DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/31/2026.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/31/2026 has been entered.
Claims Status
Claims 1 and 4-15 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claim 1 is independent.
Claims 2-3 are previously canceled.
Claims 1 and 4-15 are newly amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yui; Daisuke et al. (hereinafter Yui – US 20160274784 A1) in view of Ribak, Amnon (hereinafter Ribak – US 20020085043 A1) and Rampson; Benjamin Edward et al. (hereinafter Rampson – US 9720583 B2).
Independent Claim 1:
Yui teaches:
A controller for controlling an industrial machine having a driving axis, the controller comprising: (The teaching pendant 40 is reflective of a controller for an industrial machine because it acts as a, "robot operation apparatus" that enables direct user input for managing operating information, while in two-way communication with the main controller 11 to receive control signals, display data, and receive power, thereby serving as the functional user interface for controlling the robot's movement., fig. 3 and ¶ 77)
a processor, (CPU for pendant, fig. 3 and ¶¶ 28 and 83)
wherein the processor:
displays […], on a display screen, an actual speed image indicating an actual speed of the driving axis; (a number indicating the value of the motion speed Vr of the robot 20 or 30 [actual speed of the driving axis] may be displayed on the touch panel display 42 together with the first speed graphic 611 or 612 [actual speed image], ¶ 98 and figs. 8-9)
detects a touch operation on the display screen; (detection of a drag operation on touch panel, ¶ 33 and figs. 3 and 8)
[…],
displays, on the display screen, an operation image for changing an override value of the driving axis, (interface including track and slider 63 [an operation image] for controlling [changing] the motion speed of a robot based on sliding distance on a touch panel display 42, Abstract and ¶ 101 and figs. 8-10. This is reflective of a user changing the "override value" for a drive axis [changes to programmed/current speed])
[…];
determines the override value based on an operation on the operation image; (. The motion command generating unit 47 performs a motion speed determining process for the robot based on a sliding distance [operation on the operation image], Abstract and ¶¶ 13 and 117)
and controls the driving axis based on the override value. (slide distance adjusts/determines speed of the robot, ¶¶ 13 and 117. The controller 11 operates the robot 20 or 30 based on the motion/slide command received, ¶¶ 113 and 181, figs. 1-2).
Yui does not appear to expressly teach, but Ribak teaches:
the actual speed image is displayed “at a start of the controlling” (always displaying critical driving functions, such as speed of a vehicle, e.g., when the vehicle is not stationary, ¶ 74).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Yui to include the actual speed image is displayed “at a start of the controlling”, as taught by Ribak.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the operational safety supported by the controller, by always displaying critical information, Ribak ¶¶ 74 and 77. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in applying the safety concept of Ribak to Yui, the speed information would always be displayed on the touch panel when safety demands, e.g., when driving axis is in operation [when speed is not zero].
Yui does not appear to expressly teach, but Rampson teaches:
that the displaying of the operation image for changing the override value is “in response to detecting a touch operation on the actual speed image” and “wherein the operation image is displayed only after the detected touch operation on the actual speed image” (in response to a user's gesture selecting a displayed value, displaying a user interface element 216 for performing a swipe/drag gesture on the user interface element 216 to adjust the selected value, col 4:8-15,45-48)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the controller of Yui to include that the displaying of the operation image for changing the override value is “in response to detecting a touch operation on the actual speed image” and “wherein the operation image is displayed only after the detected touch operation on the actual speed image”, as taught by Rampson.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the practicality/usability of the controller, using a known and effective way of in-place editing of values, which provides a direct, intuitive way for users to adjust specific values through gestures without navigating away from the document and while using little screen real estate, Rampson cols 2:6-15 and 4:8-15,45-48.
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yui further teaches:
wherein the processor displays the operation image adjacent to the actual speed image. (see slider 63 in fig. 8. Displaying a slider's "thumb" or image that overlaps and extends beyond the track is considered displaying it adjacent to the track for reasons rooted in visual hierarchy, functionality, and user experience. The thumb and track, despite the visual overlap, are still fundamentally separate and side-by-side elements performing distinct roles within the user interface)
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yui-Ribak further teaches:
wherein the processor determines to hide the operation image when: an operation on the actual speed image is detected while the operation image is displayed on the display screen, an operation of eliminating the operation image is detected, or no operation on the operation image is detected for a predetermined time. (when there is no touch, this can be seen as a finger liftoff operation, is performed on the panel [an operation of eliminating the operation image], nothing is displayed on the screen, Yui ¶¶ 87 and 164 and fig. 6. Here, Paragraph 87 shows monitoring the display via the operation detecting unit to determine, in real-time, whether to hide everything displayed on the screen, which includes hiding the operation image, when no active touch is detected (step S11) [no operation on the operation image is detected], which implies a “for a predetermined time”––between start of monitoring to removal of displayed elements. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in applying Ribak, such displaying of nothing in Yui would be nullified when continued display of speed is critical to safety).
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yui further teaches:
wherein:
the operation image includes a scale image indicating magnitude of the override value and an indication image indicating a position in the scale image; (percentage of maximum motion speed [magnitude of the override value] can be indicated based position of a scale image [bar and slider 62 and 63], ¶¶ 103-106 and 111-112 and fig. 13)
and the processor determines to increase the override value when the operation on the operation image is an operation of moving the indication image toward a maximum value direction of the scale image, (percentage of maximum motion speed [magnitude of the override value] can be increased when position of a scale image [bar and slider 62 and 63] is toward the right [maximum value direction], ¶¶ 103-106 and 111-112 and fig. 13)
and determines to decrease the override value when the operation on the operation image is an operation of moving the indication image toward a minimum value direction of the scale image. (percentage of maximum motion speed [magnitude of the override value] can be decreased when position of a scale image [bar and slider 62 and 63] is toward the left [minimum value direction], ¶¶ 103-106 and 111-112 and fig. 13)
Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Yui further teaches:
wherein the processor determines to increase the override value when the operation on the operation image is an operation of touching a maximum value display portion of the scale image, (a touch operation that is over fourth area 624 –100%, will increase the override value when value is less than maximum, and fig. 13 and ¶ 130)
and determines to decrease the override value when the operation on the operation image is an operation of touching a minimum value display portion of the scale image. (a touch operation that is over first area 621 – 0%, will decrease the override value when value is more than the minimum, and fig. 13 and ¶ 130)
Claim 15:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yui further teaches:
wherein:
the operation image includes an increase button for increasing the override value and a decrease button for decreasing the override value; (the different minimum and maximum positions of the scale image [bar and slider 62 and 63] act as increase and decrease buttons, ¶¶ 103-106 and 111-112 and fig. 13.)
and the processor determines to increase the override value when the operation on the operation image is an operation of touching the increase button, (percentage of maximum motion speed [magnitude of the override value] can be increased when position of a scale image [bar and slider 62 and 63] is toward the right [increase the override value when the operation on the operation image is an operation of touching the increase button], ¶¶ 103-106 and 111-112 and fig. 13)
and determines to decrease the override value when the operation on the operation image is an operation of touching the decrease button. (percentage of maximum motion speed [magnitude of the override value] can be decreased when position of a scale image [bar and slider 62 and 63] is toward the left [decrease the override value when the operation on the operation image is an operation of touching the decrease button], ¶¶ 103-106 and 111-112 and fig. 13)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yui (US 20160274784 A1) in view of Ribak (US 20020085043 A1) and Rampson (US 9720583 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada; Kazushige et al. (hereinafter Yamada – US 20170225702 A1).
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yui does not appear to expressly teach, but Yamada teaches:
wherein the processor determines to increase the override value when the operation on the operation image is a pinch-out operation, (a vehicle speed may be set to be speeded up [increase the override value] according to a pinch-out operation, ¶ 91)
and determines to decrease the override value when the operation on the operation image is a pinch-in operation. (a vehicle speed may be set to be speeded down [decrease the override value] according to pinch-in operation, ¶ 91).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Yui to include wherein the processor determines to increase the override value when the operation on the operation image is a pinch-out operation, and determines to decrease the override value when the operation on the operation image is a pinch-in operation, as taught by Yamada.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase the functionalities, flexibility and convenience of the controller, by including a known convenient way to instruct operation of a controllable machine, Yamada ¶¶ 5 and 8.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yui (US 20160274784 A1) in view of Ribak (US 20020085043 A1) and Rampson (US 9720583 B2), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Desai; Munjal et al. (hereinafter Desai – US 8875041 B1).
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Yui does not appear to expressly teach, but Desai teaches:
wherein: the operation image includes a circular image; (circular input area 502, figs. 5A-5B)
and the indication image is a circumference portion of the circular image (speed circle 512 [indication image] inside area 502 [inner circumference portion], for indicating the magnitude of velocity, cols 12:59-13:9)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Yui to include wherein: the operation image includes a circular image; and the indication image is a circumference portion of the circular image; the operation image includes a circular image;
and the indication image is a circumference of the circular image, as taught by Desai.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the controller, by allowing users to quickly control and discern magnitude of velocity in a known an effective manner, Desai col 11:49-52 and figs. 5A-5B.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yui (US 20160274784 A1) in view of Ribak (US 20020085043 A1), Rampson (US 9720583 B2) and Desai (US 8875041 B1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Dagci; Oguz H. et al. (hereinafter Dagci – US 20070001830 A1).
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Yui-Desai does not appear to expressly teach, but Dagci teaches:
wherein the processor changes a display mode of the circular image along a radial direction according to the position indicated by the indication image (a color along the edge of a speed indicator is adjusted based on the speed ranges, fig. 4, to caution a driver about different ranges, ¶ 37).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the controller of Yui to include wherein the processor changes a display mode of the circular image along a radial direction according to the position indicated by the indication image, as taught by Dagci.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the functionalities and usability of the controller by allowing users to slow down the operation before exceeding their preferred maximum traveling speed, Dagci ¶ 5.
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Dagci further teaches:
a memory configured to store a plurality of display modes, wherein the display mode is one display mode among the plurality of display modes stored in the memory. (e.g., green, yellow and red, fig. 4)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yui (US 20160274784 A1) in view of Ribak (US 20020085043 A1) and Rampson (US 9720583 B2), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Szoczei; Steven Mark et al. (hereinafter Szoczei – US 20100185983 A1) and Dagci (US 20070001830 A1).
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Yui further teaches:
wherein: the operation image includes a[…] slide bar image; (slider bar 611, fig. 8 and ¶ 96)
Yui does not appear to expressly teach, but Szoczei teaches:
that the slide bar image is “arc-shaped” (that well-designed GUI interfaces can facilitate a user’s understanding and user of a software application, ¶ 3, and a known way of doing do is by providing semi-circular [arc-shaped] slider controls, ¶¶ 4 and 16 and fig. 2:212,216,220.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the controller of Yui to include that the slide bar image is “arc-shaped”, as taught by Szoczei.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the flexibility and usability of the controller by providing controls in any shape, e.g., arc-shaped, known to be effective and intuitive, Szoczei Abstract and ¶ 4.
Yui-Szoczei does not appear to expressly teach, but Dagci teaches:
and the processor changes a display mode of the arc-shaped slide bar image along a circular direction of the arc-shaped slide bar image according to the position indicated by the indication image (a color along the edge of a speed indicator is adjusted based on the speed ranges, fig. 4, to caution a driver about different ranges, ¶ 37).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the controller of Yui to include and the processor changes a display mode of the arc-shaped slide bar image along a circular direction of the arc-shaped slide bar image according to the position indicated by the indication image, as taught by Dagci.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the functionalities and usability of the controller by allowing users to slow down the operation before exceeding their preferred maximum traveling speed, Dagci ¶ 5.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yui (US 20160274784 A1) in view of Ribak (US 20020085043 A1) and Rampson (US 9720583 B2), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Duggal; Anil et al. (hereinafter Duggal – US 20220125549 A1).
Claim 13:
The rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Yui-Ribak-Rampson does not appear to expressly teach, but Duggal teaches:
wherein the processor determines an increase range of the override value based on the number of taps on the maximum value display portion, and determines a decrease range of the override value based on the number of taps on the minimum value display portion (a value can be changed incrementally, using different increments/steps [range], based on a number of actions on a single control element, in a specific direction [increase and decrease], Duggal Claim 26 and ¶¶ 5, 24 and 37 and fig. 1B. it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized in implement Duggal, that the control elements may be in the minimum and maximum portions, to control direction of control value, and that the depressing of the control would be understood as a tap, based on the touch environment in Yui. Such tap would differentiate from a press and hold feature, which is also discussed in Duggal, ¶ 38).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the controller of Yui to include wherein the processor determines an increase range of the override value based on the number of taps on the maximum value display portion, and determines a decrease range of the override value based on the number of taps on the minimum value display portion, as taught by Duggal.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to efficiency of the controller by allowing control of a value based on different increments using by simply, momentarily depressing a single element, Duggal ¶¶ 23-24.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yui (US 20160274784 A1) in view of Ribak (US 20020085043 A1), Rampson (US 9720583 B2), and Duggal (US 20220125549 A1), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Chen; Jia-Ming (hereinafter Chen – US 20130106707 A1).
Claim 14:
The rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. As mentioned above Yui-Ribak-Rampson-Duggal teaches the concept of a range change based on number of taps. Yui-Desai-Duggal does not appear to expressly teach, but Chen teaches:
an increase/decrease range setting table storage memory storing an increase/decrease range setting table in which a relationship between the number of taps and the increase range and the decrease range of the override value is set (in determining if a gesture correspond to a specific command trigger, it is a known technique to use a lookup table to determine if the gesture matches a trigger, Abstract and ¶ 50).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the controller of Yui to include further comprising an increase/decrease range setting table storage memory storing an increase/decrease range setting table in which a relationship between the number of taps and the increase range and the decrease range of the override value is set, as taught by Chen.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to employ the concepts of Duggal in a known and effective manner, to map the number of taps [gesture] to specific triggers [different ranges], Chen ¶ 50 and Duggal Claim 26 and ¶¶ 5, 24 and 37 and fig. 1B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 102/103 arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant’s 102 arguments with claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 102 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 103 and new references.
103 arguments rely on the 102 arguments are also moot based on the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
de Vries; Nathan et al. US 20200379593 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing adjusting output parameters, ¶ 11 and fig. 4F.
Ochenas; Jonathan et al. US 20220391064 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a processing device comprising a graphical user interface in an industrial vehicle is provided, for providing touch gesture commands from a vehicle operator, Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights