Ex Parte Riedel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2018

14523533 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/523,533 10/24/2014
26875 7590 11/02/2018
WOOD, HERRON & EV ANS, LLP
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Martin Riedel
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
FUB0-42 8405
EXAMINER
LIN, ABBY YEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2018 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 MARTIN RIEDEL and RAINER BISCHOFF
Appeal2018-002888
Application 14/523,533
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated March 24, 2017
("Final Act."), rejecting claims 13-26, which are all the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 KUKA Laboratories GmbH ("Appellant") is the applicant, according to 37
C.F .R. § 1.46, and KUKA Roboter GmbH is identified as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2018-002888
Application 14/523,533
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 13, 22, and 25 are the independent claims. Claim 13 is
illustrative, and reads:
13. A method for programming sequences of motion of
a redundant industrial robot by manually guided adjustment of
the pose of a manipulator arm of the industrial robot, the
manipulator arm comprising a plurality of successive links that
are connected by adjustable joints, wherein the adjustable joints
include at least one redundant joint and which can be adjusted in
such a way that they are actuated by at least one robot control
unit of the industrial robot, the method comprising:
adjusting in a manually-guided manner the link of the
manipulator arm that is associated with a tool reference point
from a first position and first orientation in space to at least one
of a second position or second orientation in space;
recalculating the joint position values of all of the joints of
the manipulator arm from the second position and second
orientation of the tool reference point of the manipulator arm
while simultaneously resolving the redundancy by determining
an optimized joint position value of the at least one redundant
joint, wherein the optimized joint position value effectuates a
material processing task performed on a workpiece by the
industrial robot;
automatically setting all of the joints of the manipulator
arm, actuated by the robot control unit, on the basis of the
recalculated, optimized joint position values during the manually
guided adjustment; and
storing the optimized joint position values.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2018-002888
Application 14/523,533
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 13, 21, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kazi (US 2005/0131582 Al, published June 16, 2005),
Endo (US 5,781,705, issued July 14, 1998), and Williamson (US
2014/0081461 Al, published Mar. 20, 2014).
II. Claims 14--20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kazi, Endo, Williamson, and Zimmerman (DE
102011079117 Al, published Jan. 17, 2013).
III. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Kazi, Hourtash (US 2014/0276954 Al, published Sept. 18, 2014), and
Williamson.
IV. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Kazi, Hourtash, Williamson, and Albu-Schaffer (2007/0120512 Al,
published May 31, 2007).
V. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Kazi, Hourtash, Williamson, Albu-Schaffer, and Gomez
(2011/0040305 Al, published Feb. 17, 2011).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I-Claims 13, 21, 25, and 26
Appellant argues for patentability of claims 13, 21, 25, and 26 as a
group. Appeal Br. 8-12. We select claim 13 as the representative claim,
and claims 21, 25, and 26 stand or fall with claim 13. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Kazi, Endo, and Williamson disclose most of
the limitations of claim 13. Final Act. 3---6. More particularly, the Examiner
3
Appeal2018-002888
Application 14/523,533
finds that Kazi discloses a method for programming sequences of motion of
a redundant industrial robot by manually guided adjustment of the pose of a
manipulator arm, which comprises successive links connected by adjustable
joints, wherein the adjustable joints include at least one redundant joint and
can be adjusted such that they are actuated by at least one robot control unit
of the industrial robot. Id. at 4 ( citing Kazi ,r,r 25, 44; Figs. 1, 3). The
Examiner determines that the claimed "adjusting," "recalculating," and
"automatically setting" steps are either inherent or obvious in Kazi' s method
for programming sequences of motion of a redundant industrial robot. Id. at
4--5 (citing Kazi ,r,r 25, 44). 2
As to the claimed "recalculating" step, the Examiner acknowledges
that Kazi does not explicitly describe that the optimized joint position value
effectuates a material processing task performed on a workpiece by the
industrial robot, as claimed, and submits that this limitation appears to be an
intended use. Id. at 5. The Examiner finds, however, that collision or
obstacle avoidance can be used in any type of task, including material
processing, and finds that Endo discloses using redundancy to weld, as a
material processing step, to have precision and avoid an obstacle at the same
time. Id. ( citing Endo, col. 9, 1. 51 ). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify Kazi's method for programming sequences of
motion of a redundant industrial robot for material processing applications,
such as welding, to improve processing and reduce damage to a product or
the robot itself. Id.
2 Appellant does not challenge these findings and conclusions.
4
Appeal2018-002888
Application 14/523,533
The Examiner acknowledges that Kazi does not explicitly disclose
storing the optimized joint position values. Id. The Examiner finds,
however, that Williamson discloses recording complex tasks or motions,
including joint angles corresponding to the claimed optimized joint position
values. Id. at 5---6 (citing Williamson ,r 3). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify Kazi' s method for programming
sequences of motion of a redundant industrial robot to record by storing
tasks or motions for future operations so that a user does not have to
repeatedly teach the robot again. Id. at 6.
Appellant contests the rejection of claim 13. Appeal Br. 9. First,
Appellant contends that Kazi does not disclose performing any processing
task on a workpiece using the robot. Id. at 10. Appellant contends that it is
incorrect to state that the limitation pertaining to the optimized joint position
value effectuating a material processing task performed on a workpiece by
the industrial robot is an intended use and for informational purposes only,
because this limitation is a positively recited functional limitation and
qualifies the nature of the optimized joint position values in terms of how
those values are optimized. Id. at 10-11.
These arguments are unpersuasive. Claim 13 does not expressly
recite that the manipulator arm of the industrial robot performs a processing
task on a workpiece. Additionally, although Kazi does not explicitly
describe performing a processing task on a workpiece using its robot, Kazi
discloses that its robot travel program uses a robot tool center point (TCP),
and appears to show that tool 4, which is attached to hand area 2 of robot 1,
is operable to interact with workpiece 6. See Kazi ,r 44; Figs. 1, 4.
5
Appeal2018-002888
Application 14/523,533
Moreover, the Examiner finds that Endo discloses performing a
processing task on a workpiece using a robot, and concludes that it would
have been obvious to have Kazi perform in this manner in view of Endo's
teaching. Thus, Appellant's contentions do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's findings for claim 13, or otherwise inform us why Kazi or Endo
fails to disclose the noted limitation. See Final Act. 5.
Appellant contends that an ordinary artisan would not have been led
by the teachings of Williamson or Endo to modify Kazi' s method for
programming sequences of motion of a redundant industrial robot in the
manner suggested by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 8-9; see also Reply Br. 2
(arguing there is no rational underpinning for the Examiner's conclusion of
obviousness). Appellant points out that Kazi is directed to methods and
apparatus for rapidly determining, in real-time, the pose of a camera
supported on a robotic manipulator to facilitate superimposing virtual
objects onto a video image that is being recorded. Appeal Br. 10 (citing
Kazi ,r,r 9-12). Appellant points out that Kazi already discloses using
collision avoidance algorithms, as noted by the Examiner. Id. ( citing Kazi
,r 25). Appellant contends that: (1) an ordinary artisan would not have
modified Kazi' s method and apparatus to use collision avoidance algorithms
to optimize joint position values in a welding process, and, then store the
values, because this would be duplicative of the function already provided
by the collision avoidance algorithms (id. at 11 ); (2) there is no apparent
need to store the optimized joint position values associated with avoiding a
particular obstacle so that the robot can avoid the object in the future
because that function is already performed by Kazi's collision avoidance
algorithms and nothing in the references suggests that Kazi' s algorithms are
6
Appeal2018-002888
Application 14/523,533
inadequate for this purpose (id. at 11-12); (3) storing joint position values
would not avoid collisions with obstacles that have changed positions or that
are moving in the robot's workspace (id. at 12); and (4) thus, storing joint
position values would be redundant (id. at 12). See also Reply Br. 3-5.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant clarifies that it is not Appellant's
position that Kazi would never need to store joint positions for the future,
but that it is Appellant's position that an ordinary artisan would not have
modified Kazi's method and apparatus to store optimized joint position
values because Endo deals with real-time collision avoidance of obstacles
while repeating a taught path. Reply Br. 3 (citing Endo col. 9, 11. 35-52).
Appellant notes that Kazi deals with rapidly determining a real-time pose of
a camera for superimposing video images, Endo also deals with collision
avoidance in real-time, and Williamson deals with recorded discrete
positions of an end-effector in programming of the robot, which is already
taught by Endo, and which are not optimized positions (for collision
avoidance) that are determined in real-time. Id. at 3--4. Appellant contends
that an ordinary artisan would not have modified Kazi' s method and
apparatus to store collision avoidance positions, absent improper hindsight.
Id. at 4.
These arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner relies on Endo for
disclosing programming sequences of motion of a redundant industrial robot
for material processing applications, such as welding, to improve processing
and reduce damage to a product or the robot itself. Final Act. 5. Endo
discloses that it takes an extremely long time to calculate optimal values and
that its method operates close to real-time, and it appears Endo also discloses
storing optimized joint position values (targeted angle). See Endo col. 9, 11.
7
Appeal2018-002888
Application 14/523,533
33-35, 38-39, 45--46. Thus, Endo evidences that it is beneficial to store
optimized joint position values because, otherwise, it would take a long time
to calculate the optimized joint position values for real-time operations.
The Examiner relies on Williamson for disclosing recording and
storing tasks or motions, that is, storing optimized joint position values, for
future operations and not having to repeatedly re-teach the robot by a user.
Final Act. 6. Williamson is not relied on in the rejection as disclosing
calculating optimized joint position values. Thus, it is not duplicative to
combine teachings of the references as Appellant argues. We thus do not
agree that the Examiner's reason for modifying Kazi' s method for
programming sequences of motion of a redundant industrial robot in view of
the teachings of Endo and Williamson, lacks rational underpinning. See
Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 2; see also Ans. 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 13 as unpatentable over
Kazi, Endo, and Williamson. Claims 21, 25, and 26 fall with claim 13.
Rejection II-Claims 14-20
Claims 14 and 15
For dependent claims 14 and 15, Appellant relies on the same
arguments as those presented for parent claim 13. Appeal Br. 12-13. As
Appellant does not apprise us of any error in the rejection of claim 13, we
sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 15 over Kazi, Endo, Williamson, and
Zimmermann, for the same reasons as for claim 13.
Claims 16-20
Claim 16 depends from claim 13 and claims 17-20 depend from claim
16. Appeal Br. 17-18 (Claims App.). For claim 16, the Examiner
8
Appeal2018-002888
Application 14/523,533
acknowledges that Kazi does not disclose the limitation "wherein
determining an optimized joint position value of the at least one redundant
joint is based on at least one of the static or kinetic properties of the
manipulator arm." Final Act. 10; Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). The
Examiner finds that Zimmermann discloses that criteria used to evaluate
axes include torques acting on individual links or on the robot arm, energy
efficiency, force, and manipulability of the robot arm. Final act. 10 ( citing
Zimmermann translation ,r,r 14--15). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify Kazi's method to consider other criteria, such
as static or kinetic properties, which include torque, force, and efficiency,
because "they place the robot joints in a better condition in terms of a
desired robot result ( e.g. lower torque is lower stress on robot[] [0018] [ and]
prevent overextension by allowing the distances of the axes to be lower[ ed
][0016][,] etc[.])." Id. at 11.
Appellant contends that the Examiner's rejection of claim 16 is in
error because "[ s ]uch properties of the manipulator arm are not relevant to
collision avoidance, which was asserted by the Examiner as the basis for
optimizing joint position values." Appeal Br. 13. In the Reply Brief,
Appellant states that an ordinary artisan would sufficiently understand what
is meant by static and kinetic properties of a robot manipulator, as those
concepts are well-known in the art and that the kinematics which the
Examiner speaks of are "not the static or kinetic properties as alleged."
Reply Br. 5---6.
Appellant's contentions are unpersuasive. As the Examiner points
out, the Specification does not define, nor does it appear to otherwise
explain, the meaning of "kinetic or static properties" of the manipulator arm.
9
Appeal2018-002888
Application 14/523,533
Ans. 9. And, Appellant provides no evidence to show these terms have
accepted meanings in the art that may preclude the Examiner's findings. See
In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) ("Attorney's argument in
a brief cannot take the place of evidence."). Thus, we sustain the rejection
of claims 16-20 over Kazi, Endo, and Williamson.
Rejection III-Claim 22
In contrast to claims 13 and 25, claim 22 does not recite that "the
optimized joint position value effectuates a material processing task
performed on a workpiece by the industrial robot." Claim 22 recites, in
pertinent part, "allowing a manual adjustment of the at least one redundant
joint of the manipulator arm with the robot control unit by pushing or pulling
on the at least one redundant joint after the automatic setting, or during the
automatic setting, of all of the joints of the manipulator arm." Appeal Br.
19-20 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Hourtash as disclosing this
limitation. Final Act. 14--15.
Appellant contends that the rejection of claim 22 should be reversed
because Kazi and Williamson fail to teach or suggest the combination of
method steps set forth in claim 22 for reasons similar to those discussed for
claim 13, and Hourtash fails to cure these deficiencies. Appeal Br. 14.
However, as Appellant does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim
13, we sustain the rejection of claim 22 over Kazi, Hourtash, and
Williamson for the same reasons as for claim 13.
Rejections IV and V-Claims 23 and 24
For dependent claims 23 and 24, Appellant relies on the same
arguments as presented for parent claim 22. Appeal Br. 14--15. As
Appellant does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 22, we sustain
10
Appeal2018-002888
Application 14/523,533
the rejection of claim 23 over Kazi, Hourtash, Williamson, and Albu-
Schaffer, and the rejection of claim 24 over Kazi, Hourtash, Williamson,
Albu-Schaffer, and Gomez, for the same reasons as for claim 22.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 13-26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
11