# Flexible Line Recovery Robot — Master IP Disclosure V1.0 ## 1. Document status **Purpose:** consolidated invention disclosure and engineering-to-IP record. **Commercial classification:** IP / engineering demonstrator. **Legal status:** This is a working invention disclosure and draft claim package. It is **not** a patent grant, patentability opinion, freedom-to-operate opinion, or legal filing. Patentability, novelty, inventive step/non-obviousness, claim scope, inventorship and filing strategy must be reviewed by qualified patent counsel. **Date:** 22 September 2026 --- ## 2. Invention title **Flexible Line Recovery Robot** Alternative technical title for legal review: **System and Method for Verified Recovery of Disordered Flexible Lines Using a Constrained Recovery Environment, Distributed Handling and State-Based Manipulation** --- ## 3. Technical field The invention concerns robotic and automated manipulation of flexible linear objects, including electrical cables, cords, ropes, straps and selected hoses. More particularly, it concerns recovering disordered flexible lines by combining a purpose-built constrained manipulation environment, distributed compliant handling, line-state estimation, tension-aware action selection, physical-response verification, verified-state rollback and controlled organization. --- ## 4. Technical problem Flexible lines are difficult to manipulate because they are deformable, self-occluding and capable of forming crossings, loops, partial entanglements and locally tensioned configurations. A conventional robot-arm approach places much of the difficulty in perception and dexterous manipulation. A conventional winding or feeding machine normally assumes that the line has already reached a sufficiently ordered input state. The engineering problem addressed here is the transition: **disordered flexible-line input → recoverable state → separated/verified line → organized output** while detecting manipulation failures before an incorrect state is permanently propagated. --- ## 5. Invention concept The system changes the manipulation problem by making the physical environment part of the control architecture. A preferred implementation provides a shallow, observable recovery chamber in which a plurality of independently controlled compliant guide/grip modules surround or occupy the recovery field. Sensors observe the line. A controller constructs and continuously updates a line-state representation including, where available: - endpoints; - segment relationships; - crossing candidates; - loop candidates; - local tension class; - handling-module ownership; - confidence; - recovery status; - last verified state identifier. The controller chooses a manipulation primitive from the current state. In a preferred sequence, local tension is deliberately reduced before a separation attempt. After the manipulation, the controller compares predicted and observed geometry and also checks physical response such as tension, contact, motor current or motion response. A state is committed only after verification. If verification fails, the controller attempts to return to the last verified state and selects an alternative action for the unresolved configuration, subject to safety and physical feasibility. Once recovery reaches a verified organization-ready state, the same control architecture transfers the line into a controlled straightening, routing or loose-coil output path. --- ## 6. System architecture ### 6.1 Physical subsystem 1. Recovery chamber 2. Distributed compliant guide/grip modules 3. Actuation modules 4. Line-contact surfaces or interchangeable handling cartridges 5. Downstream organization path 6. Emergency release/safe-stop mechanisms ### 6.2 Sensing subsystem Possible inputs include: - overhead RGB/depth cameras; - chamber cameras; - tactile/contact sensors; - force or tension sensors; - motor current; - encoder position; - actuator state; - optional additional proximity sensing. The exact sensor combination is implementation-dependent. ### 6.3 Software/control subsystem 1. Perception 2. Line reconstruction 3. State estimation 4. Topology/crossing analysis 5. Action planning 6. Motion/control 7. Verification 8. State commit 9. Rollback/recovery 10. Organization/output control 11. Diagnostics and operator interface --- ## 7. Line-state model A line-state record may contain: `State = {geometry, topology, tension, ownership, confidence, action_history, verified_state_id, recovery_status}` ### Geometry Estimated position and shape of visible line segments. ### Topology Relationships such as endpoints, crossings, loops and segment adjacency. ### Tension A discrete or continuous representation of local tension, for example low / medium / high, or a measured force/tension value. ### Ownership Which handling module currently controls or supports a segment. ### Confidence Confidence in geometry, topology and physical state estimates. ### Verified state A state identifier is created when the system has sufficient evidence that the physical configuration corresponds to the recorded state. --- ## 8. Core manipulation primitive: slack-first recovery A preferred action-selection rule is: 1. detect a recoverable crossing/loop or other obstruction; 2. determine whether local tension is inhibiting separation; 3. if tension is above a configured threshold, select a slack-creation action; 4. reduce local tension while maintaining controlled support; 5. reassess geometry/topology; 6. only then attempt separation or transfer. This does not claim that loosening a cable is itself new. The IP investigation concerns the specific coupling of the tension state, line topology, constrained handling environment, verification gate and recovery state machine. --- ## 9. Verified state transition Each manipulation follows: **OBSERVE → MAP → SELECT_ACTION → EXECUTE → VERIFY → COMMIT** A failed verification follows: **VERIFY_FAIL → ROLLBACK → SELECT_ALTERNATIVE_ACTION → EXECUTE → VERIFY** The controller therefore treats manipulation as a sequence of physically verified state transitions rather than as an open-loop sequence of motions. --- ## 10. Rollback and alternative-action mechanism A preferred implementation maintains at least one recoverable checkpoint representing the last verified state. On failed verification: - the failed state is not committed; - the controller identifies the last verified checkpoint; - the system determines whether a physically safe reverse/rollback action is available; - rollback is attempted within configured limits; - the unresolved state is reassessed; - an alternative manipulation primitive is selected; - the alternative action is executed and verified. If rollback is not safe or feasible, the system enters a fault/safe-stop condition instead of claiming successful recovery. --- ## 11. Distributed handling Instead of requiring one conventional robot arm to perform the complete manipulation, the system can use multiple local compliant modules. A module may: - acquire; - support; - slide; - lift; - create slack; - separate; - transfer; - reverse; - release; - route; - coil. A transfer operation can move control of a line segment from one module to another while preserving the line-state representation. --- ## 12. Recovery-to-organization transition A recovered line does not need to be handed to an unrelated machine without state context. When the state estimator determines that the line satisfies an organization-ready condition, the controller can: 1. establish controlled line orientation; 2. transfer ownership to an organization module; 3. straighten or guide the line; 4. form a loose coil, routed bundle or other selected output; 5. verify output completion. The exact organization method can vary by line type. --- ## 13. Interchangeable handling cartridges The physical handling interface may accept interchangeable cartridges adapted for different line classes, including: - electrical cable; - extension cord; - rope; - strap; - selected hose. A cartridge may change contact geometry, compliance, friction characteristics, gripping profile or permissible force/tension limits while the supervisory recovery logic remains substantially the same. --- ## 14. Safety architecture Safety functions are independent of the invention's recovery logic and may include: - maximum force/tension limits; - position limits; - velocity limits; - motor-current limits; - watchdog supervision; - grip-state monitoring; - emergency release; - safe stop; - fault latching; - operator override. The engineering demonstrator must not be treated as a production safety controller. --- ## 15. Failure modes addressed Examples include: - false crossing detection; - false loop detection; - line slippage; - actuator stall; - unexpected tension increase; - sensor loss; - occlusion; - failed transfer; - failed separation; - mismatch between predicted and observed geometry. The system responds by verification, rollback, alternative action or safe stop depending on the failure. --- ## 16. Embodiments ### Embodiment A — cable workshop An electrical workshop receives a mixed bundle of extension leads and loose electrical cable. The chamber distributes the bundle over a controlled surface. The system identifies crossings, reduces local tension, separates segments and routes recovered cables into organized coils. ### Embodiment B — rope/strap handling A maintenance or logistics station uses cartridges configured for rope or straps. The same state and verification architecture is used with different contact limits. ### Embodiment C — selected hose recovery A compliant cartridge handles a hose within force and bend-radius limits. The state estimator includes physical constraints specific to the hose class. ### Embodiment D — human-assisted recovery An operator can place a difficult bundle into the chamber or intervene manually. The system re-observes the physical state after intervention and resumes from a newly verified state. ### Embodiment E — multi-module recovery Several modules independently support different portions of a line and transfer ownership as the line moves through the recovery field. ### Embodiment F — recovery plus organization The recovered line is automatically transferred to a straightening/routing/coiling stage without losing state continuity. --- ## 17. Implementation architecture The software demonstrator uses the supervisory state sequence: `BOOT → SAFE → OBSERVE → MAP → SELECT_ACTION → EXECUTE → VERIFY → COMMIT` Failure handling: `VERIFY → ROLLBACK → alternative action` Critical fault: `any state → FAULT` The browser demonstrator includes simulated sensors, actuators, verification failure injection and actuator-stall fault injection. It is an engineering control demonstrator, not production robot control. --- ## 18. Prior-art boundary The project deliberately does **not** rely on a claim of generic: - robotic cable manipulation; - cable untangling; - cable routing; - cable straightening; - cable recovery; - closed-loop control; - error recovery; - robot gripping. Those areas are established and require claim charting against relevant literature and patent families. The proposed investigation centers on the integrated architecture: **constrained recovery chamber + distributed compliant handling + topology/tension line-state + slack-first action selection + physical-response verification + verified-state rollback + alternative action + controlled organization output** This combined architecture is the working IP boundary, not an assertion that the combination is legally novel. --- ## 19. Evidence package The engineering repository contains, or is intended to contain: - invention disclosure; - software architecture; - mechanism specification; - safety architecture; - validation plan; - manufacturer specification; - prior-art boundary; - claim boundary matrix; - buyer dossier; - physical validation record; - system architecture; - claim evidence matrix; - engineering handoff; - recovery engine; - hardware abstraction; - integration console; - automated software tests; - product demonstration; - simulation. These artifacts create a dated development trail for later professional review. --- ## 20. Draft abstract for professional review A system and method for recovering a disordered flexible line are disclosed. The system includes a constrained recovery environment, a plurality of independently controlled compliant handling modules, sensors configured to observe the flexible line, and a controller configured to generate a line-state representation including at least geometric and topological information and a physical-state indication. The controller selects manipulation actions according to the line state, including, in an embodiment, reducing local tension before attempting separation of a crossing or loop. Following a manipulation, the controller verifies a physical state transition using observed geometry and at least one physical response parameter. A state is committed when verification succeeds. When verification fails, the controller can return toward a last verified state and select an alternative manipulation action. A verified recovered state can be transferred into a controlled organization operation. --- ## 21. Draft invention summary The central engineering contribution proposed for legal investigation is not a generic cable robot. It is a recovery architecture in which the **physical workspace, distributed handling, line-state representation and verified recovery logic are designed as one system**. The invention is intended to make flexible-line recovery tractable by constraining the physical problem, deliberately managing slack, maintaining a verified state history and preventing unverified manipulations from silently becoming the new baseline. --- ## 22. Legal-review checklist Before any patent filing or public novelty statement: - [ ] Formal professional patent search - [ ] Patent-family and legal-status review - [ ] Claim chart against closest references - [ ] Inventorship review - [ ] Ownership/assignment review - [ ] Filing-date strategy - [ ] Jurisdiction strategy - [ ] Claim scope review - [ ] Enablement/support review - [ ] Written-description review - [ ] Freedom-to-operate review - [ ] Confidentiality/public-disclosure review **Current engineering status:** complete working IP disclosure package and engineering demonstrator. **Current legal status:** requires professional patent review before a filing or any statement that the invention is patentable.