Ex Parte Jacob et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 23, 2016

13060847 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2016)

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.
13/060,847 04/11/2011 Dirk Jacob FUBO-05 2248
26875 7590 11/28/2016
WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
LIN, ABBYYEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/28/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usptodock@whe-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DIRK JACOB and TOBIAS ORTMAIER
Appeal 2015-0018911,2
Application 13/060,847
Technology Center 3600
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, JAMES A. WORTH, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 11—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Mar. 20, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 6, 2014), as well as
the Final Office Action (“Final Action,” mailed Oct. 22, 2013) and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed June 4, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, KUKA Laboratories GmbH is the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-001891
Application 13/060,847
Claims 11 and 18 are the only independent claims. See Appeal Br.,
Claims App. We reproduce claim 11, below, as representative of the
appealed claims.
11. A method of controlling a robot having at least one
robot arm, the method comprising:
detecting with a non-contact distance sensor a first
movement of an object;
wherein the non-contact distance sensor is attached to at
least one of the robot arm or an end effector attached to the robot
arm;
moving the robot arm on the basis of the detected first
movement in a manner that prevents collision between the robot
arm and the object; and
maintaining the position and orientation of an attaching
device of the robot arm or of a tool center point of the end
effector while moving the robot arm in the manner that prevents
collision.
Id.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART3
The Examiner rejects claims 11—14, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Komainda and Hiller, Control of Heavy Load
Manipulators in Varying Environments, XVI Automation and Robotics in
Constr. 301—306 (1999) (hereinafter “Komainda”), and Nanayakkara et al.,
Skillful Adaptation of a 7-DOF Manipulator to Avoid Moving Obstacles in a
TeleoperatedForce Control Task, IEEE 1982—1987 (2001) (hereinafter
“Nanayakkara”).
3 The Examiner withdraws a previous indefmiteness rejection. See Final
Action 2—3; see Answer 2.
2
Appeal 2015-001891
Application 13/060,847
The Examiner rejects claims 15, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Komainda, Nanayakkara, and Merte
(US 2008/0021597 Al, pub. Jan. 24, 2008).
The Examiner rejects claims 17 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Komainda, Nanayakkara, and McGee
(US 2002/0188379 Al, pub. Dec. 12, 2002).
See Final Action 3—9; see Answer 2.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 11 recites, among other features, “maintaining the
position and orientation ... of a tool center point. . . while moving the robot
arm in the manner that prevents collision.” Appeal Br., Claims App.
Appellants argue that the rejection is in error because the Examiner’s
proposed combination of references fails to disclose this feature. See Appeal
Br. 6—10; see also Reply Br. 2—5. Based on our review of the record, for the
reasons set forth below, we agree with Appellants. Thus, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 11.
As described in Komainda, “[i]n order to be able to avoid collisions
with unexpected and moving obstacles, an intelligent control concept is
required which combines the off-line planned paths with on-line sensor
information.” Komainda, Abstract. Komainda further describes control that
provides for “reconfiguration of the boom, where the position and
orientation of the [tool center point] is not changed.” Id., Section 2.1. Thus,
we agree with Appellants that the cited portion of Komainda does not
disclose that a tool center point remains in a same position and orientation
when the arm is moving to prevent a collision, as opposed to maintaining the
3
Appeal 2015-001891
Application 13/060,847
tool center point position and orientation during some other procedure. See,
e.g., Appeal Br. 8—9.
In the Answer, the Examiner states that Komainda is not relied upon
to teach that the tool center point remains in the same position and
orientation when the arm is moving to prevent a collision. See Answer 4.
Rather, the Examiner finds that Nanayakkara teaches “avoiding obstacles
when [the system] detects an incoming obstacle, where avoiding is the same
as moving the robot to prevent collision,” and that based on Nanayakkara’s
teaching, it would have been obvious to combine the references to provide a
method of controlling a robot that maintains the position and orientation of
the tool center point while moving the robot arm in a manner that prevents
collision. Id. The Examiner’s finding regarding Nanayakkara’s teaching is
reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. But, inasmuch as neither
reference appears to disclose maintaining a position and orientation of a tool
center point while moving a robot arm in the manner that prevents collision,
we determine that the combination of Komainda (which discloses both
movement to avoid a collision as well as maintaining a position and
orientation of a tool center point, but does not disclose maintaining the
position and orientation of the tool center point while moving to avoid the
collision) with Nanayakkara (on which the Examiner relies to teach
movement to avoid a collision) does not reasonably suggest the claim
limitation under discussion.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11.
We also do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 18, which recites a
similar limitation. Still further, we do not sustain either of the rejections of
claims 12—17 or 19—21 that depend from claims 11 and 18, as the Examiner
4
Appeal 2015-001891
Application 13/060,847
does not rely on any other reference to remedy the deficiency in the rejection
of the independent claims.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claims 11—21.
REVERSED
5