DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits in response to communications filed by Applicant on January 9th, 2026. Claims 1-18 are currently pending and examined below.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the Claims, filed of January 9th, 2026, have been entered. Claims 1 and 2 are currently amended and pending, claims 3-4 and 7-18 are as previously presented and pending, and claims 5 and 6 are original, unamended, and pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 – saving unit, operating unit
Claim 2 – saving unit, simulation device, operating unit
Claim 4 – specifying unit
Claim 5 – deceleration start timing calculation unit
Claim 6 – restart processing unit
Claim 7 – display unit
Claim 12 – specifying unit
Claim 13 – deceleration start timing calculation unit
Claim 14 – restart processing unit
Claim 15 – display unit
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009279608 A ("Aramaki") in view of US 10625420 B2 ("Imanishi").
Regarding claim 1, Aramaki teaches a system including a robot and at least one of a machine tool or other robot (Aramaki: ¶ 0022, “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a system including a robot and a press machine according to a first embodiment of the present invention. A system 1 shown in FIG. 1 includes a robot Ra and a press machine 3 that cooperate with each other, and the robot Ra takes out a work (not shown) pressed by the press machine 3. In the system 1, a control device 10a that controls the robot Ra and a control device 10b that controls the press machine 3 are connected to a PLC 5 that is a host control device.”),
the robot and at least one of the machine tool or the other robot cooperating with each other, comprising (Aramaki: ¶ 0022, “A system 1 shown in FIG. 1 includes a robot Ra and a press machine 3 that cooperate with each other, and the robot Ra takes out a work (not shown) pressed by the press machine 3.”):
a reference clock that periodically updates a clock time (Aramaki: ¶ 0022, “As shown in the figure, the PLC 5 includes a reference clock 6 that periodically changes the time and a reference clock stop means 7 that stops the reference clock 6.”),
wherein at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot includes an internal clock (Aramaki: ¶ 0022, “In the system 1, a control device 10a that controls the robot Ra and a control device 10b that controls the press machine 3 are connected to a PLC 5 that is a host control device.”, ¶ 0025, “As shown in FIG. 3, the control device 10 includes a main CPU 11 (hereinafter simply referred to as a CPU)…”, ¶ 0026, “The CPU 11 also includes an internal clock 19, an internal clock correction unit 21 that corrects the time of the internal clock 19 so that the time of the internal clock 19 coincides with the time of the reference clock 6, and the internal clock correction unit 21.”),
and an operation unit that moves, based on the reference clock and the position and clock- time data of the operation program, the robot to a position corresponding to the time indicated by a clock command of the operation program in advance, and operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization with the reference clock in synchronous operation according to the operation program (Aramaki: ¶ 0029, “Referring to FIG. 1 again, the control device 10a acquires time data of the reference clock 6 and compares it with the time of the internal clock 19a. Then, the internal clock correction means 21 of the control device 10a calculates the correction of the internal clock 19a so that it matches the time of the reference clock 6. Thereafter, an operation command corresponding to the time of the internal clock 19a is output from the control device 10a to the robot Ra every interpolation time, and the robot Ra operates based on the command. The press machine 3 operates in the same manner by performing correction calculation so that the time of the reference clock 6 and the time of the internal clock 19b of the press machine 3 coincide.”, ¶ 0035, “FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing an operation until an operation command is created from the operation program. Specifically, an operation command for operating the motor Mn installed in each joint of the robot is created from the operation program created on the teaching operation panel 17. It is assumed that the operation program records the teaching point position, the operation speed, and the like in addition to the operation format indicating movement in each axis format or linear format. Here, it is assumed that there is an operation program that moves between two points, a start point P [1] and an end point P [2].”, ¶ 0040, “Next, in step S108 and step S109, time tc [of the internal clock for each interpolation time from start point P [1] (time is tc [1]) to end point P [2] (time is tc [NPT]). id] and position X [id]. The time tc [id] is expressed as in Expression 5 using the increment time .tc for each interpolation time. The position X [id] is expressed by a recurrence formula like Formula 6 using the movement distance .X for each interpolation time. Then, by repeatedly calculating the index id from 1 to the total number of interpolation points NPT, the time tc. Then, by repeatedly calculating the index id from 1 to the total number of interpolation points NPT, the time tc [id] and the position X [id] of the internal clock for each interpolation time are calculated.”, ¶ 0047, “Next, in step S202, it is determined whether or not there is a command (hereinafter referred to as “token command”) instructing a synchronous operation in the operation program.”).
Aramaki does not teach a saving unit that saves, by executing a created operation program in advance based on the internal clock, data on a position and a clock time from a synchronization start command to a synchronization end command of the operation program,
and an operation unit that moves, based on the reference clock and the position and clock- time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit, the robot to a position corresponding to the time indicated by a clock command of the operation program in advance, and operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization with the reference clock in synchronous operation according to the operation program.
Imanishi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a saving unit that saves, by executing a created operation program in advance based on the internal clock, data on a position and a clock time from a synchronization start command to a synchronization end command of the operation program (Imanishi: Column 5 lines 7-15, “The robot controller 41 is operated by the system program 43a, reads the operation program 43b and a tracking program 43c which are stored in the storage unit 43…”, Column 5 line 64 – Column 6 line 9, “When a distance between the distal end portion of the robot 30 and the machining table 11 becomes shorter than a predetermined value (Sl-3), the robot control unit 41 starts to create tracking data ( described below) for making the distal end portion of the robot 30 follow the movement of the machining table 11 according to the tracking program 43c (Sl-4).”, Column 6 lines 58-67, “Firstly, when YES is determined in Step Sl-3 (S2-1), the robot controller 41 calculates the position of the table at the current time at each interpolation cycle (S2-2), and also tk calculates interpolation data of the positions of the table at the prefetching times tk+i, at each interpolation cycle tk+1, tk+2,… (S2-3) according to the current position coordinate information, information of obtaining time thereof, prefetched position coordinate information, and corresponding prefetching time information, which are sent from the numerical controller 20.”. As can be seen from the cited passages, the tracking data is generated during the operation of the robot, starting when the robot comes within a predetermined distance of the workpiece. Furthermore, this tracking information includes information regarding the position of the machining table at the prefetching times.),
and an operation unit that moves, based on the reference clock and the position and clock- time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit, the robot to a position corresponding to the time indicated by a clock command of the operation program in advance, and operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization with the reference clock in synchronous operation according to the operation program (Imanishi: Column 5 line 64 – Column 6 line 9, “When a distance between the distal end portion of the robot 30 and the machining table 11 becomes shorter than a predetermined value (Sl-3), the robot control unit 41 starts to create tracking data ( described below) for making the distal end portion of the robot 30 follow the movement of the machining table 11 according to the tracking program 43c (Sl-4). And, the robot controller 41 uses the created tracking data and the operation program 43b, and starts to send the control signals to the servo controllers 44 so that the tool 32 mounted at the distal end portion of the robot 30 is placed at a position capable of holding the second work Win a state where the distal end portion of the robot 30 is following the movement of the machining table 11 (Sl-5).”).
Aramaki teaches a method of controlling a robot cooperating with a machine by operating at the robot and machine in synchronization with the reference clock based on the reference clock and also operating the robot and machine in synch based on a synchronization command (Aramaki: ¶ 0047, “Next, in step S202, it is determined whether or not there is a command (hereinafter referred to as “token command”) instructing a synchronous operation in the operation program.”). Furthermore, Aramaki saves the interpolated time and position data of the robot and machine in response to a received teaching operation, prior to the execution of the operation (Aramaki: ¶ 0035, “FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing an operation until an operation command is created from the operation program. Specifically, an operation command for operating the motor Mn installed in each joint of the robot is created from the operation program created on the teaching operation panel 17. It is assumed that the operation program records the teaching point position, the operation speed, and the like in addition to the operation format indicating movement in each axis format or linear format. Here, it is assumed that there is an operation program that moves between two points, a start point P [1] and an end point P [2].”, ¶ 0040, “Next, in step S108 and step S109, time tc [of the internal clock for each interpolation time from start point P [1] (time is tc [1]) to end point P [2] (time is tc [NPT]). id] and position X [id]. The time tc [id] is expressed as in Expression 5 using the increment time .tc for each interpolation time. The position X [id] is expressed by a recurrence formula like Formula 6 using the movement distance .X for each interpolation time. Then, by repeatedly calculating the index id from 1 to the total number of interpolation points NPT, the time tc. Then, by repeatedly calculating the index id from 1 to the total number of interpolation points NPT, the time tc [id] and the position X [id] of the internal clock for each interpolation time are calculated.”). This operation clearly will move the robot to a position based on a clock command in advance, as the clock times of the interpolated positions from a start point to an end point are based on the clock commands associated with the start and end positions. Imanishi teaches saving the position and time data of the operation executed prior to the synchronized control, as well as using this position and time data in the synchronized control of the robot. Additionally, Imanishi teaches that the positions and times used to determine the interpolated positions and times are prefetched from a predefined operation program. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have incorporated the method of saving position and time data of an operation executed in advance of the synchronized control and using this information to perform the synchronized control taught in Imanishi with the system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other taught in Aramaki. Furthermore, because the system taught in Aramaki teaches saving the position and time data interpolated prior to the synchronized control, modifying the system such that this position and time data is acquired by executing the operation itself would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. Therefore, the combination of Aramaki in view of Imanishi teaches a saving unit that saves, by executing a created operation program in advance based on the internal clock, data on a position and a clock time from a synchronization start command to a synchronization end command of the operation program and an operation unit that operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization based on the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit in synchronous operation according to the operation program.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine with the system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other taught in Aramaki with the method of saving position and time data of an operation executed in advance of the synchronized control and using this information to perform the synchronized control taught in Imanishi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it is possible to perform this process concurrently while the other machine is operating without slowing down or shutting down the other machine, thereby increasing production efficiency. Furthermore, controlling the synchronized operation based on the acquired position and time data allows for more accurate tracking control (Imanishi: Column 11 lines 8-13, “With this configuration, it is possible that the robot performs the predetermined process concurrently with the machining table is kept moving, and without suspending the movement of the machining table, which enables shortening cycle time, and which is advantageous for improving production efficiency.”, Column 11 lines 36-44, “With this configuration, the robot control unit uses the current position coordinates, the prefetched position coordinates, the time information thereof, and further uses the previously received position coordinates, and the time information thereof. Therefore, it is possible to improve the calculation efficiency for calculating the operation trajectory”).
Regarding claim 3, Aramaki in view of Imanishi teaches wherein the position and clock-time data of the operation program is data on a position and a clock time in every interpolation period in execution of the operation program (Aramaki: ¶ 0027, “The time of the internal clock 19 is updated by accumulating an arbitrary increment time every interpolation time in the CPU 11.”).
Regarding claim 4, Aramaki in view of Imanishi teaches wherein at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot further includes a specifying unit that arbitrarily specifies a synchronization start position or a synchronization start clock time (Aramaki: ¶ 0051, “FIG. 9 is a diagram showing a part of an operation program including instructions for realizing the synchronous operation of the present invention. The operation command statement on the first line in FIG. 9 is a basic operation command statement that moves from the current position to the position P [1] in the chosen operation format at a speed of 2000 mm / sec and stops. Here, the operation command statements including the meaning of operating in synchronization with the time of the reference clock are the operation command statements in the third, fourth, and fifth lines of FIG. 9, and “TOKE *” ( The numerical value of the time is entered in * .Hereafter, this operation addition command is called a “Take command”).”, ¶ 0052, “In the operation program of FIG. 9, a normal operation instruction sentence and an operation instruction sentence including an instruction synchronized with the reference clock are mixed. FIG. 10 is a flowchart showing the behavior when performing the synchronization operation. First, in step S301 in FIG. 10, it is determined whether or not a toy command is added. If the toy command is not disabled, a normal operation command statement is processed in step S304. On the other hand, if the toy command is added, the process proceeds to step S302.”, ¶ 0053, “In step S302, the time of the reference clock 6 is referred. If the time of the reference clock 6 is not the value specified by the toy command, the process waits until the value specified by the toy command is reached at the position of the action command statement to which the toy command is added.”. As can clearly be seen from the cited passages, both a synchronization start position and time can be specified ),
and the operation unit stands by, at a time of a start of the synchronous operation, at a position or clock time, which corresponds to the specified synchronization start position or synchronization start clock time, of the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit (Aramaki: ¶ 0053, “¶ 0053, “In step S302, the time of the reference clock 6 is referred. If the time of the reference clock 6 is not the value specified by the toy command, the process waits until the value specified by the toy command is reached at the position of the action command statement to which the toy command is added.”. As can be seen from the cited passage, the process is configured to remain on standby until the time of the reference time coincides with the start time of the synchronized operation.),
and when the clock time of the reference clock becomes coincident with the synchronization start clock time, synchronously operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot based on the reference clock and the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit (Aramaki: ¶ 0053, “Then, when the time of the reference clock 6 reaches a value specified by the toy command, the operation is started. This means that the operation is started by matching the absolute time of the reference clock and the internal clock.”).
Regarding claim 7, Aramaki in view of Imanishi teaches wherein at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot further includes a display unit that displays a user interface that receives the specified synchronization start position or synchronization start clock time (Aramaki: ¶ 0028, “As shown in FIG. 3, the teaching operation panel 17 connected to the teaching operation panel interface 13 includes a display. The operator manually operates the teaching operation panel 17 to create, modify, register, or set various parameters of the operation program for the robot, etc., and execute the reproduction operation of the taught operation program, jog feed, and the like”).
Regarding claim 9, Aramaki in view of Imanishi teaches a control device for the robot used in the system according to claim 1 (Aramaki: ¶ 0022, “In the system 1, a control device 10a that controls the robot Ra…”).
Regarding claim 10, Aramaki in view of Imanishi teaches a control device for at least one of the machine tool or the other robot used in the system according to claim 1 (Aramaki: ¶ 0022, “and a control device 10b that controls the press machine 3”).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009279608 A ("Aramaki") in view of US 10625420 B2 ("Imanishi") in further view of US 7729804 B2 ("Matsumoto").
Regarding claim 5, Aramaki in view of Imanishi does not teach wherein at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot includes a deceleration start timing calculation unit that calculates a position or clock time at which deceleration needs to be started based on the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit in a case where the specifying unit has specified a position or clock time at which at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot is temporarily stopped or synchronization ends.
Matsumoto, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot includes a deceleration start timing calculation unit that calculates a position or clock time at which deceleration needs to be started based on the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit in a case where the specifying unit has specified a position or clock time at which at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot is temporarily stopped or synchronization ends (Matsumoto: Column 18 lines 1-15, “Concretely, the robot hand 19, during movement from the movement start position to the synchronous operation position, moves by performing sequentially an acceleration, a uniform, and a deceleration movement and acceleration time ta, uniform time ts, and deceleration time td are set. The robot hand 19, during the acceleration time ta after starting movement from the movement start position, is accelerated at predetermined acceleration and reaches a predetermined speed V. Further, during the uniform time ts after reaching the acceleration time ta, the robot hand 19 performs a uniform movement at the predetermined speed V. Further, during the deceleration time td after reaching the uniform time ts, the robot hand 19 is decelerated. And, when reaching the deceleration time td, the robot hand 19 reaches the synchronous operation position and stops there.”. As can be clearly be seen, the system determines a time when the deceleration will begin when the robot is temporarily stopped. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the deceleration time begins after the total amount of time taken to accelerate and move at a constant velocity.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other taught in Aramaki in view of Imanishi with the method of determining a position or time at which deceleration must begin when the robot is temporarily stopped taught in Matsumoto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because by dynamically calculating when deceleration occurs, the operator no longer needs to manually adjust such parameters in order to facilitate synchronous movement of the robots, thereby shortening the time required to prepare the system for operation (Matsumoto: Column 23 lines 10-22, “Further, the controllers 23 recalculate the speed of each robot, acceleration, and deceleration at time of calculation of the operation plan, so that the operator does not need to adjust the operation timing such as the moving speed of each of the robots 21 in order to simultaneously move each of the robot hands 19 to each synchronous operation position. Further, even when the movement start position and synchronous operation position of each of the robot hands 19 are changed, the operator does not need to adjust the moving speed of each of the robots 21 in correspondence to the change. Therefore, the time required for the preparation operation for execution of the robot operation can be shortened and the convenience can be improved.”).
Regarding claim 6, Aramaki in view of Imanishi in further view of Matsumoto teaches wherein at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot includes a restart processing unit that performs, for restart of the operation after temporary stop, restart processing based on the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit (Matsumoto: Column 24 line 53 - Column 25 line 3, “ Further, in this embodiment, when the stop switch 46 confirms input of the stop instruction of the robot, the operation of each robot performing the synchronous operation can be stopped. By doing this, the robots can be prevented from mutual interference. Further, the operator, after giving the stop instruction of one robot 21, does not need to give independently an instruction for stopping the operation of other robots 21 performing the synchronous operation for each controller and the convenience can be improved. Similarly, when confirming input of a restart instruction of the robot, the input-output unit 42 can restart the operation of each robot to perform the synchronous operation. By doing this, the robots can be prevented from mutual interference at restart time. Further, after giving the restart instruction of one robot 21, the operator does not need to give independently an instruction for restarting the operation of other robots 21 performing the synchronous operation for each controller and the convenience can be improved.”).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009279608 A ("Aramaki") in view of US 10625420 B2 ("Imanishi") in further view of US 7282882 B2 ("Kitatsuji").
Regarding claim 8, Aramaki in view of Imanishi does not teach wherein at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot further includes a user interface that displays the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit or receives an output of a list of the position and clock time of the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit.
Kitatsuji, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot further includes a user interface that displays the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit or receives an output of a list of the position and clock time of the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit (Kitatsuji: Column 4 lines 4-19, “For example, if the input-output unit includes a display part and an input part, the input-output control circuit, when judging that a display instruction of movement route information indicating the movement route is given by the input part, displays the movement route information on the display part.”, Column 9 line 62 – Column 10 line 7, “The display unit displays the operation program of the robots and an image indicating the operation guidance of the robot control system.”).
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art does not combine the system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other and the method of displaying the position and time data of the operation into a single reference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have combine the method displaying the position and time data of the operation taught in Kitatsuji with the system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other taught in Aramaki in view of Imanishi. Furthermore, the system disclosed in Aramaki in view of Imanishi already teaches a display with a user interface that is configured to that receives the specified synchronization start position or synchronization start clock time, so modifying this user interface to display the saved position and time data of the operation would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other that can display the position and time data of an operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other taught in Aramaki in view of Imanishi with the method of displaying the position and time data of the operation taught in Kitatsuji with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 2, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009279608 A ("Aramaki") in view of US 20030090490 A1 ("Watanabe").
Regarding claim 2, Aramaki teaches a system including a robot and at least one of a machine tool or other robot (Aramaki: ¶ 0022, “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a system including a robot and a press machine according to a first embodiment of the present invention. A system 1 shown in FIG. 1 includes a robot Ra and a press machine 3 that cooperate with each other, and the robot Ra takes out a work (not shown) pressed by the press machine 3. In the system 1, a control device 10a that controls the robot Ra and a control device 10b that controls the press machine 3 are connected to a PLC 5 that is a host control device.”),
the robot and at least one of the machine tool or the other robot cooperating with each other, comprising (Aramaki: ¶ 0022, “A system 1 shown in FIG. 1 includes a robot Ra and a press machine 3 that cooperate with each other, and the robot Ra takes out a work (not shown) pressed by the press machine 3.”):
a reference clock that periodically updates a clock time (Aramaki: ¶ 0022, “As shown in the figure, the PLC 5 includes a reference clock 6 that periodically changes the time and a reference clock stop means 7 that stops the reference clock 6.”),
wherein at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot includes an internal clock (Aramaki: ¶ 0022, “In the system 1, a control device 10a that controls the robot Ra and a control device 10b that controls the press machine 3 are connected to a PLC 5 that is a host control device.”, ¶ 0025, “As shown in FIG. 3, the control device 10 includes a main CPU 11 (hereinafter simply referred to as a CPU)…”, ¶ 0026, “The CPU 11 also includes an internal clock 19, an internal clock correction unit 21 that corrects the time of the internal clock 19 so that the time of the internal clock 19 coincides with the time of the reference clock 6, and the internal clock correction unit 21.”),
and an operation unit that moves, based on the reference clock and the position and clock- time data of the operation program, the robot to a position corresponding to the time indicated by a clock command of the operation program in advance, and operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization with the reference clock in synchronous operation according to the operation program (Aramaki: ¶ 0029, “Referring to FIG. 1 again, the control device 10a acquires time data of the reference clock 6 and compares it with the time of the internal clock 19a. Then, the internal clock correction means 21 of the control device 10a calculates the correction of the internal clock 19a so that it matches the time of the reference clock 6. Thereafter, an operation command corresponding to the time of the internal clock 19a is output from the control device 10a to the robot Ra every interpolation time, and the robot Ra operates based on the command. The press machine 3 operates in the same manner by performing correction calculation so that the time of the reference clock 6 and the time of the internal clock 19b of the press machine 3 coincide.”, ¶ 0035, “FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing an operation until an operation command is created from the operation program. Specifically, an operation command for operating the motor Mn installed in each joint of the robot is created from the operation program created on the teaching operation panel 17. It is assumed that the operation program records the teaching point position, the operation speed, and the like in addition to the operation format indicating movement in each axis format or linear format. Here, it is assumed that there is an operation program that moves between two points, a start point P [1] and an end point P [2].”, ¶ 0040, “Next, in step S108 and step S109, time tc [of the internal clock for each interpolation time from start point P [1] (time is tc [1]) to end point P [2] (time is tc [NPT]). id] and position X [id]. The time tc [id] is expressed as in Expression 5 using the increment time .tc for each interpolation time. The position X [id] is expressed by a recurrence formula like Formula 6 using the movement distance .X for each interpolation time. Then, by repeatedly calculating the index id from 1 to the total number of interpolation points NPT, the time tc. Then, by repeatedly calculating the index id from 1 to the total number of interpolation points NPT, the time tc [id] and the position X [id] of the internal clock for each interpolation time are calculated.”, ¶ 0047, “Next, in step S202, it is determined whether or not there is a command (hereinafter referred to as “token command”) instructing a synchronous operation in the operation program.”).
Aramaki does not teach a saving unit that saves, by causing a simulation device that simulates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot to execute a created operation program in advance, data on a position and a clock time from a synchronization start command to a synchronization end command of the operation program,
and an operation unit that moves, based on the reference clock and the position and clock- time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit, the robot to a position corresponding to the time indicated by a clock command of the operation program in advance, and operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization with the reference clock in synchronous operation according to the operation program.
Watanabe, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a saving unit that saves, by causing a simulation device that simulates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot to execute a created operation program in advance, data on a position and a clock time from a synchronization start command to a synchronization end command of the operation program (Watanabe: ¶ 0022, “For simulating an operation of a manufacturing system comprising a plurality of machines such as robots and machine tools, an operation program for one of the machines constituting the system is inputted to the simulation device 1 through a communication line or a storage medium. The arithmetic processing section 6 analyzes the operation program to obtain operation command data (e.g. positional information on respective axes of the machine and control information such as an interlock command for queuing processing) for the machine successively and the obtained operation command data with lapsing time information from a start of the execution of the operation program are store successively in the data storage section 5.”, ¶ 0023, “Likewise, an operation program for another machine in the system is inputted to the simulation device 1 and the operation program is analyzed by the arithmetic processing section 6 to successively obtain operation command data for another machine and the obtained operation command data with lapsing time information from a start of the execution of the operation program are stored in the data storage section 5. Subsequently, operation programs for the rest of the machines are successively executed to obtain operation command data for all of the machines with lapsing time information from respective starts of the execution of the operation programs.”),
While Aramaki does not explicitly teach and an operation unit that moves, based on the reference clock and the position and clock- time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit, the robot to a position corresponding to the time indicated by a clock command of the operation program in advance, and operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization with the reference clock in synchronous operation according to the operation program time data from a start position to an end position and uses stored position and time information to accomplish this (Aramaki: ¶ 0025, “The teaching program 25 stores the positions of the robot and / or the press machine during the operation of the robot and / or the press machine in correspondence with the time of the internal clock.”, ¶ 0035, “FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing an operation until an operation command is created from the operation program. Specifically, an operation command for operating the motor Mn installed in each joint of the robot is created from the operation program created on the teaching operation panel 17. It is assumed that the operation program records the teaching point position, the operation speed, and the like in addition to the operation format indicating movement in each axis format or linear format. Here, it is assumed that there is an operation program that moves between two points, a start point P [1] and an end point P [2].”, ¶ 0040, “Next, in step S108 and step S109, time tc [of the internal clock for each interpolation time from start point P [1] (time is tc [1]) to end point P [2] (time is tc [NPT]). id] and position X [id]. The time tc [id] is expressed as in Expression 5 using the increment time .tc for each interpolation time. The position X [id] is expressed by a recurrence formula like Formula 6 using the movement distance .X for each interpolation time. Then, by repeatedly calculating the index id from 1 to the total number of interpolation points NPT, the time tc. Then, by repeatedly calculating the index id from 1 to the total number of interpolation points NPT, the time tc [id] and the position X [id] of the internal clock for each interpolation time are calculated.”). This operation clearly will move the robot to a position based on a clock command in advance, as the clock times of the interpolated positions from a start point to an end point are based on the clock commands associated with the start and end positions. Watanabe teaches performing a simulation of a multiple robots and storing the position and time data. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, when the robots are controlled according to the simulation result, thew robots would be controlled according to a position associated with a clock command in advance. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have combine the method of performing a simulation of an operation of a robot and storing the position and time data as taught in Watanabe with the system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other taught in Aramaki. Furthermore, the system taught in Aramaki is configured to interpolate its path using the position and time data stored in memory prior to the execution of the operation, modifying the system such that this process is done in a simulation would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. Therefore, the combination of Aramaki in view of Watanabe clearly teaches an operation unit that operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization based on the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit in synchronous operation according to the operation program.
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art does not combine the system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other with the method of saving position and time data of an simulation executed in advance of the synchronized control and using this information to perform the synchronized control into a single reference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have combine the method of performing a simulation of an operation of a robot and storing the position and time data as taught in Watanabe with the system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other taught in Aramaki. Furthermore, the system taught in Aramaki is configured to interpolate its path using the position and time data stored in memory prior to the execution of the operation, modifying the system such that this process is done in a simulation would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other configured to perform a simulation of an operation and store the position and time data, then use this data to perform synchronous control of the robot and machine.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine with the system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other taught in Aramaki with the method of saving position and time data of an simulation executed in advance of the synchronized control and using this information to perform the synchronized control taught in Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Aramaki in view of Watanabe teaches wherein the position and clock-time data of the operation program is data on a position and a clock time in every interpolation period in execution of the operation program (Aramaki: ¶ 0027, “The time of the internal clock 19 is updated by accumulating an arbitrary increment time every interpolation time in the CPU 11.”).
Regarding claim 12, Aramaki in view of Watanabe teaches wherein at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot further includes a specifying unit that arbitrarily specifies a synchronization start position or a synchronization start clock time (Aramaki: ¶ 0051, “FIG. 9 is a diagram showing a part of an operation program including instructions for realizing the synchronous operation of the present invention. The operation command statement on the first line in FIG. 9 is a basic operation command statement that moves from the current position to the position P [1] in the chosen operation format at a speed of 2000 mm / sec and stops. Here, the operation command statements including the meaning of operating in synchronization with the time of the reference clock are the operation command statements in the third, fourth, and fifth lines of FIG. 9, and “TOKE *” ( The numerical value of the time is entered in * .Hereafter, this operation addition command is called a “Take command”).”, ¶ 0052, “In the operation program of FIG. 9, a normal operation instruction sentence and an operation instruction sentence including an instruction synchronized with the reference clock are mixed. FIG. 10 is a flowchart showing the behavior when performing the synchronization operation. First, in step S301 in FIG. 10, it is determined whether or not a toy command is added. If the toy command is not disabled, a normal operation command statement is processed in step S304. On the other hand, if the toy command is added, the process proceeds to step S302.”, ¶ 0053, “In step S302, the time of the reference clock 6 is referred. If the time of the reference clock 6 is not the value specified by the toy command, the process waits until the value specified by the toy command is reached at the position of the action command statement to which the toy command is added.”. As can clearly be seen from the cited passages, both a synchronization start position and time can be specified ),
and the operation unit stands by, at a time of a start of the synchronous operation, at a position or clock time, which corresponds to the specified synchronization start position or synchronization start clock time, of the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit (Aramaki: ¶ 0053, “¶ 0053, “In step S302, the time of the reference clock 6 is referred. If the time of the reference clock 6 is not the value specified by the toy command, the process waits until the value specified by the toy command is reached at the position of the action command statement to which the toy command is added.”. As can be seen from the cited passage, the process is configured to remain on standby until the time of the reference time coincides with the start time of the synchronized operation.),
and when the clock time of the reference clock becomes coincident with the synchronization start clock time, synchronously operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot based on the reference clock and the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit (Aramaki: ¶ 0053, “Then, when the time of the reference clock 6 reaches a value specified by the toy command, the operation is started. This means that the operation is started by matching the absolute time of the reference clock and the internal clock.”).
Regarding claim 15, Aramaki in view of Watanabe teaches wherein at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot further includes a display unit that displays a user interface that receives the specified synchronization start position or synchronization start clock time (Aramaki: ¶ 0028, “As shown in FIG. 3, the teaching operation panel 17 connected to the teaching operation panel interface 13 includes a display. The operator manually operates the teaching operation panel 17 to create, modify, register, or set various parameters of the operation program for the robot, etc., and execute the reproduction operation of the taught operation program, jog feed, and the like”).
Regarding claim 17, Aramaki in view of Watanabe teaches a control device for the robot used in the system according to claim 2 (Aramaki: ¶ 0022, “In the system 1, a control device 10a that controls the robot Ra…”).
Regarding claim 18, Aramaki in view of Watanabe teaches a control device for at least one of the machine tool or the other robot used in the system according to claim 2 (Aramaki: ¶ 0022, “and a control device 10b that controls the press machine 3”).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009279608 A ("Aramaki") in view of US 20030090490 A1 ("Watanabe") in further view of US 7729804 B2 ("Matsumoto").
Regarding claim 13, Aramaki in view of Watanabe does not teach wherein at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot includes a deceleration start timing calculation unit that calculates a position or clock time at which deceleration needs to be started based on the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit in a case where the specifying unit has specified a position or clock time at which at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot is temporarily stopped or synchronization ends.
Matsumoto, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot includes a deceleration start timing calculation unit that calculates a position or clock time at which deceleration needs to be started based on the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit in a case where the specifying unit has specified a position or clock time at which at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot is temporarily stopped or synchronization ends (Matsumoto: Column 18 lines 1-15, “Concretely, the robot hand 19, during movement from the movement start position to the synchronous operation position, moves by performing sequentially an acceleration, a uniform, and a deceleration movement and acceleration time ta, uniform time ts, and deceleration time td are set. The robot hand 19, during the acceleration time ta after starting movement from the movement start position, is accelerated at predetermined acceleration and reaches a predetermined speed V. Further, during the uniform time ts after reaching the acceleration time ta, the robot hand 19 performs a uniform movement at the predetermined speed V. Further, during the deceleration time td after reaching the uniform time ts, the robot hand 19 is decelerated. And, when reaching the deceleration time td, the robot hand 19 reaches the synchronous operation position and stops there.”. As can be clearly be seen, the system determines a time when the deceleration will begin when the robot is temporarily stopped. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the deceleration time begins after the total amount of time taken to accelerate and move at a constant velocity.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other taught in Aramaki in view of Watanabe with the method of determining a position or time at which deceleration must begin when the robot is temporarily stopped taught in Matsumoto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because by dynamically calculating when deceleration occurs, the operator no longer needs to manually adjust such parameters in order to facilitate synchronous movement of the robots, thereby shortening the time required to prepare the system for operation (Matsumoto: Column 23 lines 10-22, “Further, the controllers 23 recalculate the speed of each robot, acceleration, and deceleration at time of calculation of the operation plan, so that the operator does not need to adjust the operation timing such as the moving speed of each of the robots 21 in order to simultaneously move each of the robot hands 19 to each synchronous operation position. Further, even when the movement start position and synchronous operation position of each of the robot hands 19 are changed, the operator does not need to adjust the moving speed of each of the robots 21 in correspondence to the change. Therefore, the time required for the preparation operation for execution of the robot operation can be shortened and the convenience can be improved.”).
Regarding claim 14, Aramaki in view of Watanabe in further view of Matsumoto teaches wherein at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot includes a restart processing unit that performs, for restart of the operation after temporary stop, restart processing based on the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit (Matsumoto: Column 24 line 53 - Column 25 line 3, “ Further, in this embodiment, when the stop switch 46 confirms input of the stop instruction of the robot, the operation of each robot performing the synchronous operation can be stopped. By doing this, the robots can be prevented from mutual interference. Further, the operator, after giving the stop instruction of one robot 21, does not need to give independently an instruction for stopping the operation of other robots 21 performing the synchronous operation for each controller and the convenience can be improved. Similarly, when confirming input of a restart instruction of the robot, the input-output unit 42 can restart the operation of each robot to perform the synchronous operation. By doing this, the robots can be prevented from mutual interference at restart time. Further, after giving the restart instruction of one robot 21, the operator does not need to give independently an instruction for restarting the operation of other robots 21 performing the synchronous operation for each controller and the convenience can be improved.”).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009279608 A ("Aramaki") in view of US 20030090490 A1 ("Watanabe") in further view of US 7282882 B2 ("Kitatsuji").
Regarding claim 16, Aramaki in view of Watanabe does not teach wherein at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot further includes a user interface that displays the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit or receives an output of a list of the position and clock time of the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit.
Kitatsuji, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot further includes a user interface that displays the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit or receives an output of a list of the position and clock time of the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit (Kitatsuji: Column 4 lines 4-19, “For example, if the input-output unit includes a display part and an input part, the input-output control circuit, when judging that a display instruction of movement route information indicating the movement route is given by the input part, displays the movement route information on the display part.”, Column 9 line 62 – Column 10 line 7, “The display unit displays the operation program of the robots and an image indicating the operation guidance of the robot control system.”).
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art does not combine the system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other and the method of displaying the position and time data of the operation into a single reference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have combine the method displaying the position and time data of the operation taught in Kitatsuji with the system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other taught in Aramaki in view of Watanabe. Furthermore, the system disclosed in Aramaki in view of Watanabe already teaches a display with a user interface that is configured to that receives the specified synchronization start position or synchronization start clock time, so modifying this user interface to display the saved position and time data of the operation would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other that can display the position and time data of an operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other taught in Aramaki in view of Watanabe with the method of displaying the position and time data of the operation taught in Kitatsuji with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 9th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on Pages 9-12, Applicant argues that the prior art relied upon does not teach the limitations of the amended claim 1. Specifically on pages 9-10, applicant argues that the primary reference fails to teach that “the robot, the machine tool, or another robot is operated in synchronization with the reference clock based on the reference clock and the position and clock-time data of the saved operation program”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As stated in the Final Office Action mailed September 2nd, 2025 and maintained above in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section, Aramaki was not solely relied upon to teach the limitations of claim 1. Aramaki teaches a system including a robot and at least one of a machine tool or other robot (Aramaki: ¶ 0022), the robot and at least one of the machine tool or the other robot cooperating with each other, comprising (Aramaki: ¶ 0022): a reference clock that periodically updates a clock time (Aramaki: ¶ 0022), wherein at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot includes an internal clock (Aramaki: ¶ 0022, ¶ 0025, ¶ 0026), and an operation unit that moves, based on the reference clock and the position and clock- time data of the operation program, the robot to a position corresponding to the time indicated by a clock command of the operation program in advance, and operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization with the reference clock in synchronous operation according to the operation program (Aramaki: ¶ 0029, ¶ 0035, ¶ 0040, ¶ 0047). The secondary reference Imanishi teaches a saving unit that saves, by executing a created operation program in advance based on the internal clock, data on a position and a clock time from a synchronization start command to a synchronization end command of the operation program (Imanishi: Column 5 lines 7-15, Column 6 lines 58-67), and an operation unit that moves, based on the reference clock and the position and clock- time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit, the robot to a position corresponding to the time indicated by a clock command of the operation program in advance, and operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization with the reference clock in synchronous operation according to the operation program (Imanishi: Column 5 line 64 – Column 6 line 9). As can be seen from the cited passages, Aramaki teaches that the interpolated positions and clock times are based on a start and end position associated with a clock time of the operation in advance. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this operation will clearly move the robot to a position based on a clock command in advance, as the clock times of the interpolated positions from a start point to an end point are based on the clock commands associated with the start and end positions. As can be seen from the cited passages, Imanishi teaches saving the position and time data of the operation executed prior to the synchronized control, as well as using this position and time data in the synchronized control of the robot. This is show as the tracking data generated by the robot is used in the synchronized control of the machine tool and robot. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that this tracking data would need to be saved prior to the synchronized control for it to be used in the synchronized control. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have incorporated the method of saving position and time data of an operation executed in advance of the synchronized control and using this information to perform the synchronized control taught in Imanishi with the system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other taught in Aramaki. Furthermore, because the system taught in Aramaki teaches saving the position and time data interpolated prior to the synchronized control, modifying the system such that this position and time data is acquired by executing the operation itself would not change or introduce new functionality. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it is possible to perform this process concurrently while the other machine is operating without slowing down or shutting down the other machine, thereby increasing production efficiency. Furthermore, controlling the synchronized operation based on the acquired position and time data allows for more accurate tracking control (Imanishi: Column 11 lines 8-13). It is the opinion of the Examiner that the combination of Aramaki in view of Imanishi clearly teaches that “the robot, the machine tool, or another robot is operated in synchronization with the reference clock based on the reference clock and the position and clock-time data of the saved operation program”.
Specifically on Page 10, Applicant argues that the primary reference fails to teach the limitation “and an operation unit that moves, based on the reference clock and the position and clock- time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit, the robot to a position corresponding to the time indicated by a clock command of the operation program in advance, and operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization with the reference clock in synchronous operation according to the operation program”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As stated in the Final Office Action mailed September 2nd, 2025, maintained above in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section, and discussed above in relation to Applicant’s other arguments regarding the primary reference, Aramaki was not solely relied upon to teach the limitations of claim 1. Aramaki teaches a method of synchronous control of a robot and machine by operating at the robot and machine in synchronization with the reference clock based on the reference clock and also operating the robot and machine in synch based on a synchronization command, saves the interpolated time and position data of the robot and machine in response to a received teaching operation, prior to the execution of the operation, and is configured to determine interpolated positions and clock times from a start position to an end position that are based on an operation program defined in advance. The cited passages clearly shows that the start and end positions are associated with a clock time. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this operation will clearly move the robot to a position based on a clock command in advance, as the clock times of the interpolated positions from a start point to an end point are based on the clock commands associated with the start and end positions. Imanishi teaches a method of synchronous control of a machine and robot, wherein the system is controlled based on an operation program defined in advance, where in each position is associated with a time. The system is further configured to prefetch the positions and times from the operation program, perform interpolation based on these prefetched positions and times, and if the positions and times of the robot and machine defined in the operation program differ above a threshold from the interpolated positions and times, the commanded positions and times are adjusted. Additionally Imanishi teaches saving the position and time data of the operation executed prior to the synchronized control, as well as using this position and time data in the synchronized control of the robot. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the combination of Aramaki in view of Imanishi clearly teaches the limitation “and an operation unit that moves, based on the reference clock and the position and clock- time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit, the robot to a position corresponding to the time indicated by a clock command of the operation program in advance, and operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization with the reference clock in synchronous operation according to the operation program”, as Aramaki clearly teaches a method of synchronous control of a robot and machine based on a position corresponding to a clock command of the operation in advance and Imanishi teaches a method of saving the positions and times of an operation program for synchronous control in advance.
Specifically on Page 11-12, Applicant argues that the secondary reference Imanishi fails to teach “a created operation program is executed in advance based on the internal clock so that data on a position and a clock time from a synchronization start command to a synchronization end command of the operation program is saved”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As stated in the Final Office Action mailed September 2nd, 2025, maintained above in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section, and discussed above in relation to Applicant’s other arguments regarding the primary reference, Imanishi was not solely relied upon to teach the limitations of claim 1. The primary reference Aramaki teaches a method of synchronous control of a robot and machine by operating at the robot and machine in synchronization with the reference clock based on the reference clock and also operating the robot and machine in synch based on a synchronization command, saves the interpolated time and position data of the robot and machine in response to a received teaching operation, prior to the execution of the operation, and is configured to determine interpolated positions and clock times from a start position to an end position that are based on an operation program defined in advance. Imanishi teaches a method of synchronous control of a machine and robot, wherein the system is controlled based on an operation program defined in advance, where in each position is associated with a time. The system is further configured to prefetch the positions and times from the operation program, perform interpolation based on these prefetched positions and times, and if the positions and times of the robot and machine defined in the operation program differ above a threshold from the interpolated positions and times, the commanded positions and times are adjusted. Additionally Imanishi teaches saving the position and time data of the operation executed prior to the synchronized control, as well as using this position and time data in the synchronized control of the robot. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that this tracking data would need to be saved prior to the synchronized control for it to be used in the synchronized control. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have incorporated the method of saving position and time data of an operation executed in advance of the synchronized control and using this information to perform the synchronized control taught in Imanishi with the system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other taught in Aramaki. Furthermore, because the system taught in Aramaki teaches saving the position and time data interpolated prior to the synchronized control, modifying the system such that this position and time data is acquired by executing the operation itself would not change or introduce new functionality. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it is possible to perform this process concurrently while the other machine is operating without slowing down or shutting down the other machine, thereby increasing production efficiency. Furthermore, controlling the synchronized operation based on the acquired position and time data allows for more accurate tracking control (Imanishi: Column 11 lines 8-13). It is the opinion of the Examiner that the combination of Aramaki in view of Imanishi clearly teaches “a created operation program is executed in advance based on the internal clock so that data on a position and a clock time from a synchronization start command to a synchronization end command of the operation program is saved”.
Specifically on Page 12 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that Imanishi fails to teach the limitation that “the robot, the machine tool, or another robot is operated in synchronization with the reference clock based on the reference clock and the position and clock-time data of the saved operation program”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As stated in the Final Office Action mailed September 2nd, 2025, maintained above in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section, and discussed above in relation to Applicant’s other arguments regarding the primary reference, Imanishi was not solely relied upon to teach the limitations of claim 1. The primary reference Aramaki teaches a method of synchronous control of a robot and machine by operating at the robot and machine in synchronization with the reference clock based on the reference clock and also operating the robot and machine in synch based on a synchronization command, saves the interpolated time and position data of the robot and machine in response to a received teaching operation, prior to the execution of the operation, and is configured to determine interpolated positions and clock times from a start position to an end position that are based on an operation program defined in advance. Imanishi teaches saving the position and time data of the operation executed prior to the synchronized control, as well as using this position and time data in the synchronized control of the robot. As such, the combination of Aramaki in view of Imanishi clearly teaches that “the robot, the machine tool, or another robot is operated in synchronization with the reference clock based on the reference clock and the position and clock-time data of the saved operation program”.
Specifically on Page 12 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that Imanishi fails to teach the limitation “and an operation unit that moves, based on the reference clock and the position and clock- time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit, the robot to a position corresponding to the time indicated by a clock command of the operation program in advance, and operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization with the reference clock in synchronous operation according to the operation program”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As stated in the Final Office Action mailed September 2nd, 2025, maintained above in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section, and discussed above in relation to Applicant’s other arguments regarding the primary reference, Imanishi was not solely relied upon to teach the limitations of claim 1. The primary reference Aramaki teaches a method of synchronous control of a robot and machine by operating at the robot and machine in synchronization with the reference clock based on the reference clock and also operating the robot and machine in synch based on a synchronization command, saves the interpolated time and position data of the robot and machine in response to a received teaching operation, prior to the execution of the operation, and is configured to determine interpolated positions and clock times from a start position to an end position that are based on an operation program defined in advance. The cited passages clearly shows that the start and end positions are associated with a clock time. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this operation will clearly move the robot to a position based on a clock command in advance, as the clock times of the interpolated positions from a start point to an end point are based on the clock commands associated with the start and end positions. Imanishi teaches a method of synchronous control of a machine and robot, wherein the system is controlled based on an operation program defined in advance, where in each position is associated with a time. The system is further configured to prefetch the positions and times from the operation program, perform interpolation based on these prefetched positions and times, and if the positions and times of the robot and machine defined in the operation program differ above a threshold from the interpolated positions and times, the commanded positions and times are adjusted. Additionally Imanishi teaches saving the position and time data of the operation executed prior to the synchronized control, as well as using this position and time data in the synchronized control of the robot. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the combination of Aramaki in view of Imanishi clearly teaches the limitation “and an operation unit that moves, based on the reference clock and the position and clock- time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit, the robot to a position corresponding to the time indicated by a clock command of the operation program in advance, and operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization with the reference clock in synchronous operation according to the operation program”, as Aramaki clearly teaches a method of synchronous control of a robot and machine based on a position corresponding to a clock command of the operation in advance and Imanishi teaches a method of saving the positions and times of an operation program for synchronous control in advance.
Therefore, for the reasons stated herein and above in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on Pages 13-16, Applicant argues that the prior art relied upon does not teach the limitations of the amended claim 2. Specifically on pages 13-14, applicant argues that the primary reference fails to teach that “a created operation program is executed in advance based on the internal clock so that data on a position and a clock time from a synchronization start command to a synchronization end command of the operation program is saved”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As stated in the Final Office Action mailed September 2nd, 2025 and maintained above in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section, Aramaki was not solely relied upon to teach the limitations of claim 1. Aramaki teaches a system including a robot and at least one of a machine tool or other robot (Aramaki: ¶ 0022), the robot and at least one of the machine tool or the other robot cooperating with each other, comprising (Aramaki: ¶ 0022): a reference clock that periodically updates a clock time (Aramaki: ¶ 0022), wherein at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot includes an internal clock (Aramaki: ¶ 0022, ¶ 0025, ¶ 0026), and an operation unit that moves, based on the reference clock and the position and clock- time data of the operation program, the robot to a position corresponding to the time indicated by a clock command of the operation program in advance, and operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization with the reference clock in synchronous operation according to the operation program (Aramaki: ¶ 0029, ¶ 0035, ¶ 0040, ¶ 0047). The secondary reference Watanabe teaches a saving unit that saves, by causing a simulation device that simulates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot to execute a created operation program in advance, data on a position and a clock time from a synchronization start command to a synchronization end command of the operation program (Watanabe: ¶ 0022). While Aramaki does not explicitly teach an operation unit that operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization based on the position and clock-time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit in synchronous operation according to the operation program, Aramaki teaches interpolating the position and time data from a start position to an end position and uses stored position and time information to accomplish this (Aramaki: ¶ 0025). Watanabe teaches performing a simulation of a multiple robots and storing the position and time data. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have combine the method of performing a simulation of an operation of a robot and storing the position and time data as taught in Watanabe with the system including a robot and a machine cooperating with each other taught in Aramaki. Furthermore, the system taught in Aramaki is configured to interpolate its path using the position and time data stored in memory prior to the execution of the operation, modifying the system such that this process is done in a simulation would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. Therefore, the combination of Aramaki in view of Watanabe clearly teaches “a created operation program is executed in advance based on the internal clock so that data on a position and a clock time from a synchronization start command to a synchronization end command of the operation program is saved”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would have yielded predictable results.
Specifically on Page 14 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that the primary reference fails to teach that “the robot, the machine tool, or another robot is operated in synchronization with the reference clock based on the reference clock and the position and clock-time data of the saved operation program”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As stated in the Final Office Action mailed September 2nd, 2025, maintained above in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section, and discussed above in relation to Applicant’s other arguments regarding the primary reference, Aramaki was not solely relied upon to teach the limitations of claim 2. The primary reference Aramaki teaches a method of synchronous control of a robot and machine by operating at the robot and machine in synchronization with the reference clock based on the reference clock and also operating the robot and machine in synch based on a synchronization command, saves the interpolated time and position data of the robot and machine in response to a received teaching operation, prior to the execution of the operation, and is configured to determine interpolated positions and clock times from a start position to an end position that are based on an operation program defined in advance. Watanabe teaches performing a simulation of a multiple robots and storing the position and time data of the simulation. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the combination of Aramaki in view of Watanabe clearly teaches that “the robot, the machine tool, or another robot is operated in synchronization with the reference clock based on the reference clock and the position and clock-time data of the saved operation program”, as Aramaki clearly teaches a method of synchronous control of a robot and machine based on a position corresponding to a clock command of the operation in advance and Watanabe teaches a method of saving the positions and times of an operation program for synchronous control in advance using a simulation.
Specifically on Page 14 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that the primary reference fails to teach the limitation “and an operation unit that moves, based on the reference clock and the position and clock- time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit, the robot to a position corresponding to the time indicated by a clock command of the operation program in advance, and operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization with the reference clock in synchronous operation according to the operation program”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As stated in the Final Office Action mailed September 2nd, 2025, maintained above in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section, and discussed above in relation to Applicant’s other arguments regarding the primary reference, Aramaki was not solely relied upon to teach the limitations of claim 2. Aramaki teaches a method of synchronous control of a robot and machine by operating at the robot and machine in synchronization with the reference clock based on the reference clock and also operating the robot and machine in synch based on a synchronization command, saves the interpolated time and position data of the robot and machine in response to a received teaching operation, prior to the execution of the operation, and is configured to determine interpolated positions and clock times from a start position to an end position that are based on an operation program defined in advance. The cited passages clearly shows that the start and end positions are associated with a clock time. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this operation will clearly move the robot to a position based on a clock command in advance, as the clock times of the interpolated positions from a start point to an end point are based on the clock commands associated with the start and end positions. Watanabe teaches performing a simulation of a multiple robots and storing the position and time data of the simulation. Additionally, the operation program used to run the simulation clearly includes position and time data associated with each position in order to control each robot. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the combination of Aramaki in view of Watanabe clearly teaches the limitation “and an operation unit that moves, based on the reference clock and the position and clock- time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit, the robot to a position corresponding to the time indicated by a clock command of the operation program in advance, and operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization with the reference clock in synchronous operation according to the operation program”, as Aramaki clearly teaches a method of synchronous control of a robot and machine based on a position corresponding to a clock command of the operation in advance and Watanabe teaches a method of saving the positions and times of an operation program for synchronous control in advance using a simulation.
Specifically on Page 15 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that Watanabe fails to teach “the robot, the machine tool, or another robot is operated in synchronization with the reference clock based on the reference clock and the position and clock-time data of the saved operation program”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As stated in the Final Office Action mailed September 2nd, 2025, maintained above in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section, and discussed above in relation to Applicant’s other arguments regarding the primary reference, Watanabe was not solely relied upon to teach the limitations of claim 2. The primary reference Aramaki teaches a method of synchronous control of a robot and machine by operating at the robot and machine in synchronization with the reference clock based on the reference clock and also operating the robot and machine in synch based on a synchronization command, saves the interpolated time and position data of the robot and machine in response to a received teaching operation, prior to the execution of the operation, and is configured to determine interpolated positions and clock times from a start position to an end position that are based on an operation program defined in advance. Watanabe teaches performing a simulation of a multiple robots and storing the position and time data of the simulation. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the combination of Aramaki in view of Watanabe clearly teaches that “the robot, the machine tool, or another robot is operated in synchronization with the reference clock based on the reference clock and the position and clock-time data of the saved operation program”, as Aramaki clearly teaches a method of synchronous control of a robot and machine based on a position corresponding to a clock command of the operation in advance and Watanabe teaches a method of saving the positions and times of an operation program for synchronous control in advance using a simulation.
Specifically on Page 15 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that Watanabe fails to teach the limitation “and an operation unit that moves, based on the reference clock and the position and clock- time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit, the robot to a position corresponding to the time indicated by a clock command of the operation program in advance, and operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization with the reference clock in synchronous operation according to the operation program”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As stated in the Final Office Action mailed September 2nd, 2025, maintained above in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section, and discussed above in relation to Applicant’s other arguments regarding the primary reference, Watanabe was not solely relied upon to teach the limitations of claim 2. Aramaki teaches a method of synchronous control of a robot and machine by operating at the robot and machine in synchronization with the reference clock based on the reference clock and also operating the robot and machine in synch based on a synchronization command, saves the interpolated time and position data of the robot and machine in response to a received teaching operation, prior to the execution of the operation, and is configured to determine interpolated positions and clock times from a start position to an end position that are based on an operation program defined in advance. The cited passages clearly shows that the start and end positions are associated with a clock time. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this operation will clearly move the robot to a position based on a clock command in advance, as the clock times of the interpolated positions from a start point to an end point are based on the clock commands associated with the start and end positions. Watanabe teaches performing a simulation of a multiple robots and storing the position and time data of the simulation. Additionally, the operation program used to run the simulation clearly includes position and time data associated with each position in order to control each robot. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the combination of Aramaki in view of Watanabe clearly teaches the limitation “and an operation unit that moves, based on the reference clock and the position and clock- time data of the operation program saved by the saving unit, the robot to a position corresponding to the time indicated by a clock command of the operation program in advance, and operates at least one of the robot, the machine tool, or the other robot in synchronization with the reference clock in synchronous operation according to the operation program”, as Aramaki clearly teaches a method of synchronous control of a robot and machine based on a position corresponding to a clock command of the operation in advance and Watanabe teaches a method of saving the positions and times of an operation program for synchronous control in advance using a simulation.
Therefore, for the reasons stated herein and above in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 2 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah W Stiebritz whose telephone number is (571)272-3414. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7-5 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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270-5744. 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.
/N.W.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658