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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13-15 and 17-20 are still pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification lacks support for “in response to: a critical error being occurred in the grid or in the rectifier power stage; a moving speed of the robot exceeding a predefined speed threshold; the robot exceeding a predefined position range; and the user input being an emergency stop signal” for not possessing of an embodiment requiring all the conditions happened simultaneously, as recited in the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The subject matter of claim 18 is already a part of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 11, 3, 5, 19, 6, 7, 20, 8, 9, 15, 10, 13-14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHINO in a view of Cheng et al. US 10,541,205 B1 and further in a view of EVERTS US 2021/0359595 Al.
Regarding claim 1, NISHINO discloses
A robot control system (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising:
A system on a chip (‘SoC’) [0065]
perform motion control of a robot (Item 10) [0062];
generate a rectifier control signal for driving a rectifier power stage, the rectifier power stage being configured to convert AC power from a grid into DC power [0055, 0062];
generate, based on an operating state of the robot or a user input, a safety control signal for selectively turning on or off safety switches (Items 62 and 72) connected to an output of the rectifier power stage (Switches are after the rectifier stage); and
perform motor control of the robot based on the DC power received via the safety switches [0065-0067, 0071, 0076, 0077], [0060, 0062, 0065, 0066].
NISHINO does not explicitly say a system on a chip but a processor performing all the functions and also does not explicitly say wherein the SoC is integrated on a single chip. However, Cheng et al. disclose a system on a chip (fig. 1, item 12) and wherein the SoC is integrated on a single chip (Column 4, lines 39-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a system on a chip to accommodate a processor as taught by Cheng in NISHINO’s teachings to improve reliability and easier fabrication (Cheng’s column 4, lines 39-61).
A combination of NISHINO and Cheng does not disclose but EVERTS disclose
wherein the SoC (item 40) is configured to receive a power consumption prediction signal (ac inductor currents) and adjust the rectifier control signal to prepare an amount of power, the amount of power prepared being based on the power consumption prediction signal, such that a voltage fluctuation output by the rectifier power stage is reduced [0063-0069].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Soc to receive a power consumption prediction signal and adjust the rectifier control signal as disclosed by EVERTS in NISHINO and Cheng teachings to a low Total Harmonic
Distortion (THD) of the grid current (EVERTS paragraph 0003)
Regarding claim 11, a combination of NISHINO, Cheng and EVERTS discloses
A robot control method comprising: performing, by a system on a chip (‘SoC’) [0065], motion control of a robot; generating by the SoC, , a rectifier control signal for driving a rectifier power stage, the rectifier power stage being configured to convert AC power from a grid into DC power; generating, by the SoC, based on an operating state of the robot or a user input, a safety control signal for selectively turning on or off safety switches connected to an output of the rectifier power stage; and performing, by the SoC, motor control of the robot based on the DC power received via the safety switches ,wherein the SoC is integrated on a single chip receiving, by the SoC, a power consumption prediction signal; and adjusting, by the SoC, the rectifier control signal to prepare an amount of power, the amount of power being prepared being based on the power consumption prediction signal, such that a voltage fluctuation output by the rectifier power stage is reduced. (See claim 1 rejection for details)
Regarding claim 3, a combination of NISHINO, Cheng and EVERTS discloses
a cache (RAM) disposed on the single chip and the SoC performs data transmission via the cache (Data transmission is an inherent functionality via a RAM). [0060] ((Cheng discloses the SoC as mentioned earlier)
Regarding claims 5 and 19, a combination of NISHINO, Cheng and EVERTS discloses , wherein the SoC is further configured to monitor a quality of the grid (via voltages) [EVERTS 0063-0069] (Cheng discloses the SoC as mentioned earlier).
Regarding claim 6, a combination of NISHINO, Cheng and EVERTS discloses, wherein the grid quality comprises at least one of voltage dip, voltage distortion, and voltage fluctuation. [EVERTS 0063-0069]
Regarding claims 7 and 20, a combination of NISHINO, Cheng and EVERTS discloses, wherein the SoC is configured to monitor an operating condition of the rectifier power stage (DC bus voltage) and send information representing the operating condition of the rectifier power stage [EVERTS 0063-0069].
Regarding claim 8, a combination of NISHINO, Cheng and EVERTS discloses
, wherein the SoC is further configured to convert the DC power into single-phase AC power for on-site use [0062. Fig. 2 shows a three-phase system comprises of single-phase]. (Cheng discloses the SoC as mentioned earlier)
Regarding claims 9 and 15, a combination of NISHINO, Cheng, and EVERTS discloses, wherein the SoC is configured to turn off the safety switches in response to: a critical error being occurred in the grid or in the rectifier power stage;
a moving speed of the robot exceeding a predefined speed threshold; the robot exceeding a predefined position range; and the user input being an emergency stop signal. [0064, 0076, 0079. It should be noted that an abnormality in a contactor is related to a critical error in the grid] (Cheng discloses the SoC as mentioned earlier). A combination of all does not explicitly” a moving speed of the robot exceeding a predefined speed threshold; the robot exceeding a predefined position range; and the user input being an emergency stop signal”. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a moving speed of the robot exceeding a predefined speed threshold; the robot exceeding a predefined position range; and the user input being an emergency stop signal to initiate safety operation by turning off switches.
Regarding claim 10, a combination of NISHINO, Cheng and EVERTS discloses
A robot comprising the robot control system according to claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection for details).
Regarding claim 13, a combination of NISHINO, Cheng and EVERTS discloses: monitoring, by the SoC a quality of the grid; and sending, by the SoC, a information representing the quality of the grid (See claim 5 rejection for details).
Regarding claim 14, a combination of NISHINO, Cheng and EVERTS discloses: monitoring, by the SoC, an operating condition of the rectifier power stage; and sending, by SoC, information representing operating condition of the rectifier power stage (See claim 7 rejection for details).
Regarding claim 17, a combination of NISHINO, Cheng and EVERTS discloses
wherein the robot control system further comprises a cache disposed on the single chip and the SoC performs data transmission via the cache. (See claim 3 rejection for details)
Regarding claim 18, a combination of NISHINO, Cheng and EVERTS disclose, wherein the SoC is further configured to receive a power consumption prediction signal and adjust the rectifier control signal based on the power consumption prediction signal. (see claim 1 rejection for detail)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument (See updated claim rejection above for details).
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 BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 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, Jessica Han can be reached on 5712722078. 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896