DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed 7/16/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 5 are amended. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-8 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, with respect to the cited prior art not teaching the amended features have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shimodaira (US 20160354925 A1), Agarwal (US 20170068647 A1), Tsusaka (US 20110190932 A1), Drexler (US 20190129425 A1), Gombert (US 20170160721 A1), and Motohashi (US 20200306865 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimodaira (US 20160354925 A1) in view of Agarwal (US 20170068647 A1), Tsusaka (US 20110190932 A1), Drexler (US 20190129425 A1), Gombert (US 20170160721 A1), and Motohashi (US 20200306865 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Shimodaira teaches
A program creation apparatus (“The control apparatus 3a and the teaching terminal 4a are a configuration example of a robot control apparatus according to the invention.” See at least [0074])
comprising: an input interface configured to receive an input from a user; a display configured to display information; (“The teaching terminal 4a may display the monitor window displayed by the display control unit 41 and the teaching window for receiving input operation of commands by the teaching unit 42 on a single screen of the display 43. … the display control unit 41 displays the motion position, the target position, etc.” See at least [0107-0108])
a memory configured to store a program; and a processor configured to execute a program so as to: (“FIG. 15 is a block diagram of the robot system. A control program for control of the robot 1c is installed in the control apparatus 3c. The control apparatus 3c has a computer including a processor, a RAM, and a ROM. The computer executes the control program recorded in a recording medium such as the ROM” See at least [0198])
receive the input via the input interface, the input containing a plurality of operation groups; create a work sequence executed by a robot, based on the received input, the work sequence having a specific operation order of the plurality of operation groups; (“the control apparatus 3a stores a target position S.sub.t and a target force f.sub.St as a command with respect to each step of work performed by the robot 1a. The command that determines the target position S.sub.t and the target force f.sub.St is set by teaching with respect to each step of the work performed by the robot 1a.” See at least [0086]; Also see at least [0116-0119] for receiving teacher input step ID or the start time and the end time of each step of work in display section setting boxes.)
select a plurality of execution modes corresponding to a force control mode, (“FIG. 7 shows examples of motion control commands (main bodies) executed in the control apparatus. As shown in FIG. 7, the motion control command includes a force control-associated command that enables operation of the arm A in the force control mode and a position control command that does not enable operation of the arm A in the force control mode. In the force control-associated command, ON of the force control mode may be specified by an argument. When ON of the force control mode is not specified by the argument, the force control-associated command is executed in the position control mode, and when ON of the force control mode is specified by the argument, the force control-associated command is executed in the force control mode.” See at least [0159-0160]; Also see at least fig. 12 and corresponding description [0184-0187] for the plurality of commands.)
create a single robot motion program based on the work sequence, the selected plurality of execution modes, and the set plurality of commands; (“The teaching unit 42 generates a command with respect to each step, and defines a series of work by the robot 1a, i.e., a series of motion of the manipulator by the plurality of commands.” See at least [0103]; “ON of the force control mode may be specified by the argument of the command, however, ON of the force control mode may be specified by the main body of the command.” See at least [0248])
display the work sequence and the selected plurality of execution modes of the single robot motion program into a first window of the display; (“FIG. 11B shows a configuration example of a window in which the argument object of “Force Control Object” class is set. … ON (True) and OFF (False) of the force control are set in the items of “Effective” with respect to each axis of the coordinate system of “Force Coordinate 4” (FCS4) set in the window of FIG. 11A.” See at least [0181])
display the set plurality of commands of the single robot motion program into a second window of the display, the second window being different from the first window; (“The step monitor 121 is an area in which a correspondence relationship between the lapse time and the step is displayed. The lateral axis of the step monitor 121 indicates time (second) and the longitudinal axis indicates the step ID. The details of work identified by the step IDs are displayed on the step chart 125.” See at least [0115] and fig. 3)
and perform an operation of the robot according to the single robot motion program, (“the drive control unit 31c may control the arm A based on the target position S.sub.t and the target force f.sub.St.” See at least [0211])
wherein one mode of the selected plurality of execution modes has a first parameter, when a value of the first parameter is changed, the one mode is changed according to the changed value (“the display control unit 41 may display moving directions (directions of change of the target position and the motion position) of TCP on the trajectories of the target position and the motion position as shown in FIG. 4A. … the target position and the motion position are comparably displayed on the screen, and the teacher may set parameters (the target position and the target force) of the command while verifying the target position and the motion position in the force control mode.” See at least [0127-0128]; “FIG. 12 shows practical examples of program codes using the force control-associated command with comparative examples. The practical examples shown in FIG. 12 are program codes in which an argument object “FC1” is defined by six setting commands “Fset”, then, the force control-associated command “Move” is executed, and then, “Fz_Target Force” as one of variables of “FC1” object is changed by the setting command “Fset”.” See at least [0184]; Also see the force and position commands described in at least [0186]; Examiner Interpretation: Changing/setting a position and/or force changes the mode by affecting the position/force operation of the robot in the particular operating mode.)
Shimodaira does not specifically teach when a value of the first parameter is changed, the one mode is changed according to the changed value and the other modes of the selected plurality of execution modes are also changed to respectively synchronize with the change of the one mode within the single robot motion program,
However, Shimodaira teaches that the robot is taught an execution program of a trajectory with changes of positions (parameters) of the TCP (See at least [0127-0128] and [0156]) and the robot implements different control modes when executing the program (See at least [0157-0160]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to also change the other modes to synchronize such that at least the same desirable/taught parameter is achieved if the robot were to operate in the other execution modes. That is, it would be obvious to have certain parameters such as positional parameters that carry over to the other control modes, even if the mode is not in operation, to facilitate accurately executing the desired trajectory/motion no matter which control mode is selected.
Though, Shimodaira teaches enabling and disabling one of the selected plurality of execution modes with program commands, Shimodaira does not explicitly teach commenting out the command that enables a particular execution mode. Therefore, Shimodaira does not explicitly teach
when the special command is in a commented out state relating to one of the set plurality of commands in the single robot motion program, the corresponding one of the selected plurality of execution modes is disabled, and when the special command is in an uncommented state relating to one of the set plurality of commands in the single robot motion program, the corresponding one of the selected plurality of execution modes is enabled.
However, Agarwal teaches
“commenting out, i.e., temporarily disabling, unused or questionable sections of a document for debugging purposes. The ability to comment out can be helpful as it can allow authors of a complex document to arbitrarily suspend the activation of portions of that document without removing them and losing their content.” See at least [0018]
Even though Agarwal is not in the field of robotics, it is in the field of endeavor of programming/coding. The combination of prior art would implement “commenting out” for the plurality of commands including Shimodaira’s control mode ON command(s) to effectively disable the control mode(s) and leave the command in an uncommented state when the control mode is to remain enabled. 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 teachings of Shimodaira to further include the teachings of Agarwal to implement the “commenting out” because it is a well-known conventional programming technique which improves programming and debugging by allowing authors to readily identify and selectively activate and deactivate portions of a program without removing them and losing their content. (See at least [0009] and [0018])
Agarwal also does not explicitly teach, but Tsusaka teaches
a coordinate system check mode. (“Based on an operation correction instruction from the operation correction unit 20, the control parameter managing unit 21 sets the following: changeover among an impedance control mode, a hybrid impedance control mode, a force control mode, a force hybrid impedance control mode, and a high-rigidity position control mode.” See at least [0241]; “Specifically, the position error compensation output u.sub.re is calculated by the following equation: u re = K P r e + K f .intg. 0 t r e t ' + K D r e t ##EQU00002## … the components of the hand position vector r.sub.e=[x, y, z, .phi., .theta., .psi.].sup.T. … when the high-rigidity position control mode is set.” See at least [0272-0273], wherein the position control mode involves obtaining position/posture error in the terms of the coordinate values in the hand position vector, which is equivalent to checking a coordinate system.)
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 teachings of Shimodaira and Agarwal to further include the teachings of Tsusaka with a reasonable expectation to facilitate error compensation for the target coordinate position. (See at least [0275-0277])
Tsusaka also does not explicitly teach, but Drexler teaches
a low-speed execution mode, (“the safe mode may limit the maximum speed of the robotic equipment to a maximum speed that is below the maximum speed of the robot equipment when it is operating in the normal-travel mode.” See at least [0061], wherein the safe mode is the low-speed execution mode.)
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 teachings of Shimodaira, Agarwal, and Tsusaka to further include the teachings of Drexler with a reasonable expectation of success because a low-speed execution mode is a well-known execution mode to improve safety in the presence of humans. (see at least [0003-0005])
Drexler also does not explicitly teach, but Gombert teaches
a sequential execution mode, (“two different modes of movement of the robot 1 can be realised, on the one hand a stepwise movement from one snap point to the next, on the other hand a continuous movement which is not influenced by the snap points as long as the actuation of the control element 13 or 13′ is strong enough.” See at least [0068], wherein stepwise movement is the sequential execution mode.; “It can be the case that the robot stops briefly after each step S5. This makes it possible for a user to recognise the individual movement steps and if necessary count these off. The control element 13 which can be moved together with the robot 1 is particularly suitable for controlling such a stepwise movement.” See at least [0057])
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 teachings of Shimodaira, Agarwal, Tsusaka, and Drexler to further include the teachings of Gombert with a reasonable expectation of success because a sequential execution mode is a well-known execution mode that facilitates “simple and precise actuation of the robot, in particular exact positioning at a particular point as well as the guidance of the robot on or along a movement path.” (See at least [0004])
Gombert also does not explicitly teach, but Motohashi teaches
a low torque mode, (“The torque limiting unit 47 configures so that the output torque of the torque limiting axis does not become larger, by setting an upper limit value for the output torque of the torque limiting axis. … the torque limiting mode which limits the torque of the torque limiting axis.” See at least [0064-0065], wherein the torque limiting mode is the low torque mode.)
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 teachings of Shimodaira, Agarwal, Tsusaka, Drexler, and Gombert to further include the teachings of Motohashi with a reasonable expectation of success because a low torque execution mode is a well-known execution mode that prevents damage to the robot and the processing target. (See at least [0064])
Regarding Claim 5,
Shimodaira teaches
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a process by a processor so as to perform the steps of: (“FIG. 15 is a block diagram of the robot system. A control program for control of the robot 1c is installed in the control apparatus 3c. The control apparatus 3c has a computer including a processor, a RAM, and a ROM. The computer executes the control program recorded in a recording medium such as the ROM” See at least [0198])
receiving an input via an input interface, the input containing a plurality of operation groups; creating a work sequence executed by a robot based on the received input, the work sequence having a specific operation order of the plurality of operation groups; (“the control apparatus 3a stores a target position S.sub.t and a target force f.sub.St as a command with respect to each step of work performed by the robot 1a. The command that determines the target position S.sub.t and the target force f.sub.St is set by teaching with respect to each step of the work performed by the robot 1a.” See at least [0086]; Also see at least [0116-0119] for receiving teacher input step ID or the start time and the end time of each step of work in display section setting boxes.)
selecting a plurality of execution modes corresponding to a force control mode, (“As shown in FIG. 7, the motion control command includes a force control-associated command that enables operation of the arm A in the force control mode and a position control command that does not enable operation of the arm A in the force control mode. In the force control-associated command, ON of the force control mode may be specified by an argument. When ON of the force control mode is not specified by the argument, the force control-associated command is executed in the position control mode, and when ON of the force control mode is specified by the argument, the force control-associated command is executed in the force control mode.” See at least [0159-0160]; Also see at least fig. 12 and corresponding description [0184-0187] for the plurality of commands.)
creating a single robot motion program based on the work sequence, the selected plurality of execution modes, and the set plurality of commands; (“The teaching unit 42 generates a command with respect to each step, and defines a series of work by the robot 1a, i.e., a series of motion of the manipulator by the plurality of commands.” See at least [0103]; “ON of the force control mode may be specified by the argument of the command, however, ON of the force control mode may be specified by the main body of the command.” See at least [0248])
displaying the work sequence and the selected plurality of execution modes of the single robot motion program into a first window of a display; (“FIG. 11B shows a configuration example of a window in which the argument object of “Force Control Object” class is set. … ON (True) and OFF (False) of the force control are set in the items of “Effective” with respect to each axis of the coordinate system of “Force Coordinate 4” (FCS4) set in the window of FIG. 11A.” See at least [0181])
displaying the set plurality of commands of the single robot motion program into a second window of the display, the second window being different from the first window; (“The step monitor 121 is an area in which a correspondence relationship between the lapse time and the step is displayed. The lateral axis of the step monitor 121 indicates time (second) and the longitudinal axis indicates the step ID. The details of work identified by the step IDs are displayed on the step chart 125.” See at least [0115] and fig. 3)
and performing an operation of the robot according to the single robot motion program, (“the drive control unit 31c may control the arm A based on the target position S.sub.t and the target force f.sub.St.” See at least [0211])
wherein one mode of the selected plurality of execution modes has a first parameter, when a value of the first parameter is changed, the one mode is changed according to the changed value (“the display control unit 41 may display moving directions (directions of change of the target position and the motion position) of TCP on the trajectories of the target position and the motion position as shown in FIG. 4A. … the target position and the motion position are comparably displayed on the screen, and the teacher may set parameters (the target position and the target force) of the command while verifying the target position and the motion position in the force control mode.” See at least [0127-0128]; “FIG. 12 shows practical examples of program codes using the force control-associated command with comparative examples. The practical examples shown in FIG. 12 are program codes in which an argument object “FC1” is defined by six setting commands “Fset”, then, the force control-associated command “Move” is executed, and then, “Fz_Target Force” as one of variables of “FC1” object is changed by the setting command “Fset”.” See at least [0184]; Also see the force and position commands described in at least [0186]; Examiner Interpretation: Changing/setting a position and/or force changes the mode by affecting the position/force operation of the robot in the particular operating mode.)
Shimodaira does not specifically teach when a value of the first parameter is changed, the one mode is changed according to the changed value and the other modes of the selected plurality of execution modes are also changed to respectively synchronize with the change of the one mode within the single robot motion program,
However, Shimodaira teaches that the robot is taught an execution program of a trajectory with changes of positions (parameters) of the TCP (See at least [0127-0128] and [0156]) and the robot implements different control modes when executing the program (See at least [0157-0160]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to also change the other modes to synchronize such that at least the same desirable/taught parameter is achieved if the robot were to operate in the other execution modes. That is, it would be obvious to have certain parameters such as positional parameters that carry over to the other control modes, even if the mode is not in operation, to facilitate accurately executing the desired trajectory/motion no matter which control mode is selected.
Though, Shimodaira teaches enabling and disabling one of the selected plurality of execution modes with program commands, Shimodaira does not explicitly teach commenting out the command that enables a particular execution mode. Therefore, Shimodaira does not explicitly teach
when the special command is in a commented out state relating to one of the set plurality of commands in the single robot motion program, the corresponding one of the selected plurality of execution modes is disabled, and when the special command is in an uncommented state relating to one of the set plurality of commands in the single robot motion program, the corresponding one of the selected plurality of execution modes is enabled.
However, Agarwal teaches
“commenting out, i.e., temporarily disabling, unused or questionable sections of a document for debugging purposes. The ability to comment out can be helpful as it can allow authors of a complex document to arbitrarily suspend the activation of portions of that document without removing them and losing their content.” See at least [0018]
Even though Agarwal is not in the field of robotics, it is in the field of endeavor of programming/coding. The combination of prior art would implement “commenting out” for the plurality of commands including Shimodaira’s control mode ON command(s) to effectively disable the control mode(s) and leave the command in an uncommented state when the control mode is to remain enabled. 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 teachings of Shimodaira to further include the teachings of Agarwal to implement the “commenting out” because it is a well-known conventional programming technique which improves programming and debugging by allowing authors to readily identify and selectively activate and deactivate portions of a program without removing them and losing their content. (See at least [0009] and [0018])
Agarwal also does not explicitly teach, but Tsusaka teaches
a coordinate system check mode. (“Based on an operation correction instruction from the operation correction unit 20, the control parameter managing unit 21 sets the following: changeover among an impedance control mode, a hybrid impedance control mode, a force control mode, a force hybrid impedance control mode, and a high-rigidity position control mode.” See at least [0241]; “Specifically, the position error compensation output u.sub.re is calculated by the following equation: u re = K P r e + K f .intg. 0 t r e t ' + K D r e t ##EQU00002## … the components of the hand position vector r.sub.e=[x, y, z, .phi., .theta., .psi.].sup.T. … when the high-rigidity position control mode is set.” See at least [0272-0273], wherein the position control mode involves obtaining position/posture error in the terms of the coordinate values in the hand position vector, which is equivalent to checking a coordinate system.)
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 teachings of Shimodaira and Agarwal to further include the teachings of Tsusaka with a reasonable expectation to facilitate error compensation for the target coordinate position. (See at least [0275-0277])
Tsusaka also does not explicitly teach, but Drexler teaches
a low-speed execution mode, (“the safe mode may limit the maximum speed of the robotic equipment to a maximum speed that is below the maximum speed of the robot equipment when it is operating in the normal-travel mode.” See at least [0061], wherein the safe mode is the low-speed execution mode.)
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 teachings of Shimodaira, Agarwal, and Tsusaka to further include the teachings of Drexler with a reasonable expectation of success because a low-speed execution mode is a well-known execution mode to improve safety in the presence of humans. (see at least [0003-0005])
Drexler also does not explicitly teach, but Gombert teaches
a sequential execution mode, (“two different modes of movement of the robot 1 can be realised, on the one hand a stepwise movement from one snap point to the next, on the other hand a continuous movement which is not influenced by the snap points as long as the actuation of the control element 13 or 13′ is strong enough.” See at least [0068], wherein stepwise movement is the sequential execution mode.; “It can be the case that the robot stops briefly after each step S5. This makes it possible for a user to recognise the individual movement steps and if necessary count these off. The control element 13 which can be moved together with the robot 1 is particularly suitable for controlling such a stepwise movement.” See at least [0057])
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 teachings of Shimodaira, Agarwal, Tsusaka, and Drexler to further include the teachings of Gombert with a reasonable expectation of success because a sequential execution mode is a well-known execution mode that facilitates “simple and precise actuation of the robot, in particular exact positioning at a particular point as well as the guidance of the robot on or along a movement path.” (See at least [0004])
Gombert also does not explicitly teach, but Motohashi teaches
a low torque mode, (“The torque limiting unit 47 configures so that the output torque of the torque limiting axis does not become larger, by setting an upper limit value for the output torque of the torque limiting axis. … the torque limiting mode which limits the torque of the torque limiting axis.” See at least [0064-0065], wherein the torque limiting mode is the low torque mode.)
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 teachings of Shimodaira, Agarwal, Tsusaka, Drexler, and Gombert to further include the teachings of Motohashi with a reasonable expectation of success because a low torque execution mode is a well-known execution mode that prevents damage to the robot and the processing target. (See at least [0064])
Regarding Claims 2 and 7,
Shimodaira further teaches
wherein the force control mode is to control driving of the robot based on a received force, (“As shown in FIG. 7, the motion control command includes a force control-associated command that enables operation of the arm A in the force control mode and a position control command that does not enable operation of the arm A in the force control mode.” See at least [0159]; “Here, the target force may be designated as an argument of the force control-associated command.” See at least [0168])
Shimodaira does not explicitly teach, but Tsusaka teaches
the coordinate system check mode is to inquiry whether or not a coordinate system used for control of the robot is right. (“Specifically, the position error compensation output u.sub.re is calculated by the following equation: u re = K P r e + K f .intg. 0 t r e t ' + K D r e t ##EQU00002## … the components of the hand position vector r.sub.e=[x, y, z, .phi., .theta., .psi.].sup.T. … when the high-rigidity position control mode is set.” See at least [0272-0273], wherein the position control mode involves obtaining position/posture error in the terms of the coordinate values in the hand position vector, which is equivalent to checking a coordinate system; Examiner Interpretation: Obtaining an error associated with the hand position coordinates is equivalent to inquiring whether or not a coordinate system used is right.)
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 teachings of modified Shimodaira to further include the teachings of Tsusaka with a reasonable expectation to facilitate error compensation for the target coordinate position. (See at least [0275-0277])
Tsusaka also does not explicitly teach, but Drexler teaches
the low-speed execution mode is to drive the robot at a predetermined speed or less, (“the safe mode may limit the maximum speed of the robotic equipment to a maximum speed that is below the maximum speed of the robot equipment when it is operating in the normal-travel mode.” See at least [0061], wherein the safe mode is the low-speed execution mode.)
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 teachings of modified Shimodaira and Tsusaka to further include the teachings of Drexler with a reasonable expectation of success because a low-speed execution mode is a well-known execution mode to improve safety in the presence of humans. (see at least [0003-0005])
Drexler also does not explicitly teach, but Gombert teaches
the sequential execution mode is a mode in which the robot stops at each time when finishing one motion, (“two different modes of movement of the robot 1 can be realised, on the one hand a stepwise movement from one snap point to the next, on the other hand a continuous movement which is not influenced by the snap points as long as the actuation of the control element 13 or 13′ is strong enough.” See at least [0068], wherein stepwise movement is the sequential execution mode.; “It can be the case that the robot stops briefly after each step S5. This makes it possible for a user to recognise the individual movement steps and if necessary count these off. The control element 13 which can be moved together with the robot 1 is particularly suitable for controlling such a stepwise movement.” See at least [0057])
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 teachings of modified Shimodaira, Tsusaka, and Drexler to further include the teachings of Gombert with a reasonable expectation of success because a sequential execution mode is a well-known execution mode that facilitates “simple and precise actuation of the robot, in particular exact positioning at a particular point as well as the guidance of the robot on or along a movement path.” (See at least [0004])
Gombert also does not explicitly teach, but Motohashi teaches
the low torque mode is to drive the robot with a predetermined torque or less, (“The torque limiting unit 47 configures so that the output torque of the torque limiting axis does not become larger, by setting an upper limit value for the output torque of the torque limiting axis. … the torque limiting mode which limits the torque of the torque limiting axis.” See at least [0064-0065], wherein the torque limiting mode is the low torque mode.)
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 teachings of modified Shimodaira, Tsusaka, Drexler, and Gombert to further include the teachings of Motohashi with a reasonable expectation of success because a low torque execution mode is a well-known execution mode that prevents damage to the robot and the processing target. (See at least [0064])
Regarding Claims 3 and 8,
Shimodaira further teaches
wherein the set plurality of commands are collectively described in the (single) robot motion program. (“As shown in FIG. 7, the motion control command includes a force control-associated command that enables operation of the arm A in the force control mode and a position control command that does not enable operation of the arm A in the force control mode. In the force control-associated command, ON of the force control mode may be specified by an argument. When ON of the force control mode is not specified by the argument, the force control-associated command is executed in the position control mode, and when ON of the force control mode is specified by the argument, the force control-associated command is executed in the force control mode.” See at least [0159-0160])
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Karston G Evans whose telephone number is (571)272-8480. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on (571)270-3976. 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.
/K.G.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657