DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on April 14, 2026, entered by the RCE filed on the same date.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10 are currently amended.
Claim 15 is added.
The objections to Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims.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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on April 14, 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15 recite the limitation “the robot” at lines 8, 9, and 11, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “a robot” for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 4 and 7 depend on Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 4 and 7 suffer the same deficiency as Claim 1.
Claim 5 depends on Claim 2. Therefore, Claim 5 suffers the same deficiency as Claim 2.
Claim 6 depends on Claim 3. Therefore, Claim 6 suffers the same deficiency as Claim 3.
Claims 11 and 14 depend on Claim 8. Therefore, Claims 11 and 14 suffer the same deficiency as Claim 8.
Claim 12 depends on Claim 9. Therefore, Claim 12 suffers the same deficiency as Claim 9.
Claim 13 depends on Claim 10. Therefore, Claim 13 suffers the same deficiency as Claim 10.
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”) 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).
Note that 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 (Akan, 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 (Sakuma, paragraph [0028]). 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 (Allor, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Akan, Sakuma, 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). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
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 is added to the robot program on the editing screen (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 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 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 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 the robot command].”; 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 indicating a work of the robot accompanied by addition of at least one other robot command different from the robot command, and the at least one other robot command is […] added to the robot program based on the parameter value of the robot command set by input to the wizard.
However, Sakuma discloses:
wherein the robot command is a representative command indicating a work of the robot accompanied by addition of at least one other robot command different from the robot command, and the at least one other robot command is […] added to the robot program based on the parameter value of the robot command set by input to the wizard (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 the robot] (emphasis added)”; 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 indicating a work of the robot accompanied by addition of at least one other robot command different from the robot command, and the at least one other robot command is {…} added to the robot program] (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 indicating a work of the robot accompanied by addition of at least one other robot command different from the robot command, and the at least one other robot command is […] added to the robot program based on the parameter value of the robot command 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 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 and Sakuma 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 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).
Note that 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 (Sakuma, paragraph [0028]). 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 (Isozumi, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Sakuma and Isozumi are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
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 is added to the robot program on the editing screen, at least one other robot command different from the robot command (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 [add, after a robot command is added to the robot program on the editing screen, at least one other robot command different from the robot command] (emphasis added).”),
wherein the robot command added to the robot program on the editing screen is a representative command indicating a work of the robot accompanied by addition of the at least one other 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 the 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 [wherein the robot command added to the robot program on the editing screen is a representative command indicating a work of the robot accompanied by addition of the at least one other robot command {…}] (emphasis added).”).
Sakuma does not explicitly disclose:
[…] and the at least one other robot command is a sample program in relation to the work of the robot.
However, Isozumi discloses:
[…] and the at least one other robot command is 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 [{…} and the at least one other robot command is a sample program in relation to the work of the robot] (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Sakuma and Isozumi 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 Isozumi into the teaching of Sakuma to include “ […] and the at least one other robot command is 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 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).
Note that 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 (Sakuma, paragraph [0028]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Li is generally directed to using a wizard user interface to facilitate generation of a system product (Li, 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 (Allor, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Sakuma, 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). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
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 [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 is added to the robot program on the editing screen, a wizard for adding at least one other robot command different from the robot command (Figure 4; 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 is added to the robot program on the editing screen, a wizard for adding at least one other robot command different from the robot command] (emphasis added).”),
wherein the robot command added to the robot program on the editing screen is a representative command indicating a work of the robot accompanied by addition of the at least one other 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 the 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 [wherein the robot command added to the robot program on the editing screen is a representative command indicating a work of the robot accompanied by addition of the at least one other robot command] (emphasis added).”).
Sakuma discloses “a robot program,” but Sakuma does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the representative command is deleted from the robot program […].
However, Li discloses:
wherein the representative command is deleted from the robot program […] (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 [wherein the representative command is deleted from the robot program {…}] (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Sakuma and Li 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 Li into the teaching of Sakuma to include “wherein 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 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 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 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).
Note that 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 (Hasegawa, Abstract). Thus, Hasegawa is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
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 at least one other 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.”; 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 and Allor does not explicitly disclose:
wherein when the representative command is added to the robot program, the wizard adds the at least one other robot command.
However, Sakuma discloses:
wherein when the representative command is added to the robot program, the wizard adds the at least one other robot command (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 and Allor to include “wherein when the representative command is added to the robot program, the wizard adds the at least one other robot command.” 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, and Allor does not explicitly disclose:
the wizard combines the representative command and the at least one other robot command added concomitantly with the representative command.
However, Hasegawa discloses:
the wizard combines the representative command and the at least one other robot command 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, and Allor to include “the wizard combines the representative command and the at least one other robot command 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 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).
Note that 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 (Akan, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Akan is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and the combination of Sakuma 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 at least one other robot command.
However, Akan discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to set a parameter of the representative command and a parameter of the at least one other 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.”; 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 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 at least one other robot command.” 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 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).
Note that 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 (Akan, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Akan is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated; and the combination of Sakuma, Li, and Allor does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the wizard sets a parameter value of the at least one other robot command.
However, Akan discloses:
wherein the wizard sets a parameter value of the at least one other 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.”; 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, Li, and Allor to include “wherein the wizard sets a parameter value of the at least one other robot command.” 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 with respect to Claims 1-3 and 8-10 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.
In the Remarks, the Applicant argues:
Based on the foregoing, while Sakuma discloses the use of a button for adding a command or an ‘add command’ item in a drop-down list, Applicant respectfully submits that Sakuma does not disclose or suggest the above-noted features recited in amended claim 2 directed to “a representative command indicating a work of the robot” and “the at least one other robot command is a sample program in relation to the work of the robot.”
(See Remarks – page 9, emphasis in original.)
Examiner’s response:
Examiner disagrees. With respect to the Applicant’s assertion that “Sakuma does not disclose or suggest the above-noted features recited in amended claim 2 directed to ‘a representative command indicating a work of the robot,’” the Examiner respectfully submits that Sakuma discloses “[…] a representative command indicating a work of the robot […]” (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 the robot] (emphasis added)”).
Therefore, for at least the reason set forth above, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to Claims 2, 5, 9, and 12 are proper.
In the Remarks, the Applicant argues:
Regarding the cited prior art references, Applicant notes that Akan discloses the use of a wizard, and Sakuma discloses the use of a button for adding a command or an ‘add command’ item in a drop-down list (see paragraph [0075]).
Applicant respectfully submits, however, that neither Akan nor Sakuma, either considered alone or in combination, teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the above-noted features recited in amended claim 1 directed to “a representative command indicating a work of the robot accompanied by addition of at least one other robot command different from the robot command” and “the at least one other robot command is, after an instruction to end the wizard is received, added to the robot program based on the parameter value of the robot command set by input to the wizard.”
(See Remarks – page 10, emphasis in original.)
Examiner’s response:
Examiner disagrees. With respect to the Applicant’s assertion that “neither Akan nor Sakuma, either considered alone or in combination, teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the above-noted features recited in amended claim 1 directed to ‘a representative command indicating a work of the robot,’” the Examiner respectfully submits that Sakuma discloses “[…] a representative command indicating a work of the robot […]” (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 the robot] (emphasis added)”).
Therefore, for at least the reason set forth above, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, and 15 are proper.
In the Remarks, the Applicant argues:
Regarding Sakamura [sic], as discussed above in connection with claims 1 and 2, while Sakuma discloses the use of a button for adding a command or an ‘add command’ item in a drop-down list (see paragraph [0075]), Applicant respectfully submits that Sakuma does not disclose or suggest the above-noted feature recited in amended claim 3 directed to “a representative command indicating a work of the robot”.
(See Remarks – page 11, emphasis in original.)
Examiner’s response:
Examiner disagrees. With respect to the Applicant’s assertion that “Sakuma does not disclose or suggest the above-noted feature recited in amended claim 3 directed to ‘a representative command indicating a work of the robot,’” the Examiner respectfully submits that Sakuma discloses “[…] a representative command indicating a work of the robot […]” (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 the robot] (emphasis added)”).
Therefore, for at least the reason set forth above, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to Claims 3, 6, 10, and 13 are proper.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights