DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes
Claims 1 is directed to a device and method (i.e., a machine). Thus, the claim falls within one of the four statutory categories because the claim is directed to a manufacture/machine. See MPEP 2106.03
Claim 14 recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories because the claim is directed to a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Therefore, claims 1 and 14 fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – mental exception
Claims are to be analyzed to determine whether recited subject matter falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
Independent claim 1 includes an abstract idea (bolded below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections: Claim 1 recites:
A robot control device comprising:
a controller configured to control a robot including a sensor and an end effector, the controller configured to
acquire position information of the end effector with respect to a measurement target disposed inside an operational space of the robot, and
correct a coordinate system related to operation of the robot based on the position information.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a judicial exception in terms of mental process because the broadest reasonable interpretation covers correcting a coordinate system using mental calculations via pen and paper. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
A robot control device comprising:
a controller configured to control a robot including a sensor and an end effector, the controller configured to
acquire position information of the end effector with respect to a measurement target disposed inside an operational space of the robot, and
correct a coordinate system related to operation of the robot based on the position information.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The controller recited in the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is described at high level of generality and is merely a computer being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The limitation requiring the controller to “acquire position information of the end effector with respect to a measurement target disposed inside an operational space of the robot” is mere data gathering step for use with the abstract idea which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and does not add significantly more and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering and displaying steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. There is no indication on the record that the controller being configured to “acquire position information of the end effector…” is an inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Independent claim 1 is not patent eligible. Independent method claim 14 is not patent eligible for analogous reasons.
Dependent claims 4, 5, 12, 13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible via practical intergradation. Rather, the limitations of dependent these claims are directed toward additional elements that perform insignificant extra solution and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, Therefore, dependent claims 4, 5, 12, 13 are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 6-7, the claims recite “the end effector in contact with the measurement target” on line 7 of claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-4, 8, 10-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 2016/0059419 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses a robot control device comprising: a controller (Figs. 1-2, 7, element 4, 41) configured to control a robot (Figs. 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, element 1) including a sensor (Figs. 1-2, 6-9, element 3, 7, joint encoders) and an end effector (Figs. 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, element 2, 21; paragraphs 0037-0041, 0050-0051), the controller configured to acquire (Figs. 5, 8, 11, steps S17, S28, S38) position information of the end effector with respect to a measurement target (Fig. 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, element 6, 8, 81) disposed inside an operational space (Fig. 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, element 5) of the robot (paragraph 0038-0040, 0058, 0080, 0108, 0113, 0116-0117, 0122, 0128, 0135), and correct (Figs. 5, 8, 11, step S18, S29, S39) a coordinate system related to operation of the robot based on the position information (paragraph 0070, 0080-0082, 0107, 0124-0125, 0135).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki discloses the robot control device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to acquire (Fig. 8, step S24) coordinates (Figs. 6, element FP[i]) of the measurement target based on spatial information (Figs. 3-4 and 6, element 8, 81) about the operational space (paragraph 0113), control (Fig. 8, step S27) the robot and move the end effector to the measurement target based on the coordinates of the measurement target (paragraph 0122), and correct (Fig. 8, step S29) a coordinate system related to operation of the robot based on the position information of the end effector with respect to the measurement target (paragraph 0124-0125).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki discloses the robot control device according to claim 2, wherein the measurement target includes a measurement target mark (Figs. 3-4 and 6-7, element 81; paragraph 0058), and the controller is configured to calculate the coordinates of the measurement target based on spatial information about the measurement target mark (paragraph 0071, 0124).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki discloses the robot control device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to acquire (Figs. 5, 8, 11, steps S17, S28, S38 ) position information (Figs. 6, 9, 10B, element VP[i]) of the end effector with respect to measurement targets (Fig. 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, element 6, 8, 81) disposed inside the operational space of the robot, and correct (Figs. 5, 8, 11, step S18, S29, S39) the coordinate system related to operation of the robot based on the position information (paragraph 0070, 0080-0082, 0107, 0124-0125, 0135).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki discloses the robot control device according to claim 1, wherein the end effector comprises a holding unit (Figs. 1-2, element 21), and the controller is configured to bring the end effector into contact with the measurement target (Fig. 1, element 6) by controlling the robot and moving the holding unit (paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki discloses the robot control device according to claim 1 wherein the controller is configured to control the robot and make the end effector contact at least one surface of the measurement target (paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki discloses the robot according to claim 10, wherein the controller is configured to control the robot and make the end effector contact a surface of the measurement target (Fig. 1, element 6) that appears in an operational space image (Fig. 3, element 6) included in spatial information about the operational space of the robot (paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki discloses a robot control system (Fig. 1, element 10) comprising: the robot control device (Fig. 1, element 4) according to claim 1 and the robot (Fig. 1, element 1; paragraphs 0037-0041, 0050-0051).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki discloses a robot control method comprising: acquiring (Figs. 5, 8, 11, steps S17, S28, S38) position information of an end effector (Figs. 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, element 2, 21) with respect to a measurement target (Fig. 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, element 6, 8, 81) disposed inside an operational space (Fig. 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, element 5) of a robot (Figs. 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, element 1) comprising the end effector (paragraphs 0037-0041, 0050-0051, 0058, 0080, 0108, 0113, 0116-0117, 0122, 0128, 0135); and correcting (Figs. 5, 8, 11, step S18, S29, S39) a coordinate system related to operation of the robot based on the position information (paragraph 0070, 0080-0082, 0107, 0124-0125, 0135).
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) 5-7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagai et al. (US 2015/0045953 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Nagai”).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki teaches the robot control device according to claim 1. Suzuki is silent regarding the controller being configured to acquire contact information as the position information, the contact information based on contact of the end effector with the measurement target as the position information. Nagai teaches a controller (Fig. 2, element 10) configured to control a robot (Fig. 2, element 2, 21), the controller configured to acquire contact information (Figs. 13 and 15, step S26, element 16) as position information (Figs. 13 and 15, step S27 is YES and element 13), the contact information based on contact of an end effector (Fig. 12, element 6, 61) with a measurement target (Fig. 12, element 8a, 8b) as position information (paragraph 0026-0027, 0067-0081).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to apply the well-known contact information acquiring technique taught by Nagai to the prior art system taught by Suzuki. That is, it would have been obvious to configure the prior art system taught by Suzuki with a contact probe by applying the well-known technique taught by Nagai. Application of the well-known technique to the prior art system would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and because such application would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: controller being configured to acquire contact information as the position information, the contact information based on contact of the end effector with the measurement target as the position information.
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki teaches the robot control device according to claim 1. Suzuki is silent regarding the controller being configured to move the end effector, and correct the coordinate system based on detection information detected in response to the end effector in contact with the measurement target being off the measurement target.
Nagai teaches a controller (Fig. 2, element 10) configured to move a robot (Fig. 2, element 2, 21) to acquire contact information (Figs. 13 and 15, step S26, element 16) as position information (Figs. 13 and 15, step S27 is YES and element 13), the contact information based on contact of an end effector (Fig. 12, element 6, 61) with a measurement target (Fig. 12, element 8a, 8b) as position information, wherein the controller is configured to move the end effector (Fig. 13, step S25), and correct the coordinate system (Fig. 15, elements 14-15) based on detection information detected in response to the end effector in contact with the measurement target being off the measurement target (Fig. 13, step S27 is NO; paragraphs 0026-0027 and 0067-0081).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to apply the well-known technique taught by Nagai to the prior art system taught by Suzuki. Application of the well-known technique to the prior art system would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and because such application would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: the controller being configured to move the end effector, and correct the coordinate system based on detection information detected in response to the end effector in contact with the measurement target being off the measurement target.
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki and Nagai teach the robot control device according to claim 6, wherein the detection information is related to movement of the end effector in a surface direction along a top surface (Nagai, Fig. 12, element 81) while the end effector is in contact with the top surface (Nagai, Fig. 13, element S22 moving in the X and Y directions).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chhatpar et al. (US 2014/0005829 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Chhatpar”).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki teaches the robot control device according to claim 8, wherein the holding unit comprises at least two fingers (Figs. 1-2, element 21), and the controller is configured to control the robot and move at least one of the fingers closer to another one of the fingers (paragraph 0050). While Suzuki teaches that the controller is configured to hold target 6 with fingers 21, Suzuki is silent regarding the controller being configured to rotate the holding unit around the measurement target with the at least one of the fingers in contact with the measurement target. Chhatpar teaches a work holding unit (Fig. 1A, element 104) having fingers (Fig. 1A, element 104A, 104B) being configured to rotate the holding unit around a target (Fig. 1C and 1D, element 102) with at least one finger (Fig. 1C and 1D, element 104) in contact with the target (paragraph 0035). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to apply the well-known hand rotation technique taught by Chhatpar to the prior art system taught by Suzuki. That is, it would have been obvious to configure the controller to rotate the holding unit around the measurement target with at least one of the fingers in contact with the measurement target by applying the well-known technique taught by Chhatpar. Application of the well-known technique to the prior art system would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill o the person having ordinary skill in the art and because such application would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: the controller being configured to rotate the holding unit around the measurement target with the at least one of the fingers in contact with the measurement target.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyazawa et al. (US 2015/0120055 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Miyazawa”).
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki teaches the robot control device according to claim 1. Suzuki is silent regarding the measurement target having a cylindrical shape having a circular top surface or a quadrangular prism shape having a polygonal top surface, and the measurement target is disposed in the operational space so that a top surface of the measurement target appears in an operational space image included in spatial information about the operational space. Miyazawa teaches a measurement target having a cylindrical shape and a circular top surface (Fig. 1, element W1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to apply the well-known measurement target technique taught by Miyazawa to the prior art system taught by Suzuki. Application of the well-known technique to the prior art system would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and because such application would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: the measurement target having a cylindrical shape having a circular top surface or a quadrangular prism shape having a polygonal top surface, and the measurement target is disposed in the operational space so that a top surface of the measurement target appears in an operational space image included in spatial information about the operational space.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE MOYER whose telephone number is (571)270-7821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoi H Tran can be reached at 571-272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Dale Moyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656