Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 17/754,907 and the amendments filed on 1/2/2026.
3. Claims 1-18 and 20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/15/2022, 9/1/2023, 3/18/2025, and 7/11/2025 have been fully considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner agrees that the combination of US 20180065256 A1 to Naitou, US 20210362336 A1 to Muneto, and US 10145747 B1 to Lin fails to teach all of the amendments to the claim. However, in light of the amendments and the Applicant’s remarks, the prior art has been reevaluated, and it has been determined that previously applied prior art anticipates the amended scope of the claims, in which will be described later.
Regarding dependent claims 2-18 and 20, as all of these claims depend from claim 1, are still rejected, in which will be described later.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naitou (US 20180065256 A1 hereinafter Naitou) in view of Muneto et al. (US 20210362336 A1 hereinafter Muneto) and Nielsen et al. (US 20210260757 A1 hereinafter Nielsen).
Regarding Claim 1, Naitou teaches a method of controlling a robot ([0021] via “The motion of robot 10 can be controlled by a robot controller 26 connected to robot 10.”), comprising:
detecting a pattern of a series of external forces applied on a portion of the robot ([0023] via “When an external force by a human (operator), etc., is applied to robot 10, the force is transmitted to and detected by force sensor 32.”), ([0024] via “In order to restart the stopped motion of robot 10, the human (operator) purposely applies the external force to the robot. In this regard, judging section 28 judges as to whether the external force is applied to robot 10 based on a predetermined action pattern and as to whether the external force is applied to a specified portion of robot 10.”);
comparing the pattern with a predetermined pattern associated with the portion ([0024] via “In order to restart the stopped motion of robot 10, the human (operator) purposely applies the external force to the robot. In this regard, judging section 28 judges as to whether the external force is applied to robot 10 based on a predetermined action pattern and as to whether the external force is applied to a specified portion of robot 10.”); and
in accordance with a determination that the detected pattern matches the predetermined pattern, controlling the robot to perform an action corresponding to the predetermined pattern ([0024] via “Then, when it is judged that the external force is applied to the specified portion of robot 10 based on the predetermined pattern, commanding section 30 commands robot 10 so that the robot performs a motion (in this case, a restart motion) which is previously associated with the pattern.”), ([0025] via “For example, it is assumed that a “portion of a lateral side of the robot arm (J2 arm or J3 arm) or the rotating body which is not separated from (an upper end) of the force sensor by 20 cm in the upper direction” is determined as the “specified portion” of robot 10, and “knocking twice consecutively (e.g., within 0.5 second or one second)” is determined as the “predetermined pattern.” In this case, when an action that “the portion of the lateral side of the robot arm or the rotating body, which is not separated from of the force sensor by 20 cm in the upper direction, is consecutively knocked twice” is performed by the human, the action of the human may be judged as a command for “restarting the motion of the robot” and then may be executed.”).
A first embodiment of Naitou is silent on detecting a pattern of a series of external forces applied on a portion of the robot using a current sensor, wherein the series of external forces corresponds to a magnitude of the series of external forces imposing a change on a torque output by a motor, wherein the pattern of the magnitude of the series of external forces is detected using the current sensor based on a change in current supplied to the motor in response to the change on the torque output by the motor; wherein controlling the robot to perform the action corresponding to the predetermined pattern comprises at least one of: moving the robot to a location of a previous target, or initiating, ceasing, pausing, or restarting a process or a step of the process to operate the previous target by the robot; wherein the change in current supplied to the motor detected by the current sensor comprises a corresponding change in the torque output by the motor to maintain the robot in a similar position to overcome the external forces applied on the portion of the robot.
However, Muneto teaches detecting a pattern of a series of external forces applied on a portion of the robot using a current sensor ([0062] via “The external force detecting module 48 detects an external force which acts on the robot 1. In this embodiment, the external force detecting module 48 converts a value of sensor current, which flows through each servomotor M and is detected by the current sensor 5, into a torque value. Then, it subtracts the estimated value of the driving torque inputted from the driving torque estimating module 47 from the torque value converted from the sensor current value to calculate it as a disturbance torque. Then, it calculates the external force which acts on the robot 1 by using the disturbance torque value, and outputs it to the force monitoring module 49. In detail, the external force detecting module 48 calculates an external force f.sub.d which acts on the tip end of the robot 1 (e.g., a tool center point) based on the disturbance torque τ.sub.d, by using the following Formula (3) based on the principle of virtual work.”),
wherein the series of external forces corresponds to a magnitude of the series of external forces imposing a change on a torque output by a motor, wherein the pattern of the magnitude of the series of external forces is detected using the current sensor based on a change in current supplied to the motor in response to the change on the torque output by the motor ([0062] via “The external force detecting module 48 detects an external force which acts on the robot 1. In this embodiment, the external force detecting module 48 converts a value of sensor current, which flows through each servomotor M and is detected by the current sensor 5, into a torque value. Then, it subtracts the estimated value of the driving torque inputted from the driving torque estimating module 47 from the torque value converted from the sensor current value to calculate it as a disturbance torque. Then, it calculates the external force which acts on the robot 1 by using the disturbance torque value, and outputs it to the force monitoring module 49. In detail, the external force detecting module 48 calculates an external force f.sub.d which acts on the tip end of the robot 1 (e.g., a tool center point) based on the disturbance torque τ.sub.d, by using the following Formula (3) based on the principle of virtual work.”), ([0063] via “Thus, like Formula (3), the external force detecting module 48 calculates the external force f.sub.d which acts on the robot 1 by multiplying the disturbance torque τ.sub.d by an inverse matrix of a transposed matrix J.sup.T of the Jacobian matrix K, and outputs it to the force monitoring module 49.”).
Further, an additional embodiment of Naitou teaches wherein controlling the robot to perform the action corresponding to the predetermined pattern comprises at least one of: moving the robot to a location of a previous target, or initiating, ceasing, pausing, or restarting a process or a step of the process to operate the previous target by the robot ([0035] via “In the above embodiment, the command to be executed when the external force is applied to the specified portion of the robot with the predetermined pattern is explained as “restarting the (suspended) motion of the robot.” However, the present invention is not limited as such. For example, the robot may be moved to a predetermined waiting position or initial position, or may be operated so as to perform the other evacuating motion. Further, a plurality of patterns may be prepared, so that the robot can perform different motions depending on the patterns. For example, the motion of the robot may be restarted when the robot is consecutively knocked twice, and the robot may be moved to the initial position when the robot is consecutively knocked thrice.”).
Further, Nielsen teaches wherein the change in current supplied to the motor detected by the current sensor comprises a corresponding change in the torque output by the motor to maintain the robot in a similar position to overcome the external forces applied on the portion of the robot ([0019] via “The joint sensor can also be provided as a current sensor indicating the current through the joint motor and thus be used to obtain the torque provided by the motor. For instance, in connection with a multiphase motor, a plurality of current sensors can be provided in order to obtain the current through each of the phases of the multiphase motor.”), ([0031] via “When an external force different from gravity is applied to the robot arm, the robot controller can allow change in posture by driving the joint motors with a motor torque that allows a user to rotate the output flanges of the robot joint. For instance, the robot controller can be configured to drive the motor with a motor torque sufficient for maintaining the robot arm in the static posture, and an additional force and/or torque applied to the robot arm will thus overcome the sufficient motor torque, whereby the output flange of the joints will rotate due to the additional force and/or torque. During change of the robot arm posture the robot controller can be configured to adjust the sufficient motor torque based on the changes in posture resulting in the effect that the robot arm will be maintained in the new static posture when the additional external force is reduced.”), ([0037] via “Driving the motor joint with currents generating the static motor torque results in the effect that the robot arm is kept in a static posture when it is only influenced by gravity. A user may move parts of the robot arm by manipulating the robot joints for instance by pushing, pulling and/or rotating parts of the robot arm whereby an external force/torque is applied to the robot arm.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Muneto wherein the method comprises: detecting a pattern of a series of external forces applied on a portion of the robot using a current sensor, wherein the series of external forces corresponds to a magnitude of the series of external forces imposing a change on a torque output by a motor, wherein the pattern of the magnitude of the series of external forces is detected using the current sensor based on a change in current supplied to the motor in response to the change on the torque output by the motor. Doing so defines a relationship between the current output by the motor to an external force applied to a portion of the robot to map out their interaction, as stated above by Muneto in paragraph [0062].
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the additional embodiment of Naitou wherein controlling the robot to perform the action corresponding to the predetermined pattern comprises at least one of: moving the robot to a location of a previous target, or initiating, ceasing, pausing, or restarting a process or a step of the process to operate the previous target by the robot. The courts have determined under the case KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-07 (2007), a number of rationales in which obviousness is concluded. The rationale that pertains to the present invention is rationale B: Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results. Specifically, in this case item 3 of rationale B is satisfied: a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. While the first embodiment of Naitou is silent on the robot moving to the location of a previous target on the basis of the predetermined pattern of external forces, nonetheless Naitou includes this same feature as an alternative embodiment to yield the same results in responding to an external force applied to the robot. Thus, while this is a separate embodiment, the two embodiments are not exclusive towards one another and can be combinable to yield the same result, and therefore the simple substitution of this alternative embodiment would have been obvious to implement.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nielsen wherein the method comprises: wherein the change in current supplied to the motor detected by the current sensor comprises a corresponding change in the torque output by the motor to maintain the robot in a similar position to overcome the external forces applied on the portion of the robot. Doing so incorporates a known method of varying the motor current to adjust the motor torque, as stated by Nielsen ([0042] via “The motor torque of the joint motor may be regulated by varying the current through the joint motor as known in the art of motor regulation.”) which allows the robot to automatically maintain its posture when external forces act upon it, as stated by Nielsen ([0044] via “In an embodiment the method comprises a step of changing the posture of the robot arm by providing an external force and/or torque to at least one of the robot joints and in response to the change in posture obtaining the static motor torque based on the changed posture of the robot arm and the dynamic model of the robot arm. This makes it possible for a user to manually mover parts of the robot arm and automatically keep the robot arm in the new posture after the manipulation.”).
Regarding Claim 2, modified reference Naitou teaches the method of claim 1, but the first embodiment of Naitou is silent on wherein detecting the pattern of the series of external forces comprises: detecting a magnitude of the series of external forces applied on the portion during a predetermined time period.
