ABB Schweiz AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 7, 2022

2021003764 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2022)

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. 15/776,713 05/16/2018 Johan WESSÉN 04190-P0304A 4974 137670 7590 02/07/2022 ABB - Whitmyer IP Group LLC 600 Summer Street Stamford, CT 06901 EXAMINER KHAYER, SOHANA T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3664 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/07/2022 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): USPTO@dockettrak.com uspto@whipgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHAN WESSÉN and FREJ KNUTAR Appeal 2021-003764 Application 15/776,713 Technology Center 3600 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.47 was held on January 24, 2022. We AFFIRM. 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 2021-003764 Application 15/776,713 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention is directed to “work cycle optimization in robot systems having two or more manipulators with a common work area.” Spec. ¶ 1. Of the pending claims, claims 1 and 8 are independent, and claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method for optimizing a work cycle in a robot system comprising at least two manipulators with a common work area, the method including the steps of: - defining a layout; and - defining a work area division by dividing the common work area between the at least two manipulators; characterized by repeating at least one of the previous steps to thereby obtain a plurality of different combinations of layouts and work area divisions, and, for each of the plurality of combinations, calculating a cycle time for at least one work cycle. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Pfaff US 2016/0129596 A1 May 12, 2016 Willför US 2016/0207198 A1 July 21, 2016 Ando2 JP2003200368 (A) July 15, 2003 REJECTIONS Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pfaff and Ando. 2 We derive our understanding of this reference from the machine-generated English language translation (hereinafter “Ando Transl.”) in the electronic record of the present application. Appeal 2021-003764 Application 15/776,713 3 Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pfaff, Ando, and Willför. OPINION Obviousness- Pfaff and Ando Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-19 In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Pfaff discloses a method for optimizing a work cycle in a robot system comprising, inter alia, at least two manipulators (robots 110 and 120) in a common work area (working space 130), wherein the method comprises the steps of defining a layout (shown in Figure 2 of Pfaff), and defining a common work area (working space 130) between the two manipulators. Final Act. 3-4. The Examiner finds that Pfaff does not disclose defining a work area division by dividing the common work area between the two manipulators. Id. at 5. The Examiner finds that Ando teaches a method of teaching/controlling multiple robots that share a common work area (shared work space 403), wherein a work area division is defined by dividing the common work area between the two robots. Id. (citing Ando Transl. ¶¶ 9, 16; Figs. 4, 7). The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify Pfaff to incorporate this common work area division feature “for performing tasks according to optimal schedule and minimize a total working time.” Id. Both Pfaff and Ando are directed to controlling robots that perform tasks in a common or shared work space in a manner that will avoid collisions while completing the tasks in a minimum (or optimized) work cycle time. See Pfaff ¶¶ 4-10, 13-17, 27; Ando Transl. ¶¶ 9, 17-21, 42. Pfaff discloses avoiding collisions by permitting the robots to use the shared working space non-simultaneously. Pfaff ¶ 25. “In other words, robot 110 Appeal 2021-003764 Application 15/776,713 4 can use the working space 130 only when robot 120 has moved out of it.” Id. Ando takes a slightly different approach. Ando permits both robots to enter the shared work space at the same time, but divides the shared work space into a plurality of numbered block areas 404 and checks the planned movement of the robots to make sure that their planned movement will not bring them into the same block area at the same time. See Ando Transl. ¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 16-21; Fig. 7. As already mentioned, both Pfaff and Ando schedule movements of the robots in a manner to minimize total work cycle time while also avoiding collisions. Pfaff ¶¶ 13, 27; Ando Transl. ¶¶ 9, 22. Pfaff calculates the residual time during which one robot will remain in the common work area (working space 130) and adjusts the movements of the other robot to permit the other robot to enter the common working area at the earliest after expiry of the residual period without having to halt. Pfaff ¶¶ 13-17. Such adjustments can include increasing or decreasing the speed of those movements or having the other robot execute other tasks outside the common working area. Id. Ando creates a number of different command schedules for the robots and selects the one that minimizes the work time (maximum completion time). Ando Transl. ¶¶ 9, 22. Ando determines, for each movement position of each operation command in each time slot, which numbered division areas (block areas 404) each robot occupies in the shared work space map, and permits the robots to share the shared area (shared work space 403) at the same time, so long as two robots do “not occupy a common (same number) division area of the work space map” at the same time. Id. ¶ 9; Figs. 4, 7. Further, in order to shorten the work cycle Appeal 2021-003764 Application 15/776,713 5 time, a scheduling method based on an iterative calculation or trial-and-error method, with interference avoidance scheduling, is used. Id. ¶ 9. Modifying Pfaff’s method by dividing the common work area into numbered blocks, or division areas, so as to permit the robots to enter the common work area at the same time, so long as they do not occupy the same block areas at the same time, as taught by Ando, would provide more flexibility in scheduling and open up more options for optimizing/minimizing the cycle time. Thus, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to employ this feature in Pfaff to facilitate optimized scheduling and minimize total working time, as set forth in the rejection. See Final Act. 5. Appellant argues that “Pfaff and Ando fail to teach defining a work area division by dividing the common work area between the at least two manipulators.” Appeal Br. 5 (underlining omitted). More particularly, Appellant submits that “Ando merely describes creating a shared work space map with different address assignments for each block 404,” but “fails to suggest that the blocks are exclusively allocated to either robot.” Id. at 6. Appellant contends that “Ando does not indicate that each of the robots is allowed to operate within that block of the shared work space 403 that is allocated to it.” Id. According to Appellant, “[t]he ‘work area division’ of the presently claimed invention is not restricted to a certain period of time - which is what Ando’s scheduling (time slots ¶¶ [0016]-[0019]) may at most achieve - but instead applies throughout the work cycle.” Id. at 7. When construing claim terminology, the United States Patent and Trademark Office is required to give the claim language its broadest reasonable interpretation. See In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Appeal 2021-003764 Application 15/776,713 6 Cir. 2004); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The broadest reasonable interpretation is one “that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is ‘consistent with the specification.”’ In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Nonetheless, the Specification “is not a substitute for, nor can it be used to rewrite, the chosen claim language.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, “a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Id. (citing Electro Med. Sys. S.A. v. Cooper Life Sci., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Although Appellant’s Specification may disclose assigning an allocated work area within the common work area exclusively to each robot (see Spec. ¶ 2) for the entirety of the work cycle, claim 1 is not so limited. Ando creates a command schedule for each robot that sets forth which, if any, of the numbered block areas of the shared work space map each robot occupies at each time slot, with an interference check being performed to ensure that the robots do not occupy the same numbered block areas at the same time. Ando Transl. ¶¶ 9, 12, 16, 26, 42. Thus, during the work cycle (the command schedule), Ando’s shared work space 403 (the common work area) is divided between the two robots. Appellant further argues that “Pfaff and Ando fail to teach repeating at least one of the previous steps to thereby obtain a plurality of different Appeal 2021-003764 Application 15/776,713 7 combinations of layouts and work area divisions” as called for in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7 (underlining omitted). In particular, Appellant contends that “Pfaff does not teach a step of defining a layout in the first place” and, thus, “does not teach repeating such a step.” Id. at 8. Appellant additionally argues that “Pfaff and Ando fail to teach calculating a cycle time for at least one work cycle for each of the plurality of combinations.” Appeal Br. 9 (underlining omitted). Once again, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Notably, claim 1 does not specifically recite or require repeating the step of defining a layout. Rather, claim 1 recites “repeating at least one of the previous steps.” Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). The “previous steps” refers to the steps of “defining a layout” and “defining a work area division by dividing the common work area between the at least two manipulators.” Id. Thus, the “repeating step” can be satisfied by repeating either the “defining a layout” step or the “defining a work area division” step; it is not necessary that both steps be repeated. Moreover, Appellant does not show error in the Examiner’s finding that Pfaff discloses defining a layout. See Final Act. 3 (citing Figure 2 in addressing this limitation). Accepting Appellant’s asserted definition of “layout” as “the way in which the parts of something are arranged or laid out” (Reply Br. 6), Appellant does not persuade us that Pfaff’s Figure 2 fails to disclose a layout. Figure 2 of Pfaff depicts two robots 210 and 220, and their relative locations, as well as the common working space (working space 230) to be used by the two robots, which, necessarily, is defined or determined by the relative locations of the robots and the locations of the item(s) on which the robots will work. See Pfaff ¶ 26 (disclosing that the Appeal 2021-003764 Application 15/776,713 8 robots are installed in a stationary manner, but can reach into the working space by means of their robot arms). Further, Pfaff discloses defining the working space or working range in, for example, Cartesian, cylindrical, or spherical form. Pfaff ¶ 28. As for repeating the steps, and calculating a cycle time for at least one work cycle for each of the plurality of combinations, Appellant’s arguments on pages 7-9 of the Appeal Brief appear to attack Pfaff and Ando individually, and fail to take into account what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. As already mentioned above, both Pfaff and Ando seek to create a planned movement schedule for the robots that optimizes, or minimizes, the total cycle time; and both Pfaff and Ando make adjustments to the planned movement schedule to achieve this objective while also avoiding collisions. See Pfaff ¶¶ 13, 27, 39; Ando Transl. ¶¶ 9, 22, 42. Further, with these objectives in mind, Ando teaches creating a schedule multiple times in different ways, using an iterative, trial-and-error approach, and selecting the schedule that minimizes the work time. Ando Transl. ¶¶ 9, 22. Thus, the combined teachings of Pfaff and Ando would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art creating a planned movement schedule for the robots, which includes defining a work area division, as discussed above; calculating the cycle time for the planned movement schedule; making adjustments to the planned movement schedule in an iterative manner, including which numbered block areas the robots will occupy in each time slot (i.e., the work area division);3 calculating the cycle time for each 3 Making an adjustment to the work area division constitutes a different combination of layouts and work areas, even if the layout is unchanged. Appeal 2021-003764 Application 15/776,713 9 adjusted movement schedule to see if improvements in cycle time may be achieved; and selecting the movement schedule that achieves the shortest cycle time. For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of Pfaff and Ando. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2, 4-9, and 11-19, for which Appellant does not present any separate arguments, as being unpatentable over Pfaff and Ando. See Appeal Br. 5-12; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (permitting the Board to select a single claim to decide the appeal as to a single ground of rejection of a group of claims argued together). Claims 3 and 10 Claims 3 and 10 depend from claims 1 and 8, respectively, and further recite a “step of running the work cycle with the shortest cycle time.” Appeal Br. 14, 15 (Claims App.). In addressing this limitation, the Examiner cites Pfaff’s teaching of making “cycle time-optimized” adjustments to the speed profiles of the manipulators to improve the efficiency of the collaboration of the manipulators, and notes that “cycle time optimized corresponds to shortest cycle time.” Final Act. 6-7, 12-13 (citing Pfaff ¶ 13). Appellant argues that Pfaff does not show that, upon calculating a cycle time for each of a plurality of combinations of layouts and work area divisions, a step of running the work cycle with the shortest cycle time is performed. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because it attacks Pfaff individually and fails to take into account what the combined teachings of Appeal 2021-003764 Application 15/776,713 10 Pfaff and Ando would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. As discussed above, the combined teachings of Pfaff and Ando would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art creating a planned movement schedule for the robots, which includes defining a work area division; calculating the cycle time for the planned movement schedule; making adjustments to the planned movement schedule in an iterative manner, including which numbered block areas the robots will occupy in each time slot (i.e., the work area division); calculating the cycle time for each adjusted movement schedule (i.e., each different combination of layouts and work area divisions) to see if improvements in cycle time may be achieved; and selecting the movement schedule that achieves the shortest cycle time. Further, it would have been obvious to run the selected movement schedule (i.e., the one that yields the shortest cycle time) in order to achieve the objective of optimizing/minimizing cycle time expressed by both Pfaff and Ando. See Pfaff ¶¶ 13, 27, 39; Ando Transl. ¶¶ 9, 22. Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claims 3 and 10 would have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of Pfaff and Ando. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 10 as being unpatentable over Pfaff and Ando. Obviousness- Pfaff, Ando, and Willför Appellant does not present any separate argument for claim 20, aside from its dependence from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11-12 (asserting that “[t]he dependent claims add limitations not taught or suggested by the combination of Pfaff and Ando,” but specifically discussing only dependent claims 3 and 10). For the reasons discussed above, Appellant fails to apprise Appeal 2021-003764 Application 15/776,713 11 us of error in the rejection of claim 1 and likewise fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 20. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 20 as being unpatentable over Pfaff, Ando, and Willför. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-19 103 Pfaff, Ando 1-19 20 103 Pfaff, Ando, Willför 20 Overall Outcome 1-20 TIME PERIOD FOR 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED