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 Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 07/16/2026. Claims 1, 3-10, 12, and 16-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed 07/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. US 20210178589 A1 (“Yamashita”) in combination with Suzumura et al. US 20210213606 A1 (“Suzumura”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, it is the amendments to the claims that have overcome the rejection in view of Yamashita. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Enomoto et al. US 20200406460 A1 (“Enomoto”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 10, 12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enomoto et al. US 20200406460 A1 (“Enomoto”).
Regarding Claim 1. Enomoto teaches an operation planning device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a configuration example of a robot cell planning device according to a first embodiment [paragraph 11], featuring a processor and a memory shown in FIG. 1 [paragraphs 27-28]); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
set a state in a workspace where a mobile robot equipped with a manipulator handling a target object works (FIG. 2 is an example of the part and hand correspondence table at 122. This table includes, for example, a robot column, a hand column, a part column, and a part feeder column [paragraph 43]. The robot cell configuration data 124 includes position information of a robot, a device that is attached to the robot during an assembly operation (for example, a hand or an arm), and a part of an assembled product [paragraph 41]. In claim 4, the assembly planning device calculates an operation time when an operation sequence including the second assembly operation and an operation before the first assembly operation among the series of operations included in the operation sequence, which reads on a state in the workspace with a manipulator handling a target object);
determine, for completing a given task assigned to the robot, a first sequence of operations for causing the robot to reach a reference point in a designated area, based on the state (The processor features an operation sequence allocation unit [paragraph 33], which allocates an operation sequence to the robot that executes the assembly [paragraph 36], wherein an operation sequence template is shown in FIG. 3, and FIG. 7 is an example of the assembly partial-order graph showing an assembly operation generated by the assembly partial-order graph generation processing. In the assembly partial-order graph of FIG. 7, the graph includes nodes each represented by an ellipse and arcs each represented by an arrow showing an order between two nodes. The nodes of the assembly partial-order graph show the assembly operation (the assembly). A constraint is shown that an assembly at a tip of the arc that must be performed before an assembly at a root of the arc [paragraph 63], wherein each assembly is a sequence of operations for the robot. FIG. 8 shows an example of a robot cell plan generation processing, which includes a trajectory generation unit that calculates, for each point on the trajectory a time point at which the robot is at the point based on a required time for each operation [paragraph 85], meaning that the operations can include a reference point in a designated area); and
determine, once the robot has reached the reference point, a second sequence of operations for completing the given task by causing the robot to move to the target object and operate the target object by the manipulator (see paragraphs 33, 36, 63, and 85, as well as FIGS. 3, 7, and 8), wherein the second sequence of operations is generated based on:
(i) a state newly set after the robot has reached the reference point (this is inherent; once the robot has reached the reference point of paragraph 85, it is in a new state different than what it was in before the first operation was performed. The new sequence will have to be generated based on that new positioning state); and
(ii) recognition of objects in a space including at least the robot and the target object based on sensor information (FIG. 8 describes how the hand holding a part corresponding to a leaf node occurs at S808, wherein the part reads on an object in space that the robot is either holding or not holding),
wherein the second sequence of operations is generated by solving an optimization problem under:
a constraint condition relating to the movement of the robot and the operation of the manipulator; and
an evaluation function based on dynamics of the robot (An operation time evaluation unit evaluates the operation time required for the assembly to specify an optimal combination of the assembly and the robot [paragraph 37]. In FIG. 8, the operation time evaluation unit specifies the allocation pattern of the leaf nodes and the robots that minimize the operation time [paragraph 96], which is a form of optimization, wherein the constraint is time, and the sequence is generated in part based on an evaluation of the dynamics of the robot, described as a function in paragraph 100).
Regarding Claim 3. Enomoto teaches the operation planning device according to claim 1.
Enomoto also teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to set the reference point based on the position of the target object (Paragraphs 75-76).
Regarding Claim 5. Enomoto teaches the operation planning device according to claim 1.
Enomoto also teaches:
wherein, if the robot reaches the reference point based on the first operation plan, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine a state setting space in which at least the robot and the target object are present and set the state within the state setting space (the operation time of the operation sequence by the robot 1 is referred to as T1, the operation time up to move to the approach position of assembly of the part B in the operation sequence by the robot 2 is referred to as T2, and the operation time after moving to the approach position of assembly of the part B in the operation sequence by the robot 2 is referred to as T3 [paragraph 94]).
Regarding Claim 10. Enomoto teaches an operation planning device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a configuration example of a robot cell planning device according to a first embodiment [paragraph 11], featuring a processor and a memory shown in FIG. 1 [paragraphs 27-28]); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
receive designation of an area where a mobile robot equipped with a manipulator handling a target object works (FIG. 2 is an example of the part and hand correspondence table at 122. This table includes, for example, a robot column, a hand column, a part column, and a part feeder column [paragraph 43]. The robot cell configuration data 124 includes position information of a robot, a device that is attached to the robot during an assembly operation (for example, a hand or an arm), and a part of an assembled product [paragraph 41]. In claim 4, the assembly planning device calculates an operation time when an operation sequence including the second assembly operation and an operation before the first assembly operation among the series of operations included in the operation sequence, which reads on a state in the workspace with a manipulator handling a target object);
receive designation relating to the target object in the area; and
determine, for completing a given task assigned to the robot, a first sequence of operations for causing the robot to reach a reference point set within the designated area designated as the area where the robot works (The processor features an operation sequence allocation unit [paragraph 33], which allocates an operation sequence to the robot that executes the assembly [paragraph 36], wherein an operation sequence template is shown in FIG. 3, and FIG. 7 is an example of the assembly partial-order graph showing an assembly operation generated by the assembly partial-order graph generation processing. In the assembly partial-order graph of FIG. 7, the graph includes nodes each represented by an ellipse and arcs each represented by an arrow showing an order between two nodes. The nodes of the assembly partial-order graph show the assembly operation (the assembly). A constraint is shown that an assembly at a tip of the arc that must be performed before an assembly at a root of the arc [paragraph 63], wherein each assembly is a sequence of operations for the robot. FIG. 8 shows an example of a robot cell plan generation processing, which includes a trajectory generation unit that calculates, for each point on the trajectory a time point at which the robot is at the point based on a required time for each operation [paragraph 85], meaning that the operations can include a reference point in a designated area);
determine, once the robot has reached the reference point, a second sequence of operations for completing the given task by causing the robot to move to the target object and operate the target object by the manipulator (see paragraphs 33, 36, 63, and 85, as well as FIGS. 3, 7, and 8), wherein the second sequence of operations is generated based on:
(i) a state newly set after the robot has reached the reference point (this is inherent; once the robot has reached the reference point of paragraph 85, it is in a new state different than what it was in before the first operation was performed. The new sequence will have to be generated based on that new positioning state); and
(ii) recognition of objects in a space including at least the robot and the target object based on sensor information (FIG. 8 describes how the hand holding a part corresponding to a leaf node occurs at S808, wherein the part reads on an object in space that the robot is either holding or not holding),
wherein the second sequence of operations is generated by solving an optimization problem under:
a constraint condition relating to the movement of the robot and the operation of the manipulator; and
an evaluation function based on dynamics of the robot (An operation time evaluation unit evaluates the operation time required for the assembly to specify an optimal combination of the assembly and the robot [paragraph 37]. In FIG. 8, the operation time evaluation unit specifies the allocation pattern of the leaf nodes and the robots that minimize the operation time [paragraph 96], which is a form of optimization, wherein the constraint is time, and the sequence is generated in part based on an evaluation of the dynamics of the robot, described as a function in paragraph 100).
Regarding Claim 12. Enomoto teaches an operation planning method executed by a computer (FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a configuration example of a robot cell planning device according to a first embodiment [paragraph 11], featuring a processor and a memory shown in FIG. 1 [paragraphs 27-28]), the operation planning method comprising:
setting a state in a workspace where a mobile robot equipped with a manipulator handling a target object works (FIG. 2 is an example of the part and hand correspondence table at 122. This table includes, for example, a robot column, a hand column, a part column, and a part feeder column [paragraph 43]. The robot cell configuration data 124 includes position information of a robot, a device that is attached to the robot during an assembly operation (for example, a hand or an arm), and a part of an assembled product [paragraph 41]. In claim 4, the assembly planning device calculates an operation time when an operation sequence including the second assembly operation and an operation before the first assembly operation among the series of operations included in the operation sequence, which reads on a state in the workspace with a manipulator handling a target object); and
determining, for completing a given task assigned to the robot, a first sequence of operations for causing the robot to reach a reference point in a designated area, based on the state (The processor features an operation sequence allocation unit [paragraph 33], which allocates an operation sequence to the robot that executes the assembly [paragraph 36], wherein an operation sequence template is shown in FIG. 3, and FIG. 7 is an example of the assembly partial-order graph showing an assembly operation generated by the assembly partial-order graph generation processing. In the assembly partial-order graph of FIG. 7, the graph includes nodes each represented by an ellipse and arcs each represented by an arrow showing an order between two nodes. The nodes of the assembly partial-order graph show the assembly operation (the assembly). A constraint is shown that an assembly at a tip of the arc that must be performed before an assembly at a root of the arc [paragraph 63], wherein each assembly is a sequence of operations for the robot. FIG. 8 shows an example of a robot cell plan generation processing, which includes a trajectory generation unit that calculates, for each point on the trajectory a time point at which the robot is at the point based on a required time for each operation [paragraph 85], meaning that the operations can include a reference point in a designated area); and
determine, once the robot has reached the reference point, a second sequence of operations for completing the given task by causing the robot to move to the target object and operate the target object by the manipulator (see paragraphs 33, 36, 63, and 85, as well as FIGS. 3, 7, and 8), wherein the second sequence of operations is generated based on:
(i) a state newly set after the robot has reached the reference point (this is inherent; once the robot has reached the reference point of paragraph 85, it is in a new state different than what it was in before the first operation was performed. The new sequence will have to be generated based on that new positioning state); and
(ii) recognition of objects in a space including at least the robot and the target object based on sensor information (FIG. 8 describes how the hand holding a part corresponding to a leaf node occurs at S808, wherein the part reads on an object in space that the robot is either holding or not holding),
wherein the second sequence of operations is generated by solving an optimization problem under:
a constraint condition relating to the movement of the robot and the operation of the manipulator; and
an evaluation function based on dynamics of the robot (An operation time evaluation unit evaluates the operation time required for the assembly to specify an optimal combination of the assembly and the robot [paragraph 37]. In FIG. 8, the operation time evaluation unit specifies the allocation pattern of the leaf nodes and the robots that minimize the operation time [paragraph 96], which is a form of optimization, wherein the constraint is time, and the sequence is generated in part based on an evaluation of the dynamics of the robot, described as a function in paragraph 100).
Regarding Claim 18. Enomoto teaches the operation planning device according to claim 1.
Enomoto also teaches:
wherein the second sequence of operations is generated by converting the task into a temporal logic formula and generating a time-step logical formula (paragraph 94).
Regarding Claim 19. Enomoto teaches the operation planning device according to claim 1.
Enomoto also teaches:
wherein the second sequence of operations is generated using an abstract model representing dynamics of the robot and objects (Paragraph 39).
Regarding Claim 20. Enomoto teaches the operation planning device according to claim 1.
Enomoto also teaches:
wherein the second sequence of operations includes a subtasks generated for each time step (FIG. 11 and paragraphs 75-80 describe how assemblies include subassemblies, which also require robot manipulations, which read on subtasks).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et al. US 20200406460 A1 (“Enomoto”) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Suzumura et al. US 20210213606 A1 (“Suzumura”).
Regarding Claim 4. Enomoto teaches the operation planning device according to claim 3.
Enomoto also teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine the reference point based on a position of the target object (Paragraphs 75-76).
Enomoto does not teach:
The reference point is also determined based on a movement error of the robot (There is an error detection in paragraph 141, FIG. 11, but it is not explicit).
However, Suzumura teaches:
The reference point is also determined based on a movement error of the robot (the control unit 6 may obtain a position error (positional deviation) of the carriage reference point with respect to the reference work position P1 based on the positional relationship between the detected marker 51 and the carriage 7, and control the operation shafts of the carriage 7 to cancel this position error [paragraph 48]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Enomoto with the reference point is also determined based on a movement error of the robot as taught by Suzumura so as to allow the system to adjust for errors in the robot’s movement towards its destination.
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et al. US 20200406460 A1 (“Enomoto”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of High et al. US 20190389074 A1 (“High”).
Regarding Claim 6. Enomoto teaches the operation planning device according to claim 1.
Enomoto does not teach:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to, in a case where a priority to be prioritized in determining the operation plan is specified, determine at least one of the constraint condition and/or the evaluation function, based on the priority.
However, High teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to, in a case where a priority to be prioritized in determining the operation plan is specified, determine at least one of the constraint condition and/or the evaluation function, based on the priority (Generating, by the processor, a queue of tasks to complete the mission based on priorities and dependencies of the tasks, wherein each task is prioritized based on a safety level and a timeliness for the associate to perform the task [paragraph 5]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Enomoto with wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to, in a case where a priority to be prioritized in determining the operation plan is specified, determine at least one of the constraint condition and/or the evaluation function, based on the priority as taught by High so as to allow the system to set a priority regarding safety and efficiency for the robot.
Regarding Claim 7. Enomoto in combination with High teaches the operation planning device according to claim 6.
Enomoto does not teach:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to, in a case where a work time length is prioritized as the priority, set the evaluation function having a positive or negative correlation with the work time length.
However, High teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to, in a case where a work time length is prioritized as the priority, set the evaluation function having a positive or negative correlation with the work time length (FIG. 3, paragraphs 38-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Enomoto with wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to, in a case where a work time length is prioritized as the priority, set the evaluation function having a positive or negative correlation with the work time length as taught by High so as to allow the system to set a priority regarding safety and efficiency for the robot.
Regarding Claim 8. Enomoto in combination with High teaches the operation planning device according to claim 6.
Enomoto does not teach:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to, in a case where a safety is prioritized as the priority, set the constraint condition which requires exclusive executions between movement of the robot and operation of the manipulator.
However, High teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to, in a case where a safety is prioritized as the priority, set the constraint condition which requires exclusive executions between movement of the robot and operation of the manipulator (FIG. 3, paragraphs 38-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Enomoto with wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to, in a case where a safety is prioritized as the priority, set the constraint condition which requires exclusive executions between movement of the robot and operation of the manipulator so as to allow the system to set a priority regarding safety for the robot.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et al. US 20200406460 A1 (“Enomoto”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamashita et al. US 20210178589 A1 (“Yamashita”).
Regarding Claim 9. Enomoto teaches the operation planning device according to claim 1.
Enomoto does not teach:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to further execute the instructions to:
convert a task to be executed by the robot into a logical formula in a form of a temporal logic, based on the state;
generate a time step logical formula that is a formula representing the state for each time step to execute the task; and
generate, as the operation plan, a subtask sequence to be executed by the robot, based on the time step logical formula.
However, Yamashita teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to further execute the instructions to:
convert a task to be executed by the robot into a logical formula in a form of a temporal logic, based on the state;
generate a time step logical formula that is a formula representing the state for each time step to execute the task; and
generate, as the operation plan, a subtask sequence to be executed by the robot, based on the time step logical formula (This is the logical process shown in FIGS. 9-11. FIG. 10 in particular shows steps that have to be done in a particular time-step sequence, with details about state/condition of the robot to execute each task, such as “has arrived at next cell?” at S19, which is checked before making wired connection at S20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Enomoto with wherein the at least one processor is configured to further execute the instructions to: convert a task to be executed by the robot into a logical formula in a form of a temporal logic, based on the state; generate a time step logical formula that is a formula representing the state for each time step to execute the task; and generate, as the operation plan, a subtask sequence to be executed by the robot, based on the time step logical formula as taught by Yamashita because the type of formula used for representing state data to execute a task would have been obvious to try from a limited number of logical formula options available.
Regarding Claim 16. Enomoto teaches the operation planning device according to claim 1.
Enomoto does not teach:
wherein the robot is equipped with a self-propelled main body and the manipulator.
However, Yamashita teaches:
wherein the robot is equipped with a self-propelled main body and the manipulator (FIG. 3 shows a mobile robot with a manipulator arm at 80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Enomoto with wherein the robot is equipped with a self-propelled main body and the manipulator as taught by Yamashita so as to allow the system of Enomoto to work with a mobile robot that has a self-propelled body.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et al. US 20200406460 A1 (“Enomoto”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamashita et al. US 20210178589 A1 (“Yamashita”) and Suzumura et al. US 20210213606 A1 (“Suzumura”).
Regarding Claim 17. Enomoto teaches the operation planning device according to claim 1.
Enomoto does not teach:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine the reference point based on a reach range of the robot and a position of the target object (Enomoto teaches the reference point being based on a position of the target object, but not the reach range).
However, Yamashita teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine the reference point based on a reach range of the robot and a position of the target object (The synchronization control unit 805 operates the self-movable robot 80 in response to the operation of the fixed robot 70. For example, the synchronization control unit 805 operates the self-movable robot 80 so as to be a predetermined distance from the fixed robot 70 (so as not to contact the robot 70). For example, the synchronization control unit 805 operates the self-movable robot 80 such that, when the fixed robot 70 holds a job object, the robot hand of the self-movable robot 80 approaches the job object. For example, the synchronization control unit 805 operates the self-movable robot 80 such that, when the self-movable robot 80 holds a job object, the job object approaches the fixed robot 70 [paragraph 151]. This inherently means that the robot must move near the position of the target object, wherein the object is within a reach range of the self-movable robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Enomoto with wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine the reference point based on a reach range of the robot and a position of the target object as taught by Yamashita so as to allow the system to factor in the robot’s reach range in determining the reference point, so as to not plan a point that is outside of the robot manipulator’s reach.
Enomoto in combination with Yamashita does not explicitly teach:
The reference point is also determined based on a movement error of the robot (There is an error detection in paragraph 141, FIG. 11, but it is not explicit).
However, Suzumura teaches:
The reference point is also determined based on a movement error of the robot (the control unit 6 may obtain a position error (positional deviation) of the carriage reference point with respect to the reference work position P1 based on the positional relationship between the detected marker 51 and the carriage 7, and control the operation shafts of the carriage 7 to cancel this position error [paragraph 48]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Enomoto and Yamashita with the reference point is also determined based on a movement error of the robot as taught by Suzumura so as to allow the system to adjust for errors in the robot’s movement towards its destination.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON G CAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 7:30am - 4:30pm EST to Friday 7:30pm - 4:30am.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/AARON G CAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights