DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Note
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: label 131 for “Model Data”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “robot model arrangement unit configured to…”, “grasped object model arrangement unit configured to…”, “workpiece model arrangement unit configured to…”, “image generation unit configured to…”, “display unit configured to…”, “first transfer material image display unit configured to…”, “second transfer material image display unit configured to…”, “conveyance apparatus configured to…”, “conveyance model arrangement unit configured to…”, “detection apparatus model arrangement unit configured to…” in claims 1-2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Claims 1-2 are directed to a machine.
Step 2A Prong I, Judicial Category:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute a mental process, as the claims cover performance of the human mind, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
A robot simulation apparatus for performing simulation of an operation program for a robot that, in a robot system comprising the robot grasping a grasped object and a workpiece in a workspace, presses a surface of the grasped object to a surface of the workpiece to transfer a transfer material arranged on the surface of the grasped object onto the surface of the workpiece, the robot simulation apparatus comprising
a robot model arrangement unit configured to arrange a robot model of the robot in a virtual space that three- dimensionally represents the workspace;
a grasped object model arrangement unit configured to arrange a grasped object model of the grasped object such that the grasped object model is grasped by the robot model, in the virtual space;
a workpiece model arrangement unit configured to arrange a workpiece model of the workpiece at a position that the grasped object model grasped by the robot model reaches, in the virtual space;
an image generation unit configured to generate, in the robot simulation apparatus, an image of the robot system operating according to the operation program;
a display unit configured to display the image of the robot system generated by the image generation unit;
a first transfer material image display unit configured to display a transfer material image of the transfer material on a surface of the grasped object model; and
a second transfer material image display unit configured to display, when the surface of the grasped object model comes into contact with a surface of the workpiece model, the transfer material image on the surface of the workpiece model such that the transfer material image is in a relationship of being reversed relative to the transfer material image displayed on the surface of the grasped object model.
The limitations “arrange a robot model of the robot in a virtual space that three- dimensionally represents the workspace”, “arrange a grasped object model of the grasped object such that the grasped object model is grasped by the robot model, in the virtual space”, “arrange a workpiece model of the workpiece at a position that the grasped object model grasped by the robot model reaches, in the virtual space” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes. A person can perform the mental process of modeling an object and transforming the position, rotation etc. of an object model. A person may use a pen and paper to perform the mental process.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 1 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present general fields of use, mere instructions to apply an exception, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity:
A robot simulation apparatus for performing simulation of an operation program for a robot that, in a robot system comprising the robot grasping a grasped object and a workpiece in a workspace, presses a surface of the grasped object to a surface of the workpiece to transfer a transfer material arranged on the surface of the grasped object onto the surface of the workpiece, the robot simulation apparatus comprising (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
a robot model arrangement unit configured to (mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computer components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
a grasped object model arrangement unit configured to (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
a workpiece model arrangement unit configured to (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
an image generation unit configured to … in the robot simulation apparatus (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
generate … an image of the robot system operating according to the operation program (insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information […], for collection, analysis, and display).
a display unit configured to (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
display the image of the robot system generated by the image generation unit (insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
a first transfer material image display unit configured to (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
to display a transfer material image of the transfer material on a surface of the grasped object model (display is insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); details of the display content is general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
a second transfer material image display unit configured to (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
display … the transfer material image on the surface of the workpiece model (insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
when the surface of the grasped object model comes into contact with a surface of the workpiece model (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
such that the transfer material image is in a relationship of being reversed relative to the transfer material image displayed on the surface of the grasped object model. (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(h) and MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The “unit” elements claimed, interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as mere generic computing components, and are well understood, routine, and conventional int the art. A transfer material image being reversed is generally linking to the field of use, and is well understood, routine, and conventional in the art. Displaying model visualizations is insignificant extra solution activity, and is well understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
Considering the claim limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion, and claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitations:
The robot simulation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the robot system further comprises a conveyance apparatus configured to convey the workpiece and a detection apparatus configured to detect the workpiece being conveyed by the conveyance apparatus;
the robot simulation apparatus further comprises:
a conveyance model arrangement unit configured to arrange a conveyance apparatus model of the conveyance apparatus in the virtual space;
a workpiece model arrangement unit configured to arrange the workpiece model of the workpiece on the conveyance apparatus model in the virtual space; and
a detection apparatus model arrangement unit configured to arrange a detection apparatus model of the detection apparatus that detects the workpiece model conveyed by the conveyance apparatus model, in the virtual space, such that the detection apparatus model is able to detect the workpiece model conveyed by the conveyance apparatus model, in the virtual space; and
the second transfer material image display unit further displays, when the surface of the grasped object model comes into contact with the surface of the workpiece model conveyed by the conveyance apparatus model, the transfer material image on the surface of the workpiece model such that the transfer material image is in the relationship of being reversed relative to the transfer material image displayed on the surface of the grasped object model.
The limitations “detect the workpiece being conveyed by the conveyance apparatus,” “arrange a conveyance apparatus model of the conveyance apparatus in the virtual space,” “arrange the workpiece model of the workpiece on the conveyance apparatus model in the virtual space,” “arrange a detection apparatus model of the detection apparatus that detects the workpiece model conveyed by the conveyance apparatus model, in the virtual space, such that the detection apparatus model is able to detect the workpiece model conveyed by the conveyance apparatus model, in the virtual space” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes. A person can perform the mental process of modeling an object and transforming the position, rotation etc. of an object model. Additionally “detection” is an observation mental process of the model. A person can perform the mental process of modeling objects in the same “virtual space” such that the person can model the interactions, such as “detection,” between objects. A person may use a pen and paper to perform the mental process.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 2 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present general fields of use, mere instructions to apply an exception, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity:
wherein the robot system further comprises a conveyance apparatus configured to (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
and a detection apparatus configured to (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
the robot simulation apparatus further comprises: (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
a conveyance model arrangement unit configured to (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
a workpiece model arrangement unit configured to (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
a detection apparatus model arrangement unit configured to (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
the second transfer material image display unit (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
further displays … the transfer material image on the surface of the workpiece model (insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
when the surface of the grasped object model comes into contact with the surface of the workpiece model conveyed by the conveyance apparatus model, (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
such that the transfer material image is in the relationship of being reversed relative to the transfer material image displayed on the surface of the grasped object model. (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(h) and MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The “unit” and “apparatus” elements claimed, interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as mere generic computing components, and are well understood, routine, and conventional in the art. A transfer material image being reversed is generally linking to the field of use, and is well understood, routine, and conventional in the art. Displaying model visualizations is insignificant extra solution activity, and is well understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
Considering the claim limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion, and claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki et al. (JP 2016129915, provided in IDS) and Hiroaki et al. (JP 2005297404 A, 10-27-2005).
Regarding claim 1, Hiroyuki teaches:
A robot simulation apparatus for performing simulation of an operation program for a robot (Hiroyuki [0016], “FIG. 1 is a functional block diagram of a simulation apparatus according to the present invention. As can be inferred from FIG. 1, the simulation apparatus 10 executes a simulation of a robot system…”)
that, in a robot system comprising the robot grasping a grasped object (Hiroyuki [0016], “…robot R that performs a follow-up operation on a workpiece W using a hand H … Note that the following operation means an operation of gripping the workpiece W to be conveyed along the conveyance device T”)
and a workpiece in a workspace, (Hiroyuki [0016], “…robot R that performs a follow-up operation on a workpiece W using a hand H … Note that the following operation means an operation of gripping the workpiece W to be conveyed along the conveyance device T”) The workspace is being interpreted as the “conveyance device” of Hiroyuki.
the robot simulation apparatus comprising: a robot model arrangement unit configured to arrange a robot model of the robot in a virtual space that three- dimensionally represents the workspace; (Hiroyuki [0017], “robot placement unit 11 that arranges a three dimensional robot model RM of a robot R in a virtual space”)
a grasped object model arrangement unit configured to arrange a grasped object model of the grasped object such that the grasped object model is grasped by the robot model, in the virtual space; (Hiroyuki [0016], “…robot R that performs a follow-up operation on a workpiece W using a hand H … Note that the following operation means an operation of gripping the workpiece W to be conveyed along the conveyance device T”)
a workpiece model arrangement unit configured to arrange a workpiece model of the workpiece at a position that the grasped object model grasped by the robot model reaches, in the virtual space; (Hiroyuki [0016], “…robot R that performs a follow-up operation on a workpiece W using a hand H … Note that the following operation means an operation of gripping the workpiece W to be conveyed along the conveyance device T”)
an image generation unit configured to generate, in the robot simulation apparatus, an image of the robot system operating according to the operation program; (Hiroyuki [0025], “Further, the simulation apparatus 10 includes a display unit 29 that displays a three dimensional work model WM of a robot model RM”) image generation is inherent to a “display unit” of Hiroyuki.
a display unit configured to display the image of the robot system generated by the image generation unit; (Hiroyuki [0025], “Further, the simulation apparatus 10 includes a display unit 29 that displays a three dimensional work model WM of a robot model RM”)
The limitations below, not taught by Hiroyuki, are taught by Hiroaki:
presses a surface of the grasped object to a surface of the workpiece to transfer a transfer material arranged on the surface of the grasped object onto the surface of the workpiece, (Hiroaki pg. 3 paragraph 3, “the invention according to claim 1 is a printing that simulates at least the operation of an ink key and a plurality of rollers in a printing press and calculates the thickness of ink transferred at each portion in the printing press”)
a first transfer material image display unit configured to display a transfer material image of the transfer material on a surface of the grasped object model; (Hiroaki pg. 8 paragraph 4, “the calculation result of ink transfer at the nip between all the rollers is displayed on the display unit”)
and a second transfer material image display unit configured to display, when the surface of the grasped object model comes into contact with a surface of the workpiece model, the transfer material image on the surface of the workpiece model such that the transfer material image is in a relationship of being reversed relative to the transfer material image displayed on the surface of the grasped object model. (Hiroaki pg. 8 paragraph 4, “the calculation result of ink transfer at the nip between all the rollers is displayed on the display unit”) Displaying a transfer image on an additional roller of Hiroaki at a specific point in time is functionally identical to displaying a transfer image on a workpiece. A reversed transfer image is implied in transfer printing.
Hiroyuki and Hiroaki are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: Simulation of a manufacturing process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the simulated robot arm manufacturing process of Hiroyuki with the transfer printing simulation of Hiroaki. The motivation/suggestion would be that Hiroaki is directed towards solving the problem of production defects (Hiroaki pg. 2 paragraph 8, “even if pre-inking or reduction of printing is performed, the error is large, and it takes time until the target ink film thickness is obtained, and a large amount of damaged paper maybe generated.”) in the same way that Hiroyuki is directed toward solving production defects (Hiroyuki [0011], “it is an object of the present invention to provide a simulation apparatus for a robot system capable of accurately and easily checking a cause of a problem cause by an actual robot system in a short time.”).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Hiroyuki teaches:
wherein the robot system further comprises a conveyance apparatus configured to convey the workpiece (Hiroyuki [0020], “Further, the simulation device 10 includes a model storage unit 17 that stores a plurality of three dimensional transport device models TM I to TM 4 of the transport device T, and a model selection unit 18 that selects one transport device model from the plurality of transport device models TM 1 to TM 4 stored in the model storage unit 17”)
and a detection apparatus configured to detect the workpiece being conveyed by the conveyance apparatus; (Hiroyuki [0012], “In order to achieve the above object, according to a 1 aspect of the present invention, there is provided a simulation apparatus for performing a simulation of a robot system including a robot that performs a follow-up operation on a workpiece using a hand based on an output from a detection unit that detects a workpiece conveyed along the conveyance apparatus”)
the robot simulation apparatus further comprises: a conveyance model arrangement unit configured to arrange a conveyance apparatus model of the conveyance apparatus in the virtual space; (Hiroyuki [0020], “Further, the simulation device 10 includes a model storage unit 17 that stores a plurality of three dimensional transport device models TM I to TM 4 of the transport device T, and a model selection unit 18 that selects one transport device model from the plurality of transport device models TM 1 to TM 4 stored in the model storage unit 17”)
a workpiece model arrangement unit configured to arrange the workpiece model of the workpiece on the conveyance apparatus model in the virtual space; (Hiroyuki [0012], “there is further provided a workpiece supply method determination unit that determines a supply method of the workpiece based on information of a supply method of the workpiece including a supply position, a supply amount. and a supply speed of the workpiece included in the configuration information”)
and a detection apparatus model arrangement unit configured to arrange a detection apparatus model of the detection apparatus that detects the workpiece model conveyed by the conveyance apparatus model, in the virtual space, (Hiroyuki [0012], “The detection unit arrangement position calculation unit includes a detection unit model placement unit that arranges the detection unit model determined by the model determination unit at the detection unit arrangement position calculated by the detection unit arrangement position calculation unit.”)
such that the detection apparatus model is able to detect the workpiece model conveyed by the conveyance apparatus model, in the virtual space; (Hiroyuki [Claim 1], “A simulation device (10) for performing a simulation of a robot system (1) including a robot for performing a follow-up operation on a workpiece using a hand based on an output from a detection part for detecting a workpiece conveyed along the conveyance device.”)
The limitations below, not taught by Hiroyuki, are taught by Hiroaki:
and the second transfer material image display unit further displays, when the surface of the grasped object model comes into contact with the surface of the workpiece model conveyed by the conveyance apparatus model, the transfer material image on the surface of the workpiece model such that the transfer material image is in the relationship of being reversed relative to the transfer material image displayed on the surface of the grasped object model. (Hiroaki pg. 8 paragraph 4, “the calculation result of ink transfer at the nip between all the rollers is displayed on the display unit”) Displaying a transfer image on an additional roller of Hiroaki at a specific point in time is functionally identical to displaying a transfer image on a workpiece. A reversed transfer image is implied in transfer printing.
Hiroyuki and Hiroaki are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: Simulation of a manufacturing process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the simulated robot arm manufacturing process of Hiroyuki with the transfer printing simulation of Hiroaki. The motivation/suggestion would be that Hiroaki is directed towards solving the problem of production defects (Hiroaki pg. 2 paragraph 8, “even if pre-inking or reduction of printing is performed, the error is large, and it takes time until the target ink film thickness is obtained, and a large amount of damaged paper maybe generated.”) in the same way that Hiroyuki is directed toward solving production defects (Hiroyuki [0011], “it is an object of the present invention to provide a simulation apparatus for a robot system capable of accurately and easily checking a cause of a problem cause by an actual robot system in a short time.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2019031205 A1 is directed to a printing machine with an articulated robot arm.
JP 2008213484 A is directed to multicolor print simulation.
CN 111114114 A is directed to pad printing robot system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY GOLD whose telephone number is (571)270-7171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00 am - 5:00pm) ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HENRY JOYNER GOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights