DETAILED ACTION
Applicant is advised that the Notice of Allowance mailed dated 12/23/2025 is vacated. If the issue fee has already been paid, applicant may request a refund or request that the fee be credited to a deposit account. However, applicant may wait until the application is either found allowable or held abandoned. If allowed, upon receipt of a new Notice of Allowance, applicant may request that the previously submitted issue fee be applied. If abandoned, applicant may request refund or credit to a specified Deposit Account.
This action is responsive to the following communications: Application filed on August 7,2024.
Claims 1-24 are presented for Examination. Claim 1 is independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 2 recites acquiring the first reference position "based on the second reference position and a detection value from the second position sensor." . While the specification describes methods for restoring reference positions using various parameters from redundant encoders, it fails to sufficiently identify how “the first reference position is acquired based on the second reference position and a detection value from the second position sensor.” See MPEP 2163.03(V).
The specification merely discusses:
Using rotation angle differences (paragraphs [0056]-[0057])
Using number of rotations differences (paragraphs [0072]-[0074])
Using reference position information (paragraphs [0088]-[0093])
However, the examiner finds that these disclosures fail to sufficiently identify how the first reference position is acquired based on the second reference position and a detection value from the second position sensor.
Claim 16 recites limitations “based on the reference position of one of the first position sensor and the second position sensor on which the power supply unit is provided, the reference position of the other position sensor is acquired.” The disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the reference position of the other position is acquired based on the reference position of one of the first position sensor and the second position sensor on which the power supply unit is provided. While the specification describes scenarios where reference positions can be acquired between sensors (paragraphs [0094]-[0096]), the examiner finds that these disclosures fail to sufficiently identify how the reference position of the other position is acquired based on the reference position of one of the first position sensor and the second position sensor on which the power supply unit is provided. See MPEP 2163.03(V).
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 7-11, and 22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites "the value" which lack antecedent basis. While claim 7 depends from claim 5, claim 5 uses different terminology ("a value related to the power supply unit" and "a predetermined value"), creating confusion about whether these are the same values being referenced. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to “the detection value” recited in claim 7, and/or the “a value” recited in claim 5. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation at issue will be interpreted as a voltage from the power supply unit.
The limitations of "low in reliability" is subjective and not clearly defined in the specification with specific thresholds or criteria that would enable a person of ordinary skill to determine when reliability is "low.".
Claim 8, is directed to ‘a robot’ and does not cover a display unit. Claim 8
only requires that a state of the power supply unit must be capable of being displayed. The display unit and its operation, namely the display of the state of the power supply unit, is outside the scope of the claim. Because a dependent claim 8 must incorporate all limitations of parent claim 5, this conflict makes it unclear whether a display unit is required, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite and unclear.
Claim 22 recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced; i.e., claim 22 is directed to a "use" claim (see: MPEP 2173.05(q)). The claim does not include any specific, active steps that define the method being claimed, does not recite how the robot is being used for manufacturing an article, and the robot of claim 1 has not been claimed as a robot that is configured to perform any steps related to manufacturing an article.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Osaka et al. (US 2014/0084840 A1) in view of Harada et al. (US 2016/0199982 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Osaka teaches that a robot having a joint (robot apparatus 500 with joints 111-116), the robot comprising:
a first position sensor and a second position sensor configured to acquire a rotation angle associated with the joint (input encoder portion 9 on input side of speed reducer 15 and joint encoder 31 on output side of speed reducer 15, where joint encoder 31 includes rectangular wave generating portion 41 and output encoder portion 42; paragraphs [0041]-[0051]; Fig. 2)
Osaka further teaches that the control system can calculate joint errors and torsion angles by comparing the estimated joint angle (from input encoder portion 9) with actual joint angles detected by the output encoder portion 42 (paragraphs [0074], [0089]-[0097]; Figs. 8-11). The system can correct the estimated joint angle by the calculated torsion angle to achieve precise control (paragraphs [0084]-[0088]; Fig. 7, step S13)
However, Osaka does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to acquire a first reference position of the first position sensor by correcting the first position sensor based on a second reference position of the second position sensor when the first position sensor is determined to have reduced reliability
Harada teaches a robot control system where:
The system includes first encoder 31 and second encoder 32 for detecting rotation angles (paragraphs [0033]-[0035]),when the backup power supply fails and rotation angle information stored in the first encoder's storage unit is lost, the system determines that the first position sensor has reduced reliability (paragraphs [0077]-[0078]), the control unit 2 acquires a first reference position (R1AR) of the first encoder by correcting it based on the second reference position (R2A) of the second encoder (paragraphs [0085]-[0090]; Figs. 7-8)
This correction occurs specifically when the first position sensor is determined to have reduced reliability due to backup power failure (paragraph [0077]: "when the electric capacity of the storage battery in the backup power source 58 becomes zero during the stop period, information of the first rotation angle stored in the first rotation angle storage unit 51 is lost")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Osaka's robot control system with Harada's technique of acquiring a reference position from a secondary sensor when a primary sensor has reduced reliability. The motivation for this combination would be to enhance system reliability and accuracy by providing a backup mechanism for reference position acquisition when primary sensor data becomes unreliable, as explicitly taught by Harada (paragraphs [0005]-[0007]). This would address Osaka's acknowledged problem that when power is turned off and then on again, calculated joint errors often become volatile or indefinite (paragraph [0143]).
Regarding Claim 2, Osaka fails to teach but Harada teaches that wherein the first reference position is acquired based on the second reference position and a detection value from the second position sensor (paragraphs [0085]-[0087], where R1AR is calculated using R2A and detected rotation angle R1A).
Regarding Claim 3, Osaka fails to teach but Harada teaches that wherein the first reference position is acquired based on the second reference position and a difference in number of rotations between the first position sensor and the second position sensor (paragraphs [0085]-[0087], where 360°×Q2 is added based on rotation count difference).
Regarding Claim 4, Osaka in view of Harada teaches the robot according to claim 3, further comprising a nonvolatile storage unit in which the first reference position and the second reference position are stored (Osaka, Fig.4, HDD 204 as memory portion; paragraph [0064]; Harada, first rotation angle storage unit 51 and second rotation angle storage unit 52; paragraphs [0036]-[0037]).
Regarding Claim 5, Osaka fails to teach but Harada teaches that further comprising a power supply unit configured to supply power to the first position sensor, wherein, in a case where a value related to the power of the power supply unit becomes a predetermined value, the first reference position is acquired based on the second reference position (backup power source 58; paragraphs [0077]-[0078], where when battery capacity becomes zero, reference position is acquired from second encoder).
Regarding Claim 6, Osaka fails to teach but Harada teaches that wherein the value is a voltage value of the power supply unit (paragraphs [0077]-[0078], where electric capacity of storage battery relates to voltage).
Regarding Claim 7, Osaka fails to teach but Harada teaches that wherein it is determined that a detection value from the first position sensor is low in reliability when the value becomes the predetermined value (paragraphs [0077]-[0078], where loss of battery capacity causes loss of stored rotation angle data, indicating reduced reliability).
Regarding Claim 8, Osaka teaches that wherein a state of the power supply unit is displayed on a display unit (monitor 311 connected to interface 213; paragraph [0068], can display various operational states).
Regarding Claim 9, Osaka teaches that a first message prompting a user to acquire the first reference position is displayed on the display unit (paragraphs [0149]-[0150], teaching pendant 300 can display messages prompting user action when joint error calculation is needed).
Regarding Claim 10, Osaka teaches that wherein a second message notifying a user that acquisition of the first reference position is being executed is displayed (paragraphs [0151]-[0152], teaching pendant 300 can notify user of joint error calculation status).
Regarding Claim 11, Osaka teaches that wherein a third message notifying a user that acquisition of the first reference position is completed is displayed (paragraphs [0151]-[0152], teaching pendant 300 can inform user when calculation is terminated).
Regarding Claim 12, Osaka teaches that further comprising a display device at the joint, wherein the display device displays a state of the power supply unit ( monitor 311; paragraph [0068], can be positioned to display operational states).
Regarding Claim 13, Osaka fails to teach but Harada teaches that the robot according to claim 5, wherein the power supply unit functions as a backup of power supply to the first position sensor (backup power source 58 for first encoder 31; paragraphs [0039]-[0040]).
Regarding Claim 14, Osaka fails to teach but Harada teaches that wherein the power supply unit is provided for each of the first position sensor and the second position sensor (Harada, backup power sources for both encoders; paragraphs [0039]-[0040]).
Regarding Claim 15, Osaka fails to teach but Harada teaches that wherein the power supply unit is provided for one of the first position sensor and the second position sensor (could be implemented with backup power for only one encoder; paragraphs [0039]-[0040]).
Regarding Claim 16, Osaka fails to teach but Harada teaches that wherein, based on the reference position of one of the first position sensor and the second position sensor on which the power supply unit is provided, the reference position of the other position sensor is acquired (paragraphs [0085]-[0090], where reference position from second encoder with backup power is used to acquire reference position of first encoder).
Regarding Claim 17, Osaka teaches that, wherein the first reference position and the second reference position are set corresponding to an origin of the joint (paragraphs [0059]-[0061], origin setting for joint encoder; Fig. 6, steps S1-S3).
Regarding Claim 18, Osaka teaches that wherein the joint is configured to have a redundant configuration with the first position sensor and the second position sensor (Osaka, input encoder portion 9 and joint encoder 31 provide redundant angle detection; paragraphs [0041]-[0051]).
Regarding Claim 19, Osaka teaches that wherein the joint includes a motor, and wherein the first position sensor and the second position sensor detect a rotation angle of a motor shaft of the motor (input encoder portion 9 detects rotation angle of rotating shaft 2 of servomotor 1; paragraph [0041]).
Regarding Claim 20, Osaka teaches that wherein the joint includes a motor and a link that is driven by decelerating driving by the motor, wherein the first position sensor detects a rotation angle of a motor shaft of the motor, and the second position sensor detects a rotation angle of the link (input encoder portion 9 detects rotation angle of motor shaft, output encoder portion 42 detects rotation angle of link; paragraphs [0041], [0050]; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 21, Osaka teaches that wherein the robot is a collaborative robot (robot apparatus 500 can be used for assembly operations where human-robot collaboration occurs; paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Claim 22, Osaka teaches that an article manufacturing method for manufacturing an article by using the robot according to claim 1 (paragraph [0034], robot apparatus performs assembly operations for manufacturing).
Regarding Independent Claim 23, This method claim corresponds to the apparatus of claim 1 and is rejected using the same rationale. Osaka in view of Harada discloses a method for controlling a robot having a joint, the method comprising acquiring a first reference position of a first position sensor based on a second reference position of a second position sensor, acquiring a rotation angle associated with the joint by a first position sensor and a second position sensor, and acquiring a first reference position by correcting the first position sensor based on a second reference position when the first position sensor has reduced reliability (see analysis for claim 1).
Regarding Claim 24, Osaka teaches that a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a control program for causing a computer to execute the control method according to claim 23 (HDD 204 storing program 330; paragraphs [0063]-[0064], [0168]-[0169]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8439. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 6:00pm.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 571-272-2060. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights