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
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot because the additional/modified claim language by the amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection. Examiner has augmented the prior art rejections in light of Applicant's amendments and/or arguments, as indicated below.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 9333689 B2) in view of Gotou (US 20160075031 A1), Takahashi (US 11685042 B2) and Martinez (US 20110223000 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches a cooperative robot comprising a driver (Fig 6, 7, col 8 lines 5-28 wherein the solenoid and pneumatic cylinder drive the chucking component), an arm (Fig 6, 7 wherein arm 350 is provided), and a controller (col 3 lines 19-21 wherein a controller is provided),
wherein the arm comprises:
a first plate (Fig 6, 7, col 7 lines 38-40 wherein support 500 fixed to rotating element 400 is provided; “The support 500 is fixed to the rotating unit 400 to be rotatably fixed to an end of the robot arm 350 using the fixing element 550)”;
a connector arranged on one surface of the first plate and connecting the cooperative robot and the arm to each other (Fig 6-7 col 7 lines 38-40 wherein the support 500 is connected to the arm using connecting element; “The support 500 is fixed to the rotating unit 400 to be rotatably fixed to an end of the robot arm 350 using the fixing element 550”);
a second plate arranged to be spaced apart from the first plate in a first direction to have one surface facing another surface of the first plate (Fig 6-7 col 7 lines 38-40 wherein jig 600 is provided; “The support 500 is fixed to the rotating unit 400 to be rotatably fixed to an end of the robot arm 350 using the fixing element 550, for example, a bolt, and the load cell 850 is fixed thereto prior to installation of the jig 600”);
a loadcell arranged to be in contact with the other surface of the first plate and one surface of the second plate and measuring a load applied in the first direction to transmit the measured load to the controller (Fig 6-7 col 8 lines 16-40 wherein loadcell 850 located between support 500 and jig 600 measures load; “To measure the weight, current in the same direction is applied to allow the first solenoid and the second solenoid to push each other, or the current may be cut to cancel a pulling force to cause dechucking”);
at least one support shaft arranged between the first plate and the second plate and extending in the first direction (Fig 6-7 col 8 lines 16-25 wherein chucking elements 670 are provided between part 500 and 600; “(24) FIG. 6 illustrates an example of the chucking element 650 formed as the solenoid. A pair of solenoids 670 facing each other is provided. A first solenoid is fixed to a back side of the jig 600, and a second solenoid facing the first solenoid is mounted on an upper side of the support 500”); and
a grip gripping an object (Fig 2-4, 6-7 wherein injection molded product 700 is gripped by the gripping element 655),
wherein the controller is configured to:
control the driver to grip the object with the arm (Fig 2-4, 6-7 wherein injection molded product 700 is gripped by the gripping element 655);
However, Jang fails to teach when the cooperative robot detects an object, control the driver to move the arm to the object and set a zero point of the loadcell by maintaining a gripping posture of the arm, determine whether a load of the object measured by the loadcell exceeds a preset payload: and based on the measured load of the object being equal to or less than the preset payload, set the measured load of the object as a payload of the cooperative robot, and based on the measured load of the object exceeding the preset payload, release the grip of the arm gripping the object, reset the zero point of the loadcell, and control the driver to grip the object with the arm again.
Jang further teaches the controller sets the measured load of the object as a payload of the cooperative robot (col 5 lines 3-9 wherein the weight of the object is assigned to the load after resetting the weight; “Furthermore, a cumulative error may be prevented by resetting a weight measurement system to be 0 point after the weight of the injection molded product is measured, one by one, by the load cell formed therein the cut portion and thus, the weight of the injection molded product may be more precisely measured”) and reset the zero point of the load cell for each measurement (col 5 lines 3-8 wherein “Furthermore, a cumulative error may be prevented by resetting a weight measurement system to be 0 point after the weight of the injection molded product is measured, one by one, by the load cell formed therein the cut portion and thus, the weight of the injection molded product may be more precisely measured”).
Takahashi teaches to set a zero point of the loadcell by maintaining a gripping posture of the arm (col 13 lines 229-35 wherein the force sensor is reset to zero based on posture; “In addition, since there is a case where the detection value of the force sensor is affected by the weight thereof in accordance with the orientation thereof and changes, it is desirable that zero point calibration is necessarily performed in a specific orientation or the zero point calibration is performed in each operation, such that the influence of the orientation does not remain in the detected reaction force”).
Gotou teaches when the cooperative robot detects an object, control the driver to move the arm to the object (para 0047 wherein “[0047] The robot control unit 35 operates the robot according to a predetermined program or detected information. For example, the robot control unit 35 moves the hand 21 to the holding position and posture calculated by the visual information processing unit 31”), comparing the load of the object to the preset payload and based on the measured load of the object exceeding the preset payload, release the grip of the arm gripping the object (0058 wherein “In order to prevent occurrence of an excess external force, the holding operation unit 34 may be configured to stop the holding operation when the external force measured by the force measuring unit 33 exceeds a predetermined threshold value in the profile control (namely, during the holding operation). In this case, the holding operation unit 34 stops the holding operation and controls the hand 21 to release the article 12. Accordingly, the robot 2 and the hand 21 can be prevented from being subjected to overload, and also the article 12 can be prevented from being damaged”).
Martinez teaches based on the force reaching the threshold during gripping, the object is released and gripped again (para 0042 wherein “Alternatively, the forces are monitored by the pressure sensor 52 instead of a limit switch. Either sensor means causes the robot motion to be stopped when the air pressure limit is reached and before any damage has occurred. This allows the system to safely stop and automatically attempt another pick. … Of course, if a part 41 is in the gripper 24 when an error occurs that initiates the auto recovery then the robot 12 must do something with that part, for example, drop the part 41 into the bin 40, before attempting another pick”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Jang’s teachings of changing the payload to the load of the object and resetting the zero point of the load cell for each measurement to incorporate Gotou’s teachings of releasing the object when the load exceeds threshold, Takahashi’s teachings of setting a zero point of the loadcell by maintaining a gripping posture and Martinez’s teachings of based on the force reaching the threshold during gripping, the object is released and gripped again in order to set a zero point of the loadcell by maintaining a gripping posture of the arm, determine whether a load of the object measured by the loadcell exceeds a preset payload: and based on the measured load of the object being equal to or less than the preset payload, set the measured load of the object as a payload of the cooperative robot, and based on the measured load of the object exceeding the preset payload, release the grip of the arm gripping the object, reset the zero point of the loadcell, and control the driver to grip the object with the arm again. Doing so would prevent components from being damaged when the load exceeds threshold and perform normal operation using the payload information when the load is less than threshold. Furthermore, setting a zero point would allow to accurately measure the weight of th object based on the load cell reading while removing the influence of orientation of the robot arm. Furthermore, resetting the zero point when the load exceeds threshold would allow the cumulative error in load measurement be prevented during successive measurements after releasing the object. Moreover, doing so would allow the robot to continue operation and resolve gripping issues by releasing and regripping the object.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 9333689 B2), Gotou (US 20160075031 A1), Takahashi (US 11685042 B2) and Martinez (US 20110223000 A1) in view of Yajima (US 20210023665 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Jang teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Jang also teaches wherein the support shaft has one end portion fixed to the first plate (Fig 6-7, col 8 lines 5-10 wherein chucking element 650 is fixed to the support 500; “To prevent damage during the conveyance by preventing a tensile force from being applied to the load cell 850 and to prolong the service life of the load cell 850, a chucking element 650 that may chuck the injection molded product 700 and the jig 600 is installed in the rotating unit 400 or the support 500”) and another end portion movably attached to one side of the second plate (Fig 6-7, col 8 lines 29-33 wherein element 650 is movably attached to the part 600; “An elastic body 685 is mounted on the rotating unit 400 or the support 500, and a piston 680 supporting the elastic body 685 is mounted on a back side of the jig 600 along with a liner. The piston 680 may be elevated and maintained the position by supplying gas, and the gas is absorbed at a point requiring the measurement of the weight to causing dechucking so that the jig 600 is placed down on the load cell 850”).
However, Kang fails to explicitly teach the shaft is inserted into the second plate.
Yajima teaches a rod is inserted into the insertion hole of a component (0042 wherein “Insertion holes 79, into which the tie rods 94 described later are inserted, are formed in the four corners of the rectangle-shaped top cover 16 so as to pass through the top cover 16 in the thickness direction thereof”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Jang’s teachings of having a shaft attached to a plate to incorporate Yajima’s teachings of attaching a component by insertion in order to have the shaft is inserted into the second plate. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, modified Jang teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Modified Jang also teaches wherein the second plate has a connection hole into which the other end portion of the support shaft is inserted (As modified in claim 2 rejection, the shaft is inserted into the insertion hole of second plate).
However, Jang fails to explicitly teach a linear guide arranged in the connection hole to surround the other end portion of the support shaft and restricting a movement direction of the support shaft to the first direction.
Yajima further teaches a linear guide arranged in the connection hole to surround the end portion of the piston and restricting a movement direction of the support shaft to the first direction (0038 wherein “Wear rings 70a, 70b are fitted in the annular grooves 68a, 68b. The piston assembly 14 is guided and supported in the cylinder hole 24 with the wear rings 70a, 70b therebetween”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Jang’s teachings of the second plate has a connection hole into which the other end portion of the support shaft is inserted to incorporate Yajima’s teachings of a linear guide arranged in the connection hole to surround the end portion of the piston in order to have a linear guide arranged in the connection hole to surround the other end portion of the support shaft and restricting a movement direction of the support shaft to the first direction. Doing so would keep the rod guided in the desired direction and prevent damage to the components.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 9333689 B2), Gotou (US 20160075031 A1), Takahashi (US 11685042 B2), Martinez (US 20110223000 A1) and Yajima (US 20210023665 A1) in view of Won (KR 101248443 B1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Jang teaches all the limitations of claim 2 including support shaft. However, Jang fails to explicitly teach a damper arranged at the other end portion of the support shaft and restricting a movement distance of the support shaft in the first direction.
Won teaches having a damper arranged at the end portion of the support shaft and restricting a movement distance of the support shaft in the first direction (page 4 para 7-10 wherein buffer 540 attached to one end of the rod 540 that restricts movement; “And a buffer member 540 provided between the coupling bracket 510 and the coupling plate 520 to mitigate the shock provided through the coupling plate 510. In this case, the buffer member 540 may be a spring, it may be configured as a bush surrounding the support rod 530 in the upper end is fixed to the coupling bracket 510 as shown in the illustrated embodiment”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Jang’s teachings of having a robot with support shaft to incorporate Won’s teachings of having a damper arranged at the end portion of the support shaft and restricting a movement distance of the support shaft in the first direction in order to have a damper arranged at the other end portion of the support shaft and restricting a movement distance of the support shaft in the first direction. Doing so would reduce impact force and shock from abrupt movement.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotou (US 20160075031 A1) in view of Jang (US 9333689 B2), Takahashi (US 11685042 B2) and Martinez (US 20110223000 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Gotou teaches a method for controlling a cooperative robot comprising a driver, an arm, and a controller (Fig 1-2), the method comprising:
sensing an object by the cooperative robot;
controlling, by the controller, the driver to move the arm to the object (para 0047 wherein “[0047] The robot control unit 35 operates the robot according to a predetermined program or detected information. For example, the robot control unit 35 moves the hand 21 to the holding position and posture calculated by the visual information processing unit 31”);
controlling, by the controller, the driver to grip the object with the arm (para 0046 wherein “[0046] The holding operation unit 34 generates a control signal necessary for the hand 21 to hold the article 12”);
measuring a load of the object by the loadcell comprised in the arm (Fig 1 para 0044; “The external force acting on the hand 21 is calculated by subtracting a force applied to the force sensor 23 due to the hand 21 from a force measured by the force sensor 23”);
determining, by the controller, whether the measured load of the object exceeds a preset payload; setting, by the controller, the measured load of the object as a payload of the cooperative robot when the measured load of the object is less than or equal to the preset payload; and based on the measured load of the object exceeding the preset payload, releasing, by the controller, the grip of the arm gripping the object (para 0058 wherein the load is compared with the threshold and the article is released when the load is greater than threshold; Examiner notes that it is clear that the load value is assigned to the load, detected by force sensor due to the object, for processing by the control unit during normal operation when the load is below the threshold; “In order to prevent occurrence of an excess external force, the holding operation unit 34 may be configured to stop the holding operation when the external force measured by the force measuring unit 33 exceeds a predetermined threshold value in the profile control (namely, during the holding operation). In this case, the holding operation unit 34 stops the holding operation and controls the hand 21 to release the article 12”).
However, Gotou fails to teach to set a zero point of the loadcell by maintaining a gripping posture of the arm and based on the measured load of the object exceeding the preset payload, releasing the grip of the arm gripping the object, resetting the zero point of the loadcell, and controlling the driver to grip the object with the arm again.
Jang teaches resetting the zero point of the load cell for each measurement (col 5 lines 3-8 wherein “Furthermore, a cumulative error may be prevented by resetting a weight measurement system to be 0 point after the weight of the injection molded product is measured, one by one, by the load cell formed therein the cut portion and thus, the weight of the injection molded product may be more precisely measured”).
Takahashi teaches to set a zero point of the loadcell by maintaining a gripping posture of the arm (col 13 lines 229-35 wherein the force sensor is reset to zero based on posture; “In addition, since there is a case where the detection value of the force sensor is affected by the weight thereof in accordance with the orientation thereof and changes, it is desirable that zero point calibration is necessarily performed in a specific orientation or the zero point calibration is performed in each operation, such that the influence of the orientation does not remain in the detected reaction force”).
Martinez teaches based on the force reaching the threshold during gripping, the object is released and gripped again (para 0042 wherein “Alternatively, the forces are monitored by the pressure sensor 52 instead of a limit switch. Either sensor means causes the robot motion to be stopped when the air pressure limit is reached and before any damage has occurred. This allows the system to safely stop and automatically attempt another pick. … Of course, if a part 41 is in the gripper 24 when an error occurs that initiates the auto recovery then the robot 12 must do something with that part, for example, drop the part 41 into the bin 40, before attempting another pick”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Gotou’s teachings of releasing the object when the load exceeds threshold to incorporate Jang teaches resetting the zero point of the load cell for each measurement, Takahashi’s teachings of setting a zero point of the loadcell by maintaining a gripping posture of the arm and Martinez’s teachings of based on the force reaching the threshold during gripping, the object is released and gripped again in order to set a zero point of the loadcell by maintaining a gripping posture of the arm and based on the measured load of the object exceeding the preset payload, releasing the grip of the arm gripping the object, resetting the zero point of the loadcell, and controlling the driver to grip the object with the arm again. Doing so would allow to accurately measure the weight of the object based on the load cell reading while removing the influence of orientation of the robot arm. Furthermore, resetting the zero point when the load exceeds threshold would allow the cumulative error in load measurement be prevented during successive measurements after releasing the object. Moreover, doing so would allow the robot to continue operation and resolve gripping issues by releasing and regripping the object.
Regarding claim 8, modified Gotou teaches before the gripping of the object, setting, by the controller, the zero point of the loadcell based on a posture in which the cooperative robot grips the object (Gotou, para 0047 wherein “[0047] The robot control unit 35 operates the robot according to a predetermined program or detected information. For example, the robot control unit 35 moves the hand 21 to the holding position and posture calculated by the visual information processing unit 31”; Takahashi, col 13 lines 229-35 wherein the force sensor is reset to zero based on posture; “In addition, since there is a case where the detection value of the force sensor is affected by the weight thereof in accordance with the orientation thereof and changes, it is desirable that zero point calibration is necessarily performed in a specific orientation or the zero point calibration is performed in each operation, such that the influence of the orientation does not remain in the detected reaction force”).
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 SAGAR KC whose telephone number is (571)272-7337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5 pm.
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 at (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.
/SAGAR KC/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657