DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on August 28, 2026.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are currently amended.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of Claims 1-15 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 .
Internet Communications
Without a written authorization for Internet communications by the Applicant in place, the USPTO cannot communicate with the Applicant via email and will not respond via email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 122, such as claimed subject matter in an interview agenda or proposed claim amendments for an Examiner’s Amendment.
Therefore, in the interest of facilitating compact prosecution, the Examiner kindly asks the Applicant to authorize Internet communications with the USPTO by using Form PTO/SB/439 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms). The form may be submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (Patent Center) using the document description “Internet Communications Authorized” to facilitate processing. The written authorization for Internet communications must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization for Internet communications may not be submitted via an email. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Claim Interpretation
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP § 2111. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, the drawings, and the prior art. See MPEP § 2111.01(I).
Applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s) in the specification at the relevant time. Where an explicit definition is provided by the Applicant for a term, that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. See MPEP § 2111.01(IV)(A). Any such lexicographic definition for a term will be expressly noted by the Examiner in the prior art rejections of the claims.
Claim Mapping
For clarity of the prosecution history record, the Examiner has provided annotations in the prior art rejections of the claims to aid the Applicant in understanding the Examiner’s interpretations of the claimed invention and the prior art, such as emphasizing notable and relevant portions of the prior art citations, using item-to-item matching to the prior art citations, pairing exact claim language to particular language used in the prior art citations, and/or clearly explaining the Examiner’s interpretation as to how a prior art citation maps to the claim language, especially when there is no one-to-one matching of terms. Furthermore, the annotations are provided in the prior art rejections of the claims at the Examiner’s discretion where the Examiner deemed to be appropriate and necessary.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR § 1.55.
Response to Amendment
<<>> • × • <<>>
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-3 and 8-10 recite “the plurality of other robot commands is added.” It should read -- the plurality of other robot commands are added --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claims 2 and 9 recite “is a sample program.” It should read -- are a sample program --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0320211 (hereinafter “Akan”) in view of US 2023/0030278 (hereinafter “Sakuma”), US 2015/0045954 (hereinafter “Negishi”), and US 2004/0135802 (hereinafter “Allor”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to generating a robot program for teaching a robot to move (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Akan is generally directed to programming an industrial robot to perform work in a robot cell including a plurality of workstations (specification, paragraph [0001]). And Sakuma is generally directed to creating a program that defines a movement of a robot without being connected to the actual robot (specification, paragraph [0028]). And Negishi is generally directed to controlling a multi-articulated robot (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Allor is generally directed to the design of an interactive help utility, such as a wizard, that guides a user through steps of a particular task (specification, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Akan, Sakuma, Negishi, and Allor are all analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 1, Akan discloses:
A robot teaching device (Figure 1), comprising:
a display (Figure 1: 6a);
at least one memory configured to store a program (paragraph [0064], “The first and second computing unit include data processing means, such as such as a central processing unit (CPU) and memory means, such as ROM and RAM.”); and
at least one processor (paragraph [0064], “The first and second computing unit include data processing means, such as such as a central processing unit (CPU) and memory means, such as ROM and RAM.”) configured to:
cause the display to display an editing screen for editing a robot program (Figures 6a and 6b; paragraph [0094], “FIG. 6a and 6b are screenshots from the first graphical user interface. FIG. 6a shows programming of an input pallet. On the left panel the robot cell and the workstations in the robot cell are shown. On the right side, the task parts building up the task to be carried out by the robot at the input palette are shown. FIG. 6b shows a drop down list with a plurality of task parts, which can be selected for programming a workstation [cause the display to display an editing screen for editing a robot program].”); and
cause the display to display, when a robot command indicating a work of a robot is added to the robot program on the editing screen (paragraph [0064], “FIG. 1 shows an example of a first and a second computing unit 1, 2 for programming an industrial robot 3 to carry out work [a work of a robot] in a robot cell including a plurality of workstations.”; paragraph [0069], “FIG. 3 shows an example of a sequence of programming blocks 14a-c selected for a workstation ‘Input palette’. Each of the programming blocks includes robot code 15 for carrying out one of the task parts ‘Approach the palette’, ‘Pick from stack’, and ‘Retract’, and program code 16 for generating a graphical user interface (GUI) for guiding a user to program the task part [cause the display to display, when a robot command indicating a work of a robot is added to the robot program on the editing screen].”; paragraph [0073], “The system further comprises a programming tool generator 20 configured to generate a guiding tool 22 for programming a specific robot cell based on the program code in the selected sequences of programming blocks for the workstations in the specific robot cell. The guiding tool 22 includes program code for generating a second wizard including a second graphical user interface for guiding a user to program the specific robot cell (emphasis added).”), a wizard for setting at least a parameter value of a plurality of other robot commands indicating the work of the robot different from the robot command (paragraph [0073], “The second wizard allows the user to select one or more of the workstations in the specific robot cell and to input parameters in response to the displayed instructions (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0078], “The second user interface is designed to allow a user to select one or more of the defined workstations for the robot cell. The second user interface is designed to step by step display questions and instructions to the user for each of the selected workstations, and to allow the user to input parameters and make choices in response to the displayed instructions and questions. In this example, the second graphical user interface allows a user to select the order the robot is going to visit the workstations. For example, the robot shall first visit the input pallet 4a, then visit the machine 4b, and at last visit the output pallet 4c. The second graphical user interface allows a user to specify movement paths for the robot for carrying out the tasks at the selected workstations. This is, for example, done teaching the robot a plurality of waypoints on the movement paths. In this case, the parameters are the positions and orientations of the waypoints [setting at least a parameter value of a plurality of other robot commands indicating the work of the robot different from the robot command] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0089], “The programming of the robot cell is split up into two parts, assisted by a first wizard for the integrator and a second wizard for the operator (emphasis added).”).
Akan does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the robot command is a representative command accompanied by addition of the plurality of other robot commands, and the plurality of other robot commands is […] added to […] the representative command based on the parameter value set by input to the wizard.
However, Sakuma discloses:
wherein the robot command is a representative command accompanied by addition of the plurality of other robot commands, and the plurality of other robot commands is […] added to […] the representative command based on the parameter value set by input to the wizard (Figure 4; paragraph [0048], “FIG. 4 shows an example of the programming screen [the wizard]. The programming screen 200 includes a command list area 300, a simulation bar 400, and an animation display area 600. In the command list area 300, a plurality of command boxes 310 are arranged in a row in time series order. In other words, in the command list area 300, the command boxes 310 are arranged in the order in which the commands are executed.”; paragraph [0075], “The instruction to add a command can be realized by various methods. For example, a button for adding a command may be displayed in the command list area 300, and the user may select the button to instruct to add a command. Furthermore, a drop-down list containing multiple items may be displayed in response to a click or touch operation on the programming screen 200, and the user may select the ‘add command’ item in the drop-down list to instruct to add a command [wherein the robot command is a representative command accompanied by addition of the plurality of other robot commands, and the plurality of other robot commands is […] added to […] the representative command based on the parameter value set by input to the wizard] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0076], “In adding a command, a teaching point is set at the selected point in time. Moreover, the movement direction of the robot and the type of work included in the new command are specified by the user [based on the parameter value set by input to the wizard].”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Akan and Sakuma are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sakuma into the teaching of Akan to include “wherein the robot command is a representative command accompanied by addition of the plurality of other robot commands, and the plurality of other robot commands is […] added to […] the representative command based on the parameter value set by input to the wizard.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to edit an operation program and change a part of a movement trajectory of a robot (Sakuma, paragraph [0073]).
The combination of Akan and Sakuma discloses “the representative command,” but the combination of Akan and Sakuma does not explicitly disclose:
[…] a position of the representative command […].
However, Negishi discloses:
[…] a position of the representative command […] (paragraph [0044], “The position command calculating unit 50 adds a deviation command of the hand tip of the robot arm 20 to a current position of the hand tip thereof expressed by three-dimensional coordinates [[…] a position of the representative command […]], to thereby calculate a position command (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Negishi is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Negishi into the combined teachings of Akan and Sakuma to include “[…] a position of the representative command […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to appropriately process singular points of a multi-articulated robot having a plurality of postures (Negishi, paragraph [0005]).
The combination of Akan, Sakuma, and Negishi does not explicitly disclose:
[…] after an instruction to end the wizard is received […].
However, Allor discloses:
[…] after an instruction to end the wizard is received […] (paragraph [0003], “At any point, a user may exit from the wizard 100 by clicking on a Cancel button 116. Clicking on the Cancel button causes the wizard 100 to quit and returns the user to the application that originally invoked the wizard 100 (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Allor is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Allor into the combined teachings of Akan, Sakuma, and Negishi to include “[…] after an instruction to end the wizard is received […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to quit a wizard and return a user to an application that originally invoked the wizard (Allor, paragraph [0003]).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Akan further discloses:
wherein the robot command is indicated by an icon or a block (paragraph [0069], “FIG. 3 shows an example of a sequence of programming blocks 14a-c selected for a workstation ‘Input palette’. Each of the programming blocks includes robot code 15 for carrying out one of the task parts ‘Approach the palette’, ‘Pick from stack’, and ‘Retract’, and program code 16 for generating a graphical user interface (GUI) for guiding a user to program the task part.”), and
the at least one processor is configured to edit the robot program by the icon or the block being added (paragraph [0073], “The system further comprises a programming tool generator 20 configured to generate a guiding tool 22 for programming a specific robot cell based on the program code in the selected sequences of programming blocks for the workstations in the specific robot cell. The guiding tool 22 includes program code for generating a second wizard including a second graphical user interface for guiding a user to program the specific robot cell.”).
Claims 8 and 14 are non-transitory computer readable recording medium claims corresponding to the robot teaching device claims hereinabove (Claims 1 and 7, respectively). Therefore, Claims 8 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1 and 7, respectively.
As per Claim 15, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Akan further discloses:
wherein the work of the robot is at least one of palletizing or depalletizing, welding, screw fastening, linear motion of a tool, or trajectory teaching (paragraph [0002], “In many factories the manufacture takes place at different workstations. Robots performing tasks at the workstations can be used in order to increase the productivity. The robot can perform operations, such as welding, gluing, painting, grinding, picking, and assembly at the workstations.”).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0030278 (hereinafter “Sakuma”) in view of US 2015/0045954 (hereinafter “Negishi”) and US 2021/0026335 (hereinafter “Isozumi”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to generating a robot program for teaching a robot to move (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Sakuma is generally directed to creating a program that defines a movement of a robot without being connected to the actual robot (specification, paragraph [0028]). And Negishi is generally directed to controlling a multi-articulated robot (specification, paragraph [0002]). And Isozumi is generally directed to a multi-function integrated work table on which tasks are performed by a robot and peripheral equipment operating in conjunction with each other (specification, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Sakuma, Negishi, and Isozumi are all analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems).
As per Claim 2, Sakuma discloses:
A robot teaching device (Figure 1), comprising:
a display (Figure 1: 160);
at least one memory (Figure 1: 120 and 130) configured to store a program; and
at least one processor (Figure 1: 110) configured to:
cause the display to display an editing screen for editing a robot program (Figure 4; paragraph [0048], “FIG. 4 shows an example of the programming screen [an editing screen]. The programming screen 200 includes a command list area 300, a simulation bar 400, and an animation display area 600. In the command list area 300, a plurality of command boxes 310 are arranged in a row in time series order. In other words, in the command list area 300, the command boxes 310 are arranged in the order in which the commands are executed [cause the display to display an editing screen for editing a robot program].”); and
add, after a robot command indicating a work of a robot is added to the robot program on the editing screen, a plurality of other robot commands indicating the work of the robot different from the robot command (Figure 4; paragraph [0037], “The command includes a teaching point that defines the posture of the robot, i.e., the movement point, a movement direction of the robot, such as a straight line, a circular arc, etc., and a type of work to be performed by the robot, such as deburring, welding, moving, etc. [a work of a robot] (emphasis added)”; paragraph [0048], “FIG. 4 shows an example of the programming screen [the editing screen]. The programming screen 200 includes a command list area 300, a simulation bar 400, and an animation display area 600. In the command list area 300, a plurality of command boxes 310 are arranged in a row in time series order. In other words, in the command list area 300, the command boxes 310 are arranged in the order in which the commands are executed.”; paragraph [0075], “The instruction to add a command can be realized by various methods. For example, a button for adding a command may be displayed in the command list area 300, and the user may select the button to instruct to add a command. Furthermore, a drop-down list containing multiple items may be displayed in response to a click or touch operation on the programming screen 200, and the user may select the ‘add command’ item in the drop-down list to instruct to add a command [add, after a robot command indicating a work of a robot is added to the robot program on the editing screen, a plurality of other robot commands indicating the work of the robot different from the robot command] (emphasis added).”),
wherein the robot command is a representative command accompanied by addition of the plurality of commands, and the plurality of other robot commands is added to […] the representative command […] (Figure 4; paragraph [0075], “The instruction to add a command can be realized by various methods. For example, a button for adding a command may be displayed in the command list area 300, and the user may select the button to instruct to add a command. Furthermore, a drop-down list containing multiple items may be displayed in response to a click or touch operation on the programming screen 200, and the user may select the ‘add command’ item in the drop-down list to instruct to add a command [wherein the robot command is a representative command accompanied by addition of the plurality of commands, and the plurality of other robot commands is added to […] the representative command […]] (emphasis added).”).
Sakuma discloses “the representative command,” but Sakuma does not explicitly disclose:
[…] a position of the representative command […].
However, Negishi discloses:
[…] a position of the representative command […] (paragraph [0044], “The position command calculating unit 50 adds a deviation command of the hand tip of the robot arm 20 to a current position of the hand tip thereof expressed by three-dimensional coordinates [[…] a position of the representative command […]], to thereby calculate a position command (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Sakuma and Negishi are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Negishi into the teaching of Sakuma to include “[…] a position of the representative command […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to appropriately process singular points of a multi-articulated robot having a plurality of postures (Negishi, paragraph [0005]).
The combination of Sakuma and Negishi does not explicitly disclose:
[…] a sample program in relation to the work of the robot.
However, Isozumi discloses:
[…] a sample program in relation to the work of the robot (paragraph [0095], “The user can design a process by selecting and combining an API, a task sample program, a sample program, etc. that are provided in the process planning and designing controller 215, i.e., an API used to execute tasks that the work equipment 23 connected to the RIT-side controller 21 can execute, a task sample program for executing tasks that can be executed by using the jig 25 and/or the hand tool 27 disposed on the workbench 22, and a sample program that is created in advance as an operation of the robot 1 [[…] a sample program in relation to the work of the robot] (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Isozumi is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Isozumi into the combined teachings of Sakuma and Negishi to include “ […] a sample program in relation to the work of the robot.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a robot to perform operations of a sample program (Isozumi, paragraph [0095]).
Claim 9 is a non-transitory computer readable recording medium claim corresponding to the robot teaching device claim hereinabove (Claim 2). Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0030278 (hereinafter “Sakuma”) in view of US 2015/0045954 (hereinafter “Negishi”), US 2003/0048300 (hereinafter “Li”), and US 2004/0135802 (hereinafter “Allor”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to generating a robot program for teaching a robot to move (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Sakuma is generally directed to creating a program that defines a movement of a robot without being connected to the actual robot (specification, paragraph [0028]). And Negishi is generally directed to controlling a multi-articulated robot (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Li is generally directed to using a wizard user interface to facilitate generation of a system product (specification, paragraph [0009]). And Allor is generally directed to the design of an interactive help utility, such as a wizard, that guides a user through steps of a particular task (specification, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Sakuma, Negishi, Li, and Allor are all analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 3, Sakuma discloses:
A robot teaching device (Figure 1), comprising:
a display (Figure 1: 160);
at least one memory (Figure 1: 120 and 130) configured to store a program; and
at least one processor (Figure 1: 110) configured to:
cause the display to display an editing screen for editing a robot program (Figure 4; paragraph [0038], “The creation unit 102, based on the commands received via the input unit 101, determines one or more intermediate points connecting adjacent teaching points, and creates an operation program for the robot [a robot program] that includes the plurality of the teaching points and the intermediate points (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0048], “FIG. 4 shows an example of the programming screen [an editing screen]. The programming screen 200 includes a command list area 300, a simulation bar 400, and an animation display area 600. In the command list area 300, a plurality of command boxes 310 are arranged in a row in time series order. In other words, in the command list area 300, the command boxes 310 are arranged in the order in which the commands are executed [cause the display to display an editing screen for editing a robot program].”); and
cause the display to display, when a robot command indicating a work of a robot is added to the robot program on the editing screen, a wizard for adding a plurality of other robot commands indicating the work of the robot different from the robot command (Figure 4; paragraph [0037], “The command includes a teaching point that defines the posture of the robot, i.e., the movement point, a movement direction of the robot, such as a straight line, a circular arc, etc., and a type of work to be performed by the robot, such as deburring, welding, moving, etc. [a work of a robot] (emphasis added)”; paragraph [0048], “FIG. 4 shows an example of the programming screen [a wizard]. The programming screen 200 includes a command list area 300, a simulation bar 400, and an animation display area 600. In the command list area 300, a plurality of command boxes 310 are arranged in a row in time series order. In other words, in the command list area 300, the command boxes 310 are arranged in the order in which the commands are executed.”; paragraph [0075], “The instruction to add a command can be realized by various methods. For example, a button for adding a command may be displayed in the command list area 300, and the user may select the button to instruct to add a command. Furthermore, a drop-down list containing multiple items may be displayed in response to a click or touch operation on the programming screen 200, and the user may select the ‘add command’ item in the drop-down list to instruct to add a command [cause the display to display, when a robot command indicating a work of a robot is added to the robot program on the editing screen, a wizard for adding a plurality of other robot commands indicating the work of the robot different from the robot command] (emphasis added).”),
wherein:
the robot command is a representative command accompanied by addition of the plurality of other robot commands (Figure 4; paragraph [0048], “FIG. 4 shows an example of the programming screen [the editing screen]. The programming screen 200 includes a command list area 300, a simulation bar 400, and an animation display area 600. In the command list area 300, a plurality of command boxes 310 are arranged in a row in time series order. In other words, in the command list area 300, the command boxes 310 are arranged in the order in which the commands are executed.”; paragraph [0075], “The instruction to add a command can be realized by various methods. For example, a button for adding a command may be displayed in the command list area 300, and the user may select the button to instruct to add a command. Furthermore, a drop-down list containing multiple items may be displayed in response to a click or touch operation on the programming screen 200, and the user may select the ‘add command’ item in the drop-down list to instruct to add a command [the robot command is a representative command accompanied by addition of the plurality of other robot commands] (emphasis added).”), and
the plurality of other robot commands is added […] (paragraph [0075], “The instruction to add a command can be realized by various methods. For example, a button for adding a command may be displayed in the command list area 300, and the user may select the button to instruct to add a command. Furthermore, a drop-down list containing multiple items may be displayed in response to a click or touch operation on the programming screen 200, and the user may select the ‘add command’ item in the drop-down list to instruct to add a command [the plurality of other robot commands is added […]] (emphasis added).”).
Sakuma discloses “the representative command,” but Sakuma does not explicitly disclose:
[…] a position of the representative command.
However, Negishi discloses:
[…] a position of the representative command (paragraph [0044], “The position command calculating unit 50 adds a deviation command of the hand tip of the robot arm 20 to a current position of the hand tip thereof expressed by three-dimensional coordinates [[…] a position of the representative command], to thereby calculate a position command (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Sakuma and Negishi are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Negishi into the teaching of Sakuma to include “[…] a position of the representative command.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to appropriately process singular points of a multi-articulated robot having a plurality of postures (Negishi, paragraph [0005]).
Sakuma discloses “the robot program,” but the combination of Sakuma and Negishi does not explicitly disclose:
the representative command is deleted from the robot program […].
However, Li discloses:
the representative command is deleted from the […] program […] (paragraph [0031], “The non-volatile memory 26 of FIG. 1 contains a system product 50 [the […] program]. The product 50 is generated by the wizard UI (in accordance with the wizard's underlying purpose) as the user 18 advances or backtracks through the wizard's pages, and is reverted if the user 18 backtracks through the wizard's pages.”; paragraph [0065], “Third instance 28” of the product generation command stack 28, which is illustrated below the state transition arrow 74 in FIG. 4 in dotted outline, is not an instance per se, but rather merely indicates that the product generation command stack 28 is deleted upon wizard completion [the representative command is deleted from the […] program […]] (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Li is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Li into the combined teachings of Sakuma and Negishi to include “the representative command is deleted from the robot program […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to remove a command from a robot program that is not being used.
The combination of Sakuma, Negishi, and Li does not explicitly disclose:
[…] after an instruction to end the wizard is received.
However, Allor discloses:
[…] after an instruction to end the wizard is received (paragraph [0003], “At any point, a user may exit from the wizard 100 by clicking on a Cancel button 116. Clicking on the Cancel button causes the wizard 100 to quit and returns the user to the application that originally invoked the wizard 100 (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Allor is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Allor into the combined teachings of Sakuma, Negishi, and Li to include “[…] after an instruction to end the wizard is received.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to quit a wizard and return a user to an application that originally invoked the wizard (Allor, paragraph [0003]).
Claim 10 is a non-transitory computer readable recording medium claim corresponding to the robot teaching device claim hereinabove (Claim 3). Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Akan in view of Sakuma, Negishi, and Allor as applied to Claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US 2018/0222048 (hereinafter “Hasegawa”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to generating a robot program for teaching a robot to move (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Hasegawa is generally directed to controlling a robot (Abstract). Thus, Hasegawa is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Akan further discloses:
the wizard […] sets a parameter value of the representative command and a parameter value of the plurality of other robot commands (paragraph [0073], “The second wizard allows the user to select one or more of the workstations in the specific robot cell and to input parameters in response to the displayed instructions.”; paragraph [0078], “The second graphical user interface allows a user to specify movement paths for the robot for carrying out the tasks at the selected workstations. This is, for example, done teaching the robot a plurality of waypoints on the movement paths. In this case, the parameters are the positions and orientations of the waypoints.”; paragraph [0089], “The programming of the robot cell is split up into two parts, assisted by a first wizard for the integrator and a second wizard for the operator.”).
The combination of Akan, Negishi, and Allor does not explicitly disclose:
wherein when the representative command is added to the robot program, the wizard adds the plurality of other robot commands.
However, Sakuma discloses:
wherein when the representative command is added to the robot program, the wizard adds the plurality of other robot commands (Figure 4; paragraph [0048], “FIG. 4 shows an example of the programming screen. The programming screen 200 includes a command list area 300, a simulation bar 400, and an animation display area 600. In the command list area 300, a plurality of command boxes 310 are arranged in a row in time series order. In other words, in the command list area 300, the command boxes 310 are arranged in the order in which the commands are executed.”; paragraph [0075], “The instruction to add a command can be realized by various methods. For example, a button for adding a command may be displayed in the command list area 300, and the user may select the button to instruct to add a command. Furthermore, a drop-down list containing multiple items may be displayed in response to a click or touch operation on the programming screen 200, and the user may select the ‘add command’ item in the drop-down list to instruct to add a command.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Sakuma is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sakuma into the combined teachings of Akan, Negishi, and Allor to include “wherein when the representative command is added to the robot program, the wizard adds the plurality of other robot commands.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to edit an operation program and change a part of a movement trajectory of a robot (Sakuma, paragraph [0073]).
The combination of Akan, Sakuma, Negishi, and Allor does not explicitly disclose:
the wizard combines the representative command and the plurality of other robot commands added concomitantly with the representative command.
However, Hasegawa discloses:
the wizard combines the representative command and the plurality of other robot commands added concomitantly with the representative command (paragraph [0051], “The control device 40 can be communicably connected to a teaching device (not illustrated) via a cable or wireless communication. The teaching device may be a dedicated computer, and may be a general purpose computer in which a program for teaching the robot 1 is installed. The control device 40 and the teaching device may be integrally formed with each other.”; paragraph [0079], “The robot program 44b mainly indicates the sequence of work (an order of steps) performed by the robots 1 to 3, and is described by a combination of predefined commands.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Hasegawa is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hasegawa into the combined teachings of Akan, Sakuma, Negishi, and Allor to include “the wizard combines the representative command and the plurality of other robot commands added concomitantly with the representative command.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform a sequence of work (an order of steps) described by a combination of predefined commands by a robot (Hasegawa, paragraph [0079]).
Claim 11 is a non-transitory computer readable recording medium claim corresponding to the robot teaching device claim hereinabove (Claim 4). Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma in view of Negishi and Isozumi as applied to Claims 2 and 9 above, and further in view of US 2017/0320211 (hereinafter “Akan”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to generating a robot program for teaching a robot to move (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Akan is generally directed to programming an industrial robot to perform work in a robot cell including a plurality of workstations (specification, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Akan is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and the combination of Sakuma, Negishi, and Isozumi does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to set a parameter of the representative command and a parameter of the plurality of other robot commands.
However, Akan discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to set a parameter of the representative command and a parameter of the plurality of other robot commands (paragraph [0073], “The second wizard allows the user to select one or more of the workstations in the specific robot cell and to input parameters in response to the displayed instructions.”; paragraph [0078], “The second graphical user interface allows a user to specify movement paths for the robot for carrying out the tasks at the selected workstations. This is, for example, done teaching the robot a plurality of waypoints on the movement paths. In this case, the parameters are the positions and orientations of the waypoints.”; paragraph [0089], “The programming of the robot cell is split up into two parts, assisted by a first wizard for the integrator and a second wizard for the operator.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Akan is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Akan into the combined teachings of Sakuma, Negishi, and Isozumi to include “wherein the at least one processor is configured to set a parameter of the representative command and a parameter of the plurality of other robot commands.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enable a user to input or adjust parameters needed for carrying out a part of a task (Akan, paragraph [0017]).
Claim 12 is a non-transitory computer readable recording medium claim corresponding to the robot teaching device claim hereinabove (Claim 5). Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma in view of Negishi, Li, and Allor as applied to Claims 3 and 10 above, and further in view of US 2017/0320211 (hereinafter “Akan”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to generating a robot program for teaching a robot to move (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Akan is generally directed to programming an industrial robot to perform work in a robot cell including a plurality of workstations (specification, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Akan is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated; and the combination of Sakuma, Negishi, Li, and Allor does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the wizard sets a parameter value of the plurality of other robot commands.
However, Akan discloses:
wherein the wizard sets a parameter value of the plurality of other robot commands (paragraph [0073], “The second wizard allows the user to select one or more of the workstations in the specific robot cell and to input parameters in response to the displayed instructions.”; paragraph [0078], “The second graphical user interface allows a user to specify movement paths for the robot for carrying out the tasks at the selected workstations. This is, for example, done teaching the robot a plurality of waypoints on the movement paths. In this case, the parameters are the positions and orientations of the waypoints.”; paragraph [0089], “The programming of the robot cell is split up into two parts, assisted by a first wizard for the integrator and a second wizard for the operator.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Akan is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Akan into the combined teachings of Sakuma, Negishi, Li, and Allor to include “wherein the wizard sets a parameter value of the plurality of other robot commands.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enable a user to input or adjust parameters needed for carrying out a part of a task (Akan, paragraph [0017]).
Claim 13 is a non-transitory computer readable recording medium claim corresponding to the robot teaching device claim hereinabove (Claim 6). Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on August 28, 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of the claims have been fully considered, but they 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 Applicant’s arguments.
In the Remarks, the Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits, however, that Sakuma neither discloses nor suggests the features of amended claim 1 which recite the following: “a robot command indicating a work of a robot”, “a plurality of other robot commands indicating the work of the robot different from the robot command”, and “the robot command is a representative command accompanied by addition of the plurality of other robot commands.”
(See Remarks, page 10.)
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the Applicant’s assertion that “Sakuma neither discloses nor suggests the features of amended claim 1 which recite the following: ‘a robot command indicating a work of a robot’, ‘a plurality of other robot commands indicating the work of the robot different from the robot command’, and ‘the robot command is a representative command accompanied by addition of the plurality of other robot commands’,” the Examiner respectfully submits that Akan discloses “cause the display to display, when a robot command indicating a work of a robot is added to the robot program on the editing screen (paragraph [0064], “FIG. 1 shows an example of a first and a second computing unit 1, 2 for programming an industrial robot 3 to carry out work [a work of a robot] in a robot cell including a plurality of workstations.”; paragraph [0069], “FIG. 3 shows an example of a sequence of programming blocks 14a-c selected for a workstation ‘Input palette’. Each of the programming blocks includes robot code 15 for carrying out one of the task parts ‘Approach the palette’, ‘Pick from stack’, and ‘Retract’, and program code 16 for generating a graphical user interface (GUI) for guiding a user to program the task part [cause the display to display, when a robot command indicating a work of a robot is added to the robot program on the editing screen].”; paragraph [0073], “The system further comprises a programming tool generator 20 configured to generate a guiding tool 22 for programming a specific robot cell based on the program code in the selected sequences of programming blocks for the workstations in the specific robot cell. The guiding tool 22 includes program code for generating a second wizard including a second graphical user interface for guiding a user to program the specific robot cell (emphasis added).”), a wizard for setting at least a parameter value of a plurality of other robot commands indicating the work of the robot different from the robot command” (paragraph [0073], “The second wizard allows the user to select one or more of the workstations in the specific robot cell and to input parameters in response to the displayed instructions (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0078], “The second user interface is designed to allow a user to select one or more of the defined workstations for the robot cell. The second user interface is designed to step by step display questions and instructions to the user for each of the selected workstations, and to allow the user to input parameters and make choices in response to the displayed instructions and questions. In this example, the second graphical user interface allows a user to select the order the robot is going to visit the workstations. For example, the robot shall first visit the input pallet 4a, then visit the machine 4b, and at last visit the output pallet 4c. The second graphical user interface allows a user to specify movement paths for the robot for carrying out the tasks at the selected workstations. This is, for example, done teaching the robot a plurality of waypoints on the movement paths. In this case, the parameters are the positions and orientations of the waypoints [setting at least a parameter value of a plurality of other robot commands indicating the work of the robot different from the robot command] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0089], “The programming of the robot cell is split up into two parts, assisted by a first wizard for the integrator and a second wizard for the operator (emphasis added).”). And Sakuma discloses “wherein the robot command is a representative command accompanied by addition of the plurality of other robot commands, and the plurality of other robot commands is […] added to […] the representative command based on the parameter value set by input to the wizard” (Figure 4; paragraph [0048], “FIG. 4 shows an example of the programming screen [the wizard]. The programming screen 200 includes a command list area 300, a simulation bar 400, and an animation display area 600. In the command list area 300, a plurality of command boxes 310 are arranged in a row in time series order. In other words, in the command list area 300, the command boxes 310 are arranged in the order in which the commands are executed.”; paragraph [0075], “The instruction to add a command can be realized by various methods. For example, a button for adding a command may be displayed in the command list area 300, and the user may select the button to instruct to add a command. Furthermore, a drop-down list containing multiple items may be displayed in response to a click or touch operation on the programming screen 200, and the user may select the ‘add command’ item in the drop-down list to instruct to add a command [wherein the robot command is a representative command accompanied by addition of the plurality of other robot commands, and the plurality of other robot commands is […] added to […] the representative command based on the parameter value set by input to the wizard] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0076], “In adding a command, a teaching point is set at the selected point in time. Moreover, the movement direction of the robot and the type of work included in the new command are specified by the user [based on the parameter value set by input to the wizard].”).
Therefore, for at least the reason set forth above, the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to Claim 1 is proper.
As the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent Claim 1 is maintained for at least the reasons stated hereinabove, the rejections with respect to the remaining independent claims are also maintained for at least the identical reasons set forth hereinabove, and the rejections with respect to their dependent claims are also maintained since the Applicant has not pointed out any further deficiencies of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections with respect to their dependent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Qing Chen whose telephone number is 571-270-1071. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/ interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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.
/Qing Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
