DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-10 are pending, with claims 8-10 being withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/19/2023.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings filed 12/19/2023 include Equation 1 and Citations. Equation 1 is properly included on the 11th page of the specification filed 12/19/2023 and should be removed from the drawings. The citations should be incorporated into the specification in the Description of the Prior Art section and removed from the drawings.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: input unit associated with recalling the stored orientation 10e.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5; claim 5, line 8; claim 6, line 4; and claim 7, lines 3 and 8: these lines should have --and-- appended to the end of each line.
Claims 2-7 should begin “[[A]] --The-- method for…” as they are referring to the method recited in a preceding claim.
Claim 6, line 4: “a input unit” should be changed to --an input unit--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: driving means, orientation store means, input unit, orientation recall means, deleting means, storing means, and adding means.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations driving means, deleting means, storing means, and adding means invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. For computer implemented means-plus-function claim limitations invoking 35 USC § 112(f), the supporting disclosure must clearly link the structure and the algorithm for performing the entire claimed function to the function. The present disclosure does not clearly indicate what structure and algorithms implement the functions of the driving means, deleting means, storing means, and adding means. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed functions, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the functions recited in the claims, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed functions. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 is directed to:
A method … comprising the steps of: …
driving means to move the end effector of the robot to the program position having the minimum distance.
Driving means is not a method step and thus it is not clear whether the claimed method requires using a “driving means” in some way. It is suggested this last sub-paragraph of claim 1 be amended to recite a method step, such as:
moving, using a driving means, the end effector of the robot to the program position having the minimum distance.
or similar language; or the claim be amended to be an apparatus claim, and the moving, computing, and searching limitations be amended to reflect structural limitations.
Claims 2-7 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Claims 2 and 4-7 similarly fail to recite a method step or further modify a previously recited method step, and thus it is unclear if the claimed method requires using the recited elements in some way.
Claim 6 recites:
the deleting means consisting of selecting a input unit for the deleting means,
and claim 7 recites:
the adding means consisting of:
manually moving…,
selecting an input…,
a storing means…
Elements expressed as a means for performing a function (i.e., which invoke 35 USC § 112(f)), are construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. That is, they are structural components, and thus are not defined by method steps such as “selecting a input”, “manually moving” or “selecting an input”. It is not clear how the recited method steps modify the claimed deleting means and adding means. Such elements may be functionally defined using language similar to
the adding means further configured to:
manually move…,
select an input …,
the adding means comprising a storing means…
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US Publication No. 2007/0299557) in view of Satou (US Publication No. 2019/0160662).
Watanabe teaches:
Re claim 1. A method for editing a program for the operation of a robot comprising the steps of:
[…] moving an end effector of the robot near a program position to be edited (operating a robot to touch a position of an actual workpiece S64, Figure 6),
computing a distance between the position of the end effector of the robot and all program positions contained in the program (S65, Figure 6; and paragraph [0044]: “the robot operation program and working position closest to the touchup position effected by the actual robot are retrieved in step S65”),
searching the program for the program position that yields a minimum of the distance (S65, Figure 6; and paragraph [0044]).
While Watanabe does teach moving an end effector near a program position to be edited, Watanabe fails to specifically teach: (re claim 1) manually moving an end effector of the robot near a program position to be edited; and
driving means to move the end effector of the robot to the program position having the minimum distance.
Satou teaches, at S13, Figure 2; and paragraph [0034], a human moves a robot by hand-guiding or jog-feeding to or near a previously taught teaching point to re-teach the teaching point. Such manual movements enable a user to easily and intuitively move a robot to a desired position. Satou additionally teaches, at paragraph [0037], each axis of such a robot has a motor, which reads on the claimed driving means, and enables such robots to be actuated.
In view of Satou’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Watanabe, (re claim 1) manually moving an end effector of the robot near a program position to be edited; and driving means to move the end effector of the robot to the program position having the minimum distance, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Satou teaches a human moves a robot by hand-guiding or jog-feeding to or near a previously taught teaching point to re-teach the teaching point. Such manual movements enable a user to easily and intuitively move a robot to a desired position. Satou additionally teaches each axis of such a robot has a motor, which reads on the claimed driving means, and enables such robots to be actuated.
In the event “driving means to move the end effector of the robot to the program position having the minimum distance” is intended to be interpreted as a method step, Nagatsuka et al. (US Publication No. 2006/0069464) teaches, at the abstract and S4-S5, Figure 3, moving a robot to a teaching point which should be corrected so that information on the teaching point that should be corrected is replaced with information on an actual teaching point acquired after completion of the movement, whereby the information on the teaching point described in the robot program is corrected quickly. This results in a program capable of protecting the robot and ambient facilities from being damaged.
In view of Nagatsuka’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Watanabe, (re claim 1) driving means to move the end effector of the robot to the program position having the minimum distance, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Nagatsuka teaches moving a robot to a teaching point which should be corrected so that information on the teaching point that should be corrected is replaced with information on an actual teaching point acquired after completion of the movement, whereby the information on the teaching point described in the robot program is corrected quickly. This results in a program capable of protecting the robot and ambient facilities from being damaged.
Watanabe further teaches:
Re claim 2. Further comprising a program pointer for referencing the program position having a minimum of the distance (paragraph [0040]: cursor).
Watanabe fails to specifically teach: (re claim 4) further comprising an end-effector joystick that allows precise motion of the end-effector corresponding to motion of the end-effector joystick.
Satou teaches, at paragraph [0002], hand-guiding a robot using a joystick attached to the robot to move the robot to a desired position.
In view of Satou’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the methoid as taught by Watanabe, (re claim 4) further comprising an end-effector joystick that allows precise motion of the end-effector corresponding to motion of the end-effector joystick, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Satou teaches hand-guiding a robot using a joystick attached to the robot to move the robot to a desired position.
Watanabe further teaches:
Re claim 5. Further comprising a means to store and recall a precise orientation of the end-effector comprising, an orientation store means consisting of an input unit to store the precise orientation of the end-effector, a temporary location in the program in which the precise orientation of the end-effector is stored, an orientation recall means consisting of an input unit to recall the precise orientation of the end-effector, an algorithm that recalls the precise orientation of the end-effector from the temporary location in the program and drives the robot to a position and orientation consisting of the current robot end effector position and the precise orientation of the end-effector (paragraphs [0065-0074]: The orientation of the end effector is corrected and stored in the updated program as an updated taught position. The robot later runs the program to return to the taught position and orientation.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US Publication No. 2007/0299557) as modified by Satou (US Publication No. 2019/0160662) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of user394255 et al. (“types of distances between points”).
The teachings of Watanabe have been discussed above. Watanabe fails to specifically teach: (re claim 3) in which the minimum distance is calculated as the Euclidean distance.
User394255 teaches, at the first post and comment 1 on this post, that Euclidean distance is one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for determining a distance.
In view of user394255’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Watanabe, (re claim 3) in which the minimum distance is calculated as the Euclidean distance, with a reasonable expectation of success, since User394255 teaches Euclidean distance is one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for determining a distance, and it would be obvious to try one of these predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of successfully determining a distance between a current position of an end effector and other programmed points.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoi Tran can be reached on (571)272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SPENCER D PATTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656