Ex Parte Mccrackin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2017

10543853 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2017)

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