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 .
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 12/03/2024. Claims 1-9 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 12/03/2024, with respect to the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim amendment has overcome the rejection. The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9, filed 12/03/2024, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. US 20200278647 A1 (“Nagata”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Nagata teaches the concept of an error number, which is decided according to a type of abnormality, and a solution method search key for searching for a method for eliminating the abnormality indicated by the error number, as disclosed in further detail below. However, Nagata does not teach a table containing this information and stored in the storing section, as claimed in the amended claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nagata et al. US 20200278647 A1 (“Nagata”) in combination with Sundermeyer et al. US 20220288783 A1 (“Sundermeyer”).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “a detecting section configured to detect”, “a storing section storing”, “an acquiring section configured to acquire”, and “a display section configured to display” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. US 20200278647 A1 (“Nagata”) in combination with Sundermeyer et al. US 20220288783 A1 (“Sundermeyer”).
Regarding Claim 1. Nagata teaches a coping work display method for displaying coping work executed when an abnormality occurs in a robot, the coping work display method comprising:
a first step of detecting the abnormality that occurs in the robot (Paragraph 49);
a second step of acquiring, from a storing section storing abnormality information indicating the abnormality that occurs in the robot and a plurality of kinds of coping work information indicating coping work for eliminating the abnormality of the robot related to the abnormality information, the plurality of kinds of coping work information related to the abnormality detected in the first step (A storage described in paragraph 46 is used to store motion state value, which indicates how much load is being applied to a servo amplifier and the motor at the time at which state data is detected. In paragraph 52, an operational control window shown in FIG. 5 at 52 includes a mode switching operation area at 52c, which is for a switching operation of whether a control adjustment is performed, either in manual or automatic modes. There is also the target operation parameter selection operation area 52b, which is for a selection operation of the kind of operation parameter targeted for setting input (such as power consumption, or life extension driving). Either of these selection areas read on kinds of coping work information indicating coping work for eliminating the abnormality, wherein both of these particular adjustments are related to the state data detected); and
a third step of displaying the plurality of kinds of coping work information acquired in the second step (the operation control window at 52 can be displayed on a screen [Paragraph 50]),
wherein a relation between an error number, which is decided according to a type of the abnormality, and a solution method search key, which is a key for searching for a method for eliminating the abnormality indicated by the error number, is stored in the storing section (In this case, an operation parameter is set at a random value, and an operation is implemented according to the operation sequences of operation state time lengths that have been randomly set while keeping the load ratios of all the motors 14 at an allowable load state. Then, an error rate (evaluation value) of the operation relative to the operation parameter is detected. Then, back-propagation processing (error back-propagation processing) is performed in the neural network in order to reduce the error rate (maximize a reward based on the evaluation value in the future). The learning work is repeated while operation parameter randomness is adjusted on a convenient timing basis. This enables the neural network of the automatic adjustment device 23 to learn an operation parameter value and a feature quantity for outputting an operation sequence suitable for the operation parameter value [paragraph 62]. This reads on the system determining a relation between an error number, decided according to the abnormality, a solution method search key in the form of back-propagation, which is then stored in the memory).
Nagata does not teach:
a table indicating a relation between an error number and a solution method is stored in the storing section.
However, Sundermeyer teaches:
a table indicating a relation between an error number and a solution method is stored in the storing section (Paragraph 103, Table 1, shows a table in which grasp evaluation results, measures their success rate, and in at least one embodiment strongly improves the grasp success at first trial and thereby reduces the number of re-grasps to 8 [paragraph 102]. Any portion of code and/or data storage from internal or external processors may be stored in a memory [paragraph 112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Nagata with a table indicating a relation between an error number and a solution method is stored in the storing section as taught by Sundermeyer, both because it would be obvious to try such a known method of storing information, and because it involves using a known technique to improve a method of data storage in the same way.
Regarding Claim 3. Nagata in combination with Sundermeyer teaches the coping work display method according to claim 1.
Nagata also teaches:
wherein the abnormality information includes information concerning a plurality of abnormalities that simultaneously occur (Multiple operation states can be displayed at the same time, as shown in FIG. 6. Four different robots are shown displayed simultaneously, and if two or more of them have an abnormality at the same time, the display device could show both or more at once. This is even depicted with the “alarm” state shown in FIG. 6, with multiple “alarm” states shown in different times with different robots all on the same display screen).
Regarding Claim 4. Nagata in combination with Sundermeyer teaches the coping work display method according to claim 1.
Nagata also teaches:
wherein the abnormality information includes information concerning a plurality of abnormalities that simultaneously occur (Paragraphs 46, 49, and 52, FIGS. 5 and 6. FIG. 6 in particular is showing operation states of each corresponding robot [Paragraph 56]).
Regarding Claim 6. Nagata in combination with Sundermeyer teaches the coping work display method according to claim 4.
Nagata also teaches:
wherein the related information includes at least one of a life (The monitor window at 51 includes the lifetime in display area 51a [paragraph 51]).
Regarding Claim 9. Nagata teaches a robot system comprising:
a detecting section configured to detect an abnormality that occurs in a robot (Paragraph 49);
a storing section storing abnormality information indicating the abnormality that occurs in the robot and a plurality of kinds of coping work information indicating coping work for eliminating the abnormality of the robot related to the abnormality information (A storage described in paragraph 46 is used to store motion state value, which indicates how much load is being applied to a servo amplifier and the motor at the time at which state data is detected);
an acquiring section configured to acquire, based on a detection result of the detecting section, the plurality of kinds of coping work information related to the detected abnormality from the storing section (In paragraph 52, an operational control window shown in FIG. 5 at 52 includes a mode switching operation area at 52c, which is for a switching operation of whether a control adjustment is performed, either in manual or automatic modes. There is also the target operation parameter selection operation area 52b, which is for a selection operation of the kind of operation parameter targeted for setting input (such as power consumption, or life extension driving). Either of these selection areas read on kinds of coping work information indicating coping work for eliminating the abnormality, wherein both of these particular adjustments are related to the state data detected); and
a display section configured to display the plurality of kinds of coping work information acquired by the acquiring section (the operation control window at 52 can be displayed on a screen [Paragraph 50]),
wherein a relation between an error number, which is decided according to a type of the abnormality, and a solution method search key, which is a key for searching for a method for eliminating the abnormality indicated by the error number, is stored in the storing section (In this case, an operation parameter is set at a random value, and an operation is implemented according to the operation sequences of operation state time lengths that have been randomly set while keeping the load ratios of all the motors 14 at an allowable load state. Then, an error rate (evaluation value) of the operation relative to the operation parameter is detected. Then, back-propagation processing (error back-propagation processing) is performed in the neural network in order to reduce the error rate (maximize a reward based on the evaluation value in the future). The learning work is repeated while operation parameter randomness is adjusted on a convenient timing basis. This enables the neural network of the automatic adjustment device 23 to learn an operation parameter value and a feature quantity for outputting an operation sequence suitable for the operation parameter value [paragraph 62]. This reads on the system determining a relation between an error number, decided according to the abnormality, a solution method search key in the form of back-propagation, which is then stored in the memory).
Nagata does not teach:
a table indicating a relation between an error number and a solution method is stored in the storing section.
However, Sundermeyer teaches:
a table indicating a relation between an error number and a solution method is stored in the storing section (Paragraph 103, Table 1, shows a table in which grasp evaluation results, measures their success rate, and in at least one embodiment strongly improves the grasp success at first trial and thereby reduces the number of re-grasps to 8 [paragraph 102]. Any portion of code and/or data storage from internal or external processors may be stored in a memory [paragraph 112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Nagata with a table indicating a relation between an error number and a solution method is stored in the storing section as taught by Sundermeyer, both because it would be obvious to try such a known method of storing information, and because it involves using a known technique to improve a method of data storage in the same way.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. US 20200278647 A1 (“Nagata”) in combination with Sundermeyer et al. US 20220288783 A1 (“Sundermeyer”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arora et al. US 20210178595 A1 (“Arora”).
Regarding Claim 2. Nagata in combination with Sundermeyer teaches the coping work display method according to claim 1.
Nagata does not teach:
wherein, in the third step, the plurality of kinds of coping work information are displayed in order based on priority levels.
However, Arora teaches:
wherein, in the third step, the plurality of kinds of coping work information are displayed in order based on priority levels (Paragraphs 7 and 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Nagata with wherein, in the third step, the plurality of kinds of coping work information are displayed in order based on priority levels as taught by Arora so as to inform an operator of which kinds of coping work are recommended in order of which order corrective steps they must be taken, or are recommended to be taken.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. US 20200278647 A1 (“Nagata”) in combination with Sundermeyer et al. US 20220288783 A1 (“Sundermeyer”) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yajima et al. US 20150328774 A1 (“Yajima”).
Regarding Claim 5. Nagata in combination with Sundermeyer teaches the coping work display method according to claim 4.
Nagata also teaches:
wherein the related information includes information of a history of abnormalities that occurred in past (FIG. 6, which shows the condition states of the robots over time-series sequence [Paragraph 56]).
Nagata does not teach:
wherein the related information includes a joint axis number of a joint having an abnormality (Paragraph 58 does teach that information is included regarding the arrangement of the arm joints taken during a movement, but doesn’t teach that the specific joint with the abnormality is displayed on the screen).
However, Yajima teaches:
wherein the related information includes a joint axis number of a joint having an abnormality (Paragraph 68 covers detecting an abnormality and determining damage to the respective joints of the robot. The control unit SU performs an output step to output information specifying a damaged joint by operating the display device [Paragraph 75]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Nagata with wherein the related information includes a joint axis number of a joint having an abnormality as taught by Yajima so as to notify the user of which joint axis features the abnormality and needs correction.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. US 20200278647 A1 (“Nagata”) in combination with Sundermeyer et al. US 20220288783 A1 (“Sundermeyer”) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Narusawa US 20200376652 A1 (“Narusawa”).
Regarding Claim 7. Nagata in combination with Sundermeyer teaches the coping work display method according to claim 4.
Nagata does not teach:
wherein the related information includes at least one of information concerning a set end effector, information concerning a set force sensor, information concerning a camera associated with the force sensor, and information concerning a feeding and removing section associated with the force sensor.
However, Narusawa teaches:
wherein the related information includes at least one of information concerning a set end effector, information concerning a set force sensor, and information concerning a camera associated with the force sensor (Paragraph 34 covers both a force sensor and an imaging section configured to image the work target object, along with the force sensor in question. In FIG. 4, the information displayed can include sensor information at 743 [Paragraph 48]. While it is not explicitly clear which sensor information is included in notifications sent to the user, it would be an obvious application of known elements in the art to have the notification include the elements covered by the imaging sensor and the force sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Nagata with wherein the related information includes at least one of information concerning a set end effector, information concerning a set force sensor, and information concerning a camera associated with the force sensor as taught by Narusawa so as to allow the system to show important details regarding the robot’s end effectors and force applied to the robot. This would be particularly logical to combine with the load ratios, load detectors, and load state disclosed in paragraph 38 of Nagata, which imply a force sensor and force information, but it is not explicit.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. US 20200278647 A1 (“Nagata”) in combination with Sundermeyer et al. US 20220288783 A1 (“Sundermeyer”) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sohmshetty et al. US 20220188540 A1 (“Sohmshetty”).
Regarding Claim 8. Nagata teaches a recording medium recording a coping work display program for displaying coping work executed when an abnormality occurs in a robot, the non-transitory recording medium recording a coping work display program for executing:
a first step of detecting the abnormality that occurs in the robot (Paragraph 49);
a second step of acquiring, from a storing section storing abnormality information indicating the abnormality that occurs in the robot and a plurality of kinds of coping work information indicating coping work for eliminating the abnormality of the robot related to the abnormality information, the plurality of kinds of coping work information related to the abnormality detected in the first step (A storage described in paragraph 46 is used to store motion state value, which indicates how much load is being applied to a servo amplifier and the motor at the time at which state data is detected. In paragraph 52, an operational control window shown in FIG. 5 at 52 includes a mode switching operation area at 52c, which is for a switching operation of whether a control adjustment is performed, either in manual or automatic modes. There is also the target operation parameter selection operation area 52b, which is for a selection operation of the kind of operation parameter targeted for setting input (such as power consumption, or life extension driving). Either of these selection areas read on kinds of coping work information indicating coping work for eliminating the abnormality, wherein both of these particular adjustments are related to the state data detected); and
a third step of displaying the plurality of kinds of coping work information acquired in the second step (the operation control window at 52 can be displayed on a screen [Paragraph 50]).
Nagata does not expressly teach
the recording medium is a non-transitory recording medium.
However, Sohmshetty teaches:
the recording medium is a non-transitory recording medium (paragraph 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Nagata with the recording medium is a non-transitory recording medium as taught by Sohmshetty because non-transitory recording media are common in the art, and this would be an obvious combination of known elements in the art to produce the predictable result of a non-transitory recording medium recording the coping work display program.
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 AARON G CAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 7:30am - 4:30pm EST to Friday 7:30pm - 4:30am.
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, Wade Miles can be reached on (571) 270-7777. 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.
/A.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656