Ex Parte Hietmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

11719182 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111719,182 05/11/2007
26875 7590 09/23/2016
WOOD, HERRON & EV ANS, LLP
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gerhard Hietmann
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.
KUKAR-06 4847
EXAMINER
KIM,KYUNGJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 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 GERHARD HIETMANN and MARTIN WEISS
Appeal2014-006764 1
Application 11/719,1822
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 36, 42--45, 50-53, and 59---69. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE and ENTER a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appellants' Appeal Brief
("Appeal Br.," filed Aug. 13, 2013), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 27,
2014), and Specification ("Spec.," filed May 11, 2007), and the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Mar. 28, 2014) and Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Mar. 14, 2013).
2 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is KUKA Roboter
GmbH. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-006764
Application 11/719,182
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention is directed to "a method for adjusting and
controlling an automatically controlled manipulator such as a robot, using a
dynamic manipulator model taking into consideration friction torques that
appear in gear mechanisms provided for moving axes of the manipulator."
Spec. 3.
Claims 36 and 53 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 36,
which we reproduce below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
36. A method of adjusting or controlling an automatically
controlled robotic manipulator having shafts driven by motors
and associated gear mechanisms, the method comprising:
determining a gear mechanism friction torque as a
function of gear mechanism temperature; and
determining a target value for at least one of a motor
position or a motor current associated with at least one shaft of
the robotic manipulator using a dynamic manipulator model that
accounts for friction torques in the gear mechanisms, the model
including a gear mechanism friction torque model for the at least
one shaft based on driven-side shaft velocities and shaft
accelerations.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 36, 42--45, 50-53, 59---63, and 65---69 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gunnarsson
(US 2004/0093119 Al, pub. May 13, 2004) in view of pages 4--5 of
Appellants' Specification (hereafter "Admitted Prior Art").
2
Appeal2014-006764
Application 11/719,182
Claim 64 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gunnarsson, Admitted Prior Art, and Kuno
(US 5,006,999, iss. Apr. 9, 1991).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at
least by a preponderance of the evidence. 3
ANALYSIS
The Appellants contend that the rejection of independent claim 3 6 is
in error because the prior art does not disclose, in relevant part, "using a
dynamic manipulator model that accounts for friction torques in the gear
mechanisms, the model including a gear mechanism friction torque model
for the at least one shaft based on driven-side shaft velocities and shaft
accelerations," as recited. See Appeal Br. 7-10; see also Reply Br. 2-3. We
agree.
The Examiner finds that Gunnarsson discloses a method of auditing or
control a robotic manipulator comprising determining a target value for a
motor position or motor current using a dynamic manipulator model, as
partially recited in claim 36. See Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner admits that
Gunnarsson does not disclose "determining a gear mechanism friction torque
as a function of gear mechanism temperature," and the dynamic model
including "a gear mechanism friction torque model for the at least one shaft
3 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2014-006764
Application 11/719,182
based on driven-side shaft velocities and shaft accelerations," but cites to
Appellants' Specification as Admitted Prior Art to correct this deficiency.
See id. at 3--4. The Examiner finds that the Admitted Prior Art's use of
maximum values that are based on velocities and accelerations meets the
claim language and "shows a conventional model using speed and
acceleration of the manipulator axes to calculate the maximum estimated
friction values, from which claims 36 and 53 are not distinguished."
Ans. 23 (citing Spec. 4 ). The Examiner further finds it would be obvious to
"add the friction torque detection of the [Admitted Prior Art] to the robot of
Gunnarsson ... in order to more effectively control the mechanism in real-
time by compensating for variations in temperature and force and to
compensate for errors present due to friction." Id. at 4.
We find persuasive the Appellants' argument that the Admitted Prior
Art does not teach or suggest that the model used is based on driven-side
shaft velocities and shaft accelerations as required by claim 36. See Appeal
Br. 8. The portions of the Specification considered by the Examiner as
Admitted Prior Art provide that a known dynamic model that ordinarily
comprises a model for friction forces in the "movable part of the robot,
particularly the gear mechanisms," is used for calculating target torques at
the motors and gear mechanisms based on loads, position, speed, and
acceleration of the axes/shafts. Spec. 4. The portions further provide "it is
possible, from measured actual values for current, position, velocity,
acceleration or the like, to calculate an estimate of the current motor and
gear mechanism torques of the robot." Id. It is not clear that, and the
Examiner does not adequately explain how, the Admitted Prior Art discloses
the dynamic friction force model includes a gear friction torque model based
4
Appeal2014-006764
Application 11/719,182
on driven-side shaft velocities and shaft accelerations. Even assuming
arguendo the Examiner's finding that the Admitted Prior Art shows that the
model uses speed and acceleration of the manipulator axes to calculate the
maximum estimated friction values that are used by the model to determine
a target value for the motor position or current (see Ans. 23), it is not clear
that the speed and acceleration used is of the driven-side shaft as claimed.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 36 and
dependent claims 42--45 and 50-52.
Independent claim 53 recites a parallel limitation of "using a dynamic
manipulator model that accounts for friction torques in the gear mechanisms,
the model including a gear mechanism friction torque model for the at least
one shaft based on driven-side shaft velocities and shaft accelerations" in
determining torque as a function of temperature. The Examiner relies on
findings and reasoning similar to those of claim 3 6 in determining that the
Admitted Prior Art corrects the deficiency of Gunnarsson with regards to
this limitation. Thus, for reasons similar to claim 36, we also do not sustain
the rejection of independent claim 53 and dependent claims 59---63, 65, and
66. We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 64 as the
rejection does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 53.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we reject claims
36, 42--45, 50-53, and 59---69 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter. We find the claims are ineligible for patent
protection because they are directed to an abstract idea.
5
Appeal2014-006764
Application 11/719,182
The decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!,
134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) is controlling. We analyze the claims using a two
part-analysis: 1) determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract
idea; and 2) if an abstract idea is present in the claims, determine whether
any element, or combination of elements, in the claims is sufficient to ensure
the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself to
transform the claims into a patent-eligible invention. See id. at 2355.
Under the first step of the analysis, we find claims 36, 42--45, 50-53,
and 59---69 are directed to an abstract idea because they are directed to the
fundamental process of using mathematical formulas/models to determine
temperature and torque. See Spec. 5, 12. We note that although the eventual
purpose of the models can be to control a manipulator, the claims do not
recite any steps or functions for actually doing so. A mathematical
formula/model is a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at
2355, citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--595 (1978).
Under the second step of the analysis, we find neither independent
claims 36 and 53 nor dependent claims 36, 42--45, 50-52, and 59-69 have
any additional elements that amount to significantly more to transform the
abstract idea of calculating temperature and torque into a patent-eligible
invention. Independent claim 36 and dependent claims 42--45, 51, and 52
recite a method that can be performed manually and with only the human
mind. Independent apparatus claim 53 and dependent claims 59---69 recite
units that comprise a general computer to perform the functions of the
claims. See Spec. 10. The introduction of a computer to implement an
abstract idea or mathematical principle is not a patentable application of the
abstract idea. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2357-2358, citing Flook, 437 U.S.
6
Appeal2014-006764
Application 11/719,182
at 594. The computer implementation here is purely conventional and
performs basic functions of determining values and data. See Alice Corp.,
134 S. Ct. at 2359-2360. The claims do not purport to improve the
functioning of the computer itself, not do they effect an improvement in any
other technology or technical field. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2359.
Thus, under the two-part analysis, we conclude claims 36, 42--45,
50-52, and 59---69 are directed to an abstract idea and accordingly are
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 36, 42--45, 50-53, and 59---69
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are REVERSED.
A NEW GROUND OF REJECTION has been entered for claims 36,
42--45, 50-53, and 59---69 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that "[a] new ground of rejection ...
shall not be considered final for judicial review." 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also
provides that the Appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE
OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with
respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as
to the rejected claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both,
and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
proceeding will be remanded to the Examiner.
7
Appeal2014-006764
Application 11/719,182
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
8