Ex Parte Weigele et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2017

13109136 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 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.
13/109,136 05/17/2011 Peter Weigele P11.0108 1832
26574 7590 08/15/2017
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP - Chicago
PATENT DEPARTMENT
233 S. Wacker Drive-Suite 7100
CHICAGO, IL 60606-6473
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ROBERT T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2017 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):
patents-CH @ schiffhardin.com
jbombien @ schiffhardin. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER WEIGELE, UWE BONIN, HEINRICH MUNZ, and
THOMAS FINSTERWALDER
Appeal 2016-003068
Application 13/109,1361
Technology Center 3600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8—11, 13, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify KUKA Laboratories GmbH as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-003068
Application 13/109,136
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to:
safety monitoring of a manipulator by a control device, a part of
the control device is configured by the manufacturer and a part
of the control device is configured by a user. The manufacturer-
configured part ensures a basic safety functionality of the
manipulator independent of a user configuration; and/or a safety
device of a control device for individual safety monitoring of a
manipulator communicates with a control device for individual
safety monitoring of an additional manipulator of a manipulator
arrangement for superordinate safety monitoring of the
manipulator arrangement.
Abstract.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A control device for individual safety monitoring of a
manipulator, said control device comprising:
a safety device of a single, individual robotic manipulator
configured to emit electrical signals, and receive electrical
signals from, drive technology of said single individual robotic
manipulator that monitor and maintain safe operation of said
single, individual robotic manipulator, said safety device being
configured to communicate with a further control device of a
further manipulator of a manipulator arrangement that includes
said single, individual robotic manipulator, said safety device
being configured for superordinate safety monitoring of all
robotic manipulators in said manipulator arrangement by
emitting further electrical signals to, and receiving further
electrical signals from, said further control device for operating
drive technology of said further manipulator, that monitor and
maintain safe operation of said further manipulator;
a part of said robotic manipulator that is configurable by a
user, and a further part that is configured only by a manufacturer
to always insure a basic predetermined safety functionality of
2
Appeal 2016-003068
Application 13/109,136
said manipulator independently of user configuration of said part
that is configurable by a user; and
the part configured only by the manufacturer and the user-
configurable part being integrated by at least one of hardware or
software, by being fashioned on a common hardware platform or
with a common runtime system.
References and Rejections2
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8—11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Schuster (US 2004/0010326 Al, published
Jan. 15, 2004) and Sethuraman (US 2011/0125302 Al, published May 26,
2011).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “a part of said robotic manipulator that is configurable
by a user, and a further part that is configured only by a manufacturer . . . .”
The Examiner finds Schuster teaches or suggests “a part of said robotic
manipulator that is configurable by a user,” (Final Act. 4) and Sethuraman
teaches or suggests “a further part that is configured only by a
manufacturer,” (Final Act. 5). In particular, the Examiner finds Sethuraman
2 In the Final Rejection, claim 13 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
as indefinite for including insufficient antecedent bases for the limitation of
“the further manipulator.” Appellants amended claim 13 to address this
rejection, replacing “the” with “a” in the claim. The amendment was
entered by the Examiner in the Advisory Action (June 12, 2015) but the
Examiner did not explicitly indicate, either in the Advisory Action or in the
Answer, that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
For purposes of this Appeal, however, we assume the rejection has been
withdrawn in light of Appellants’ amendment.
3
Appeal 2016-003068
Application 13/109,136
teaches safety modules that the user cannot modify. Ans. 7 (citing
Sethuraman || 24, 28, and 35).
Appellants argue the teachings of Schuster and Sethuraman are
incompatible. App. Br. 9. According to Appellants, “[t]he Schuster
reference teaches the desirability of giving the user the capability of
modifying software after a manipulator has been received and installed from
the manufacturer, and the Sethuraman et al. reference has the goal of
relieving the user from ever having to make such modifications.” App. Br.
9. Appellants acknowledge Sethuraman does not preclude the user from
modifying pre-certified safety modules, but argue that making such
modifications would defeat the intended goal of Sethuraman, which is to
“avoid the situation of an automation system being delivered and installed at
a deployment site with the automation system still requiring some type of
modification of the safety aspects thereof.” App. Br. 9.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants argument that Schuster and
Sethuraman are incompatible. Although Schuster teaches that various safety
functionalities and devices can be configured by the user, (see Schuster
11, 32) it does not require that all such safety functionalities be
configurable by the user, nor does it preclude that some may be configurable
by the manufacturer alone.
Similarly, Sethuraman does not require that all safety functionalities
be configurable only by the manufacturer. Indeed, Sethuraman discloses
that in some circumstances the safety logic can be modified or revised by the
user. Sethuraman discloses a process for certification and verification of
safety logic. When inconsistencies are found in the safety logic, the process
allows the user to take corrective action, including revising the safety logic
4
Appeal 2016-003068
Application 13/109,136
or revising the testing specifications, until the inconsistencies are resolved.
Sethuraman 132; Fig. 1. In some instances, the safety logic is provided by a
third party where the safety logic is contained in a black box that cannot be
modified by the user. Sethuraman | 35; Fig. 2. In this case, when
inconsistencies are found, only the testing specification can be modified, but
the third party safety logic cannot. Sethuraman | 35; Fig. 2. Thus, in the
case where the safety logic is not provided by a third party, Sethuraman not
only does not preclude the user from making modifications to the safety
logic, but explicitly allows the user to make such modifications during the
certification and verification process. On the other hand, for certain parts
with safety logic provided by a third party, we agree with the Examiner that
Sethuraman teaches or suggests “a further part [of a robotic manipulator]
that is configured only by a manufacturer,” i.e. only by the third party.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find that Schuster and
Sethuraman are incompatible or would render the other unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14, which were argued together as a
group. See App. Br. 6. Finally, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 2, 4, 5, and 8 for which Appellants do not present
arguments for separate patentability.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8—11, 13, and 14 is
affirmed.
5
Appeal 2016-003068
Application 13/109,136
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6