Ex Parte Weigele et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 11, 2017

13109136 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2017)

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. 13/109,136 05/17/2011 Peter Weigele P11.0108 1832 26574 7590 08/15/2017 SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP - Chicago PATENT DEPARTMENT 233 S. Wacker Drive-Suite 7100 CHICAGO, IL 60606-6473 EXAMINER NGUYEN, ROBERT T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3664 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/15/2017 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): patents-CH @ schiffhardin.com jbombien @ schiffhardin. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PETER WEIGELE, UWE BONIN, HEINRICH MUNZ, and THOMAS FINSTERWALDER Appeal 2016-003068 Application 13/109,1361 Technology Center 3600 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8—11, 13, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify KUKA Laboratories GmbH as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-003068 Application 13/109,136 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention Appellants’ invention relates to: safety monitoring of a manipulator by a control device, a part of the control device is configured by the manufacturer and a part of the control device is configured by a user. The manufacturer- configured part ensures a basic safety functionality of the manipulator independent of a user configuration; and/or a safety device of a control device for individual safety monitoring of a manipulator communicates with a control device for individual safety monitoring of an additional manipulator of a manipulator arrangement for superordinate safety monitoring of the manipulator arrangement. Abstract. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A control device for individual safety monitoring of a manipulator, said control device comprising: a safety device of a single, individual robotic manipulator configured to emit electrical signals, and receive electrical signals from, drive technology of said single individual robotic manipulator that monitor and maintain safe operation of said single, individual robotic manipulator, said safety device being configured to communicate with a further control device of a further manipulator of a manipulator arrangement that includes said single, individual robotic manipulator, said safety device being configured for superordinate safety monitoring of all robotic manipulators in said manipulator arrangement by emitting further electrical signals to, and receiving further electrical signals from, said further control device for operating drive technology of said further manipulator, that monitor and maintain safe operation of said further manipulator; a part of said robotic manipulator that is configurable by a user, and a further part that is configured only by a manufacturer to always insure a basic predetermined safety functionality of 2 Appeal 2016-003068 Application 13/109,136 said manipulator independently of user configuration of said part that is configurable by a user; and the part configured only by the manufacturer and the user- configurable part being integrated by at least one of hardware or software, by being fashioned on a common hardware platform or with a common runtime system. References and Rejections2 Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8—11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schuster (US 2004/0010326 Al, published Jan. 15, 2004) and Sethuraman (US 2011/0125302 Al, published May 26, 2011). ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites “a part of said robotic manipulator that is configurable by a user, and a further part that is configured only by a manufacturer . . . .” The Examiner finds Schuster teaches or suggests “a part of said robotic manipulator that is configurable by a user,” (Final Act. 4) and Sethuraman teaches or suggests “a further part that is configured only by a manufacturer,” (Final Act. 5). In particular, the Examiner finds Sethuraman 2 In the Final Rejection, claim 13 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for including insufficient antecedent bases for the limitation of “the further manipulator.” Appellants amended claim 13 to address this rejection, replacing “the” with “a” in the claim. The amendment was entered by the Examiner in the Advisory Action (June 12, 2015) but the Examiner did not explicitly indicate, either in the Advisory Action or in the Answer, that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn. For purposes of this Appeal, however, we assume the rejection has been withdrawn in light of Appellants’ amendment. 3 Appeal 2016-003068 Application 13/109,136 teaches safety modules that the user cannot modify. Ans. 7 (citing Sethuraman || 24, 28, and 35). Appellants argue the teachings of Schuster and Sethuraman are incompatible. App. Br. 9. According to Appellants, “[t]he Schuster reference teaches the desirability of giving the user the capability of modifying software after a manipulator has been received and installed from the manufacturer, and the Sethuraman et al. reference has the goal of relieving the user from ever having to make such modifications.” App. Br. 9. Appellants acknowledge Sethuraman does not preclude the user from modifying pre-certified safety modules, but argue that making such modifications would defeat the intended goal of Sethuraman, which is to “avoid the situation of an automation system being delivered and installed at a deployment site with the automation system still requiring some type of modification of the safety aspects thereof.” App. Br. 9. We are unpersuaded by Appellants argument that Schuster and Sethuraman are incompatible. Although Schuster teaches that various safety functionalities and devices can be configured by the user, (see Schuster 11, 32) it does not require that all such safety functionalities be configurable by the user, nor does it preclude that some may be configurable by the manufacturer alone. Similarly, Sethuraman does not require that all safety functionalities be configurable only by the manufacturer. Indeed, Sethuraman discloses that in some circumstances the safety logic can be modified or revised by the user. Sethuraman discloses a process for certification and verification of safety logic. When inconsistencies are found in the safety logic, the process allows the user to take corrective action, including revising the safety logic 4 Appeal 2016-003068 Application 13/109,136 or revising the testing specifications, until the inconsistencies are resolved. Sethuraman 132; Fig. 1. In some instances, the safety logic is provided by a third party where the safety logic is contained in a black box that cannot be modified by the user. Sethuraman | 35; Fig. 2. In this case, when inconsistencies are found, only the testing specification can be modified, but the third party safety logic cannot. Sethuraman | 35; Fig. 2. Thus, in the case where the safety logic is not provided by a third party, Sethuraman not only does not preclude the user from making modifications to the safety logic, but explicitly allows the user to make such modifications during the certification and verification process. On the other hand, for certain parts with safety logic provided by a third party, we agree with the Examiner that Sethuraman teaches or suggests “a further part [of a robotic manipulator] that is configured only by a manufacturer,” i.e. only by the third party. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find that Schuster and Sethuraman are incompatible or would render the other unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14, which were argued together as a group. See App. Br. 6. Finally, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, 5, and 8 for which Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8—11, 13, and 14 is affirmed. 5 Appeal 2016-003068 Application 13/109,136 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 6