DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination received 9 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-14 as per the 29 December 2025 amendments are pending and have been considered as follows.
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:
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “first interface connected communicatively” in Claim 1; “terminal device configured to receive” in Claim 1; “second interface connected communicatively” in Claim 1; “robot control unit configured to control” in Claim 1; “control unit configured to communicate … and output” in Claim 1; “storage unit … to store” in Claim 2; “terminal device configured to receive” in Claim 11; “robot control unit configured to control” in Claim 11; “user interface configured to receive” in Claim 12; “communication interface connected communicatively” in Claim 12; “system control device configured to output” in Claim 12; “robot control unit configured to control” in Claim 12; “terminal control unit configured to generate” in Claim 12; “user interface configured to receive” in Claim 14; “robot control unit configured to control” in Claim 14; “system control device connected communicatively” in Claim 14; and “terminal device configured to generate” in Claim 14.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US Pub. No. 2019/0143524) in view of Orita (US Pub. No. 2008/0109114), further in view of Murray (US Pub. No. 2003/0171846).
As per Claim 1, Takahashi discloses a system control device comprising:
a first interface (as per arrows from input device 30 to parts in body 10 in Fig. 2; as per connectivity between input device 30 and circuitry 160 in Fig. 4) connected communicatively to a terminal device (20, 30) configured to receive an input (as per “input device through which desired information can be input” in ¶25) from a user (Figs. 2, 4; ¶24-28, 54);
a second interface (as per arrows from program transmitting part 151 and robot controller 3 in Fig. 2; as per connectivity between robot controller 3 and circuitry 160 in Fig. 4) connected communicatively to a robot control unit (3) (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶20-28, 54), the robot control unit (3) configured to control at least one robot (2) based on at least one library (111, 112, 113, 114) that defines a movement (as per 224, 225) and based on an execution timing (as per 250) comprising at least one of a start timing (as per top end of work time period 251 and/or top end of movement time period 252) and an end timing (as per top end of waiting time period 253) for the movement (as per 224, 225) (Figs. 1-3; ¶20-38); and
a control unit (as per 121-125, 131-132, 140, 151 in Fig. 2; as per 161, 162 in Fig. 4) (Figs. 2, 4; ¶24-28, 54) configured to
communicate with the first interface (as per arrows from input device 30 to parts in body 10 in Fig. 2; as per connectivity between input device 30 and circuitry 160 in Fig. 4) and the second interface (as per arrows from program transmitting part 151 and robot controller 3 in Fig. 2; as per connectivity between robot controller 3 and circuitry 160 in Fig. 4) (Figs. 2, 4; ¶24-28, 54),
acquire or generate schedule information (250) based on the input (as per “input device through which desired information can be input” in ¶25) to the terminal device (20, 30), the schedule information (250) being usable to identify the execution timing (as per 250) and being associated with job information (224, 225) usable to identify the at least one library (111, 112, 113, 114) (Figs. 2-4; ¶20-38, 54), and
output, to the robot control unit (3), a command (as per “program transmission part 151 transmits the motion program … to the robot controller 3” in ¶53) causing the at least one robot (2) to execute the movement (as per 224, 225) identified from the job information (224, 225) at the execution timing (as per 250) identified from the schedule information (250) (Figs. 2-4; ¶20-38, 54).
Takahashi does not expressly disclose:
wherein the schedule information comprises at least one of date or time; and
wherein the control unit is configured to identify the library from the job information when acquiring or generating the schedule information.
Orita discloses a robot control system (A) that includes a plurality of robots (RA, RB, RC) each configured to carry out a task in accordance with instructions transmitted from a robot control apparatus (3) and as entered by a terminal (5) (Fig. 1; ¶31-33, 35). The robot control apparatus (3) includes a storage device (200) which includes a task information database (220) and a task schedule table (230) (Fig. 3; ¶64, 68). Data stored in the task information database (220) includes start time describing the expected task start time and end time describing the expected task finish time (Fig. 4; ¶76). The task schedule table (230) operates to assign unexecuted tasks among tasks registered in the task registration database (220) to the robots (R) (Fig. 5; ¶79-84). The content of the registered task is derived through data input from the terminal (5) manipulated by the operator and includes start time (¶37, 77-78). In this way, tasks in accordance with user input may be scheduled (¶37, 78). Like Takahashi, Orita is concerned with robot control systems.
Murray discloses robotic behavior software (150 that processes inputs from sensors (152) and provides control outputs to actuators (154) by using: a planner/application (157, 158), a behavior layer (160), a task layer (162), and drivers (156) (Fig. 1B; ¶29-30). The drivers (156) support commands given and provide feedback information in terms of a corresponding device’s physical characteristics (¶29-30). For example, commands to operate a motor used in the drive system of a robot will be produced by the behavior layer (160) and/or the task layer (162) and transmitted to the drivers (156) (¶30). In one embodiment, the robotic behavior software (150) includes a hardware abstraction layer (202) that provides an intermediate layer interface to higher-level robotic behavior software (Fig. 2; ¶33-33). The hardware abstraction layer (202) implements resource interfaces (702) that reside in a dynamically loadable shared library by which different implementations for different hardware performing tasks abstracted by the same driver (156/302) can be implemented in different shared libraries and the correct library loaded for the hardware that is being used (Figs. 1B, 2-3, 7; ¶29-30, 41, 94-98). In this way, new implementations may be easily added to the framework (¶96). Like Takahashi, Murray is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Takahashi, Orita, and Murray, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Orita and Murray to the system of Takahashi since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for scheduling tasks in accordance with user input; and adapting the system to easily add new implementations. Applying the teachings of Orita and Murray to the system of Takahashi would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the schedule information comprises at least one of date or time” in that the system of Takahashi would be adapted to receive user input for scheduling tasks as per Orita; and
“wherein the control unit is configured to identify the library from the job information when acquiring or generating the schedule information” in that the system of Takahashi would be adapted to load data from an appropriate library as per Murray.
As per Claim 2, the combination of Takahashi, Orita, and Murray teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Takahashi further discloses a storage unit (as per 111, 112, 113, 114 in Fig. 2; as per 162 in Fig. 4) (Figs. 2, 4; ¶26-27, 54),
wherein the control unit (as per 121-125, 131-132, 140, 151 in Fig. 2; as per 161, 162 in Fig. 4) is configured to store, in the storage unit (as per 111, 112, 113, 114 in Fig. 2; as per 162 in Fig. 4), reservation information (as per 227) usable to reserve a timing for execution of a work content (as per information displayed in sections 224, 225) identified from the job information (224, 225), and set the execution timing (as per portion of time chart 250 corresponding to each portion of displayed task 224 and displayed subsidiary task 225) for the work content (as per information displayed in sections 224, 225) identified from the job information (224, 225) based on the reservation information (Figs. 2-4; ¶20-38, 54).
As per Claim 3, the combination of Takahashi, Orita, and Murray teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 2. Takahashi further discloses wherein the control unit (as per 121-125, 131-132, 140, 151 in Fig. 2; as per 161, 162 in Fig. 4) is configured to acquire or generate the reservation information (as per 227) that comprises information configured usable to identify the execution timing for the work content (as per information displayed in sections 224, 225) identified from the job information (224, 225) (Figs. 2-4; ¶20-38, 54).
As per Claim 4, the combination of Takahashi, Orita, and Murray teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Takahashi further discloses wherein the command (as per “program transmission part 151 transmits the motion program … to the robot controller 3” in ¶53) comprises information (as per 226) usable to identify the at least one robot (2) that is to execute a work content (as per information displayed in sections 224, 225) identified from the job information (224, 225) (Figs. 2-4; ¶20-38, 54).
As per Claim 5, the combination of Takahashi, Orita, and Murray teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Takahashi further discloses wherein the command (as per “program transmission part 151 transmits the motion program … to the robot controller 3” in ¶53) comprises information usable (as per 250) to identify the execution timing for a work content (as per information displayed in sections 224, 225) identified from the job information (224, 225) (Figs. 2-4; ¶20-38, 54).
As per Claim 6, the combination of Takahashi, Orita, and Murray teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 5. Takahashi further discloses wherein the control unit (as per 121-125, 131-132, 140, 151 in Fig. 2; as per 161, 162 in Fig. 4) is configured to store the job information (224, 225) associated with task information (as per content of sections 224, 225) usable to identify a start condition (227) and an end condition (as per time period for each of 251, 252) (Figs. 2-4; ¶20-38, 54).
As per Claim 11, Takahashi discloses a robot control method comprising:
communicating (as per arrows from input device 30 to parts in body 10 in Fig. 2; as per connectivity between input device 30 and circuitry 160 in Fig. 4) with a terminal device (20, 30) configured to receive an input (as per “input device through which desired information can be input” in ¶25) from a user (Figs. 2, 4; ¶24-28, 54);
communicating (as per arrows from program transmitting part 151 and robot controller 3 in Fig. 2; as per connectivity between robot controller 3 and circuitry 160 in Fig. 4) with a robot control unit (3) configured to control at least one robot (2) based on at least one library (111, 112, 113, 114) defining a movement (as per 224, 225) and based on an execution timing (as per 250) comprising at least one of a start timing (as per top end of work time period 251 and/or top end of movement time period 252) and an end timing (as per top end of waiting time period 253) for the movement (as per 224, 225) (Figs. 1-4; ¶20-38, 54);
acquiring or generating schedule information (250), based on the input (as per “input device through which desired information can be input” in ¶25) from the user, the schedule information (250) being usable to identify the execution timing (as per 250) and being associated with job information (224, 225) usable to identify the at least one library (111, 112, 113, 114) (Figs. 2-4; ¶20-38, 54); and
outputting, to the robot control unit (3), a command (as per “program transmission part 151 transmits the motion program” in ¶53) causing the at least one robot (2) to execute the movement (as per 224, 225) associated with the job information (224, 225) at the execution timing (as per 250) identified from the schedule information (250) (Figs. 2-4; ¶20-38, 54).
Takahashi does not expressly disclose:
wherein the schedule information comprises at least one of date or time; and
identifying the library from the job information when acquiring or generating the schedule information.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Orita and Murray.
Therefore, from these teachings of Takahashi, Orita, and Murray, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Orita and Murray to the system of Takahashi since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for scheduling tasks in accordance with user input; and adapting the system to easily add new implementations. Applying the teachings of Orita and Murray to the system of Takahashi would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the schedule information comprises at least one of date or time” in that the system of Takahashi would be adapted to receive user input for scheduling tasks as per Orita; and
“identifying the library from the job information when acquiring or generating the schedule information” in that the system of Takahashi would be adapted to load data from an appropriate library as per Murray.
As per Claim 12, Takahashi discloses a terminal device comprising:
a user interface (20, 30) configured to receive an input (as per “input device through which desired information can be input” in ¶25) from a user (Figs. 2, 4; ¶24-28, 54);
a communication interface (as per arrows from input device 30 to parts in body 10 in Fig. 2; as per connectivity between input device 30 and circuitry 160 in Fig. 4; as per arrows from program transmitting part 151 and robot controller 3 in Fig. 2; as per connectivity between robot controller 3 and circuitry 160 in Fig. 4) connected communicatively to a system control device (as per processing for outputs to robot controller 3), the system control device (as per processing for outputs to robot controller 3) configured to output information (as per “program transmission part 151 transmits the motion program … to the robot controller 3” in ¶53) to a robot control unit (3) configured to control at least one robot (2) based on at least one library (111, 112, 113, 114) defining a movement (as per 224, 225) and based on an execution timing (as per 250) comprising at least one of a start timing (as per top end of work time period 251 and/or top end of movement time period 252) and an end timing (as per top end of waiting time period 253) for the movement (as per 224, 225) (Figs. 1-4; ¶20-38, 54); and
a terminal control unit (as per processing for outputs to monitor 20) configured to generate schedule information (250), based on the input (as per “input device through which desired information can be input” in ¶25) from the user, the schedule information (250) being usable to identify the execution timing (as per 250) and being associated with job information (224, 225) usable to identify the at least one library (111, 112, 113, 114) (Figs. 2-4; ¶20-38, 54),
wherein the communication interface (as per arrows from input device 30 to parts in body 10 in Fig. 2; as per connectivity between input device 30 and circuitry 160 in Fig. 4; as per arrows from program transmitting part 151 and robot controller 3 in Fig. 2; as per connectivity between robot controller 3 and circuitry 160 in Fig. 4) is configured to output the job information (224, 225) and the schedule information (250) to the system control device (as per processing for outputs to robot controller 3) (Figs. 2-4; ¶20-38, 54).
Takahashi does not expressly disclose:
wherein the schedule information comprises at least one of date or time; and
wherein the terminal control unit is configured to identify the at least one library from the job information when generating the schedule information.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Orita and Murray.
Therefore, from these teachings of Takahashi, Orita, and Murray, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Orita and Murray to the system of Takahashi since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for scheduling tasks in accordance with user input; and adapting the system to easily add new implementations. Applying the teachings of Orita and Murray to the system of Takahashi would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the schedule information comprises at least one of date or time” in that the system of Takahashi would be adapted to receive user input for scheduling tasks as per Orita; and
“wherein the terminal control unit is configured to identify the at least one library from the job information when generating the schedule information” in that the system of Takahashi would be adapted to load data from an appropriate library as per Murray.
As per Claim 13, Takahashi discloses a terminal control method comprising:
receiving an input (as per “input device through which desired information can be input” in ¶25) from a user (Figs. 2, 4; ¶24-28, 54); and
generating and outputting schedule information (250) based on at least one library (111, 112, 113, 114) defining a movement (as per 224, 225) and based on an execution timing (as per 250) comprising at least one of a start timing (as per top end of work time period 251 and/or top end of movement time period 252) and an end timing (as per top end of waiting time period 253) for the movement (as per 224, 225), the schedule information (250) being usable to identify the execution timing (as per 250) and being associated with job information (224, 225) usable to identify the at least one library (111, 112, 113, 114) (Figs. 2-4; ¶20-38, 54).
Takahashi does not expressly disclose:
wherein the schedule information comprises at least one of date or time; and
identifying the at least one library from the job information when generating the schedule information.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Orita and Murray.
Therefore, from these teachings of Takahashi, Orita, and Murray, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Orita and Murray to the system of Takahashi since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for scheduling tasks in accordance with user input; and adapting the system to easily add new implementations. Applying the teachings of Orita and Murray to the system of Takahashi would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the schedule information comprises at least one of date or time” in that the system of Takahashi would be adapted to receive user input for scheduling tasks as per Orita; and
“identifying the at least one library from the job information when generating the schedule information” in that the system of Takahashi would be adapted to load data from an appropriate library as per Murray.
As per Claim 14, Takahashi discloses a robot control system comprising:
a terminal device (10, 20, 30) comprising a user interface (20, 30) configured to receive an input (as per “input device through which desired information can be input” in ¶25) from a user (Figs. 2, 4; ¶24-28, 54);
a robot control unit (3) configured to control at least one robot (2) based on at least one library (111, 112, 113, 114) defining a movement (as per 224, 225) and based on an execution timing (as per 250) comprising at least one of a start timing (as per top end of work time period 251 and/or top end of movement time period 252) and an end timing (as per top end of waiting time period 253) for the movement (as per 224, 225) (Figs. 1-4; ¶20-38, 54); and
a system control device (as per 121-125, 131-132, 140, 151 in Fig. 2; as per 161, 162 in Fig. 4) connected communicatively to the robot control unit (3) and to the terminal device (20, 30) (Figs. 2, 4; ¶24-28, 54),
wherein the terminal device (10, 20, 30) is configured to generate schedule information (250) based on information input (s per “input device through which desired information can be input” in ¶25) to the user interface (20, 30), designate a work content (as per 221, 224) to be executed by the at least one robot (2), and output the schedule information (250) to the system control device (as per 121-125, 131-132, 140, 151 in Fig. 2; as per 161, 162 in Fig. 4), the schedule information (250) being usable to identify the execution timing (as per 250) and being associated with job information (224, 225) usable to identify the at least one library (111, 112, 113, 114) (Figs. 2-4; ¶20-38, 54),
wherein the system control device (as per 121-125, 131-132, 140, 151 in Fig. 2; as per 161, 162 in Fig. 4) is configured to output, to the robot control unit (3), a command (as per “program transmission part 151 transmits the motion program … to the robot controller 3” in ¶53) causing the at least one robot (2) to execute work identifiable from the job information (224, 225) at the execution timing (as per 250) identifiable from the schedule information (250) (Figs. 2-4; ¶20-38, 54), and
wherein the robot control unit (3) is configured to cause the at least one robot (2) to execute the movement (as per 224, 225) based on the command (as per “program transmission part 151 transmits the motion program … to the robot controller 3” in ¶53) at the execution timing (as per 250) identifiable from the schedule information (250), the movement (as per 224, 225) being identifiable from the job information (224, 225) by invoking the at least one library (111, 112, 113, 114) associated with the job information (224, 225) (Figs. 2-4; ¶20-38, 54).
Takahashi does not expressly disclose:
wherein the schedule information comprises at least one of date or time; and
wherein the terminal device is configured to identify the at least one library from the job information when generating the schedule information.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Orita and Murray.
Therefore, from these teachings of Takahashi, Orita, and Murray, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Orita and Murray to the system of Takahashi since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for scheduling tasks in accordance with user input; and adapting the system to easily add new implementations. Applying the teachings of Orita and Murray to the system of Takahashi would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the schedule information comprises at least one of date or time” in that the system of Takahashi would be adapted to receive user input for scheduling tasks as per Orita; and
“wherein the terminal device is configured to identify the at least one library from the job information when generating the schedule information” in that the system of Takahashi would be adapted to load data from an appropriate library as per Murray.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US Pub. No. 2019/0143524) in view of Orita (US Pub. No. 2008/0109114), further in view of Murray (US Pub. No. 2003/0171846), further in view of Dooley (US Pub. No. 2009/0082879).
As per Claim 7, the combination of Takahashi, Orita, and Murray teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Takahashi does not expressly disclose wherein the control unit is configured to output data of a new library to the robot control unit, and the robot control unit is capable of installing the new library.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Orita and Murray.
Dooley discloses a system (100) that includes a transferable intelligent control device (110) and a plurality of robots (150, 151) (Fig. 1B; ¶19). The transferable intelligent control device (110) is configured to allow consumers to purchase software to add behaviors and functionality to their products while keeping the same hardware (¶41). The software includes programs for use on the transferable intelligent control device, and/or updates to the connected devices (¶41). In this way, the system provides a software market for devices (¶41). Like Takahashi, Dooley is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Takahashi, Orita, Murray, and Dooley, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Orita, Murray, and Dooley to the system of Takahashi since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for scheduling tasks in accordance with user input; adapting the system to easily add new implementations; and enhancing the economic value of the system by providing a software market for connected devices. Applying the teachings of Orita, Murray, and Dooley to the system of Takahashi would result in a system that operates “wherein the control unit is configured to output data of a new library to the robot control unit, and the robot control unit is capable of installing the new library” in that the system of Takahashi would be adapted in view of Dooley to include available software updates.
As per Claim 8, the combination of Takahashi, Orita, and Murray teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Takahashi further discloses wherein the job information further comprises information usable to identify a plurality of libraries, and information usable to identify a library related to a subsequent movement based on a result of a movement executed previously by the at least one robot.
Takahashi further discloses wherein the job information (224, 225) further comprises information usable to identify a plurality of libraries (111, 112, 113, 114) (Figs. 2-4; ¶20-38, 54).
Takahashi does not expressly disclose: information usable to identify a library related to a subsequent movement based on a result of a movement executed previously by the at least one robot.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Orita and Murray.
Dooley discloses a system (100) that includes a transferable intelligent control device (110) and a plurality of robots (150, 151) (Fig. 1B; ¶19). In one embodiment, the transferable intelligent control device (110/410) autonomously adapts its programming, behaviors, and/or settings through self-learning behaviors (Fig. 4; ¶83, 99). Information learned may be used to update information used to optimize the settings, commands, functions, routines, and/or other data used in conjunction with a specified device (¶99). Like Takahashi, Dooley is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Takahashi, Orita, Murray, and Dooley, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Orita, Murray, and Dooley to the system of Takahashi since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for scheduling tasks in accordance with user input; adapting the system to easily add new implementations; and optimizing the settings, commands, functions, routines, and/or other data. Applying the teachings of Orita, Murray, and Dooley to the system of Takahashi would result in a system that operates wherein “information usable to identify a library related to a subsequent movement based on a result of a movement executed previously by the at least one robot” in that the system of Takahashi would be adapted in view of Dooley to include learning behavior.
As per Claim 9, the combination of Takahashi, Orita, and Murray teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Takahashi does not expressly disclose wherein the control unit is configured to further acquire compensation information usable to designate an auxiliary library defining control of the at least one robot in an auxiliary algorithm.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Orita and Murray.
Dooley discloses a system (100) that includes a transferable intelligent control device (110) and a plurality of robots (150, 151) (Fig. 1B; ¶19). The transferable intelligent control device (110) operates to provide intelligent behaviors including running software routines and algorithms (¶37). In one embodiment, the transferable intelligent control device (110/410) autonomously adapts its programming, behaviors, and/or settings through self-learning behaviors (Fig. 4; ¶83, 99). Information learned may be used to update information used to optimize the settings, commands, functions, routines, and/or other data used in conjunction with a specified device (¶99). The learned information be saved into the transferable intelligent control device reference library for connected devices to update their own settings (¶99). Like Takahashi, Dooley is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Takahashi, Orita, Murray, and Dooley, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Orita, Murray, and Dooley to the system of Takahashi since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for scheduling tasks in accordance with user input; adapting the system to easily add new implementations; and optimizing the settings, commands, functions, routines, and/or other data. Applying the teachings of Orita, Murray, and Dooley to the system of Takahashi would result in a system that operates “wherein the control unit is configured to further acquire compensation information usable to designate an auxiliary library defining control of the at least one robot in an auxiliary algorithm” in that the system of Takahashi would be adapted in view of Dooley to include learning behavior involving specified algorithms.
As per Claim 10, the combination of Takahashi, Orita, and Murray teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Takahashi does not expressly disclose:
wherein the second interface is configured to acquire, from the robot control unit, feedback information related to a result of work executed by the at least one robot, and
wherein the control unit is configured to output, to the robot control unit, a command updated or generated based on the feedback information.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Orita and Murray.
Dooley discloses a system (100) that includes a transferable intelligent control device (110) and a plurality of robots (150, 151) (Fig. 1B; ¶19). In one embodiment, the transferable intelligent control device (110/410) autonomously adapts its programming, behaviors, and/or settings through self-learning behaviors (Fig. 4; ¶83, 99). Information learned may be used to update information used to optimize the settings, commands, functions, routines, and/or other data used in conjunction with a specified device (¶99). The learned information be saved into the transferable intelligent control device reference library for connected devices to update their own settings (¶99). Like Takahashi, Dooley is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Takahashi, Orita, Murray, and Dooley, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Orita, Murray, and Dooley to the system of Takahashi since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system for scheduling tasks in accordance with user input; adapting the system to easily add new implementations; and optimizing the settings, commands, functions, routines, and/or other data. Applying the teachings of Orita, Murray, and Dooley to the system of Takahashi would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the second interface is configured to acquire, from the robot control unit, feedback information related to a result of work executed by the at least one robot” in that in that the system of Takahashi would be adapted in view of Dooley to include learning behavior and sharing of learned behaviors; and
“wherein the control unit is configured to output, to the robot control unit, a command updated or generated based on the feedback information” in that in that the system of Takahashi would be adapted in view of Dooley to include learning behavior and sharing of learned behaviors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 December 2025 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) should not be maintained because “the specification and drawings provide concrete structural support for each claimed element” and “Accordingly, the identified claim limitations are not mere generic placeholders but instead would be understood by the skilled artisan to have definite structural meanings” (page 7 of Amendment).
As set forth previously (see 7 May 2025 Office action at page 2-4), 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:
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;
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
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
As to prong (A), the limitations identified in the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation statement include “interface”, “device”, and “unit” which are similar to the list of non-structural generic placeholders as per MPEP § 2181. There is no evidence of record that these terms are structural and have a specific structural meaning.
As to prong (B), the generic placeholders are modified by functional language in, e.g., “interface connected communicatively to”, “a terminal device configured to”, “the robot control unit configured to”, and “a control unit configured to”. In this way, the non-structure generic placeholders are defined by the function they perform rather than specific structure, material, or acts that perform the function.
As to prong (C), the generic placeholders are not modified by sufficiently definite structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function. The generic placeholders at issue are not preceded by definite structure in the claim language, Applicant’s Specification provides no description that would inform one of ordinary skill that the generic placeholders denote structure, and there is no evidence of record that one of ordinary skill would understand that the generic placeholders denote structure.
Applicant has not amended the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in that the pending claims include identified generic placeholders coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and generic placeholders are not preceded by a structural modifier.
Applicant does not present any showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions in that Applicant’s arguments involve general assertions regarding the Specification and conclusory assertions regarding what “would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Accordingly, Applicant does not identify a proper basis for finding that claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections of Claims 1, 11, 12, 13, and 14 under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Neither Takahashi nor Orita, alone or in combination disclose [identify the library from the job information when acquiring or generating the schedule information]” as per the amendments (page 7-8 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of Takahashi and Orita in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Takahashi and Orita are not maintained. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that rejections of Claims 1, 11, 12, 13, and 14 under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because (page 8 of Amendment): “The claimed robot control system is therefore capable of causing the robot to execute the work based on an abstract work command”; “the user provides an abstract work command and the control unit identifies the appropriate library from the job information; and “The user does not manually select the specific library or movement path” However, no claim recites “abstract work command”. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are directed to unclaimed embodiments. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections of Claims 1, 11, 12, 13, and 14 under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Takahashi does not disclose this feature” (page 8-9 of Amendment); and “Orita does not cure the deficiencies of Takahashi” (page 9 of Amendment). To the extent that the feature at issue and the alleged deficiencies concern the amended claim language, these arguments are persuasive and rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Takahashi and Orita are not maintained. To the extent that the feature at issue and the alleged deficiencies concern unclaimed embodiments, these arguments do not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper. In any event and as discussed above, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that the rejection of Claim 2 under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “the start-condition input sections of Takahashi do not disclose reservation information usable to reserve a timing for execution as required by claim 2” in that “Takahashi does not disclose reservation of an absolute timing (date or time) for execution as required by claim 2” (page 9-10 of Amendment). However, Claim 2 does not recite "reservation of absolute timing (date or time) for execution" as per Applicant's argument. Accordingly, Applicant's argument involves an unclaimed embodiment. As such, Applicant's argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant's argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that the rejection of Claim 2 under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Orita fails to remedy the deficiencies of Takahashi” (page 10 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, the deficiencies alleged by Applicant involve an unclaimed embodiment. Further, no rejection involves an assertion that Orita discloses the limitation at issue. Accordingly, Applicant's argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant's argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that the rejection of Claim 2 under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Dooley fails to remedy the deficiencies of Takahashi and Orita” (page 9-10 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, Applicant's arguments are not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant's argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dimitri (US Patent No. 6,351,685), Orita (US Pub. No. 2005/0256610), Matsumoto (US Pub. No. 2006/0217841), and Tabuchi (US Pub. No. 2016/0075019) disclose robot control systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656