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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 07/08/2026. Claims 1-19 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(a) rejection of claims 1-19 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/11/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, and 4-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einav (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0105779) in view of Miyazawa et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0143522).
Regarding claim 1 and similarly with respect to claim 10
Einav discloses “An information processing method, executed by a computer processor and a memory, for performing interference confirmation between a first component and a second component through simulation in a virtual space, the information processing method comprising: changing a threshold to be used for the interference confirmation based on a plurality of pieces of program information that defines different movements of the first component or the second component in the simulation, by the processor and the memory;” (See Einav [0172] and Fig. 3b Chars. 320-322 disclosing dynamically determined safety envelopes around individual body members of a human operator as a component(s) in a robotic system (i.e. a second component). The movements of the components (operation definitions) may be simulated and the movements may correspond to different movements (“zone 1015 defined for movements of the left hand, and zone 1017 defined for movements of the right hand.”) , see Einav [0185] & [0188]-[0189]. This information can be used, for example, to determine which safety envelopes should be active or inactive at any given time, with what threshold of activation, and/or if a safety envelope is allowed to be deactivated by the human operator, e.g., to allow collaboration to occur., see Einav [0184].).
Einav discloses “and performing the interference confirmation using the changed threshold by the processor and the memory.” (See Einav Fig. 6, Char. 932 and [0206]-[0207] disclosing performing conflict prediction of the motion requirements of the system components.).
Einav discloses all the elements of claim 1 and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except the concept of performing interference confirmation between a first and second component corresponding to a robot or robot appendage and a work. That is Einav is directed to performing interference confirmation between a robot and an operator and teaches all of these components may exist in a workspace, however does not teach performing the interference check between a robot and a work. See [0055] and claim 11 of the instant application.
Miyazawa however discloses that it is well known to perform interference confirmation between a robot and a work, see Miyazawa Abstract.
Einav and Miyazawa are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the robotic control system of Einav with the ability to perform interference confirmation between a robot and a work as taught by Miyazawa. Doing so provides a known strategy for collision avoidance in the art, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so allows a robotic system to operate within dynamic environments by advantageously to improving safety of collision prevention and work efficiency, see Miyazawa [0026].
Regarding claim 2
Einav discloses “The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein thresholds are individually set for the plurality of pieces of program information that define the different movements of the first component or the second component by the processor and the memory.” (See Einav [0172] and Fig. 3b Chars. 320-322 disclosing dynamically determined safety envelopes around individual body members of the human operator as a component(s) in a robotic system (i.e. a second component).).
Regarding claim 4
Einav discloses “The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the program information is a command of a program for moving the first component or the second component.” (See Einav Fig. 11, Chars. 220-240 and [0230]-[0233] disclosing a task (information) is a command for the robot, which is pre-processed through a simulation to perform a collision interference check.).
Regarding claim 5
Einav discloses “The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the program information is a program data file of a program data for moving the first component or the second component.” (See Einav Fig. 11, Chars. 220-240 and [0230]-[0233] disclosing a task (information) is a command for the robot, which is pre-processed through a simulation to perform a collision interference check.).
Regarding claim 6
Einav discloses “The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the program information is a process control block that stores a process for moving the first component or the second component.” (See Einav [0096] disclosing a predefined task process flow (storage is implicit).).
Regarding claim 7
Einav discloses “The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein a first threshold corresponding to a first rate and a second threshold corresponding to a second rate among a velocity rate in the movement can be set by the processor and the memory.” (See Einav [0112], [0207], and [0215] disclosing profiling a velocity of both the robot and a human operator to mitigate predicted conflicts when a velocity exceeds a velocity threshold which is deemed to be potentially dangerous.).
Regarding claim 8
Einav discloses “The information processing method according to claim 7, wherein a velocity of the second rate is higher than a velocity of the first rate,” (See Einav [0215] disclosing the velocity threshold may be set asymmetrically for movements by the robot and movements by the human operator, for example a body member of the human operator is allowed to approach the robot at a relatively higher velocity when the robot is itself moving at a relatively slow velocity.).
Einav discloses “and wherein the second threshold is greater than the first threshold.” (See Einav [0215] disclosing for example a body member of the human operator is allowed to approach the robot at a relatively higher velocity when the robot is itself moving at a relatively slow velocity, thus the second velocity threshold set for the second component is higher than the first velocity threshold set for the first component.).
Regarding claim 9
Einav discloses “The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein a first threshold corresponding to a first time and a second threshold corresponding to a second time among a time being elapsed in the movement can be set by the processor and the memory.” (See Einav [0215] disclosing a criterion of estimated reaction time need to respond to a potential collision is used in planning activity adjustments including a first time adjustment corresponding to adapting an envelope or threshold to mitigate a collision and a second time adjustment to maintain a certain minimum avoidance buffer by making small adjustments no more than a small time penalty.).
Regarding claim 11
Einav discloses “A robot system comprising: the information processing apparatus according to claim 10;” (See Einav Fig. 2B Char. 902 disclosing the information processing apparatus.).
Einav discloses “a robot in physical space corresponding to the first component; and a work in physical space corresponding to the second component.” (See Einav Fig. 1A, Char. 120 & [0149] disclosing a robot as a component in the workspace and a workpiece as another component in the workspace.).
Regarding claim 12
Einav discloses “The robot system according to claim 11, further comprising: a control apparatus configured to control the robot;” (See Einav Fig. 1C Char, 160 disclosing a robotic controller.).
Einav discloses “and a display apparatus configured to display information communicated by the control apparatus and the information processing apparatus,” (See Einav [0138] disclosing a display apparatus for interaction with the control unit, indicative of current task status information, such as a list of current task operations, indication of the current operation within the task, indications of other operations which could be performed next, and/or currently planned and/or anticipated robotic motions.).
Einav discloses “wherein the information processing apparatus performs operation of the robot and the simulation according to the information displayed on the display apparatus,” (See Einav [0139] disclosing the robot may be manipulated in accordance with the input devices (display see [0147]). The simulation is performed in accordance with the task which may be defined according to input via the display, see Einav Fig. 11, Char. 230-240 and [0232]-[0233].).
Einav discloses “and wherein the interference confirmation is included in the simulation.” (See Einav [0045] disclosing validation of the provided task configurations by simulation.).
Regarding claim 13
Einav discloses “A manufacturing method of a product comprising: executing, by using an information processing method according to claim 1, the simulation between the first component corresponding to a robot in physical space and the second component corresponding to a work in physical space; and manufacturing a product in physical space by operating the work via the robot based on the result of the simulation.” (See Einav Fig. 1A, Char. 120 & [0149] disclosing a robot as a component in the workspace and a workpiece as another component in the workspace, and [0060] disclosing producing an article of manufacture according to the method.).
Regarding claim 14
Einav discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a program for executing the information processing method according to claim 1 by a computer.” (See Einav [0054] disclosing a non-volatile storage with instructions for executing the task processing method.).
Regarding claim 15
Einav discloses “The information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining the movement of the first component or the second component for which the simulation is performed based on an information that defines the movement of the first component or the second component by the processor and the memory,” (See Einav [0096] disclosing operations of the task for the robot (first component) are ordered to be performed in a task flow comprising a predefined sequence.).
Einav discloses “wherein the threshold is changed according to the determined movement of the first component or the second component,” (See Einav [0172] and Fig. 3b Chars. 320-322 disclosing dynamically determined safety envelopes around individual body members of a human operator as a component(s) in a robotic system (i.e. a second component). The movements of the components are simulated, see Einav [0185].).
Einav discloses “and wherein the interference confirmation is performed by using the changed threshold.” (See Einav Fig. 6, Char. 932 and [0206]-[0207] disclosing performing conflict prediction of the motion requirements of the system components.).
Regarding claim 16
Einav discloses “The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the first component or the second component is configured to execute a plurality of movements,” (See Einav [0101] disclosing available robotic actions comprise one or more of movement, tool operation, and material transport.).
Einav discloses “and wherein the information processing method further comprises: displaying a setting screen for a user to individually set thresholds for a plurality of movements set for the first component or the second component on the display by the processor and the memory.” (See Einav [0243] disclosing, for example, halting conditions (threshold for stopping operation) may be intentionally disabled, or otherwise tuned, for example in order to allow an operator to manually interact with the robot and/or to let the robot ignore normal contact forces exerted through a tool.).
Regarding claim 17
Einav discloses “The information processing method according to claim 16, wherein the setting screen is displayed on the display unit in program file format or process control block format by the processor and the memory.” (See Einav [0297]-[0301] disclosing task flow is under the control of the human operator via a display interface. See Fig. 17E and [0306]-[0307] disclosing a block diagram format (process control block).).
Regarding claim 18
Einav discloses “The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the first component or the second component is set to execute the movement at a plurality of velocities,” (See Einav [0112], [0207], and [0215] disclosing profiling a velocity of both the robot and a human operator to mitigate predicted conflicts when a velocity exceeds a velocity threshold which is deemed to be potentially dangerous.).
Einav discloses “wherein the information processing method further comprises: displaying a setting screen for the user to individually set thresholds for the plurality of velocities set for the first component or the second component on the display unit by the processor and the memory.” (See Einav [0215] disclosing the velocity threshold can be set asymmetrically for movements by the robot and movements by the human operator.).
Regarding claim 19
Einav discloses “The information processing method according to claim 18, wherein the setting screen is displayed on the display unit in scale format or flowchart format by the processor and the memory.” (See Einav [0297]-[0301] disclosing task flow is under the control of the human operator via a display interface. See Fig. 17E and [0306]-[0307] disclosing a flowchart format.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einav (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0105779) in view of Miyazawa et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0143522) in further view of Taveira et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0202449).
Regarding claim 3
Einav in view of Miyazawa discloses “The information processing method according to claim 2,”, and further discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except “wherein a general threshold is uniformly set for information for which the threshold is not set by the processor and the memory.”
Taveira discloses “wherein a general threshold is uniformly set for information for which the threshold is not set by the processor and the memory.” (See Taveira [0008] disclosing generating a map of all objects posing an obstacle or potential obstacle to a robotic vehicle in which a proximity threshold corresponding to each object based on the object's classification may be added as an exclusion perimeter around the object's volume and determining a detour path that remains outside the exclusion perimeter of all the detected obstacles, including a default (uniform) threshold set for all unclassified obstacles.).
Einav, Miyazawa, and Taveira are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the robotic control system of Einav with the ability to assign a general safety envelope to objects without an existing envelope as taught by Taveira. Doing so provides a known improvement in the art, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so allows a robotic system to operate within environments containing unknown objects/components while still maintaining a safe distance, see Taveira [0019].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 & 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to P. 8-9 of remarks filed 12/19/2025
Einav discloses “An information processing method, executed by a computer processor and a memory, for performing interference confirmation between a first component and a second component through simulation in a virtual space, the information processing method comprising: changing a threshold to be used for the interference confirmation based on a plurality of pieces of program information that defines different movements of the first component or the second component in the simulation, by the processor and the memory;”
At least see Einav [0184]-[0185] & [0188]-[0189] disclosing operation definitions, which include a simulation of different movements of a component (human operator) in a robotic environment, used for determining which safety envelopes (thresholds) should be active or inactive at any given time.
With respect to P. 8-9 of remarks filed 07/08/2026
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights