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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “control device” in claim 8 has been interpreted as a computer-implemented means plus function limitation with corresponding structure disclosed in at least paragraphs 0021-0029 and Figs. 1-2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 4-7 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 claim 4, the words referring to “the operation plan” on line 1 of claim 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the words refer to the operation on line 5 of claim 1 or the recreated operating plan on line 6 of claim 1. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Regarding claim 5, the words referring to “the operation plan” on line 1 of claim 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the words refer to the operation on line 5 of claim 1 or the recreated operating plan on line 6 of claim 1. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Regarding claims 6-7, the words referring to “the operation plan” on line 2 of claim 6 renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the words refer to the operation on line 5 of claim 1 or the recreated operating plan on line 6 of claim 1. Accordingly, the claims are indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear.
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) 1-2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akimasa (JP 2015199149 A).
Regarding claim 1, Akimasa discloses a control method [for the intended use]1 of creating an operation plan of a robot which is a horizontal articulated robot, based on an operation command to the robot, thereby controlling a motor of each of axes of the robot, the control method comprising: executing (Fig. 7, step S7’ and S8 via Figs. 1-3, elements 300, 301, 311), when a maximum speed of at least one axis (Figs. 1-2, element J1) driven by the motor (Fig. 2, element 231) in the robot (Figs. 1-3, element 200, 201) in the operation plan is included in a resonance avoidance speed range (Rj ± δ) obtained in advance for the axis (Fig. 7, step S4), resonance avoidance processing of recreating the operation plan such that the maximum speed (Rj’) is equal to or lower than a lower limit speed (i.e. Rj’ < Rj-δ) of the resonance avoidance speed range (paragraphs 0016-0029, 0045, 0051, 0068-0070).
Regarding claim 2, Akimasa discloses the control method according to claim 1, wherein the robot comprises a coupled body (Fig. 1, element 201) in which a plurality of arms (plurality of links) are coupled in series, a base to which the coupled body is connected at one end of the coupled body, and a hand (Fig. 1, element 202) attached to another end of the coupled body, and the resonance avoidance processing is executed on an axis (Figs. 1-2, element J1), among the axes, which is at a position where the base and the coupled body are connected (paragraphs 0017-0019, 0025-0029).
Regarding claim 8, Akimasa discloses a robot control device (Figs. 1-3, elements 300, 301, 311) that creates an operation plan [for the intended use]2 of a robot which is a horizontal articulated robot, based on an operation command to the robot, thereby controlling a motor of each of axes of the robot, wherein the robot control device recreates (Fig. 7, step S7’ and S8), when a maximum speed of at least one axis (Figs. 1-2, element J1) driven by the motor (Fig. 2, element 231) in the robot (Figs. 1-3, element 200, 201) in the operation plan is included in a resonance avoidance speed range (Rj ± δ) obtained in advance for the axis (Fig. 7, step S4), the operation plan such that the maximum speed (Rj’) is equal to or lower than a lower limit speed (i.e. Rj’ < Rj-δ) of the resonance avoidance speed range (paragraphs 0016-0029, 0045, 0051, 0068-0070).
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akimasa as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Matsuo et al. (US 2003/0083783 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Matsuo”).
Regarding claim 3, Akimasa teaches the control method according to claim 2 wherein a highest speed of each of the axes is reduced when the operation plan is recreated (paragraph 0070). However, Akimasa is silent regarding the number of degrees of freedom of the coupled body “in a horizontal plane is two”. Matsou teaches a horizontal robot (Fig. 1a, element 1) with two degrees of freedom (Fig. 1b, element x, y) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to reconfigure the robot taught by Akimasa to a horizontal robot with two degrees of freedom by applying the well-known technique taught by Matsou. Application of the well-known horizontal robot taught by Matsou to the prior art system taught by Akimasa would have been obvious because such reconfiguration 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 number of degrees of freedom of the coupled body in a horizontal plane being two.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Akimasa and Matsuo teaches the control method according to claim 3, wherein the operation plan is an operation plan based on a point-to-point operation in which timings of acceleration start, acceleration end, deceleration start, and deceleration end coincide in all the axes of the robot (Akimasa, Fig. 5a; paragraph 0059; Matsou, Fig. 5b and Fig. 8a; paragraph 0027, 0050, 0054).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akimasa as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Okamoto (US 20250196337 A1).
Regarding claims 5, Akimasa teaches the control method according to claim 2, wherein the operation plan is an operation plan in which timings of acceleration start, acceleration end, deceleration start, and deceleration end coincide in all the axes of the robot (Fig. 5a; paragraph 0059). Akimasa is silent regarding the operation plan being an operation plan “based on a point-to-point operation.” Okamoto teaches an operation plan that is based on a point-to-point operation (paragraph 0044). 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 point to point operation technique taught by Okamoto to the prior art system taught by Akimasa. Application of the well-known technique taught by Okamoto 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 operation plan being an operation plan based on a point-to-point operation.
Regarding claim 6, Akimasa teaches the control method according to claim 2, wherein an operation plan in which an overall speed is maintained (Fig. 5, between T1 and T2) is created when the operation plan is recreated (paragraph 0059). Akimasa is silent regarding “a number of degrees of freedom of the coupled body in a horizontal plane is three or more, the operation plan is a control plan based on a linear interpolation operation. Okamoto teaches a robot (Fig. 1, element 1) having a number of degrees of freedom (Fig. 1, element AX1, AX2, RC) of a coupled body in a horizontal plane is three or more and an operation plan that is a control plan based on linear interpolation (paragraph 0026-0039).
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 Okamoto to the prior art robot taught by Akimasa. That is, it would have been obvious to reconfigure the vertical articulated robot taught by Akimasa to a horizontal articulated robot and use linear interpolation in the control play by applying the well know techniques taught by Okamoto. Application of the well know technique taught by Okamoto to the prior art system taught by Akimasa 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: a number of degrees of freedom of the coupled body in a horizontal pane is three or more and the operation plan being a control plan based on a linear interpolation operation.
Regarding claim 7, Akimasa teaches the control method according to claim 6. Okamoto teaches that the plurality of arms comprises a first arm (Fig. 1, element 10) rotatably (via Fig. 1, element 11) connected to the base (Figs. 1-2 and 6, element 100), a second arm (Fig. 1, element 20) rotatably (via Fig. 1, element 22) connected to the first arm, and a third arm (Fig. 1, element 30) rotatably (via Fig. 1, element 24) connected to the second arm and rotatably holding the hand (Fig. 1, element 31), wherein a position where the first arm is connected to the base is set as an origin (Fig. 6, element x, y), a position where the second arm is connected to the first arm is set as a first joint point (Figs. 1-4 and 11, elements AX2, 20), a position where the third arm is connected to the second arm is set as a second joint point (Figs. 1-4 and 11, element RC), and a position where the hand is connected to the third arm is set as a third joint point, and that the second joint point exists on a virtual travel axis passing through the origin in a horizontal plane (Figs. 4 and 11, Axis AX1 coincides with axis RC), and an angle formed by a reference direction extending horizontally through the origin and the virtual travel axis is set as a virtual travel axis angle, an operation plan for changing the virtual travel axis angle during movement is created when the operation plan is regenerated (paragraphs 0026-0031).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsuo (US 2003/0083783 A1) appears to also potentially anticipate claims 1 and 8. See Matsuo, paragraphs 0027-0030, 0042, 0046-0047.
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
1 see MPEP 2111.02(II): “of creating an operation plan of a robot which is a horizontal articulated robot, based on an operation command to the robot, thereby controlling a motor of each of axes of the robot” is an intended use of the control method.
2 see MPEP 2111.02(II): “of a robot which is a horizontal articulated robot, based on an operation command to the robot, thereby controlling a motor of each of axes of the robot” is an intended use of the control device.