DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This final office action is in response to the Amendments filed on 12 January 2026, regarding application number 17/758,872.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-2 were amended in the Amendments to the Claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 3-4, filed 12 January 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, have been fully considered but are not persuasive for at least the reasons discussed in the previous office action and below. However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, a new ground(s) of rejection is made further in view of Nagai et al. (US 20150045953 A1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (US 6192298 B1 and Nishikawa hereinafter), in view of Nagai et al. (US 20150045953 A1 and Nagai hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1
Nishikawa teaches a processing tool mastering method (see all Figs., especially Fig. 2; Col. 2, lines 26-63) for performing mastering of a processing tool (see Figs. 1-2, tool 7; Col. 2, lines 26-30, Col. 4, lines 13-24) that is attached to an arm distal end part of an articulated robot (see "robot main body" and "robot arm" in Fig. 1 and Col. 4, lines 4-13), includes at least one driving unit configured to drive one or more driving axes of the processing tool (see Fig. 1, joints 5-6; Col. 3, lines 38-48, "Alternatively, the robot system may employ servo-controlled positioning of the joints, and a measure of an actual joint position is obtained from a transducer such as an optical shaft encoder, and is compared with a position specified for the joint."; Col. 4, lines 4-24; "The robot main body includes six joints 1 through 6 for providing six degrees of freedom of movement of the robot arm to effectively transmit power of the joints through articulations of the arm in all positions, which the mechanical arrangement enables the working tool to approach a work object from any orientation ... In this embodiment, the longitudinal center axis of the vertical portion 7 c is referred to as “tool longitudinal axis” hereinafter, which is designated by a one-dotted line m."; The servo(s) in either of or both of joints 5-6 can correspond to the claimed "at least one driving unit configured to drive one or more driving axes of the processing tool" as the claims don't require the driving unit to be directly coupled to processing tool.), and is configured to perform a predetermined process on a processing target (see Col. 3, lines 28-37, "...enable a gripper or working tool to approach an object from any orientation"; Col. 4, lines 7-12), the articulated robot including at least one driving unit configured to drive one or more driving axes of the articulated robot (see Fig. 1, joints 1-4; Col. 3, lines 38-48, "Alternatively, the robot system may employ servo-controlled positioning of the joints, and a measure of an actual joint position is obtained from a transducer such as an optical shaft encoder, and is compared with a position specified for the joint."; Col. 4, lines 4-12; "The robot main body includes six joints 1 through 6 for providing six degrees of freedom of movement of the robot arm to effectively transmit power of the joints through articulations of the arm in all positions, which the mechanical arrangement enables the working tool to approach a work object from any orientation.". The servo(s) in any single one of or combination of joints 1-4 can correspond to the claimed "at least one driving unit configured to drive one or more driving axes of the articulated robot".), the processing tool mastering method comprising:
controlling the at least one driving unit of the robot and the at least one driving unit of the processing tool such that a reference direction of the processing tool coincides with a reference direction of the robot (see Figure 1, tool longitudinal axis m and joint 5; Fig. 2, Y axis of the robot coordinate basis and/or Z axis of the robot coordinate basis; Col. 4, lines 49-54, "...a robot coordinate system (X, Y and Z axes coordinate basis)"; Col. 4, line 66 - Col. 5, line 2, "Initially, in step S1 of the flow chart shown in FIG. 4, the drive of the robot arm is so controlled for the posture of the working tool 7 to have its tool longitudinal axis m being parallel to Z axis of the robot coordinate basis."; Col. 5, lines 14-15, "...where the movement direction Y1 is parallel to Y axis of the robot coordinate..."; Either the Y axis and/or the Z axis of the robot coordinate basis could correspond to the claimed reference direction of the robot. The at least one driving unit of the processing tool is inherently controlled so the longitudinal axis m is parallel to the Z axis. For example, the symbol of joint 5 in Figure 1 indicates that a rotation of joint 5 would result in a rotation of longitudinal axis m of tool 7 being parallel to the Z axis because longitudinal axis m is parallel to the robot link from joint 5 to joint 6. For example, the longitudinal axis m would rotate from the inclined axis designated by line m' to a vertical axis parallel to the Z axis by rotating joint 5. See also Figure 5 of a visual representations of how the joints rotate.); and
obtaining, reference direction information about the reference direction of the robot by moving the robot by way of controlling the at least one driving unit of the robot such that a processing position of the processing tool makes movement in a predetermined direction while controlling the at least one driving unit of the processing tool such that a posture of the processing tool is maintained (see Fig. 1, joints 2-3; Fig. 2, all, especially Y1-Y3; Fig. 4, steps S2-S9; Col. 5, lines 9-55, especially "Next, in step S2, the tip portion 7 a of the working tool 7 is moved from the first position Q1 toward the contact face 21 a of the contact detection plate 21 to be brought into contact therewith in a direction shown by an arrow Y1, maintaining the same posture of the working tool 7 as that in the step S1, where the movement direction Y1 is parallel to Y axis of the robot coordinate and is generally perpendicular to the contact face 21 a and the process of step S2 is referred to as “first sensing operation”."; Col. 6, lines 42-49, "By executing the first to third sensing operations of the tip position detecting processing flow, the factors h1, h2 and θ1, θ2 are known values. Therefore, by introducing these values h1, h2 and θ1, θ2 into equations (4) and (5), the factors L and θ are obtained."; the claimed "reference direction information about the reference direction of the robot" could be any of or the combination of θ, θ1 and θ2 and is not limited to these variables. The at least one driving unit of the robot and tool are inherently controlled so that the tip portion moves along the Y axis in Y1, Y2 and Y3 directions. For example, the symbols of joints 2-3 in Figure 1 indicate that a rotation of joints 2 and/or 3 would result in a movement of a tip portion along the Y axis to contact the plate 21. Nishikawa additionally states that the posture of the working tool 7 is maintained, which can be accomplished via movement of joint 5 as discussed above. See also Figure 5 of a visual representations of how the joints rotate.), so that the mastering of the processing tool is performed based on the obtained reference direction information (see Col. 5, lines 51-61; Col. 6, lines 42-49, "Therefore, by introducing these values h1, h2 and θ1, θ2 into equations (4) and (5), the factors L and θ are obtained. The obtained values L and θ are stored in the storage portion 81 of the system controller 8 for use as the correcting amount in the tool coordinate basis in step S10 of the processing flow shown in FIG. 4.").
Nishikawa teaches each and every claim element as discussed above. For the sake of compact prosecution and for the possible argument that "Nishikawa is silent regarding a distinct at least one driving unit configured to drive one or more driving axes of the processing tool and at least one driving unit configured to drive one or more driving axes of the articulated robot", Nagai teaches the claim features.
That is, Nagai teaches a processing tool mastering method (see all Figs.; [0006]) for performing mastering of a processing tool (see Figs. 1-2, probe 6; [0030]-[0031] and [0079 "When the controller 10 determines that the distal end portion 61 of the probe 6 is in contact state for all the X, Y, and Z directions (S28: YES), the controller 10 ends the contact control and proceeds to the above-described calibration processing."]-[0080]) that is attached to an arm distal end part of an articulated robot (see Figs. 1-2, probe 6 and "distal end"; [0030 "A rod-shaped probe 6 is disposed on the distal end of the arm 21 of the robot 2."]), includes at least one driving unit configured to drive one or more driving axes of the processing tool (see Figs. 1-2, servomotors 51-57, especially 56-57 and joints 31-36, especially 36-37; [0029 "The robot 2 includes a plurality of servomotors 51 to 57 to drive the joints 31 to 37 into rotation. The servomotors 51 to 57 drive the joints 31 to 37 into rotation in response to a command from the controller 10."] and [0070 "In this embodiment, the controller 10 drives the servomotors 51 to 57 to move the probe 6 while maintaining its posture."]-[0072 "Hence, there are a plurality of combinations of the rotation angles of the servomotors 51 to 57 that can implement the target position and the target posture. From among the plurality of combinations of the rotation angles of the servomotors 51 to 57, the controller 10 selects an optimum combination based on an inverse kinetics algorithm to which a limitation condition to maintain the target posture of the probe 6 is added."]), and is configured to perform a predetermined process on a processing target (see [0031 "The holes 8 a and the probe 6 are fittable with each other … When the probe 6 is fitted with the hole 8 a, the probe 6 has its posture accord with the shape of the hole 8 a to enable the probe 6 to contact the inner surface of the hole 8 a."]), the articulated robot including at least one driving unit configured to drive one or more driving axes of the articulated robot (see Figs. 1-2, servomotors 51-57, especially 51-55 and joints 31-37, especially 31-35; [0029 "The robot 2 includes a plurality of servomotors 51 to 57 to drive the joints 31 to 37 into rotation. The servomotors 51 to 57 drive the joints 31 to 37 into rotation in response to a command from the controller 10."] and [0072 "In this embodiment, the controller 10 drives the servomotors 51 to 57 to move the probe 6 while maintaining its posture."]-[0075 "At steps S23, S24, and S25, the controller 10 sets a target value of the amount of displacement of the probe 6 in the selected direction, determines rotation angles of the servomotors 51 to 57 to implement the set target value of the displacement amount, and drives the servomotors 51 to 57. At this stage as well, from among the plurality of combinations of the rotation angles of the servomotors 51 to 57, the controller 10 selects an optimum combination based on an inverse kinetics algorithm to which a limitation condition to maintain the target posture of the probe 6 is added. Thus, the probe 6 is displaced in the selected direction in the maintained posture."]), the processing tool mastering method comprising:
controlling the at least one driving unit of the robot and the at least one driving unit of the processing tool such that a reference direction of the processing tool coincides with a reference direction of the robot (see [0070 "In this embodiment, the controller 10 drives the servomotors 51 to 57 to move the probe 6 while maintaining its posture. Specifically, the controller 10 determines the target position of the probe 6 so as to bring the probe 6 into proximity to the jig 83 of the work stand 8. At the same time, while maintaining the target posture of the probe 6, the controller 10 calculates the rotation angles of the servomotors 51 to 57 to implement the target position and the target posture. For example, in this embodiment, the controller 10 maintains the posture of the probe 6 to keep the extending direction of the probe 6 along the Z direction."]-[0072 "At the same time, while maintaining the target posture of the probe 6, the controller 10 determines the rotation angles of the servomotors 51 to 57 to implement the target position and the target posture. Incidentally, the arm 21 of the robot 2 has seven degrees of freedom. Among the seven degrees of freedom, three degrees of rotational freedom are used to maintain the posture of the probe 6, and the rest of the degrees of freedom include one redundant degree of freedom in addition to three degrees of translational freedom. Hence, there are a plurality of combinations of the rotation angles of the servomotors 51 to 57 that can implement the target position and the target posture.]); and
obtaining, reference direction information about the reference direction of the robot by moving the robot by way of controlling the at least one driving unit of the robot such that a processing position of the processing tool makes movement in a predetermined direction while controlling the at least one driving unit of the processing tool such that a posture of the processing tool is maintained (see [0070 "In this embodiment, the controller 10 drives the servomotors 51 to 57 to move the probe 6 while maintaining its posture. Specifically, the controller 10 determines the target position of the probe 6 so as to bring the probe 6 into proximity to the jig 83 of the work stand 8. At the same time, while maintaining the target posture of the probe 6, the controller 10 calculates the rotation angles of the servomotors 51 to 57 to implement the target position and the target posture. For example, in this embodiment, the controller 10 maintains the posture of the probe 6 to keep the extending direction of the probe 6 along the Z direction."]-[0072], [0075 "At steps S23, S24, and S25, the controller 10 sets a target value of the amount of displacement of the probe 6 in the selected direction, determines rotation angles of the servomotors 51 to 57 to implement the set target value of the displacement amount, and drives the servomotors 51 to 57. At this stage as well, from among the plurality of combinations of the rotation angles of the servomotors 51 to 57, the controller 10 selects an optimum combination based on an inverse kinetics algorithm to which a limitation condition to maintain the target posture of the probe 6 is added. Thus, the probe 6 is displaced in the selected direction in the maintained posture."] and [0079]-[0080]), so that the mastering of the processing tool is performed based on the obtained reference direction information (see [0079 "When the controller 10 determines that the distal end portion 61 of the probe 6 is in contact state for all the X, Y, and Z directions (S28: YES), the controller 10 ends the contact control and proceeds to the above-described calibration processing."]-[0080 "In the calibration processing, for all the X, Y, and Z directions, the controller 10 acquires the rotation angles of the servomotors 51 to 57 at the time when the distal end portion 61 of the probe 6 is in contact state. Then, the controller 10 calculates a position coordinate of the distal end portion 61 of the probe 6, and calculates a position correction amount based on the difference between the calculated position coordinate of the distal end portion 61 of the probe 6 and the position coordinate of the jig 83 stored in advance."]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Nishikawa to further include distinct driving units configured to drive one or more driving axes of the processing tool and driving units configured to drive one or more driving axes of the articulated robot, as taught by Nagai, in order to move the articulated robot according to an optimum inverse kinetic algorithm while maintaining a target posture of the processing tool.
Regarding Claim 2
Nishikawa teaches the processing tool mastering method according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein the reference direction of the processing tool is obtained by controlling the at least one driving unit of the processing tool to move the processing position of the processing tool to a location before the movement in the predetermined direction while controlling the at least one driving unit of the robot such that a position and a posture of the robot are maintained (see Col. 4, line 66 - Col. 5, line 2, "Initially, in step S1 of the flow chart shown in FIG. 4, the drive of the robot arm is so controlled for the posture of the working tool 7 to have its tool longitudinal axis m being parallel to Z axis of the robot coordinate basis. At this stage, an actual tip position of the tip portion 7 a of the working tool 7 is designated by point Q1 in FIG. 2..."; Col. 5, lines 9-17, "Next, in step S2, the tip portion 7 a of the working tool 7 is moved from the first position Q1 toward the contact face 21 a of the contact detection plate 21 to be brought into contact therewith in a direction shown by an arrow Y1, maintaining the same posture of the working tool 7 as that in the step S1, where the movement direction Y1 is parallel to Y axis of the robot coordinate and is generally perpendicular to the contact face 21 a and the process of step S2 is referred to as “first sensing operation”."; See the rational above with respect to claim 1 where the servo of joint 5 can correspond to the claimed "at least one driving unit of the processing tool" and the servo(s) of joint 2 and/or 3 can correspond to the claimed "at least one driving unit of the robot".).
Nishikawa teaches each and every claim element as discussed above. For the sake of compact prosecution and for the possible argument that "Nishikawa is silent regarding a distinct at least one driving unit configured to drive one or more driving axes of the processing tool and at least one driving unit configured to drive one or more driving axes of the articulated robot", Nagai teaches the claim features.
That is, Nagai teaches wherein the reference direction of the processing tool is obtained by controlling the at least one driving unit of the processing tool to move the processing position of the processing tool to a location before the movement in the predetermined direction while controlling the at least one driving unit of the robot such that a position and a posture of the robot are maintained (see Fig. 13, step S21; [0070 "In this embodiment, the controller 10 drives the servomotors 51 to 57 to move the probe 6 while maintaining its posture. Specifically, the controller 10 determines the target position of the probe 6 so as to bring the probe 6 into proximity to the jig 83 of the work stand 8. At the same time, while maintaining the target posture of the probe 6, the controller 10 calculates the rotation angles of the servomotors 51 to 57 to implement the target position and the target posture. For example, in this embodiment, the controller 10 maintains the posture of the probe 6 to keep the extending direction of the probe 6 along the Z direction."']-[0071 "At step S21, the controller 10 moves the probe 6 to its initial position. For example, the controller 10 moves the probe 6 toward a position coordinate of the jig 83 stored in advance to bring the probe 6 into proximity to the jig 83. Here, assume that the distal end portion 61 of the probe 6 is on the side of the recessed portion 8 b of the jig 83 at the time when the probe 6 is moved to its initial position."] and [0072]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Nishikawa to further include distinct driving units configured to drive one or more driving axes of the processing tool and driving units configured to drive one or more driving axes of the articulated robot, as taught by Nagai, in order to move the articulated robot according to an optimum inverse kinetic algorithm while maintaining a target posture of the processing tool.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANNER LUKE CULLEN whose telephone number is (303)297-4384. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 MT.
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 at (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.
/TANNER L CULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656