ABB TECHNOLOGY LTD

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 26, 2020

14914695 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/914,695 02/26/2016 Per Willför 04190-P0277A 4065
137670 7590 06/26/2020
ABB - Whitmyer IP Group LLC
600 Summer Street
Stamford, CT 06901
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, CEDRIC D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2129
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2020 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PER WILLFÖR, ROGER KULLÄNG, and
ROGER MELLANDER
Appeal 2019-002627
Application 14/914,695
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant,1 ABB Technology Ltd,
appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 6–9, and 11–19,
which are all claims pending in the application. Appellant has canceled
claims 5 and 10. Appeal Br. 11, 13. An oral hearing was held on May 21,
2020. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ABB
Schweiz AG. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002627
Application 14/914,695

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The claims are directed to a method and device for verifying one or
more safety volumes for a movable mechanical unit. See Spec. (Title). In
particular, Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention
“relate[] to a method for verifying one or more safety volumes for a movable
mechanical unit with respect to an environment of the mechanical unit in
order to avoid collisions between the mechanical unit and obstacles in the
environment,” and “also relates to a device for verification of the safety
volumes.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 9, and 17, reproduced below, are representative of the
subject matter on appeal (italics added to contested prior-art limitations;
underlining added to limitation contested under § 112(b)):
1. A method for verifying one or more safety
volumes for a mechanical unit with respect to an environment
of the mechanical unit, wherein the mechanical unit is
moveable and a world-coordinate system is defined in relation
to the mechanical unit and in relation to the environment of the
mechanical unit, the method comprising:
storing a description of one or more safety volumes
defined in relation to the world-coordinate system, and
repeatedly:

2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Aug. 13, 2018); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 12, 2019); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 13, 2018); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed Apr. 20, 2018); Transcript of Oral Hearing held May 21, 2020
(“Transcript” mailed June 3, 2020); and the original Specification (“Spec.,”
filed Feb. 26, 2016) (claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 371 to
PCT/EP2013/070773, filed Oct. 7, 2013).
Appeal 2019-002627
Application 14/914,695

3
determining a position and an orientation of a portable
display unit in relation to the world-coordinate system;
determining a graphical representation of the safety
volumes based on the description of the safety volumes and the
position and the orientation of the portable display unit;
overlaying the graphical representation of the safety
volumes on a view of a real environment of the mechanical unit
to provide a composited augmented reality image; and
displaying the augmented reality image on the portable
display unit;
wherein at least one of said safety volumes is a moving
safety volume having a size and position that depends on a
velocity and a position of a critical part of the mechanical unit;
wherein the method further comprises repeatedly:
obtaining the velocity and the position of the critical part
of the mechanical unit;
determining the moving safety volume for the critical
part of the mechanical unit based on the velocity and the
position of the critical part; and
storing a description of the moving safety volume
defined in relation to the world-coordinate system.
9. A device for verifying one or more safety volumes
for at least one mechanical unit positioned in an environment,
wherein the mechanical unit is movable and a world coordinate
system is defined in relation to the mechanical unit and in
relation to the environment of the mechanical unit, the device
comprising:
a storage unit for storing descriptions of the safety
volumes;
a portable display unit;
a position detector configured to continuously determine
a position and an orientation of the portable display unit in
relation to the world coordinate system;
Appeal 2019-002627
Application 14/914,695

4
a graphical unit configured to determine graphical
representations of the safety volumes based on the stored
descriptions of the safety volumes and the position and the
orientation of the portable display unit; and
an augmented reality unit configured to overlay the
graphical representations of the safety volumes on a view of a
real environment of mechanical unit to provide a composited
augmented reality image, and to display the augmented reality
image on the portable display unit;
wherein the device comprises a description generator
configured to obtain positions and velocities of a critical part of
the mechanical unit, to determine moving safety volumes for the
critical part of the mechanical unit based on the positions and
the velocities of the critical part, and to store a description of
the moving safety volume defined in relation to the world
coordinate system in said storage unit.
17. The method according to claim 3, wherein the
method comprises detecting user interactions with the graphical
representation of the fixed safety volume, and modifying the
description of the fixed safety volume based on said user
interactions.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Kazi et al. (“Kazi”) US 2004/0189631 A1 Sept. 30, 2004
Corrales et al., “Safe Human-Robot Interaction Based on Dynamic Sphere-
Swept Line Bounding Volumes,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 27, 2011, pp. 177–185 (hereinafter “Corrales”).

Appeal 2019-002627
Application 14/914,695

5
REJECTIONS
R1. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the inventor(s) regard(s) as the invention. Final Act. 5 (as
modified by Ans. 21–23).3
R2. Claims 1–4, 6– 9, and 11–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kazi and Corrales.
Final Act. 6.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We disagree with arguments made by Appellant with respect to
indefiniteness Rejection R1 of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and,
unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference herein and adopt as our
own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s arguments.
However, we agree with particular arguments made by Appellant with
respect to obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 1–4, and 6– 8, but note

3 The status of the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 in the Final Action (5)
is somewhat unclear given the apparently conflicting statements on pages
21–23 of the Examiner’s Answer. As best can be determined, the § 112(b)
rejection of claim 14 has been withdrawn, and the rejection of claim 17 is
before us on Appeal.
Appeal 2019-002627
Application 14/914,695

6
Appellant presents no separate arguments concerning Rejection R2 of
independent claim 9, and claims 11–19 depending therefrom.
We highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding
claims 1, 9, and 17 for emphasis as follows.
1. § 112(b) Rejection R1 of Claim 17
Issue 1
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 2–3) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite is in error.
These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the recitation of “the description of
the fixed safety volume” in claim 17 lacks proper antecedent basis?
Principles of Law
We apply the indefiniteness test approved by In re Packard, 751 F.3d
1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (per curiam): “A claim is indefinite when it contains
words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” and “claims are required to be
cast in clear–as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite–terms.” See
Packard, 751 F.3d at 1310, 1313; Ex parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-
006416 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) at *8–11 (explaining because
of different approaches to indefiniteness before the PTAB and the courts, the
PTAB continues to follow Packard after the Supreme Court’s Nautilus, Inc.
v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014) decision).
[W]hen the USPTO has initially issued a well-grounded
rejection that identifies ways in which language in a claim is
ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in
describing and defining the claimed invention, and thereafter
the applicant fails to provide a satisfactory response, the
Appeal 2019-002627
Application 14/914,695

7
USPTO can properly reject the claim as failing to meet the
statutory requirements of § 112(b).
Packard, 751 F.3d at 1311.
Analysis
The Examiner finds claim 17 lacks antecedent basis for the recitation
of “the description of the fixed safety volume” because there is no previous
recitation of a “description of the fixed safety volume” in any of claims 1, 2,
and 3 from which claim 17 depends. Ans. 4.
Appellant contends “claim 17 at least implies that the ‘fixed safety
volume’ is capable of being described, and thus the complained-of phrase in
claim 17 has implicit antecedent basis.” Reply Br. 3 (citing Appeal Br. 4).
During oral argument, Appellant’s representative admits “[t]he 112
rejection relates to antecedent basis issues that I think are straightforward,
and we can probably easily resolve these by an examiner's amendment.”
Transcript 3:4–6.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 17 lacks antecedent basis for
the disputed limitation, which could be addressed by a minor claim
amendment as admitted by Appellant.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s conclusion that the disputed limitation
of claim 17 lacks proper antecedent basis, and thus is indefinite.
2. § 103 Rejection R2 of Claims 1–4, 6– 9, and 11–19
Issue 2
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 4–8; Reply Br. 3–6) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
Appeal 2019-002627
Application 14/914,695

8
combination of Kazi and Corrales is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests “[a] method for verifying one or more safety volumes for a
mechanical unit with respect to an environment of the mechanical unit,
wherein the mechanical unit is moveable and a world-coordinate system is
defined in relation to the mechanical unit and in relation to the environment
of the mechanical unit,” that includes, inter alia, the step of “storing a
description of one or more safety volumes defined in relation to the world-
coordinate system . . . wherein at least one of said safety volumes is a
moving safety volume having a size and position that depends on a velocity
and a position of a critical part of the mechanical unit,” as recited in claim 1
(emphasis added)?
Analysis
Independent Claim 1
The Examiner finds Corrales teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation, but we note, however, while the claim requires that the “safety
volume” (reading on the “bounding volume” in Corrales) has a size and
position that depends on a velocity and a position of a critical part, the
Examiner’s rejection merely finds that “the bounding volume of the moving
manipulator is based on a velocity of each link (connects the parts of the
robot, considered joints), with FIG. 5 adding the bounding volume of the
robot shown at different positions, based on its moving manipulator based
on its position.” Final Act. 8 (citing Corrales p. 182, right column, ll. 43–
50) (emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-002627
Application 14/914,695

9
Appellant contends:
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the
bounding volumes of Corrales (i.e., the alleged “moving safety
volume”) each have a position that depends on a velocity and
position of a robot link (i.e., the alleged “critical part of the
mechanical unit”), Corrales still fails to disclose or suggest that
the size of each bounding volume depends on a velocity and
position of a robot link. Corrales discloses that the size of each
bounding volume depends on the velocity of a robot link, but
there is nothing in Corrales that discloses or suggests that the
size of a bounding volume depends on a position of a robot
link.
Appeal Br. 6.
During the Oral Hearing, Appellant’s representative directs us to
Section 4.1 of Corrales which states “One of the main contributions of this
paper is the development of dynamic bounding volumes whose sizes change
depending on the linear velocity of the associated link.” Corrales 180:10–13
(emphasis added). In addition, Appellant’s representative directed us to
equation (1) on page 180 of Corrales, i.e.,
radiusi(t) = radius_surfacei+ |v(t)|Δt (1)
which confirms that the size (radius) of the bounding volume as a function
of time is determined by the linear velocity of the associated link, and not
the location or position of the bounding volume. We find Appellant’s
argument to be persuasive.
Based upon the findings above, on this record, we are persuaded of at
least one error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art combination
to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1, such that we find error
in the Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we
Appeal 2019-002627
Application 14/914,695

10
do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1,
and claims 2–4, and 6–8 that depend from claim 1.
Independent Claim 9
The Examiner cites Kazi paragraph 20 as teaching or suggesting the
recited “position detector configured to continuously determine a position
and an orientation of the portable display unit in relation to the world
coordinate system” in claim 9, and relies upon Corrales, similar in some
respects to claim 1, as teaching or suggesting “determin[ing] moving safety
volumes for the critical part of the mechanical unit based on the positions
and the velocities of the critical part, and to store a description of the moving
safety volume defined in relation to the world coordinate system in said
storage unit.” Final Act. 9–12.
However, we note that claim 9 is dissimilar to claim 1 by not
requiring that the size of the moving safety volume depends on the positions
and velocities of the critical part. Appellant presents no separate argument
in the Briefs, but Appellant’s representative does address this issue during
the Oral Hearing by stating “[i]f it’s a matter of adding that language that’s
present in Claim 1 to Claim 9 to make Claim 9 also allowable, I think we —
that's something the applicant would likely be willing to do.” Transcript 18.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 9 and
dependent claims 11–19 which depend from claim 9.
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellant may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 2–8) not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position in
the Answer, arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the
Appeal 2019-002627
Application 14/914,695

11
Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s
Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellant has not shown.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err with respect to indefiniteness
Rejection R1 of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), and we sustain the
rejection.
(2) The Examiner erred with respect to obviousness Rejection R2
of claims 1–4 and 6–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited prior art
combination of record, and we do not sustain the rejection.
(3) The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejection
R2 of claims 9 and 11–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited prior art
combination of record, and we sustain the rejection.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis /
References Affirmed Reversed
17 112(b) Indefiniteness 17
1–4, 6– 9,
11–19 103
Obviousness
Kazi, Corrales 9, 11–19 1–4, 6–8
Overall
Outcome 9, 11–19 1–4, 6–8
FINALITY AND RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED IN PART