Ex Parte Mccrackin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 201710543853 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 10/543,853 05/24/2006 Daniel Curtis Mccrackin 087333.006300 4563 30734 7590 09/01/2017 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP WASHINGTON SQUARE, SUITE 1100 1050 CONNECTICUT AVE. N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20036-5304 EXAMINER NGUYEN, BAO LONG T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3664 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/01/2017 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): eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com edervis @bakerlaw.com patents @ bakerlaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DANIEL CURTIS MCCRACKIN and STEPHEN WAYNE JOHNSON Appeal 2015-007288 Application 10/543,853 Technology Center 3600 Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, CHARLES N. GREENHUT and GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2 The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s 3 decision finally rejecting claims 1—13,2 15, 16, 18, 19, 26 and 29 under pre- 4 AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Asano (US 4,744,719, 5 ------------------------------------ 1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. 2 Although the Examiner does not include claims 1—12 in the list of claims, rejected over the teachings of Asano and Hosek, on page 3 of the Final Office Action, mailed May 20, 2014, the Examiner provides reasons for rejecting those claims on the succeeding pages. Therefore, the omission of claims 1—12 from the list of rejected claims was an obvious typographical error. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Appeal 2015-007288 Application 10/543,853 issued May 17, 1988) and Hosek (US 6,216,058 Bl, issued Apr. 10, 2001); claims 6, 11, 14 and 23 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Asano, Hosek and Dorst (US 6,604,005 Bl, issued Aug. 5, 2003); and claims 17, 20-22, 24 and 25 under §103(a) as being unpatentable over Asano, Hosek and DeLorme (US 2003/0182052 Al, publ. Sept. 25, 2003). Claims 27 and 28 are cancelled. (See Amendment, dated Apr. 1, 2014, seventh page3). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Claims 1 and 26 are independent. Claim 1 recites: 1. A method for planning the motion of a robot, comprising: a) defining a plurality of robot end effector locations, in terms of a spatial coordinate system, including a start location, an end location, and at least one other programmed point; b) storing said locations in a computer memory; c) defining a set of rules for governing movement of said robot end effector between said locations; d) storing said set of rules in the computer memory; e) calculating, by a processor, two or more possible routes from said start location to said end location; f) determining, by said processor, from said two or more possible routes, an optimized route, from said start location to said end location, which meets a predetermined criteria; and g) enabling, in response to said determination of said optimized route which meets the predetermined criteria, movement of said robot end effector along said optimized route 3 The Appellants submitted a correction to the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief dated May 13, 2015. In order to avoid any ambiguity as to the claims considered in this appeal, we cite to the last entered amendment, dated April 1, 2014. The claims listing in the amendment is not paginated. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Appeal 2015-007288 Application 10/543,853 from said start location to said end location by way of the at least one other programmed point such that each point-to-point move obeys the set of rules. (Amendment, dated Apr. 1, 2014, second page). The Specification defines the terms “robot end effector,” “location,” “path” and “region.” (See Spec., paras. 27, 30, 33 & 34). The Specification indicates that “rules” group locations into paths (that is, ordered sequences of locations) and regions. (See, e.g., Spec., paras. 11, 38 & 59). Dependent claim 5 indicates that the term “routes” comprise sequences of locations through which the end effector might move. The latter interpretation is consistent with the use of the term “routes” in paragraph 62 of the Specification. The Examiner correctly interprets the step of “calculating, by a processor, two or more possible routes from said start location to said end location,” as recited in claim 1, such that the “two or more possible routes” are not limited to routes that pass through the “at least one other programmedpoint’ defined in step (a); or that satisfy the rules defined in step (c). (See Ans. 3). On the other hand, step (f) limits the “optimized route” determined in step (e) to one along which the end effector may move “from said start location to said end location by way of the at least one other programmed point such that each point-to-point move obeys the set of rules.” (See Reply Br. 2). Asano describes a control system for a multi-joint arm robot. (See Asano, col. 1,11. 41—44). The control system 18 includes a central processing unit (“CPU”) 96 and electronics for driving motors to pivot unit arms 72y—12n relative to one another in response to signals from the CPU. (See Asano, col. 3,11. 20-25 & Fig. 1; see also id. at col. 5,11. 11—22). 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Appeal 2015-007288 Application 10/543,853 The Examiner finds that Asano teaches methods including limitations (a)-(d) and (g) of claim 1. For example, Asano teaches a path designated mode of control in which the operator preprograms points or locations representing a preferred path C and alternative paths, C, C', C" and the like. The operator then enters coordinates for these points into the CPU 96; and the CPU calculates path equations indicating the paths, C, C', C" and the like, from the coordinates preprogrammed points or locations. The CPU 96 then causes the multi-joint arm 11 to move its forward end along the user- selected optimal path C. In the event that the multi-joint arm 11 detects a collision while moving along the selected path, the CPU 96 selects an optimal path from among the alternatives, along which the multi-joint arm may move without anticipating another collision. (See Asano, col. 8,11. 38— 60 & Fig. 11). In the path designated mode of control described at column 8, lines 38—60, of Asano, the operator defines a set of rules for governing movement of the robot end effector by identifying the paths, C, C', C" and the like; and defines a plurality of robot end effector “locations” by entering points along the paths C, C', C" and the like. By doing so, the operator satisfies limitations (a)—(d) of claim 1. The Examiner correctly finds that that Asano fails to describe “calculating, by a processor, two or more possible routes from said start location to said end location” or “determining, by said processor, from said two or more possible routes, an optimized route, from said start location to said end location, which meets a predetermined criteria.” (See Final Act. 4). The Appellants correctly argue that Hosek does not remedy this deficiency. (See App. Br. 9). 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Appeal 2015-007288 Application 10/543,853 Hosek teaches a method for “the reliable and numerically efficient generation of constrained time-optimum trajectories for the simple and compound or blended moves of single-arm . . . robotic manipulators.” (Hosek, col. 1,11. 9-14; see also id. at col. 13,1. 66—col. 14,1. 3 (preamble of claim 10)). As claimed, Hosek’s method includes steps of: identifying a set of fundamental trajectory shapes which cover a given constraints for a given category of arm movements along a transfer path; determining the set of conditions associated with each fundamental trajectory shape which determine whether the shape can be used for a particular arm movement decomposing said fundamental trajectory shapes into segments where a single constraint is active; determining the time-optimum trajectory solutions for the segments; [and] combining the time-optimum trajectory solutions of the segments into time-optimum trajectory shapes. (Hosek, col. 13,11. 5—16 (claim 1); see also id. at col. 14,11. 4—18 (claim 10); Final Act. 5). The discussion at column 6, line 31 through column 7, line 27 of Hosek, in conjunction with Figures 11—19, indicate that Hosek uses the term “fundamental trajectory shapes” to refer to different velocity, acceleration or jerk profiles for movement along a simple path, such as a straight line or a circular arc. Although Hosek’s method optimizes movement along fundamental trajectory shapes so as to satisfy constraints on velocity, acceleration, jerk (that is, rate of change of acceleration), Hosek also teaches that: In many applications, a simple path such as a straight line or a circular arc is not sufficient alone, such as when faced with workspace limitations, so that the desired path must be achieved as a sequence of several moves and the overall travel 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Appeal 2015-007288 Application 10/543,853 time is increased. The time losses are due to stops between individual moves executed sequentially. These stops can be eliminated by a blending technique in accordance with the present invention which will now be described. A system for blending simple moves into a single trajectory in accordance with the invention is as follows. The essential approach is to decompose trajectories of the individual moves into their orthogonal or independent components, and overlap them for a given time interval. . . . This results in a non stop move along a smooth path. (Hosek, col. 10,11. 47—63). Hosek does not teach or suggest step (f), namely, “determining, by said processor, from said two or more possible routes, an optimized route, from said start location to said end location, which meets a predetermined criteria.” Instead, Hosek’s method, as claimed, “looks to define a time- optimum trajectory along a pre-identified path of movement that optimizes acceleration, velocity, jerk, etc. overtime to produce smooth movements.” (App. Br. 9). That is, Hosek’s method does not decide “as to which optimized path or route in the spatial coordinate system will be taken, but rather which acceleration profiles work best along a single transfer path.” (App. Br. 10). Although Hosek teaches concatenating a sequence of simple paths for more complex motions, and then blending the simple paths to minimize the stoppage of the robot en route from the start point to the end point, the blending process does not determine an optimal route from two or more possible routes. Instead, the blending technique modifies the sequence of simple paths to provide smoother movement between the start point and the end point. (See Reply Br. 3). 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Appeal 2015-007288 Application 10/543,853 Neither Asano nor Hosek teaches step (f) of claim 1 or the corresponding step that the processor must be configured to perform in claim 26. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1—13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 26 and 29 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Asano and Hosek. With respect to claims 6, 11, 14 and 23, the Examiner cites Dorst for the teaching that an “optimized path [may be] based on minimal time (col 14 lines 40-65) to minimize cost (col 14 line 40—65). (Final Act. 13). The Examiner does not persuasively explain how this teaching might remedy the deficiency in the teachings of Asano and Hosek as applied to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 6, 11, 14 and 23 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Asano, Hosek and Dorst. Finally, with respect to claims 17, 20—22, 24 and 25, the Examiner cites, in particular, the teachings of paragraph 122 of DeLorme. The Examiner does not persuasively explain how this teaching might remedy the deficiency in the teachings of Asano and Hosek as applied to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 17, 20—22, 24 and 25 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Asano, Hosek and DeLorme. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—14, 16 and 18-21. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation