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 .
Status of Claims
This is in response to the RCE filed on 12/02/2025. Claims 1-17 remain pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 11, and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 3-4, Claims 3 states “The robot cell system design device according to claim 1, the one or more processors are configured to calculate”. There should be a “wherein” after the comma so that the claim reads “The robot cell system design device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to calculate
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 states “wherein wherein the one or more processors are configured to present”. Applicant should remove one of the “wherein” terms.
Regarding Claims 14-15, Claim 14 states “the one or more processors are further configured to perform control the layout planning operation to calculate the layout candidate” in lines 6-8. This limitation is not written in grammatically correct English. Applicant should amend the claim so that it is grammatically correct e.g. “the one or more processors are further configured to perform control to cause the layout planning operation to calculate the layout candidate”.
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, 5-7, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 20180036882 A1) in view of Nakajima et al (JP2003103481A) (Hereinafter referred to as Kimura and Nakajima respectively)
Regarding Claims 1 and 16-17, Kimura teaches a robot cell system design device (See at least Kimura Paragraph 0036 and Figure 2, the layout optimizing apparatus is interpreted as the robot cell system design device), a robot cell system design method (See at least Kimura Paragraph 0021), a non-transitory storage medium storing a robot cell system design program for causing a computer to perform (See at least Kimura Paragraphs 0021 and 0214):
one or more processors (See at least Kimura Paragraphs 0044-0045 and Figure 2, device comprises a CPU that performs the process) configured to perform:
acquisition operation for acquiring specification information about a robot that is a component of a robot cell system (See at least Kimura Paragraphs 0001, and 0081-0082, the position and shape information/specification information of the robot that is a component of a robot cell system/workspace is acquired), member information including shape information about a member, other than the robot, which is also a component of the robot cell system (See at least Kimura Paragraphs 0001, 0036, and 0081-0082, the position and shape information of the peripheral devices/workpiece rests, which are interpreted as member information including shape information, are acquired), and work information relating to work to be performed by the robot (See at least Kimura Paragraph 0083, the teaching point corresponding to the specific operation to be performed by the robot, which is interpreted as work information, is acquired);
layout planning operation for calculating, based on the specification information, the member information, and the work information, one or more layout candidates for the robot and the member in the robot cell system (See at least Kimura Paragraphs 0062-0063, 0080-0084, 0089, 0102, 0105-0107, and Figures 3-4, the layout candidates for the robot and the member/peripheral device are calculated based on the information acquired in steps s100-s102, which includes the specification, member, and work information);
pose planning operation for calculating, based on the specification information, the member information, and the work information, for each layout candidate, …a start pose at a start point and an end pose at an end point of each operation of the robot (See at least Kimura Paragraphs 0055-0056, 0093-0095, 0107 and Figures 3-4, a start point and target/end point for the layout are calculated based on the information acquired in steps s100-s102, which includes the specification, member, and work information; the joint angles/pose for the positions are calculated using inverse kinematics);
route planning operation for calculating, based on the specification information, the member information, and the work information, for each layout candidate, a…route from the start pose to the end pose (See at least Kimura Paragraphs 0056-0057, 0083, 0095, and Figures 3-4, a trajectory from the start pose to the end pose for the layout is calculated based on the information acquired in steps s100-s102, which includes the specification, member, and work information)…;
evaluation operation for selecting, based on the routes, an optimum layout from the layout candidates (See at least Kimura Paragraphs 0063-0065, the layout with the highest evaluation value is selected, which is based on the trajectory/route, as the optimum layout); and
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the robot to operate based on the optimum layout (See at least Kimura Paragraphs 0021, 0041, 0047, and Figure 2, the teaching data is output to the robot to cause the robot to operate in the working environment/layout that was optimized).
Even though Kimura teaches calculating a start pose at a start point and an end pose at an end point and calculating a route for the layout candidate, Kimura fails to disclose calculating… a set of combinations of a start pose at a start point and an end pose at an end point, and
calculating a set of routes from the start pose to the end pose of each combination of the start pose and the end pose.
However, Nakajima teaches calculating… a set of combinations of a start pose at a start point and an end pose at an end point (See at least Nakajima Page 5 Paragraphs 11-14 and Figure 10, a set of combinations of start pose at a start point and an end pose at an end point is calculated), and
calculating a set of routes from the start pose to the end pose of each combination of the start pose and the end pose (See at least Nakajima Page 5 Paragraphs 11-16 and Figure 10, a path from the start pose to the end pose are calculated for each combination of the start pose and the end pose).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Kimura with Nakajima to calculate a set of routes from the start pose to the end pose of each combination of the start pose and the end pose. This modification, as taught by Nakajima, would allow the system to select a route with the shortest travel time from the start pose to the end pose (See at least Nakajima Page 5 Paragraph 11-Page 6 Paragraph 3), thus, improving the efficiency of the robot.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kimura fails to disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to select, for each operation, a combination with a highest evaluation indicated by a pose cost relating to an operation time of the robot required for the work, among combinations of the start pose and the end pose according to a position and a pose when a hand part of the robot accesses the member.
However, Kimura does teach that the start pose and end pose are according to a position and a pose when a hand part of the robot accesses the member (See at least Kimura Paragraphs 0079, 0083, 0093, and Figure 1, the position and pose are for when the hand part access the member/workpiece rests), and Nakajima teaches select, for each operation, a combination with a highest evaluation indicated by a pose cost relating to an operation time of the robot required for the work, among combinations of the start pose and the end pose (See at least Nakajima Page 5 Paragraphs 13-Page 6 Paragraph 3, and Figure 10, the combination with the shortest operation time, which is interpreted as the highest evaluation, is selected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Kimura with Nakajima to select, for each operation, a combination with a highest evaluation indicated by a pose cost relating to an operation time of the robot required for the work, among combinations of the start pose and the end pose according to a position and a pose when a hand part of the robot accesses the member. This modification, as taught by Nakajima, would allow the system to select the combination that results in the shortest travel time from the start pose to the end pose (See at least Nakajima Page 5 Paragraph 11-Page 6 Paragraph 3), thus, improving the efficiency of the robot.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kimura teaches the one or more processors are configured to calculate the start pose and the end pose by further using gripping information indicating a relative relationship between the hand part of the robot and a workpiece gripped by the hand part of the robot (See at least Kimura Paragraphs 0079, 0083, 0093, and Figure 1, the start pose and end pose are calculated based on gripping information for the hand part to grip and move the workpiece).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kimura teaches the one or more processors are further configured to calculate the gripping information based on the specification information, the member information, and the work information (See at least Kimura Paragraphs 0081-0083, 0089-0093, and Figures 3-4, the gripping information is calculated using inverse kinematics based on the specification information, the member information, and the work information).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Nakajima, and in further view of Prats (US 9724826 B1) (Hereinafter referred to as Prats)
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kimura fails to disclose the one or more processors are configured to calculate a route cost relating to the routes for each of the layout candidates, and select a layout candidate with a highest evaluation indicated by the route cost, as the optimum layout.
However, Prats teaches calculate a route cost relating to the routes for each of the layout candidates (See at least Prats Column 2 lines 43-58, the path/route cost for the paths for each layout/arrangement are calculated), and select a layout candidate with a highest evaluation indicated by the route cost, as the optimum layout (See at least Prats Column 6 lines 9-44, the layout/arrangement candidate with the lowest path/route cost, which is interpreted as having the highest evaluation value, is selected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Kimura with Prats to select a layout candidate with a highest evaluation indicated by the route cost, as the optimum layout. This modification, as taught by Prats, would allow the system to select a physical arrangement which results in less overall robot motion and less overall execution time, which would increase efficiency and safety (See at least Prats Column 2 lines 4-20).
Regarding Claims 3-4, modified Kimura fails to disclose the one or more processors are configured to calculate a layout cost relating to a layout for each layout pattern of the robot and the member, and select one or more patterns in descending order of evaluation indicated by the layout cost or one or more patterns in which the layout cost satisfies a predetermined condition, as the layout candidate,
wherein the layout cost is a value based on at least one of a distance between members, an area or a volume of a region where the robot and the member are arranged, a distance between an obstacle and the member, or operability of the robot.
However, Prats teaches calculate a layout cost relating to a layout for each layout pattern of the robot and the member (See at least Prats Column 6 lines 9-44, the layout/arrangement cost is calculated), and select one or more patterns in descending order of evaluation indicated by the layout cost or one or more patterns in which the layout cost satisfies a predetermined condition, as the layout candidate (See at least Prats Column 6 lines 9-44, the layout/arrangement with the lowest cost is selected),
wherein the layout cost is a value based on at least one of a distance between members, an area or a volume of a region where the robot and the member are arranged, a distance between an obstacle and the member, or operability of the robot (See at least Prats Column 5 line 57-Column 6 line 8, the operability of the robot is used to calculate the layout/arrangement cost).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Kimura with Prats to select one or more patterns in descending order of evaluation indicated by the layout cost, wherein the layout cost is a value based on operability of the robot. This modification, as taught by Prats, would allow the system to select a physical arrangement which results in less overall robot motion and less overall execution time, while keeping the operational components of the robot within operational limits, which would increase efficiency and safety (See at least Prats Column 2 lines 4-20 and Column 5 line 57-Column 6 line 8).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Nakajima, and in further view of Michalowski et al (US 11209798 B1), Yoshizawa et al (US 20100204828 A1), and Zhao (US 11254003 B1) (Hereinafter referred to as Michalowski, Yoshizawa, and Zhao respectively)
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kimura fails to disclose the one or more processors are further configured to:
acquire constraint information designated by a user,
select, in a case in which constraint information relating to a layout is acquired as the constraint information, the layout candidate from among layout patterns of the robot and the member, the layout patterns satisfying the constraint information.
However, Michalowski teaches acquire constraint information designated by a user (See at least Michalowski Column 9 lines 25-57, the layout constraint generator uses inputs from the user terminal),
select, in a case in which constraint information relating to a layout is acquired as the constraint information, the layout candidate from among layout patterns of the robot and the member, the layout patterns satisfying the constraint information (See at least Michalowski Column 5 lines 8-27, and Column 9 line 25- Column 10 line 13, the layout constraint is used to select the workspace layout for the robot and the other members).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Kimura with Michalowski to select the layout candidate that satisfies the constraint information. This modification, as taught by Michalowski, would allow the system to select a layout based on the constraints generated according to the user input (See at least Michalowski Column 9 line 25- Column 10 line 13), thus, giving the user more control over the layout that is selected.
Modified Kimura fails to disclose calculate, in a case in which constraint information relating to a pose is acquired as the constraint information, a set of combinations of the start pose and the end pose satisfying the constraint information.
However, Yoshizawa teaches calculate, in a case in which constraint information relating to a pose is acquired as the constraint information, a set of combinations of the start pose and the end pose satisfying the constraint information (See at least Yoshizawa Paragraphs 0006-0008, 0050, 0067-0068, and Figure 6, the user inputs constraint conditions for the pose of the robot, and the pose/joint angles that satisfy the constraint are calculated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Kimura with Yoshizawa to calculate a set of combinations of a start pose and end pose that satisfy the constraint information. This modification, as taught by Yoshizawa, would allow the system to select a set of combinations of a start pose and end pose that satisfy the constraint that was input by the user (See at least Yoshizawa Paragraphs 0006-0008, 0050, 0067-0068, and Figure 6), thus, giving the user more control over the poses that are selected.
Modified Kimura fails to disclose calculate, in a case in which constraint information relating to a route is acquired as the constraint information, a set of routes satisfying the constraint information.
However, Zhao teaches calculate, in a case in which constraint information relating to a route is acquired as the constraint information, a set of routes satisfying the constraint information (See at least Zhao Column 15 line 60-Column 16 line 28, the set of routes satisfying the constraint condition input by the user are calculated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Kimura with Zhao to calculate a set of routes that satisfy the constraint information. This modification, as taught by Zhao, would allow the system to calculate routes that satisfy the constraint that was input by the user (See at least Yoshizawa Paragraphs 0006-0008, 0050, 0067-0068, and Figure 6), thus, giving the user more control over the routes that are selected.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Kimura fails to disclose the constraint information includes at least one of a positional relationship between members, an unarrangeable region of the member, a designated position where the member is arranged, a clearance with respect to the member, a designated pose, or a designated route.
However, Yoshizawa teaches the constraint information includes a designated pose (See at least Yoshizawa Paragraphs 0050, 0067, and Figure 6, the start position and posture that is input with the constraints is interpreted as a designated pose).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Kimura with Yoshizawa to have the constraint information include a designated pose. This modification, as taught by Yoshizawa, would allow the user to constrain the robot to a designated start pose (See at least Yoshizawa Paragraphs 0050, 0067, and Figure 6), thus, giving the user more control over the poses of the robot.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Kimura teaches the one or more processors are configured to determine appropriateness of a plan in each of the layout planning operation, the pose planning operation, and the route planning operation (See at least Kimura Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0063, 0089-0092, 0095-0097, the layout, the poses, and the route are all evaluated to determine if they are appropriate).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Nakajima, Michalowski, Yoshizawa, and Zhao, and in further view of Gautier et al (US 20240001542 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Gautier)
Regarding Claim 11, modified Kimura fails to disclose the one or more processors are configured to present a determination result to the user in a case in which it is determined that the appropriateness of the plan is not satisfied.
However, Gautier teaches present a determination result to the user in a case in which it is determined that the appropriateness of the plan is not satisfied (See at least Gautier Paragraphs 0089-0092, the user is alerted that the plan for the trajectory is not appropriate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Kimura with Gautier to present a determination result to the user in a case in which it is determined that the appropriateness of the plan is not satisfied. This modification, as taught by Gautier, would alert the user that the plan for the trajectory enters an alert area in which the trajectory is not technically feasible by the robot or that the trajectory collides with an element of the workspace (See at least Gautier Paragraph 0092), thus, improving the safety of the system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Nakajima, Michalowski, Yoshizawa, and Zhao, and in further view of Ishikawa et al (US 20220193909 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Ishikawa)
Regarding Claim 12, modified Kimura fails to disclose the one or more processors are configured to stop processing each of the layout planning operation, the pose planning operation, and the route planning operation based on a determination that the appropriateness of the plan is not satisfied.
However, Ishikawa teaches stop processing each of the layout planning operation, the pose planning operation, and the route planning operation based on a determination that the appropriateness of the plan is not satisfied (See at least Ishikawa Paragraphs 0018, 0028-0033, and Figure 4, the processing of the layout/arrangement planning operation, pose/waypoint planning operation, and path/route planning operation is stopped in S125 if the plan is not satisfied).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Kimura with Ishikawa to stop processing each of the layout planning operation, the pose planning operation, and the route planning operation based on a determination that the appropriateness of the plan is not satisfied. This modification, as taught by Ishikawa, would prevent endless loops (See at least Ishikawa Paragraph 0033 and Figure 4).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Nakajima, Michalowski, Yoshizawa, and Zhao, and in further view of Prats, Takebayashi et al (US 20220379472 A1), and Inazumi et al (US 20190279354 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Takebayashi and Inazumi respectively)
Regarding Claim 13, modified Kimura teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine that the appropriateness of the plan is satisfied:
in a case in which the start pose and the end pose planned by the one or more processors do not interfere with another member or an obstacle (See at least Kimura Paragraphs 0089-0093, and Figure 4, the plan is appropriate if there is no interference between the robot and the member), and
in a case in which the route can be calculated by the one or more processors (See at least Kimura Paragraph 0097, and Figure 4, the plan is appropriate if an interference avoidance trajectory can be generated).
Modified Kimura fails to disclose determine that the appropriateness of the plan is satisfied: in layout candidates planned by the one or more processors, in a case in which the member falls within an arrangeable area.
However, Michalowski teaches determine that the appropriateness of the plan is satisfied: in layout candidates planned by the one or more processors, in a case in which the member falls within an arrangeable area (See at least Michalowski Column 7 line 58-Column 8 line 40, and Column 10 lines 55-59, different regions/areas have different costs, and there are suitable/eligible regions for the placement of members/other resources, which is interpreted as an arrangeable area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Kimura with Michalowski to determine that the plan is appropriate in layout candidates in a case in which the member falls within an arrangeable area. This modification, as taught by Michalowski, would prevent the member from being placed in an unsuitable/non-eligible region of the environment (See at least Michalowski Column 8 lines 17-40, and Column 10 lines 55-59), thus, improving the layout of the environment.
Modified Kimura fails to disclose determine that the appropriateness of the plan is satisfied: in a case in which a layout cost indicating appropriateness of a layout is equal to or more than a threshold.
However, Prats teaches determine that the appropriateness of the plan is satisfied: in a case in which a layout cost indicating appropriateness of a layout is equal to or more than a threshold (See at least Prats Column 10 lines 34-62, the layout must be an acceptable CPAC/cost, which is interpreted as equal to a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Kimura with Prats to determine that the appropriateness of the plan is satisfied in a case in which a layout cost indicating appropriateness of a layout is equal to or more than a threshold. This modification, as taught by Prats, would ensure that the layout that is selected satisfies some criterion based on the layout cost (See at least Prats Column 10 lines 34-62), thus, improving the layout.
Modified Kimura fails to disclose determine that the appropriateness of the plan is satisfied: in a case in which a difference between the start pose and the end pose is equal to or less than a threshold.
However, Takebayashi teaches determine that the appropriateness of the plan is satisfied in a case in which a difference between the start pose and the end pose is equal to or less than a threshold (See at least Takebayashi Paragraphs 0163-0166, the plan for the path is appropriate when the difference/distance between the start/present position and the end/target point is less than a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Kimura with Takebayashi to determine that the appropriateness of the plan is satisfied in a case in which a difference between the start pose and the end pose is equal to or less than a threshold. This modification, as taught by Takabayashi, would ensure that distance traveled by the robot from the start pose to the end pose is less than a threshold value (See at least Takebayashi Paragraphs 0163-0166), which would improve the efficiency of the robot.
Modified Kimura fails to disclose determine that the appropriateness of the plan is satisfied: in a case in which an operation time of the robot required for the work is equal to or less than a predetermined value.
However, Inazumi teaches determine that the appropriateness of the plan is satisfied in a case in which an operation time of the robot required for the work is equal to or less than a predetermined value (See at least Inazumi Paragraph 0170, the route is appropriate when the operation time is equal to or less than the threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Kimura with Inazumi to determine that the appropriateness of the plan is satisfied in a case in which an operation time of the robot required for the work is equal to or less than a predetermined value. This modification, as taught by Inazumi, would ensure that the movement/operation time of the robot to complete the work is less than a threshold value (See at least Inazumi Paragraph 0170), which would improve the efficiency of the robot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657