However, an additional embodiment of Naitou teaches detecting a magnitude of the series of external forces applied on the portion during a predetermined time period ([0034] via “In addition, the predetermined “pattern” is not limited to “consecutively knocking the robot twice,” etc., and thus the pattern may be determined based on at least one of a magnitude and a direction of the external force applied to the robot, and a number of times (and a time interval if the number is plural) that the external force is applied to the robot.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the additional embodiment of Naitou wherein detecting the pattern of the series of external forces comprises: detecting a magnitude of the series of external forces applied on the portion during a predetermined time period. The courts have determined under the case KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-07 (2007), a number of rationales in which obviousness is concluded. The rationale that pertains to the present invention is rationale B: Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results. Specifically, in this case item 3 of rationale B is satisfied: a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. While the first embodiment of Naitou does not specify the robot detecting the predetermined pattern of external forces by detecting a magnitude of the external forces during a predetermined time period, nonetheless Naitou includes this same feature as an alternative embodiment to yield the same results in determining a magnitude of an external force applied to the robot. Thus, while this is a separate embodiment, the two embodiments are not exclusive towards one another and can be combinable to yield the same result, and therefore the simple substitution of this alternative embodiment would have been obvious to implement.
Regarding Claim 3, modified reference Naitou teaches the method of claim 2, but the first embodiment of Naitou is silent on wherein detecting the magnitude of the series of external forces comprises: detecting the magnitude from at least one of a torque sensor or a current sensor arranged on a joint between two arm links of the robot coupled to each other.
However, an additional embodiment of Naitou teaches detecting the magnitude from at least one of a torque sensor or a current sensor arranged on a joint between two arm links of the robot coupled to each other ([0032] via “In the third embodiment, the sensor section has torque sensors 52, 54 and 56, instead of the six-axes force sensor. Torque sensors 52, 54 and 56 are provided to the respective axes (in the illustrated embodiment, J1 to J3 axes) of the robot and configured to detect the torque of the corresponding axis. When the human comes into contact with robot 50, at least one of torque sensors 52, 54 and 56 detects the torque due to the external force, and then the motion of robot 50 is stopped or suspended.”), (Note: See Figure 4 of Naitou where at least torque sensors 54 and 56 are arranged at joints between two respective arm links of the robot.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the additional embodiment of Naitou wherein detecting the magnitude of the series of external forces comprises: detecting the magnitude from at least one of a torque sensor or a current sensor arranged on a joint between two arm links of the robot coupled to each other. The courts have determined under the case KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-07 (2007), a number of rationales in which obviousness is concluded. The rationale that pertains to the present invention is rationale B: Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results. Specifically, in this case item 3 of rationale B is satisfied: a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. While the first embodiment of Naitou does not have the robot use torque sensors to calculate the magnitude of the external force applied, nonetheless Naitou includes this same feature as an alternative embodiment to yield the same results in determining a magnitude of an external force applied to the robot. Thus, while this is a separate embodiment, the two embodiments are not exclusive towards one another and can be combinable to yield the same result, and therefore the simple substitution of this alternative embodiment would have been obvious to implement.
Regarding Claim 6, modified reference Naitou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the robot to perform an action corresponding to the predetermined pattern further comprises controlling the robot to perform at least one of: moving the robot to a location of a next target; initiating, ceasing, pausing, or restarting a process or a step of the process to operate the next target by the robot; teaching the robot to operate a new target; or increasing or decreasing a speed to operate a target ([0023] via “When an external force by a human (operator), etc., is applied to robot 10, the force is transmitted to and detected by force sensor 32. Robot 10 is configured to be stopped (in many cases, immediately) for safety purposes, when the detected external force exceeds a predetermined threshold.”), ([0024] via “In order to restart the stopped motion of robot 10, the human (operator) purposely applies the external force to the robot. In this regard, judging section 28 judges as to whether the external force is applied to robot 10 based on a predetermined action pattern and as to whether the external force is applied to a specified portion of robot 10. Then, when it is judged that the external force is applied to the specified portion of robot 10 based on the predetermined pattern, commanding section 30 commands robot 10 so that the robot performs a motion (in this case, a restart motion) which is previously associated with the pattern.”), (Note: Here, the Examiner interprets the restarting of a stopped motion of the robot to read on the limitation “ceasing or restarting a process or a step of a process to operate the next target,” as since the robot is continuing a motion, the motion is interpreted to have a next target since the stopping and restarting the motion is not the end of the motion of the robot.).
Regarding Claim 7, modified reference Naitou teaches a controller for controlling a robot ([0021] via “The motion of robot 10 can be controlled by a robot controller 26
connected to robot 10.”), comprising:
one or more processors configured to perform the method of claim 1 ([0021] via “As shown in FIG. 1, controller 26 may include a judging section 28 and a commanding section 30, and (the functions of) judging section 28 and commanding section 30 may be realized by a central processing unit (CPU), etc., provided to controller 26.”).
Regarding Claim 8, modified reference Naitou teaches a robot comprising the controller of claim 7 ([0021] via “The motion of robot 10 can be controlled by a robot controller 26
connected to robot 10.”).
Regarding Claim 13, modified reference Naitou teaches the robot of claim 8, but the first embodiment of Naitou is silent on the robot further comprising a torque sensor coupled to the controller and configured to detect a magnitude of each of the series of external forces applied on the portion during a predetermined time period.
However, an additional embodiment of Naitou teaches a torque sensor coupled to the controller ([0032] via “In the third embodiment, the sensor section has torque sensors 52, 54 and 56, instead of the six-axes force sensor. Torque sensors 52, 54 and 56 are provided to the respective axes (in the illustrated embodiment, J1 to J3 axes) of the robot and configured to detect the torque of the corresponding axis. When the human comes into contact with robot
50, at least one of torque sensors 52, 54 and 56 detects the torque due to the external force, and then the motion of robot 50 is stopped or suspended.”) and configured to detect a magnitude of each of the series of external forces applied on the portion during a predetermined time period ([0034] via “In addition, the predetermined “pattern” is not limited to “consecutively knocking the robot twice,” etc., and thus the pattern may be determined based on at least one of a magnitude and a direction of the external force applied to the robot, and a number of times (and a time interval if the number is plural) that the external force is applied to the robot.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the additional embodiment of Naitou wherein the robot further comprises a torque sensor coupled to the controller and configured to detect a magnitude of each of the series of external forces applied on the portion during a predetermined time period. The courts have determined under the case KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-07 (2007), a number of rationales in which obviousness is concluded. The rationale that pertains to the present invention is rationale B: Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results. Specifically, in this case item 3 of rationale B is satisfied: a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. While the first embodiment of Naitou does not have the robot use torque sensors to calculate the magnitude of the external force applied, nonetheless Naitou includes this same feature as an alternative embodiment to yield the same results in determining a magnitude of an external force applied to the robot. Thus, while this is a separate embodiment, the two embodiments are not exclusive towards one another and can be combinable to yield the same result, and therefore the simple substitution of this alternative embodiment would have been obvious to implement.
Regarding Claim 14, modified reference Naiutou teaches the robot of claim 13, but the first embodiment of Naitou is silent on wherein the torque sensor is arranged on a joint between two arm links of the robot coupled to each other.
However, an additional embodiment of Naitou teaches wherein the torque sensor is arranged on a joint between two arm links of the robot coupled to each other ([0032] via “In the third embodiment, the sensor section has torque sensors 52, 54 and 56, instead of the six-axes force sensor. Torque sensors 52, 54 and 56 are provided to the respective axes (in the illustrated embodiment, J1 to J3 axes) of the robot and configured to detect the torque of the corresponding axis. When the human comes into contact with robot 50, at least one of torque sensors 52, 54 and 56 detects the torque due to the external force, and then the motion of robot 50 is stopped or suspended.”), (Note: See Figure 4 of Naitou where at least torque sensors 54 and 56 are arranged at joints between two respective arm links of the robot.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the additional embodiment of Naitou wherein the torque sensor is arranged on a joint between two arm links of the robot coupled to each other. The courts have determined under the case KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-07 (2007), a number of rationales in which obviousness is concluded. The rationale that pertains to the present invention is rationale B: Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results. Specifically, in this case item 3 of rationale B is satisfied: a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. While the first embodiment of Naitou does not have the robot use torque sensors to calculate the magnitude of the external force applied at the joints, nonetheless Naitou includes this same feature as an alternative embodiment to yield the same results in determining a magnitude of an external force applied to the robot. Thus, while this is a separate embodiment, the two embodiments are not exclusive towards one another and can be combinable to yield the same result, and therefore the simple substitution of this alternative embodiment would have been obvious to implement.
Regarding Claim 17, modified reference Naitou teaches the robot of claim 8, but the first embodiment of Naitou is silent on the robot further comprising: a torque sensor coupled to the controller and configured to detect a magnitude of each of the series of external forces applied on the portion during a predetermined time period, wherein the torque sensor is arranged on a joint between two arm links of the robot coupled to each other.
However, an additional embodiment of Naitou teaches a torque sensor coupled to the controller ([0032] via “In the third embodiment, the sensor section has torque sensors 52, 54
and 56, instead of the six-axes force sensor. Torque sensors 52, 54 and 56 are provided to the respective axes (in the illustrated embodiment, J1 to J3 axes) of the robot and configured to detect the torque of the corresponding axis. When the human comes into contact with robot
50, at least one of torque sensors 52, 54 and 56 detects the torque due to the external force, and then the motion of robot 50 is stopped or suspended.”) and configured to detect a magnitude of each of the series of external forces applied on the portion during a predetermined time period ([0034] via “In addition, the predetermined “pattern” is not limited to “consecutively knocking the robot twice,” etc., and thus the pattern may be determined based on at least one of a magnitude and a direction of the external force applied to the robot, and a number of times (and a time interval if the number is plural) that the external force is applied to the robot.”),
wherein the torque sensor is arranged on a joint between two arm links of the robot coupled to each other ([0032] via “In the third embodiment, the sensor section has torque sensors 52, 54 and 56, instead of the six-axes force sensor. Torque sensors 52, 54 and 56 are provided to the respective axes (in the illustrated embodiment, J1 to J3 axes) of the robot and configured to detect the torque of the corresponding axis. When the human comes into contact with robot 50, at least one of torque sensors 52, 54 and 56 detects the torque due to the external force, and then the motion of robot 50 is stopped or suspended.”), (Note: See Figure 4 of Naitou where at least torque sensors 54 and 56 are arranged at joints between two respective arm links of the robot.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the additional embodiment of Naitou wherein the robot further comprises: a torque sensor coupled to the controller and configured to detect a magnitude of each of the series of external forces applied on the portion during a predetermined time period, wherein the torque sensor is arranged on a joint between two arm links of the robot coupled to each other. The courts have determined under the case KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-07 (2007), a number of rationales in which obviousness is concluded. The rationale that pertains to the present invention is rationale B: Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results. Specifically, in this case item 3 of rationale B is satisfied: a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. While the first embodiment of Naitou does not have the robot use torque sensors to calculate the magnitude of the external force applied, nonetheless Naitou includes this same feature as an alternative embodiment to yield the same results in determining a magnitude of an external force applied to the robot. Thus, while this is a separate embodiment, the two embodiments are not exclusive towards one another and can be combinable to yield the same result, and therefore the simple substitution of this alternative embodiment would have been obvious to implement.
Regarding Claim 18, modified reference Naitou teaches a controller for controlling a robot ([0021] via “The motion of robot 10 can be controlled by a robot controller 26
connected to robot 10.”), comprising:
one or more processors configured to perform the method of claim 6 ([0021] via “As shown in FIG. 1, controller 26 may include a judging section 28 and a commanding section 30, and (the functions of) judging section 28 and commanding section 30 may be realized by a central processing unit (CPU), etc., provided to controller 26.”).
9. Claim(s) 4, 5, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naitou (US 20180065256 A1 hereinafter Naitou) in view of Muneto et al. (US 20210362336 A1 hereinafter Muneto) and Nielsen et al. (US 20210260757 A1 hereinafter Nielsen), and further in view of Matsudaira et al. (US 20170028565 A1 hereinafter Matsudaira).
Regarding Claim 4, modified reference Naitou teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent on the method further comprising: generating an indication of a result of the comparison between the detected pattern and the predetermined pattern.
However, Matsudaira teaches generating an indication of a result of the comparison between the detected pattern and the predetermined pattern ([0079] via “In this case, a person 9 gives an external force making a desired deviation pattern to the robot that is at a stop or is decelerating, so that the robot 10 is activated. Therefore, an output unit (not shown) outputting sound and light is preferably provided in order to notify that the robot 10
starts operation.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the outputted sound and light to be the indication (See claim 5 below).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Matsudaira wherein the method further comprises: generating an indication of a result of the comparison between the detected pattern and the predetermined pattern. Doing so ensures the safety of the operator by notifying the operator that the robot is activated, and does not need the external force applied to it when the indication is present, as stated by Matsudaira ([0079] via “Therefore, an output unit (not shown) outputting sound and light is preferably provided in order to notify that the robot 10 starts operation. In such case, even if a person 9 gives an external force making a desired deviation pattern when the robot 10 is moving at a constant speed or is accelerating, the operation command is not output. Thus, a person 9 finds no reason to give an external force making a desired deviation pattern to the robot 10 that is moving at a constant speed or is accelerating, and as a result, the safety of a person 9 can be ensured.”).
Regarding Claim 5, modified reference Naitou teaches the method of claim 4, but is silent on wherein generating the indication comprises at least one of: illuminating a lighting unit; playing back a sound; vibrating at least one arm link; or displaying the result on a display screen.
However, Matsudaira teaches wherein generating the indication comprises at least one of: illuminating a lighting unit; playing back a sound; vibrating at least one arm link; or displaying the result on a display screen ([0079] via “In this case, a person 9 gives an external force making a desired deviation pattern to the robot that is at a stop or is decelerating, so that the robot 10 is activated. Therefore, an output unit (not shown) outputting sound and light is preferably provided in order to notify that the robot 10 starts operation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Matsudaira wherein generating the indication comprises at least one of: illuminating a lighting unit; playing back a sound; vibrating at least one arm link; or displaying the result on a display screen. Doing so ensures the safety of the operator by notifying the operator that the robot is activated, and does not need the external force applied to it when the indication is present, as stated by Matsudaira ([0079] via “Therefore, an output unit (not shown) outputting sound and light is preferably provided in order to notify that the robot 10 starts operation. In such case, even if a person 9 gives an external force making a desired deviation pattern when the robot 10 is moving at a constant speed or is accelerating, the operation command is not output. Thus, a person 9 finds no reason to give an external force making a desired deviation pattern to the robot 10 that is moving at a constant speed or is accelerating, and as a result, the safety of a person 9 can be ensured.”).
Regarding Claim 11, modified reference Naitou teaches the robot of claim 8, but is silent on the robot further comprising: a feedback module configured to present an indication of a result of the comparison between the detected pattern and the predetermined pattern.
However, Matsudaira teaches a feedback module configured to present an indication of a result of the comparison between the detected pattern and the predetermined pattern ([0079] via “In this case, a person 9 gives an external force making a desired deviation pattern to the robot that is at a stop or is decelerating, so that the robot 10 is activated. Therefore, an output unit (not shown) outputting sound and light is preferably provided in order to notify that the robot 10 starts operation.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the sound and lighting unit of the output unit providing the outputted sound and light to be the feedback modules (See claim 12 below).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Matsudaira wherein the robot further comprises: a feedback module configured to present an indication of a result of the comparison between the detected pattern and the predetermined pattern. Doing so ensures the safety of the operator by notifying the operator that the robot is activated, and does not need the external force applied to it when the indication is present, as stated by Matsudaira ([0079] via “Therefore, an output unit (not shown) outputting sound and light is preferably provided in order to notify that the robot 10 starts operation. In such case, even if a person 9
gives an external force making a desired deviation pattern when the robot 10 is moving at a constant speed or is accelerating, the operation command is not output. Thus, a person 9
finds no reason to give an external force making a desired deviation pattern to the robot 10
that is moving at a constant speed or is accelerating, and as a result, the safety of a person 9
can be ensured.”).
Regarding Claim 12, modified reference Naitou teaches the robot of claim 11, but is silent on wherein the feedback module comprises at least one of a lighting unit, a speaker, a driver to vibrate at least one arm link, or a display screen.
However, Matsudaira teaches wherein the feedback module comprises at least one of a lighting unit, a speaker, a driver to vibrate at least one arm link, or a display screen ([0079] via “In this case, a person 9 gives an external force making a desired deviation pattern to the robot that is at a stop or is decelerating, so that the robot 10 is activated. Therefore, an output unit (not shown) outputting sound and light is preferably provided in order to notify that the robot 10 starts operation.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the sound and lighting units of the output unit providing the outputted sound and light to be the feedback modules.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Matsudaira wherein the feedback module comprises at least one of a lighting unit, a speaker, a driver to vibrate at least one arm link, or a display screen. Doing so ensures the safety of the operator by notifying the operator that the robot is activated, and does not need the external force applied to it when the indication is present, as stated by Matsudaira ([0079] via “Therefore, an output unit (not shown) outputting sound and light is preferably provided in order to notify that the robot 10
starts operation. In such case, even if a person 9 gives an external force making a desired deviation pattern when the robot 10 is moving at a constant speed or is accelerating, the operation command is not output. Thus, a person 9 finds no reason to give an external force making a desired deviation pattern to the robot 10 that is moving at a constant speed or is accelerating, and as a result, the safety of a person 9 can be ensured.”).
10. Claim(s) 9, 10, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naitou (US 20180065256 A1 hereinafter Naitou) in view of Muneto et al. (US 20210362336 A1 hereinafter Muneto) and Nielsen et al. (US 20210260757 A1 hereinafter Nielsen), and further in view of Sussman et al. (US 20170225331 A1 hereinafter Sussman).
Regarding Claim 9, modified reference Naitou teaches the robot of claim 8, but is silent on the robot further comprising the current sensor coupled to the controller and configured to detect a magnitude of each of the series of external forces applied on the portion during a predetermined time period.
However, Sussman teaches the current sensor coupled to the controller and configured to detect a magnitude of each of the series of external forces applied on the portion during a predetermined time period ([0022] via “Because the power supplied to the actuator 104
determines its maximum potential speed, limiting the power supplied to the actuator 104
creates a speed limit for the actuator 104, and as such, limits the speed of the robotic joint and appendage 102 driven by the actuator 104; this thereby limits the maximum energy imparted by the appendage on contact with an object (or the maximum force applied by the appendage on the object).”), ([0030] via “Under normal operation, the actuator can reach and be stable at an operating power defined by the control unit within a short period of time (e.g., within 1 or 2 seconds). Referring again to FIG. 2, in various embodiments, the actual operating power of the actuator and/or actual force or speed of the robot (or the actuator-associated appendage) is monitored in real time by a feedback system 218, including, for example, an existing voltage or current sensor in the safety controller 206 and/or the robotic control unit 210 (and all components having the appropriate functional safety performance level and responsibility for monitoring power are desirably self-monitoring and redundant). Failure of the actuator's actual operating power (and/or the appendage's force or speed) to reach and/or maintain stability at the defined level within a predetermined time indicates a significant, potentially safety-threating operating anomaly; the same is true if the operating power (and/or the appendage's force or speed) exceeds the defined power level.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sussman wherein the robot further comprises the current sensor coupled to the controller and configured to detect a magnitude of each of the series of external forces applied on the portion during a predetermined time period. Doing so detects whether the magnitude of force applied to the robot exceed a safety threshold, to which the robot can respond to appropriately, as stated by Sussman ([0030] via “Failure of the actuator's actual operating power (and/or the appendage's force or speed) to reach and/or maintain stability at the defined level within a predetermined time indicates a significant, potentially safety-threating operating anomaly; the same is true if the operating power (and/or the appendage's force or speed) exceeds the defined power level. Upon detecting this condition, the safety controller 206 may trigger safety contactors 220 to open and thereby cut power to the robot actuator and/or alert the human worker via, e.g., the user interface 208 or other modality. Alternatively, the robotic control unit 210 may directly shut down the robot via the robotic inherent safety-design mechanism when receiving the error signal.”).
Regarding Claim 10, modified reference Naitou teaches the robot of claim 9, but is silent on wherein the current sensor is configured to provide a value of current applied on a motor.
However, Sussman teaches wherein the current sensor is configured to provide a value of current applied on a motor ([0030] via “Referring again to FIG. 2, in various embodiments, the actual operating power of the actuator and/or actual force or speed of the robot (or the actuator-associated appendage) is monitored in real time by a feedback system 218, including, for example, an existing voltage or current sensor in the safety controller 206
and/or the robotic control unit 210 (and all components having the appropriate functional safety performance level and responsibility for monitoring power are desirably self-monitoring and redundant).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sussman wherein the current sensor is configured to provide a value of current applied on a motor. Doing so detects whether the magnitude of force applied to the robot exceed a safety threshold, to which the robot can respond to appropriately, as stated by Sussman ([0030] via “Failure of the actuator's actual operating power (and/or the appendage's force or speed) to reach and/or maintain stability at the defined level within a predetermined time indicates a significant, potentially safety-threating operating anomaly; the same is true if the operating power (and/or the appendage's force or speed) exceeds the defined power level. Upon detecting this condition, the safety controller 206 may trigger safety contactors 220 to open and thereby cut power to the robot actuator and/or alert the human worker via, e.g., the user interface 208 or other modality. Alternatively, the robotic control unit 210 may directly shut down the robot via the robotic inherent safety-design mechanism when receiving the error signal.”).
Regarding Claim 15, modified reference Naitou teaches the robot of claim 8, but is silent on the robot further comprising the current sensor coupled to the controller and configured to detect a magnitude of each of the series of external forces applied on the portion during a predetermined time period.
However, Sussman teaches the current sensor coupled to the controller and configured to detect a magnitude of each of the series of external forces applied on the portion during a predetermined time period ([0022] via “Because the power supplied to the actuator 104
determines its maximum potential speed, limiting the power supplied to the actuator 104
creates a speed limit for the actuator 104, and as such, limits the speed of the robotic joint and appendage 102 driven by the actuator 104; this thereby limits the maximum energy imparted by the appendage on contact with an object (or the maximum force applied by the appendage on the object).”), ([0030] via “Under normal operation, the actuator can reach and be stable at an operating power defined by the control unit within a short period of time (e.g., within 1 or 2 seconds). Referring again to FIG. 2, in various embodiments, the actual operating power of the actuator and/or actual force or speed of the robot (or the actuator-associated appendage) is monitored in real time by a feedback system 218, including, for example, an existing voltage or current sensor in the safety controller 206 and/or the robotic control unit 210 (and all components having the appropriate functional safety performance level and responsibility for monitoring power are desirably self-monitoring and redundant). Failure of the actuator's actual operating power (and/or the appendage's force or speed) to reach and/or maintain stability at the defined level within a predetermined time indicates a significant, potentially safety-threating operating anomaly; the same is true if the operating power (and/or the appendage's force or speed) exceeds the defined power level.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sussman wherein the robot further comprises the current sensor coupled to the controller and configured to detect a magnitude of each of the series of external forces applied on the portion during a predetermined time period. Doing so detects whether the magnitude of force applied to the robot exceed a safety threshold, to which the robot can respond to appropriately, as stated by Sussman ([0030] via “Failure of the actuator's actual operating power (and/or the appendage's force or speed) to reach and/or maintain stability at the defined level within a predetermined time indicates a significant, potentially safety-threating operating anomaly; the same is true if the operating power (and/or the appendage's force or speed) exceeds the defined power level. Upon detecting this condition, the safety controller 206 may trigger safety contactors 220 to open and thereby cut power to the robot actuator and/or alert the human worker via, e.g., the user interface 208 or other modality. Alternatively, the robotic control unit 210 may directly shut down the robot via the robotic inherent safety-design mechanism when receiving the error signal.”).
Regarding Claim 16, modified reference Naitou teaches the robot of claim 15, but is silent on wherein the current sensor is configured to provide a value of current applied on a motor.
However, Sussman teaches wherein the current sensor is configured to provide a value of current applied on a motor ([0030] via “Referring again to FIG. 2, in various embodiments, the actual operating power of the actuator and/or actual force or speed of the robot (or the actuator-associated appendage) is monitored in real time by a feedback system 218, including, for example, an existing voltage or current sensor in the safety controller 206
and/or the robotic control unit 210 (and all components having the appropriate functional safety performance level and responsibility for monitoring power are desirably self-monitoring and redundant).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sussman wherein the current sensor is configured to provide a value of current applied on a motor. Doing so detects whether the magnitude of force applied to the robot exceed a safety threshold, to which the robot can respond to appropriately, as stated by Sussman ([0030] via “Failure of the actuator's actual operating power (and/or the appendage's force or speed) to reach and/or maintain stability at the defined level within a predetermined time indicates a significant, potentially safety-threating operating anomaly; the same is true if the operating power (and/or the appendage's force or speed) exceeds the defined power level. Upon detecting this condition, the safety controller 206 may trigger safety contactors 220 to open and thereby cut power to the robot actuator and/or alert the human worker via, e.g., the user interface 208 or other modality. Alternatively, the robotic control unit 210 may directly shut down the robot via the robotic inherent safety-design mechanism when receiving the error signal.”).
11. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naitou (US 20180065256 A1 hereinafter Naitou) in view of Muneto et al. (US 20210362336 A1 hereinafter Muneto) and Nielsen et al. (US 20210260757 A1 hereinafter Nielsen), and further in view of Sussman et al. (US 20170225331 A1 hereinafter Sussman) and Matsudaira et al. (US 20170028565 A1 hereinafter Matsudaira).
Regarding Claim 20, modified reference Naitou teaches a robot comprising the controller of claim 18 ([0021] via “The motion of robot 10 can be controlled by a robot controller 26 connected to robot 10.”).
Naitou is silent on the robot further comprising: wherein the current sensor is coupled to the controller and configured to detect a magnitude of each of the series of external forces applied on the portion during a predetermined time period, wherein the current sensor is configured to provide a value of current applied on a motor; and a feedback module configured to present an indication of a result of the comparison between the detected pattern and the predetermined pattern, wherein the feedback module comprises at least one of a lighting unit, a speaker, a driver to vibrate at least one arm link, or a display screen.
However, Sussman teaches wherein the current sensor is coupled to the controller and configured to detect a magnitude of each of the series of external forces applied on the portion during a predetermined time period ([0022] via “Because the power supplied to the actuator 104 determines its maximum potential speed, limiting the power supplied to the actuator 104
creates a speed limit for the actuator 104, and as such, limits the speed of the robotic joint and appendage 102 driven by the actuator 104; this thereby limits the maximum energy imparted by the appendage on contact with an object (or the maximum force applied by the appendage on the object).”), ([0030] via “Under normal operation, the actuator can reach and be stable at an operating power defined by the control unit within a short period of time (e.g., within 1 or 2 seconds). Referring again to FIG. 2, in various embodiments, the actual operating power of the actuator and/or actual force or speed of the robot (or the actuator-associated appendage) is monitored in real time by a feedback system 218, including, for example, an existing voltage or current sensor in the safety controller 206 and/or the robotic control unit 210 (and all components having the appropriate functional safety performance level and responsibility for monitoring power are desirably self-monitoring and redundant). Failure of the actuator's actual operating power (and/or the appendage's force or speed) to reach and/or maintain stability at the defined level within a predetermined time indicates a significant, potentially safety-threating operating anomaly; the same is true if the operating power (and/or the appendage's force or speed) exceeds the defined power level.”),
wherein the current sensor is configured to provide a value of current applied on a motor ([0030] via “Referring again to FIG. 2, in various embodiments, the actual operating power of the actuator and/or actual force or speed of the robot (or the actuator-associated appendage) is monitored in real time by a feedback system 218, including, for example, an existing voltage or current sensor in the safety controller 206 and/or the robotic control unit 210 (and all components having the appropriate functional safety performance level and responsibility for monitoring power are desirably self-monitoring and redundant).”).
Further, Matsudaira teaches a feedback module configured to present an indication of a result of the comparison between the detected pattern and the predetermined pattern, wherein the feedback module comprises at least one of a lighting unit, a speaker, a driver to vibrate at least one arm link, or a display screen ([0079] via “In this case, a person 9 gives an external force making a desired deviation pattern to the robot that is at a stop or is decelerating, so that the robot 10 is activated. Therefore, an output unit (not shown) outputting sound and light is preferably provided in order to notify that the robot 10 starts operation.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the sound and lighting unit of the output unit providing the outputted sound and light to be the feedback modules.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sussman wherein the current sensor is coupled to the controller and configured to detect a magnitude of each of the series of external forces applied on the portion during a predetermined time period, wherein the current sensor is configured to provide a value of current applied on a motor. Doing so detects whether the magnitude of force applied to the robot exceed a safety threshold, to which the robot can respond to appropriately, as stated by Sussman ([0030] via “Failure of the actuator's actual operating power (and/or the appendage's force or speed) to reach and/or maintain stability at the defined level within a predetermined time indicates a significant, potentially safety-threating operating anomaly; the same is true if the operating power (and/or the appendage's force or speed) exceeds the defined power level. Upon detecting this condition, the safety controller 206 may trigger safety contactors 220 to open and thereby cut power to the robot actuator and/or alert the human worker via, e.g., the user interface 208 or other modality. Alternatively, the robotic control unit 210 may directly shut down the robot via the robotic inherent safety-design mechanism when receiving the error signal.”).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Matsudaira wherein the robot further comprises: a feedback module configured to present an indication of a result of the comparison between the detected pattern and the predetermined pattern, wherein the feedback module comprises at least one of a lighting unit, a speaker, a driver to vibrate at least one arm link, or a display screen. Doing so ensures the safety of the operator by notifying the operator that the robot is activated, and does not need the external force applied to it when the indication is present, as stated by Matsudaira ([0079] via “Therefore, an output unit (not shown) outputting sound and light is preferably provided in order to notify that the robot 10 starts operation. In such case, even if a person 9 gives an external force making a desired deviation pattern when the robot 10 is moving at a constant speed or is accelerating, the operation command is not output. Thus, a person 9 finds no reason to give an external force making a desired deviation pattern to the robot 10 that is moving at a constant speed or is accelerating, and as a result, the safety of a person 9 can be ensured.”).
Examiner’s Note
12. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the
references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references
in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the
context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP
2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole,
including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Conclusion
13. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to BYRON X KASPER whose telephone number is (571)272-3895.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/BYRON XAVIER KASPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657