T 1960/20 (Robot tracking human efficiency/LOCUS ROBOTICS) 11-06-2024

Reasons for the Decision

1. The invention

1.1 The invention in the most specific claim 1 of the auxiliary request 2a concerns an essentially conventional warehouse robot which collects information on the efficiency of a human operator interacting with it, see page 2, lines 21 to 24 of the published application.

1.2 Looking at Figure 3, to pick up an item, the robot 18 drives to a fiducial reference marker 30 indicating the location where the item is stored (page 8, lines 16 to 18) and waits for a human operator 50 whose job is to pick the item from a shelf 12 and to place it in the container (tote) 44 on the robot, see page 8, last paragraph. Although not claimed, the item to be picked is displayed on a tablet computer 48 on the robot.

1.3 The tablet is configured to track the amount of time the operator interacts with the robot, see page 9, lines 27 to 28 and page 12, lines 1 to 2. The claim defines that this is done by a first transceiver which defines a zone surrounding the robot and reads a second transceiver for detecting that the operator enters and exits the zone. There has been some discussion on the meaning of these features, see decision, points 21 and 24; grounds of appeal page 2. Like the examining division, the Board reads them in the light of the disclosed embodiment (page 3, line 8; page 5, lines 1 to 3 and page 10, lines 6 to 16) as meaning that the zone is the reading range of the robot's RFID reader ("a first transceiver" in claim 1). Accordingly, detecting that the operator enters and exits the zone boils down to the RFID reader starting and stopping the sensing of an RFID tag carried by the operator ("second transceiver"). The Board understands that the start and stop of sensing are the points in time when the operator approaches the robot and moves away after putting the item in the tote.

1.4 The tablet measures the time between the robot arriving at the pick up point and the operator entering the zone, as well as the amount of time that the operator interacts with the robot, see page 9, lines 20 to 28 and page 10, lines 27 to 29. The tablet provides these durations and the operator's identity, obtained from their tag, to a management server configured to track the operator's efficiency, see page 11, lines 3 to 5.

While not claimed, this information is used to incentivise the operator, positively one hopes, see page 12, lines 6 to 14.

1.5 In addition, the server sets the tablet to the operator's preferred language (second part of the last claim feature), see page 11, lines 20 to 23.

2. Admittance

2.1 The Board does not admit auxiliary requests 2, 3 and 4 into the proceedings under Article 12(6) RPBA. These requests were not admitted by the examining division under Rule 137(3) EPC and the Board finds no error in their use of discretion.

The examining division justified the decision not to admit those requests as follows:

- Auxiliary request 2: The amendments in this late-filed request generalised the original disclosure by omitting the use of a fiducial marker for navigation. Additionally, claim 1 did not overcome the inventive step objection raised against higher-ranking requests, see decision, point 31.

- Auxiliary requests 3 and 4: These requests were not convergent with the previous claims and introduced added subject-matter, specifically in amendments stating that the local operator assisted the robot, see decision, points 34 and 35.

The Board considers these reasons to be sound and judges that the overall use of discretion was correct.

2.2 The Board admits auxiliary requests 1a and 2a into the proceedings under Article 12(6) RPBA, as they represent a bona fide attempt to address secondary issues raised by the examining division.

Specifically, claim 1 of auxiliary request 1a deletes the alternative where the robot collects information on "the amount of time the operator takes to perform a defined function" whose implementation was not properly disclosed, see decision, points 24 and 31. Claim 1 of auxiliary request 2a includes amendments that overcome the objection of intermediate generalisation raised against auxiliary request 2. Resolving these issues allows the Board to focus on the inventive step of the claim based on the main disclosed embodiment, which contributes to procedural economy.

2.3 The appellant argued that auxiliary request 1b was a fall-back position addressing the objection of lack of inventive step, in particular to emphasise that the invention was applied in a complex system employing a plurality of robots (see section XVI above).

However, this request, while indeed limiting the claim to this scenario, removes a considerable number of features from claim 1 of auxiliary request 2a, thereby broadening that claim's scope in crucial aspects.

Common sense dictates that a fall-back position is a claim more limited than any previous claim, thereby having the potential to address the outstanding objections. In the present case, this is an objection under Article 56 EPC, which would generally require only the addition of features. In contrast, removing features worsens the situation, as it potentially opens up new lines of attacks and necessitates further examination. This is rather a sideways shift than a fall-back position, which goes against the requirements of Article 13(2) RPBA, namely that at the late stage of the proceedings, amendments should only be considered when justified by compelling reasons of overcoming all outstanding objections without a possibility of raising new ones.

Therefore, the Board does not admit auxiliary request 1b.

3. Auxiliary request 2a, Article 56 EPC

3.1 The Board finds it convenient to analyse the most specific auxiliary request 2a first.

3.2 The examining division started from D1, which discloses a forklift truck, and considered the use of a robot to be an obvious alternative. However, given the shift in emphasis of the claims in auxiliary request 2a to features of the robot, the Board prefers to start from document D3, which, like the claimed invention, concerns a warehouse robot interacting with human operators.

3.3 Using the wording of claim 1, D3 discloses (references in brackets):

at least one robot (Figure 3) configured to interact with the operators ([116]: human pickers) in the warehouse and to proceed to a fiducial marker placed on a shelf in the warehouse ([14]: storage units and [107]: positional markers), the at least one robot including:

an autonomous wheeled base ([70] and Figure 3: a drive unit 34); a tote for receiving items from the operator ([71] and Figure 3: a container 36 anticipates the tote which according to page 8, line 1 of the application might be a container), a first transceiver ([90]: a location sensor detecting RFID tags), a memory cooperating with the processor and storing navigation software, wherein the processor is configured to carry out the navigation software which relies on data concerning the environment ([14] and [106]), an internal table in the memory (implicit in [106]) that identifies a fiducial identification of the fiducial marker that corresponds to a location in the warehouse where a particular item can be found ([14] and [107]),

and a tablet supported by a tablet holder interchangeably coupled to the coupling of the upper surface of the base ([76], [77] and Figure 3: a tablet 38 and coupling device 40), the tablet comprising, a tablet processor, a tablet-memory, a tablet clock or a tablet timer, and a network interface (implicit in [76]), and a second transceiver ([90]: RFID tags);

wherein said first transceiver defines a zone surrounding said robot (implicit in [90]).

3.4 Furthermore, an order processing server, according to paragraphs [61] and [87] of D3, corresponds to the central management server in claim 1.

3.5 The robot of D3 operates in essentially the same way as the claimed one: after reaching the positional marker, it waits for the operator to place the product in its container ([135]). The major difference between claim 1 and D3 lies in features related to tracking the operator, namely:

- In that the second transceiver carries information identifying said operator, and wherein said second transceivers are with the operators.

- In that the tablet comprises a proximity detector coupled to the first transceiver for detecting entry into said zone of an operator and to detect exit of said operator from said zone.

- The last five features excluding the final clause (recording robot and operator arrival time, identifying operators, providing information to server, definitions of the information provided, tracking operator efficiency at server).

3.6 In addition to this major difference, the robot of claim 1 differs from the one in D3:

- By a laser-radar and a camera from which the robot's processor receives data to capture information representative of the robot's environment.

- In that the tote is held by a tote holder interchangeably engaged with a coupling provided on an upper surface of the base.

- In that the tablet is set to the identified operator's preferred language by the management server (the final clause of the last feature).

3.7 Concerning the first group of features, the Board agrees with the examining division (decision, point 28.2) and judges that they implement a business requirement to get information about the operators' activities, namely determine and centrally register who placed the item on the robot, the time it took for the operator to get to the robot after it arrived at the shelf, and the time the operator spent near the robot.

3.8 The Board is not persuaded by the appellant's view that only the general task of determining a warehouse operator's performance and actual working times is non-technical, whereas the more specific sub-divisions of this requirement are based on technical considerations.

The non-technical aspects would include more than just the general requirement to "keep an eye" on the operators. They would also include the connections to any steps in a business workflow scheme that exists in the warehouse.

Such steps would include specifying that when a robot parks at a shelf, the operator should approach it, read the display, go to the shelf, pick the displayed item, place it in the robot's tote, and then move away. The operator's efficiency, called performance by the appellant, is measured by how quickly they complete these actions. In the Board's opinion, neither setting up this scheme nor measuring the time to complete any of the steps to track the operator's efficiency involves technical considerations.

Furthermore, the Board cannot see anything technical in the realisation that, in a warehouse where the robot's parking location and the shelf are close to one another while the operator's resting location is further away, the time during which the operator interacts with the robot is the duration between their entering and leaving the robot's proximity. The Board considers that understanding and analysing spatial and temporal conditions under which the steps of the established business workflows are carried out is per se a non-technical exercise.

It follows that the decision to measure the amount of time the operator spends in the robot's proximity is based on non-technical considerations related to the above workflow scheme and the spatial conditions under which it is carried out. The argument that measuring this specific time improves measurement precision does not convince the Board, as it cannot see how choosing a particular time to be measured enhances the precision of the actual measurement technique itself.

3.9 The choice to measure the time the operator is proximate only when the robot is stationary also comes from the above workflow scheme, which precisely specifies that the operator interacts with stationary robots, making their whereabouts relevant only during this period. Thus, contrary to the appellant's argument, this decision does not require any considerations regarding the efficiency of the use of resources.

3.10 The Board is not persuaded by the argument that the above requirement specification derives technical character from the technical steps of collecting and transmitting data to the server. It is established case law that a computer implementation alone does not confer technical character to underlying non-technical matter, cf. T 1670/07 - Shopping with mobile device/NOKIA, reasons, point 9.

3.11 Using the COMVIK approach (T 641/00 - Two identities/COMVIK), the technical problem is to implement the above measurements and calculations of the steps in the workflow. Starting from D3 and facing this problem, the Board judges that it would have been obvious, in view of D1, to equip the operator with an RFID tag for identification and to read this tag using the robot's RFID reader. D1 discloses a forklift truck that identifies proximate operators by detecting RFID tags integrated into their garments, see paragraphs [185] to [187]. Contrary to the appellant's view, the Board judges that the skilled person would have had no difficulty generalising the idea of detecting proximate individuals using RFID technology from D1's context, where detection occurs while the truck is driving, to determine the warehouse operator's proximity when the robot is stationary.

Contrary to the appellant's view, the Board considers that the use of a zone around the robot as the basis for this proximity determination is a direct consequence of the RFID technology employed rather than a separate design decision.

Furthermore, it would have been obvious to measure the durations between parking the robot and the RFID reader starting and stopping the sensing of the RFID tag (penultimate claim feature, two first alternatives), and to transmit the measured times to the central server. Implementing those functions on the tablet using its internal clocks would have been one of two obvious possibilities, with the other being their implementation on the robot's central processor.

3.12 Incidentally, claim 1 also encompasses the alternative where, instead of recording the operator's entry and exit from the robot's surrounding zone, the tablet collects information on "the amount of time the operator takes to pick an item from the shelf and place it on the robot or to pick an item from the robot and placing it on the shelf". While the claim is obvious for the above reasons and there is no need to analyse this alternative in detail, the Board nonetheless notes that this is defined merely as a result to be achieved without technical implementation and, therefore, no technical contribution (Articles 84 and 56 EPC). Additionally, the Board agrees with the examining division (decision, points 24 and 31) that the robot in claim 1, and indeed in the application, lacks technical means to directly track the operator's actions at the shelf, which exacerbates these issues.

3.13 As regards the second group of distinguishing features, equipping the robot with a laser-radar and camera would have been obvious in view of paragraphs [108] to [110] of D6, especially considering that paragraph [89] of D3 already suggests navigation relying on optical sensors. The use of a tote holder interchangeably engaged with a coupling mounted on the wheeled base would have been an obvious design alternative.

Adapting the central server of D3 to remotely set the tablet's language based on the operator's identity is an obvious implementation of the non-technical requirement that any instructions or information should be displayed in the operator's predefined language. The use of RFID technology to identify the operator is obvious for the above reasons.

3.14 Hence, claim 1 lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

4. Main request and auxiliary requests 1 and 1a

Since claim 1 of these higher-ranking requests is broader than claim 1 of the auxiliary request 2a, they lack an inventive step for the above reasons.

5. Request for refund of appeal fee

The appellant did not provide any justification for this request, and the Board sees no basis for it. Hence, the request for refund of the appeal fee is dismissed.

6. Since none of the appellant's admitted requests are allowable, it follows that the appeal must be dismissed.