configured to control the movement of the body part in response to an operating program and in response to a binary enable signal from the first evaluation and control unit, and the first evaluation and control unit is configured to generate the binary enable signal in response to the first, second, and third sensor signals so a fail-safe mechanism taught by Arth can be added to the mechanism of Fabio to ensure safety for the articulated robot and/or people nearby when utilizing the articulated robot.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabio in view of Miyake et al. (US 20210148510 hereinafter Miyake).
Regarding claim 8, Fabio fails to teach the following limitation, but Miyake teaches wherein the first sensor, the second sensor, and the third sensor each are connected in a series connection to the evaluation and control unit (See at least: [0028] via “As shown in FIG. 1, the safety input devices 11c to 11e and 11f to 11h such as safety sensors are connectable in series. Such series connection allows power to be supplied from the safety controller 1 to each safety input device 11.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Fabio in view of Miyake to teach wherein the first sensor, the second sensor, and the third sensor each are connected in a series connection to the evaluation and control unit so all the sensors can be powered by the evaluation and control unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights