Siemens Aktiengesellschaft

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 24, 2021

2020005633 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2021)

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. 15/053,029 02/25/2016 Raimund KRAM 5029-1499/381589 5882 27799 7590 03/24/2021 COZEN O''CONNOR 3WTC, 175 Greenwich Street 55th Floor NEW YORK, NY 10007 EXAMINER ESKRIDGE, CORY W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/24/2021 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): patentdocket@cozen.com patentsecretary@cozen.com patentsorter@cozen.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RAIMUND KRAM and ANDREAS SCHWARZ ____________ Appeal 2020-005633 Application 15/053,029 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Siemens AG. (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal 2020-005633 Application 15/053,029 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s “invention relates to a method for optimizing a motion profile, a control device and technical system,” i.e., “a technical system such as a robot” (Spec. ¶¶ 1, 3.) Claims 1, 16, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative. It recites: 1. A method for optimizing a motion profile based on a plurality of partial motion profiles for motion of at least one actuator via at least two drives of a technical system, the method comprising: dividing, by a control device, an original motion profile of the technical system into the plurality of separate and independent partial motion profiles; optimizing, by the control device, the plurality of separate and independent partial motion profiles of the technical system separately and independently via at least one optimization method to form optimized partial motion profiles; and operating, via at least the control device, the at least two drives of the technical system based on the motion profile optimized in accordance with the optimized partial motion profiles. REJECTION Claims 1–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Weinhofer (US 2005/0071021 A1, pub. Mar. 31, 2005). PRINCIPLES OF LAW “[A]n invention is anticipated if the same device, including all the claim limitations, is shown in a single prior art reference. Every element of the claimed invention must be literally present, arranged as in the claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Appeal 2020-005633 Application 15/053,029 3 “Anticipation can occur when a claimed limitation is ‘inherent’ or otherwise implicit in the relevant reference.” Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “[T]he mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to those things to distinguish over the prior art.” In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212–13 (CCPA 1971). ANALYSIS As an initial matter, we interpret the claim term “motion profile optimized” in the third limitation of claim 1. In the preamble, claim 1 recites “optimizing a motion profile” and in the first claim limitation, claim 1 recites “an original motion profile.” Applying a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, we determine that the “motion profile” that is optimized in the third limitation is the original motion profile. This is because it is the original motion profile that is divided into the partial motion profiles in the first limitation, and it is these partial motion profiles that are optimized in the second limitation. The dividing and optimizing limitations are not recited as operating on the motion profile recited in the preamble, even though the antecedent basis for the term “partial motion profiles” is in the preamble. The Examiner finds that paragraph [0008] of Wienhofer [sic] explicitly teaches “a control method for controls [sic] movement of a controlled element in a multi-dimensional coordinate system”, wherein an “original motion profile” is generated “receiving a plurality of weighting points by way of user instruction”. The method continues to generate a “plurality of spline segments”, i.e. what the instant application recites as a [sic] “partial motion profiles”. Appeal 2020-005633 Application 15/053,029 4 Weinhofer then teaches “generating a plurality of coefficient vectors ... [and] a plurality of position reference values”, analogous to “optimizing the partial motion profiles”. The “position reference values” are expressly divided into “first” and “second” reference values to control “first” and “second” motion axis [sic]. The first and second position reference values are expressly generated separately and independently to control separate motion axes. (Answer 3.) The Examiner also finds that in paragraphs [0060] – [0063], Weinhofer expressly teaches modifying an existing motion profile (path comprising 82, 84, 86) into an “optimized for smooth path transitions” motion profile (path comprising 88 and 90). While the FINAL path of Weinhofer is continuous, there is nothing to suggest that paths 88 and 90 are optimized dependently. The optimization of each will depend on the desired path of each. (Id. at 4.) Appellant argues that “[p]aragraph [0007] of Weinhofer fails to teach at least the ‘dividing’ step of independent claim 1,” and that “[t]he salient aspect of Appellants’ claimed invention is the division of an original motion profile into a plurality of partial motion profiles. Paragraph ([0008]) of Weinhofer fails to teach this claimed subject matter.” (Appeal Br. 6.) Appellant’s Specification discloses that “[a] motion profile is, for example, a motion of an actuator for the achievement of a manipulation operation. The motion profile can be made up of independent individual motions, in particular (linear) independent individual motions in linearly independent directions (of motion).” (Spec. ¶ 75.) In other words, an independent motion does not depend on another motion, even though the motions may be related, i.e., they may operate collectively to form the desired motion profile. Appeal 2020-005633 Application 15/053,029 5 Appellant’s Specification discloses that the “invention is particularly suitable for the creation of a motion profile for handling or for pick-and- place operations.” (Id. ¶ 74.) Weinhofer discloses “a method and system apparatus for generating multi-dimensional motion profiles.” (Weinhofer ¶ 2.) Figure 3 of Weinhofer is reproduced below. “In [Figure 3], an exemplary two-dimensional path profile is shown which may be executed, for example, in the context of a pick-and-place system.” (Id. ¶ 60.) Weinhofer discloses a system in which a separate coordinated move instruction may be used to program each of the segments 82, 84 and 86. In FIG. 3, the path segments 82, 84 and 86 are shown to be linear path segments. For each linear path segment, the coordinated move instruction may be used to specify endpoints 92 of the path segment and/or transition points or other parameters indicating when the move may begin transitioning from one linear path segment to the next. The additional transitioning path segments 88 and 90 are generated automatically by the coordinated move block 72 and do not need to be specified by the user. (Id. ¶ 62.) Weinhofer describes the coordinated move block 72 as “provid[ing] a programmer of the system 10 with user-friendly mechanisms for controlling motion of multiple motion control axes (e.g., multiple motors 27) in a coordinated fashion.” (Id. ¶ 57.) Appeal 2020-005633 Application 15/053,029 6 Weinhofer also discloses that in transitioning between path segments, i.e., partial paths 82, 84, and 86, “[t]he path segments 88 and 90 may have shapes which are optimized for smooth path transitions.” (Id. ¶ 60.) In other words, the original path may be divided into separate partial paths, and the transition between the separate paths may be optimized for smooth path transitions. Appellant’s Specification describes optimization as including “jerk minimization and/or the minimization of vibrations in the technical system.” (Spec. ¶ 62; see also Reply Br. 4.) Appellant does not persuasively argue why smooth path transitions do not include jerk minimization. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Weinhofer’s disclosure of optimized smooth path transitions is a disclosure of at least one type of optimization, i.e., jerk minimization. (See Answer 3–4.) Weinhofer further discloses that “the coordinated move block 72 may be used to provide, for example, a linear or circular path in a Cartesian coordinate system from the current position to a new position.” (Weinhofer ¶ 132.) Weinhofer discloses that “the representation of the path can be simplified by transforming the move parameters from the original (target) Cartesian coordinate system to a new (source) Cartesian coordinate system” (id. ¶ 134) and that “[i]n the source system, the multi-dimensional coordinated linear move can be separated into multiple individual one- dimensional moves” (id. ¶ 139). In other words, Weinhofer discloses separating a path into a plurality of partial motion paths, i.e., related, but separate and individual/independent paths. Appeal 2020-005633 Application 15/053,029 7 Appellant, however, argues that [w]hile paragraph [0139] teaches “the multi-dimensional coordinated linear move can be separated into multiple individual one-dimensional moves (m1 ... mn)”, there is no teaching that these individual paths are divided into separate and independent partial motion paths, which are then optimized separately and independently of each other. (Reply Br. 6.) We do not find this argument persuasive. Claim 1 recites that it is the original motion path that is divided into the separate and independent partial motion paths. Claim 1 does not recite a further division of the partial motion paths. As discussed above, in Weinhofer, the individual one-dimensional moves correspond to the partial motion paths, not the original motion path. Appellant argues that Appellant’s “claimed invention seeks to improve (optimize) a path after it is determined.” (Appeal Br. 8.) We do not find this argument persuasive. Weinhofer, in discussing Figure 3, discloses that after the coordinated move block is given segments 82, 84, and 86 (with endpoints 92), the coordinated move block generates the smooth path transition segments 88 and 90, e.g., after being given segments 82 and 84 (with endpoint 92), the coordinated move block generates smooth path transition 88. In view of the above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Claims 2–21 are not separately argued and fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-005633 Application 15/053,029 8 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) is affirmed. Specifically: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–21 102(a)(1) Weinhofer 1–21 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED