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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). A certified copy of this document has been placed in the file wrapper. As such, the effective filing date of the instant application is considered 03/25/2021, coinciding with the filing date of the Republic of India application to which foreign priority was requested.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-10 have been amended. Claims 11-15 have been added. The claim objection has been withdrawn in view of amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection and finds them moot, as the rejection has been withdrawn in view of amendment.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection and finds them moot with consideration to the updated 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection presented below.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 reads “wherein the central unit is connected with plurality of sensors and plurality of peripherals in the robot to receive data from the plurality of sensors and the plurality of peripherals in the robot.”, but should instead read “wherein the central unit is connected with a plurality of sensors and a plurality of peripherals in the robot to receive data from the plurality of sensors and the plurality of peripherals in the robot”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 reads “wherein the at least one evaluating unit in the display and RGB Light sensing smart room comprises high-resolution cameras”, but should instead read “wherein the at least one evaluating unit in the display and RGB Light sensing smart room comprises high-resolution cameras”. 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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kingscott (US9854372, referred to as Kingscott) in view of Battenberg (EP2216144, referred to as Battenberg), and further in view of Fuji et al. (US10782664, referred to as Fuji)
Regarding claim 1: Kingscott discloses: An automatic evaluation system for evaluating functionality of a plurality of incoming robots, wherein the automatic evaluation system comprises: [a plurality of smart rooms configured to perform a plurality of tests on the plurality of incoming robots, wherein each of the plurality of smart rooms comprises] at least one evaluating unit configured to test at least one incoming robot under evaluation, [wherein the plurality of smart rooms comprise] at least two of: an acoustic sensing [smart room], a proximity and range sensing [smart room], a visual sensing [smart room], a thermal camera sensing [smart room], a temperature sensing [smart room], an orientation sensing [smart room], a haptic/touch sensing [smart room], a charger [smart room], a display and RGB light sensing [smart room], a motor and encoder [smart room], and a wireless [smart room], and ([col. 4-5, lines 53-3] The DUT is expected to communicate without errors and at the limits of the connection range. The testing jig utilized during step 204 may expose any of the potential NFMI linkage errors of the DUT. The testing jig is also utilized to test the pulse oximeter, touch sensors, and red green and blue (RGB) light emitting diodes (LEDs). In one embodiment, the jig may include a mechanical arm for engaging or activating the touch sensor(s). The testing jig may also emulate a pulse for testing the pulse oximeter. The testing jig may include light sensors or devices for detected or reflecting light generated by the LEDs. In one embodiment, the DUT may be light insulated or otherwise enclosed within a shield to ensure that ambient light does not affect the results of the testing. In another embodiment, the DUT itself is utilized to measure the LED and pulse oximetry outputs by reflecting the light emitted back onto the sensor contained within the DUT. If the DUT fails the testing, the DUT is rejected 239. [col. 5, lines 7-13] The testing of step 206 may be performed in an acoustically isolated chamber or room for testing the external auditory canal (EAC) microphone which may be a bone microphone tuned to detect vibrations of the surrounding bony structures, EAC speaker, ambient microphone located on the superolateral segment, and audio over the NFMI linkage of the DUT) [a central brain comprising a plurality of processors selected from at least one of an Image Signal Processor (ISP), a Digital Signal Processor (DSP), or a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), wherein the central brain is communicatively coupled with the at least one evaluating unit of the plurality of smart rooms, for performing an Al powered quality check on the plurality of incoming robots by co-ordinating movement and routing of the plurality of incoming robots across the plurality of smart rooms for performing the plurality of tests;] autonomously performing the plurality of tests comprising at least two of: (i) a microphone test to generate audio signals and transmit to a microphone, and analyze responses of the microphone based on a plurality of microphone parameters, (ii) a speaker test to generate audio playback in a speaker, and analyze frequency outputs, (iii) a plurality of sensors test to measure and determine outputs of the plurality of sensors, or (iv) a camera test to generate and validate a 2D point cloud and a 3D point cloud by analyzing images captured in cameras, on the plurality of incoming robots [in their corresponding smart rooms] using the at least one evaluating unit, to determine a plurality of parameters: and evaluating the functionality of the plurality of incoming robots [in the plurality of smart rooms] by analyzing the determined plurality of parameters against acceptable ranges of the plurality of tests to determine whether the plurality of incoming robots works within pre-determined error tolerances ([col. 6, lines 59-67] Next, the system verifies functionality by loading an initialization file through the jig (step 404). The system loads internal software for the DUT to do testing. During step 404, the DUT is rebooted from the USB. The DUT is then ready to operate as if fully integrated. During the reboot, the DUT is expected to reboot with verification of the various internal devices including NFMI antenna ( e.g., calibration), battery, pulse oximeter, amplifier, and other sub-systems and components. [col. 7, lines 10-14] If the DUT continues to pass each step of FIG. 4, the system copies all of the system, audio, and other files. At any time during the process of FIG. 4 if a failure occurs, the particular sub-system, such as the lateral or medial segment, is marked for reworking and further processed. [col. 4-5, lines 53-3] The DUT is expected to communicate without errors and at the limits of the connection range. The testing jig utilized during step 204 may expose any of the potential NFMI linkage errors of the DUT. The testing jig is also utilized to test the pulse oximeter, touch sensors, and red green and blue (RGB) light emitting diodes (LEDs). In one embodiment, the jig may include a mechanical arm for engaging or activating the touch sensor(s). The testing jig may also emulate a pulse for testing the pulse oximeter. The testing jig may include light sensors or devices for detected or reflecting light generated by the LEDs. In one embodiment, the DUT may be light insulated or otherwise enclosed within a shield to ensure that ambient light does not affect the results of the testing. In another embodiment, the DUT itself is utilized to measure the LED and pulse oximetry outputs by reflecting the light emitted back onto the sensor contained within the DUT. If the DUT fails the testing, the DUT is rejected 239. [col. 5, lines 7-13] The testing of step 206 may be performed in an acoustically isolated chamber or room for testing the external auditory canal (EAC) microphone which may be a bone microphone tuned to detect vibrations of the surrounding bony structures, EAC speaker, ambient microphone located on the superolateral segment, and audio over the NFMI linkage of the DUT)
Kingscott does not explicitly disclose the following limitations: a plurality of smart rooms configured to perform a plurality of tests on the plurality of incoming robots, wherein each of the plurality of smart rooms comprises at least one evaluating unit configured to test at least one incoming robot under evaluation, wherein the plurality of smart rooms comprise; smart room; a central brain comprising a plurality of processors selected from at least one of an Image Signal Processor (ISP), a Digital Signal Processor (DSP), or a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), wherein the central brain is communicatively coupled with the at least one evaluating unit of the plurality of smart rooms, for performing an Al powered quality check on the plurality of incoming robots by co-ordinating movement and routing of the plurality of incoming robots across the plurality of smart rooms for performing the plurality of tests; in the plurality of smart rooms; in their corresponding smart rooms
Kingscott does not disclose the following limitations, however Battenberg teaches: An automatic evaluation system for evaluating functionality of a plurality of incoming robots, wherein the automatic evaluation system comprises: a plurality of smart rooms configured to perform a plurality of tests on the plurality of incoming robots, wherein each of the plurality of smart rooms comprises at least one evaluating unit configured to test at least one incoming robot under evaluation, wherein the plurality of smart rooms comprise; smart room; a central brain comprising a plurality of processors selected from at least one of an Image Signal Processor (ISP), a Digital Signal Processor (DSP), or a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), wherein the central brain is communicatively coupled with the at least one evaluating unit of the plurality of smart rooms, for performing an [Al powered] quality check on the plurality of incoming robots by co-ordinating movement and routing of the plurality of incoming robots across the plurality of smart rooms for performing the plurality of tests; in the plurality of smart rooms; in their corresponding smart rooms ([0014] it is validated to what extent a collision of the test device with adjacent components, functional units or other elements of the complex product is actually avoided during the actual execution of the test task in the real functional space. After validation of the movement program, if appropriate after prior optimization thereof, the test task assigned to each component and/or each functional unit is carried out automatically by the test apparatus in a real function space. [0015] The present invention thus offers the possibility of clearly improving test sequences in complex products. The simulation or optimization of the motion program in a virtual test space allows the best possible structuring of the motion program. In addition, the simulation allows a check with regard to the boundary surfaces surrounding the virtual test space, which may be predefined by further components, functional units or other elements of the complex product, in the direction of whether no collision is to be feared during the actual execution of the movement program. [0016] In a method for manufacturing, assembling and/or monitoring components and/or their functional units by means of a test device on the basis of defined test tasks, wherein each component and/or each functional unit is created by means of a CAD system, the invention provides that, when creating a component and/or a functional unit in the CAD system, a test task assigned to the component and/or the functional unit is defined, wherein each test task is defined in a virtual functional space, and wherein quality features are assigned to each test task, and that, after and/or during the manufacture or assembly of the component and/or its functional unit, each test task assigned to the component and/or the functional unit is executed by the test device. [0017] Such a method enables the realization of an intelligent, flexible and quality-controlled production system with the capability of being able to adapt itself rapidly and precisely to ongoing changes and tasks, since the test tasks necessary for the assembly and/or final control of the usually complex products are not first established and created when the product has been produced completely and delivered as intended. Rather, each test task is already defined during the planning and the construction of the component and/or its functional unit in the CAD system and is predefined in a virtual functional space assigned to the component, the functional unit and/or a higher-order environment. The test task can be defined directly by means of a CAD system. The test task can also be defined in a test plan editor and test feature plans assigned to the test task can be defined in this case, which are linked to the CAD data in a separate file. [0018] It is therefore possible to specify and/or define quality features and specifications as well as analysis and evaluation criteria as well as measurement parameters or interference variables which can occur during assembly and/or testing already during the production of a CAD drawing, so that these are taken into consideration automatically during the production, assembly or subsequent part testing.)
Kingscott and Battenberg are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of evaluation methods for robotic components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the evaluation method disclosed in Kingscott to enable the capability of testing processing across different spaces, as taught in Battenberg.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the evaluation method disclosed in Kingscott with the method applied to the location processing taught in Battenberg.
The combination of Kingscott and Battenberg does not explicitly disclose the following limitations: AI powered
The combination of Kingscott and Battenberg does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however Fuji further teaches: AI powered ([col. 7, lines 23-28] The determination value setting part 20 according to the present embodiment has functions of analytically extracting a useful rule, a knowledge representation, a criterion for judgment or the like from a set of data as inputted, outputting a result of the judgment, and performing knowledge learning (machine learning).)
Kingscott, Battenberg, and Fuji are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of evaluation methods for robotic components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the evaluation method taught in the combination of Kingscott and Battenberg to enable the capability of artificial intelligence quality check integration, as taught in Fuji.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the evaluation method taught in the combination of Kingscott and Battenberg with the method applied to the machine learning taught in Fuji for the purpose of improving the processing over time.
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Kingscott, Battenberg, and Fuji teaches: The automatic evaluation system as claimed in claim 1,
Kingscott further discloses: wherein the plurality of robots includes an automatic self-evaluation unit to perform an automatic self-evaluation, wherein the automatic self-evaluation unit is configured to; evaluate the functionality of the plurality of robots when in operation; upload health metrics of the plurality of robots continuously to a central monitoring server; and ([col. 4-5, lines 53-3] The DUT is expected to communicate without errors and at the limits of the connection range. The testing jig utilized during step 204 may expose any of the potential NFMI linkage errors of the DUT. The testing jig is also utilized to test the pulse oximeter, touch sensors, and red green and blue (RGB) light emitting diodes (LEDs). In one embodiment, the jig may include a mechanical arm for engaging or activating the touch sensor(s). The testing jig may also emulate a pulse for testing the pulse oximeter. The testing jig may include may include light sensors or devices for detected or reflecting light generated by the LEDs. In one embodiment, the DUT may be light insulated or otherwise enclosed within a shield to ensure that ambient light does not affect the results of the testing. In another embodiment, the DUT itself is utilized to measure the LED and pulse oximetry outputs by reflecting the light emitted back onto the sensor contained within the DUT. If the DUT fails the testing, the DUT is rejected 239.) initiate maintenance requests of the plurality of robots when a central unit in the robot detects that at least one sensors and peripherals in the robot performs sub optimally, wherein the central unit is connected with plurality of sensors and plurality of peripherals in the robot to receive data from the plurality of sensors and the plurality of peripherals in the robot. ([col. 4-5, lines 53-3] The DUT is expected to communicate without errors and at the limits of the connection range. The testing jig utilized during step 204 may expose any of the potential NFMI linkage errors of the DUT. The testing jig is also utilized to test the pulse oximeter, touch sensors, and red green and blue (RGB) light emitting diodes (LEDs). In one embodiment, the jig may include a mechanical arm for engaging or activating the touch sensor(s). The testing jig may also emulate a pulse for testing the pulse oximeter. The testing jig may include may include light sensors or devices for detected or reflecting light generated by the LEDs. In one embodiment, the DUT may be light insulated or otherwise enclosed within a shield to ensure that ambient light does not affect the results of the testing. In another embodiment, the DUT itself is utilized to measure the LED and pulse oximetry outputs by reflecting the light emitted back onto the sensor contained within the DUT. If the DUT fails the testing, the DUT is rejected 239. [col. 7, lines 10-14] If the DUT continues to pass each step of FIG. 4, the system copies all of the system, audio, and other files. At any time during the process of FIG. 4 if a failure occurs, the particular sub-system, such as the lateral or medial segment, is marked for reworking and further processed.)
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Kingscott, Battenberg, and Fuji teaches: The automatic evaluation system as claimed in claim 1,
Kingscott further discloses: wherein the at least one evaluating units in the acoustic sensing smart room evaluates functionalities of a plurality of microphones in the plurality of incoming robots; wherein the at least one evaluating unit in the acoustic sensing smart room is configured to: convert a text input into a speech output using a text to speech engine and provide the speech output to a microphone array input with directional frequencies between 50Hz to 18kHz at different angles and validate the speech output provided to the microphone with a pre-defined threshold using the plurality of microphone parameters comprising directionality, gain, and frequency response to determine the functionality of the microphone ([col. 5, lines 4-13] Next, the system performs final acoustic testing (step 206) with the process terminating thereafter. During the final acoustic testing of step 206, a customized testing jig is utilized to perform testing. The testing of step 206 may be performed in an acoustically isolated chamber or room for testing the external auditory canal (EAC) microphone which may be a bone microphone tuned to detect vibrations of the surrounding bony structures, EAC speaker, ambient microphone located on the superolateral segment, and audio over the NFMI linkage of the DUT.)
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Kingscott, Battenberg, and Fuji teaches: The automatic evaluation system as claimed in claim 1,
Kingscott further discloses: wherein the at least one evaluating unit in the a haptic/Touch sensing smart room is configured to evaluate touch feedback in the plurality of incoming robots using a robotic manipulator; wherein the at least one evaluating unit in the charger smart room is configured to evaluate charging health of a battery in the plurality of incoming robots; wherein the at least one evaluating unit in the display and RGB Light sensing smart room comprises high-resolution cameras is configured to validate display and external RGB LED array parameters in the plurality of incoming robots; ([col. 4, lines 54-66] The testing jig utilized during step 204 may expose any of the potential NFMI linkage errors of the DUT. The testing jig is also utilized to test the pulse oximeter, touch sensors, and red green and blue (RGB) light emitting diodes (LEDs). In one embodiment, the jig may include a mechanical arm for engaging or activating the touch sensor(s). The testing jig may also emulate a pulse for testing the pulse oximeter. The testing jig may include may include light sensors or devices for detected or reflecting light generated by the LEDs. In one embodiment, the DUT may be light insulated or otherwise enclosed within a shield to ensure that ambient light does not affect the results of the testing. [col. 6, lines 16-24] Next, the system performs a battery protection test of the PCB (step 310). The PCB and corresponding circuits will be checked to verify that the system is configured to utilize minimal current when battery voltage is below the manufacturer’s minimum specification. Next, the system tests normal battery charging capabilities of the PCB (step 312). In one embodiment, the voltage and current utilized to charge the battery may be determined as well as the capacity of the battery when fully charged.) [wherein the at least one evaluating unit in the motor and encoder smart room is configured to check health of the motor and encoder precision in the plurality of incoming robots;] and wherein the at least one evaluating unit in the wireless evaluating unit is configured to evaluate a plurality of wireless protocols in the plurality of incoming robots. ([col. 5, lines 25-29] Audio may also be played into the EAC microphone and then transmitted by the NFMI to the reference wireless earpiece in the testing jig. The reference wireless earpiece may then send the audio to the computer where the signal may be analyzed against the reference signal.)
Kingscott does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however, Fuji further teaches: a motor and encoder smart room that checks health of the motor and encoder precision in the plurality of robots in the robot; ([col. 4, lines 14-18] when the manufacturing machine is a robot, a state of the robot includes a position and a posture of the robot, a current, a voltage, a rotation speed, a temperature, vibrations, a frequency of sounds, and an output torque that are related to a motor for driving an arm of the robot, and the like.)
As stated previously, Kingscott, Battenberg, and Fuji are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of evaluation methods for robotic components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the evaluation method taught in Kingscott and Battenberg to enable the capability of further subsystem analysis, as taught in Fuji.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the evaluation method disclosed in Kingscott and Battenberg with the method applied to the additional subsystem testing taught in Fuji.
Regarding claim 5: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Kingscott, Battenberg, and Fuji teaches: The automatic evaluation system as claimed in claim 1,
Kingscott further teaches: wherein the at least one evaluating unit in the proximity and range sensing smart room evaluates functionalities of at least one sensor selected from an infrared sensor, a time-of-flight (TOF) sensor, a LIDAR sensor or an ultrasonic sensor, wherein the at least one evaluating unit in the proximity and range sensing smart room is configured to: measure distances from surfaces under varying colours, angles, and lighting to determine the functionality of the infrared sensor; measure surface distances under any of inclined variations or coloured variations to determine the functionality of the TOF sensor; perform full-range 3D point cloud scans and validate through cross-correlation with an environment model to determine the functionality of the LIDAR sensor; and analyze scans of 3D objects with different sound absorption coefficients at fixed distances and regulate temperature validation to determine the functionality of the ultrasonic sensor ([col. 4, lines 54-66] The testing jig utilized during step 204 may expose any of the potential NFMI linkage errors of the DUT. The testing jig is also utilized to test the pulse oximeter, touch sensors, and red green and blue (RGB) light emitting diodes (LEDs). In one embodiment, the jig may include a mechanical arm for engaging or activating the touch sensor(s). The testing jig may also emulate a pulse for testing the pulse oximeter. The testing jig may include may include light sensors or devices for detected or reflecting light generated by the LEDs. In one embodiment, the DUT may be light insulated or otherwise enclosed within a shield to ensure that ambient light does not affect the results of the testing. [col. 6, lines 16-24] Next, the system performs a battery protection test of the PCB (step 310). The PCB and corresponding circuits will be checked to verify that the system is configured to utilize minimal current when battery voltage is below the manufacturer’s minimum specification. Next, the system tests normal battery charging capabilities of the PCB (step 312). In one embodiment, the voltage and current utilized to charge the battery may be determined as well as the capacity of the battery when fully charged.)
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Kingscott, Battenberg, and Fuji teaches: The automatic evaluation system as claimed in claim 1,
Kingscott further discloses: wherein the at least one evaluating unit in the visual sensing smart room evaluates functionalities of a plurality of cameras in the plurality of incoming robots, wherein the at least one evaluating unit in the visual sensing smart room is configured to: capture images from a fixed distance using a plurality of cameras; process RGB and depth images using a facial landmark extraction and background processing module; and generate and validate a 3D point cloud with depth of 3D face structure in the depth images, and a 2D point cloud with facial geometry along with orientation, colour representation, dynamic range, focus, and angle of view of the RGB images to determine the functionality of the plurality of cameras ([col. 4, lines 54-66] The testing jig utilized during step 204 may expose any of the potential NFMI linkage errors of the DUT. The testing jig is also utilized to test the pulse oximeter, touch sensors, and red green and blue (RGB) light emitting diodes (LEDs). In one embodiment, the jig may include a mechanical arm for engaging or activating the touch sensor(s). The testing jig may also emulate a pulse for testing the pulse oximeter. The testing jig may include may include light sensors or devices for detected or reflecting light generated by the LEDs. In one embodiment, the DUT may be light insulated or otherwise enclosed within a shield to ensure that ambient light does not affect the results of the testing. [col. 6, lines 16-24] Next, the system performs a battery protection test of the PCB (step 310). The PCB and corresponding circuits will be checked to verify that the system is configured to utilize minimal current when battery voltage is below the manufacturer’s minimum specification. Next, the system tests normal battery charging capabilities of the PCB (step 312). In one embodiment, the voltage and current utilized to charge the battery may be determined as well as the capacity of the battery when fully charged.)
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Kingscott, Battenberg, and Fuji teaches: The automatic evaluation system as claimed in claim 7,
Kingscott does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however, Fuji further teaches: wherein the at least one evaluating unit in the thermal camera sensing smart room evaluates functionalities of a thermal camera in the plurality of incoming robots, wherein the at least one evaluating unit in the visual sensing smart room is configured to: evaluate ambient temperature, reflected emissions, and medium transmissivity; determine a distance between the thermal camera and a black body radiator which is oriented in front of the plurality of incoming robots; determine thermal measurements for a pre-determined period of time to calculate mean and standard deviation; and validate the thermal measurements with readings from the proximity and range sensing smart room to determine the functionality of the thermal camera ([col. 4, lines 18-42] Further, the state of the robot includes a variable that changes due to an operation of the robot. For example, a load, a strain, vibration and the like applied to a working table or a jig by an operation of the robot are included. Further, the state of the robot includes transmission of an alarm about an overload of the motor, and the like. In addition, the state of the robot may include a voltage applied to the product by the inspection device, and the like. The cell control apparatus 5 is configured so as to be mutually communicable with the machine control apparatus 67. The detector 62 is connected to the machine control apparatus 67. The cell control apparatus 5 obtains an operation state of the manufacturing machine 3 from the machine control apparatus 67 and transmits an operation command to the machine control apparatus 67. Each inspection device 7 inspects the product manufactured by the manufacturing machine 3. The inspection device 7 includes an inspection control apparatus 68 that controls the inspection device. The cell control apparatus 5 is configured so as to be mutually communicable with the inspection control apparatus 68. The cell control apparatus 5 obtains an inspection result from the inspection control apparatus 68 and transmits an inspection execution command.)
As stated previously, Kingscott, Battenberg, and Fuji are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of evaluation methods for robotic components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the evaluation method disclosed in Kingscott to enable the capability of further subsystem analysis, as taught in Fuji.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the evaluation method disclosed in Kingscott with the method applied to the additional subsystem testing taught in Fuji.
Regarding claim 9: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 11: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 12: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 13: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 14: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim 15: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 8.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTICUS A CAMERON whose telephone number is 703-756-4535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 4:30 pm. 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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/ATTICUS A CAMERON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3658A /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights