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 .
Remarks
This non-final office action is a response to the RCE received on 02/05/2026. Claims 1 and 4-10 are pending. Claims 2-3 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended. Claims 5-10 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Priority
The applicant’s claim to priority of JP2022-172120 on 10/27/2022 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the fourth processor being configured to be programmed to acquirer” should read “to acquire…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the control parameter held in the robot controller”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the parent claim does not recite a control parameter that is held.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons, as both Claims 9 and 10 depend on parent claim 1.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taketo et. al. (WO2022044906A1, previously attached) in view of Ning et. al (WO2015070010A1, previously attached), Sundrani (US 20130132674 A1), Claes (US 20140245310 A1), and Kogan (US 20200238521 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Taketo discloses:
A robot system comprising: a robot controller including a first processor, the first processor being configured to be programmed to control an operation of a robot, using a control parameter for the robot, (See at least ¶0011 via "The robot control device 2 is a control device that controls the robot 1 to cause the robot 1 to perform predetermined operations, etc.", ¶0014 via "The robot control device 2 also includes a first control unit 21" and ¶0015 via "The first control unit 21 is a processor such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit).")
the control parameter including a plurality of parameters that include at least parameters (See at least ¶0024 via "In the verification mode, the reception unit 213 receives input of setting parameters via the input/output device 4. Here, the setting parameters may be changed by inputting numerical values through the input/output device 4 or by dragging and dropping the coordinates of the vertices of the area displayed on the input/output device 4." and ¶0028 via "In the verification mode, the first update unit 215 updates the first safety information relating to the position and velocity of the robot 1 in the verification function based on the first safety parameter. Here, the first safety information includes information about the position and speed of the robot 1, such as the operating area of the robot 1 and the speed limit of the robot 1.")
a safety monitoring controller including a second processor, the second processor being configured to be programmed to monitor the operation of the robot, using a safety monitoring parameter for the robot, (See at least ¶0016 via "The second control unit 22 is a processor such as a CPU. Based on the signal from the safety device 3, the second control unit 22 restricts the movement of the robot 1 until a predetermined safety condition is met. The second control unit 22 has a dual check safety function that performs a mutual check of input and output signals between the second control unit 22 and the first control unit 21.")
the safety monitoring parameter being used to detect at least one of a movement speed, a position, and an attitude of a tool of the robot and to detect an abnormal condition of the robot based on a comparison between a detection result and an operation command; (See at least ¶0020 via "The function control unit 211 controls the safety functions for safely operating the robot and the verification functions for verifying the settings of the safety functions.", ¶0028 via "…Here, the first safety information includes information about the position and speed of the robot 1, such as the operating area of the robot 1 and the speed limit of the robot 1…", and ¶0030 via "After the switching unit 212 switches from the verification mode to the safety mode, the second applying unit 217 applies the setting parameters copied by the duplicating unit 216 to the second safety parameters.")
a control parameter setting controller including a (See at least ¶0025 via "In the verification mode, the first application unit 214 applies the setting parameters to the first safety parameters for verification.", and also ¶0026-¶0027. Additionally, see ¶0063 via "Furthermore, the control method performed by the robot control device 2 described above can also be realized by hardware, software, or a combination thereof. Here, "implemented by software" means that it is achieved when a computer loads and executes a program" which corresponds to a first computer)
a safety monitoring parameter setting controller including a (See at least ¶0029 via "When the verification function software is terminated, the copying unit 216 copies the setting parameters used in the verification function software. Then, the copying unit 216 provides the copied setting parameters to the second applying unit 217." *Wherein the copying unit 216 acquires the control/setting parameters. Additionally, see ¶0063 via "Furthermore, the control method performed by the robot control device 2 described above can also be realized by hardware, software, or a combination thereof. Here, "implemented by software" means that it is achieved when a computer loads and executes a program" which corresponds to a computer)
set (See at least ¶0030 via "After the switching unit 212 switches from the verification mode to the safety mode, the second applying unit 217 applies the setting parameters copied by the duplicating unit 216 to the second safety parameters" and ¶0032 via "In the safety mode, the second update unit 218 updates the second safety information related to the position and velocity of the robot 1 in the safety function software based on the second safety parameters. Here, the second safety information includes information about the position and speed of the robot 1, such as the operating area of the robot 1 and the speed limit of the robot 1").
However, modified Taketo does not explicitly disclose the specific control parameters.
Nevertheless, Ning--who is directed towards a calibration system and method for calibrating an industrial robot--discloses: parameters corresponding to a length of each arm of the robot, an offset amount of each joint of the robot, and (See at least ¶0004 via "While there are several sources of inaccuracies (e.g. thermal expansions, gear errors, structural deformations, or even incorrect knowledge of link and joint parameters), the main source of inaccuracy lies in kinematic model parameter errors. The majority of the kinematic model parameters, (e.g. arm length, link offset, and link twist angles) are related to the structural mechanics of the robot manipulator." and ¶0025 via "Based on the recorded joint angles and robot forward kinematics, mathematically, the method of the present invention uses a nonlinear iterative optimization technique to identify the robot parameters and joint offset parameters from the data recorded…", and additionally ¶0030-¶0031 which depicts the symbols corresponding to the link/joint parameters)
a correction to a software origin; (See at least ¶0009 via "Another advantage of the present invention is that the calibration method is not only able to compute joint offset parameters of the industrial robot, but is also capable of simultaneously calibrating the robot's frame relationship." and also ¶0039-¶0040 which depict the homogeneous transformation matric of the base frame, which is used for the base orientation and position correction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to further modify Modified Taketo in view of the specific parameters as disclosed by Ning in order to improve the control of the robotic system in ensuring an accurate kinematics model by considering and calibrating the parameters such as arm length, joint offset, and software origin (base frame relationship correction): "…new calibration method for industrial robots that improves the accuracy of the robots significantly by using a new fast, low cost, and automated robot calibration system…" [¶0006 Ning]. Additionally see ¶0004-¶0009 of Ning.
However, modified Taketo does not explicitly disclose the third and fourth processor or the second computer.
Nevertheless, Sundrani--who is directed towards distributing processing actions across multiple processors--discloses: a third processor...a second computer different from the first computer (See at least ¶0016 via "Referring to FIG. 1, a block diagram of a multi-processor data storage system is shown. A multi-processor data storage system may include a first processor 102 and a second processor 104. One skilled in the art will appreciate that the first processor 102 and the second processor 104 may be separate processing cores in a single central processing unit (CPU), separate CPUs in a computer, CPUs in separate computers managing a single data storage system or any other configuration in which multiple processing units may interact in a data storage system. Some embodiments may include a third processor 116 as discussed further herein")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Taketo in view of a third processor, and providing CPUs in separate computers such as in Sundrani in order to balance the computational load: "The overall data access load may be balanced between the processors as each processor may service the next data access request as the processor becomes available" [Sundrani ¶0022].
However, although modified Taketo does not explicitly disclose the fourth processor, it would have been obvious to include further additional processors that separate the functions in order to improve the distribution of the computational load.
Furthermore, Taketo discloses the control parameter setting controller and the safety monitoring parameter setting controller (See at least ¶0025-¶0027 and ¶0029) and additionally, although Taketo discloses different units either requiring or not requiring the input of a password (corresponding to different access rights), Modified Taketo does not explicitly disclose the specific access rights being limited to only the specific respective operator.
Nevertheless, Claes--who is directed towards a method of performing tasks and a data processing system--discloses: wherein the (See at least ¶0060 via "To further increase data protection, provision is advantageously made in the method explained herein that access by a user of the second user group to the production computer system and/or the task computer system is prevented. In this manner, a user of the second user group can only access the key computer system. A user of the first user group can only access the task computer system." and ¶0055 via "Furthermore, access by a user of the first user group to the key computer system is advantageously prevented at least in a predetermined operating state of the key computer system. This means that a user of the first user group cannot configure performance parameters in the key computer system. In this manner, the data security is thus also separated into two different user groups by separating the configuration of task description files and the mere execution of tasks on the production computer system by the task description files.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Taketo in view of Claes' user group access rights in order to "further increase data protection" [Claes ¶0060] whilst ensuring only the authorized users are accessing their respective systems: "a check can be made as to whether a corresponding task description file is valid and/or has been created by a person authorised to do so…in this manner undesired tampering with task description files can also be counteracted." [Claes ¶0058].
However, Modified Taketo does not explicitly disclose only setting part of the parameters.
Nevertheless, Kogan--who is directed towards controlling a robot arrangement--discloses: set only part of the plurality of parameters (See at least ¶Claim 15 via "selecting a subset of process parameters from a prescribed set of process parameters on the basis of a prescribed rule arrangement having at least one selection rule, and adapting the selected subset of process parameters to avoid a violation of at least one of the safety monitoring functions.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Taketo in view of setting only part of the parameters such as in Kogan in order to improve the operation and safety of the system by prioritizing different parameters where the operation may be impacted differently: "one or more selection rules, in particular, subsets of the process parameters to be adapted, are or will be prioritized on the basis of the application, in particular, higher or lower (re-) prioritized than their default or initial prioritization. This feature makes it possible to take advantageously into account, in particular, during the execution of the application, specifically different boundary conditions and/or to improve the operation and/or the safety of the robot assembly." [Kogan ¶0021].
Regarding Claim 4, Taketo discloses:
A setting method for a robot system for causing a plurality of processors to execute a process, the method comprising executing on the plurality of processors the steps of: (See at least ¶0063 via "Furthermore, the control method performed by the robot control device 2 can also be realized by hardware, software, or a combination of these." and the first control unit 21 and second control unit 22 which are CPUs according to ¶0015-¶0016)
controlling an operation of a robot using a control parameter for the robot, the control parameter including a plurality of parameters that include at least parameters (See at least ¶0024 via "In the verification mode, the reception unit 213 receives input of setting parameters via the input/output device 4. Here, the setting parameters may be changed by inputting numerical values through the input/output device 4 or by dragging and dropping the coordinates of the vertices of the area displayed on the input/output device 4." and ¶0028 via "In the verification mode, the first update unit 215 updates the first safety information relating to the position and velocity of the robot 1 in the verification function based on the first safety parameter. Here, the first safety information includes information about the position and speed of the robot 1, such as the operating area of the robot 1 and the speed limit of the robot 1.")
the control parameter being set by a first computer having one processor of the plurality of processors; (See at least ¶0025 via "In the verification mode, the first application unit 214 applies the setting parameters to the first safety parameters for verification.", and also ¶0026-¶0027. Additionally, see ¶0063 via "Furthermore, the control method performed by the robot control device 2 described above can also be realized by hardware, software, or a combination thereof. Here, "implemented by software" means that it is achieved when a computer loads and executes a program" which corresponds to a first computer)
monitoring the operation of the robot using a safety monitoring parameter for the robot, the safety monitoring parameter being used to detect at least one of a movement speed, a position, and an attitude of a tool of the robot and to detect an abnormal condition of the robot based on a comparison between a detection result and an operation command; and (See at least ¶0020 via "The function control unit 211 controls the safety functions for safely operating the robot and the verification functions for verifying the settings of the safety functions.", ¶0028 via "…Here, the first safety information includes information about the position and speed of the robot 1, such as the operating area of the robot 1 and the speed limit of the robot 1…", and ¶0030 via "After the switching unit 212 switches from the verification mode to the safety mode, the second applying unit 217 applies the setting parameters copied by the duplicating unit 216 to the second safety parameters.")
acquiring, by (See at least ¶0029 via "When the verification function software is terminated, the copying unit 216 copies the setting parameters used in the verification function software. Then, the copying unit 216 provides the copied setting parameters to the second applying unit 217." *Wherein the copying unit 216 acquires the control/setting parameters, and also ¶0030 via "After the switching unit 212 switches from the verification mode to the safety mode, the second applying unit 217 applies the setting parameters copied by the duplicating unit 216 to the second safety parameters" and ¶0032 via "In the safety mode, the second update unit 218 updates the second safety information related to the position and velocity of the robot 1 in the safety function software based on the second safety parameters. Here, the second safety information includes information about the position and speed of the robot 1, such as the operating area of the robot 1 and the speed limit of the robot 1").
However, modified Taketo does not explicitly disclose the specific control parameters.
Nevertheless, Ning--who is directed towards a calibration system and method for calibrating an industrial robot--discloses: parameters corresponding to a length of each arm of the robot, an offset amount of each joint of the robot, and (See at least ¶0004 via "While there are several sources of inaccuracies (e.g. thermal expansions, gear errors, structural deformations, or even incorrect knowledge of link and joint parameters), the main source of inaccuracy lies in kinematic model parameter errors. The majority of the kinematic model parameters, (e.g. arm length, link offset, and link twist angles) are related to the structural mechanics of the robot manipulator." and ¶0025 via "Based on the recorded joint angles and robot forward kinematics, mathematically, the method of the present invention uses a nonlinear iterative optimization technique to identify the robot parameters and joint offset parameters from the data recorded…", and additionally ¶0030-¶0031 which depicts the symbols corresponding to the link/joint parameters)
a correction to a software origin; (See at least ¶0009 via "Another advantage of the present invention is that the calibration method is not only able to compute joint offset parameters of the industrial robot, but is also capable of simultaneously calibrating the robot's frame relationship." and also ¶0039-¶0040 which depict the homogeneous transformation matric of the base frame, which is used for the base orientation and position correction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to further modify Modified Taketo in view of the specific parameters as disclosed by Ning in order to improve the control of the robotic system in ensuring an accurate kinematics model by considering and calibrating the parameters such as arm length, joint offset, and software origin (base frame relationship correction): "…new calibration method for industrial robots that improves the accuracy of the robots significantly by using a new fast, low cost, and automated robot calibration system…" [¶0006 Ning]. Additionally see ¶0004-¶0009 of Ning.
However, modified Taketo does not explicitly disclose the third and fourth processor or the second computer.
Nevertheless, Sundrani--who is directed towards distributing processing actions across multiple processors--discloses: a second computer having another processor (See at least ¶0016 via "Referring to FIG. 1, a block diagram of a multi-processor data storage system is shown. A multi-processor data storage system may include a first processor 102 and a second processor 104. One skilled in the art will appreciate that the first processor 102 and the second processor 104 may be separate processing cores in a single central processing unit (CPU), separate CPUs in a computer, CPUs in separate computers managing a single data storage system or any other configuration in which multiple processing units may interact in a data storage system. Some embodiments may include a third processor 116 as discussed further herein")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Taketo in view of a providing CPUs in separate computers such as in Sundrani in order to balance the computational load: "The overall data access load may be balanced between the processors as each processor may service the next data access request as the processor becomes available" [Sundrani ¶0022].
However, Modified Taketo does not explicitly disclose the specific access rights being limited to only the specific respective operator.
Nevertheless, Claes--who is directed towards a method of performing tasks and a data processing system--discloses: wherein the first computer is configured to be accessed by only a first operator who has only a first access right and is configured not to be accessed by a second operator who has only a second access right, and the second computer is configured to be accessed by only the second operator and is configured not to be accessed by the first operator (See at least ¶0060 via "To further increase data protection, provision is advantageously made in the method explained herein that access by a user of the second user group to the production computer system and/or the task computer system is prevented. In this manner, a user of the second user group can only access the key computer system. A user of the first user group can only access the task computer system." and ¶0055 via "Furthermore, access by a user of the first user group to the key computer system is advantageously prevented at least in a predetermined operating state of the key computer system. This means that a user of the first user group cannot configure performance parameters in the key computer system. In this manner, the data security is thus also separated into two different user groups by separating the configuration of task description files and the mere execution of tasks on the production computer system by the task description files.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Taketo in view of Claes' user group access rights in order to "further increase data protection" [Claes ¶0060] whilst ensuring only the authorized users are accessing their respective systems: "a check can be made as to whether a corresponding task description file is valid and/or has been created by a person authorised to do so…in this manner undesired tampering with task description files can also be counteracted." [Claes ¶0058].
However, Modified Taketo does not explicitly disclose only setting part of the parameters.
Nevertheless, Kogan--who is directed towards controlling a robot arrangement--discloses: set only part of the plurality of parameters (See at least ¶Claim 15 via "selecting a subset of process parameters from a prescribed set of process parameters on the basis of a prescribed rule arrangement having at least one selection rule, and adapting the selected subset of process parameters to avoid a violation of at least one of the safety monitoring functions.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Taketo in view of setting only part of the parameters such as in Kogan in order to improve the operation and safety of the system by prioritizing different parameters where the operation may be impacted differently: "one or more selection rules, in particular, subsets of the process parameters to be adapted, are or will be prioritized on the basis of the application, in particular, higher or lower (re-) prioritized than their default or initial prioritization. This feature makes it possible to take advantageously into account, in particular, during the execution of the application, specifically different boundary conditions and/or to improve the operation and/or the safety of the robot assembly." [Kogan ¶0021].
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taketo et. al. (WO2022044906A1, previously attached), Ning et. al (WO2015070010A1, previously attached), Sundrani (US 20130132674 A1), Claes (US 20140245310 A1), and Kogan (US 20200238521 A1) in view of Atohira (US 20180121578 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Taketo discloses the robot system according to Claim 1.
Furthermore, Taketo discloses the robot controller (See at least ¶0011 via "The robot control device 2").
However, modified Taketo does not explicitly disclose, but Atohira--who is directed towards robotic systems--discloses: wherein the robot controller stores a robot set including the control parameter for a plurality of types of robots (See at least ¶0051 via "The system memory 14 pre-stores a plurality of types of robot models including the robot model 102 and a plurality of types of conveyer models including the conveyer model 104. As an example, the CPU 12 generates image data in which the pluralities of types of robot models and conveyer models stored in the system memory 14 are represented in the form of a list, and displays it on the display 22." and also ¶0054 via "The system memory 14 stores various virtual robot operation parameters in association with the robot model 102.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Taketo in view of the storing of a robot set and control parameters such as in Atohira in order to be able to simulate accurate configurations/operations of the robot(s) and their respective parameters in a virtual environment: "The maximum drive speed and the virtual movable range, etc., of the second virtual robot operation parameters are values identical to those of the virtual robot operation parameters associated with the robot model 102" [Atohira ¶0099].
Regarding Claim 6, Modified Taketo discloses the robot system according to Claim 5.
Furthermore, Takateo discloses the control parameter setting controller (See at least ¶0025-¶0027). However, Modified Taketo does not explicitly disclose the reading out of the robot set and displaying.
Nevertheless, Atohira discloses: wherein the controller and display the robot set on a display (See at least ¶0051 via "As an example, the CPU 12 generates image data in which the pluralities of types of robot models and conveyer models stored in the system memory 14 are represented in the form of a list, and displays it on the display 22" and also ¶0053 via "the CPU 12 reads out the robot model 102 and the conveyer model 104 from the pluralities of types of robot models and conveyer models stored in the system memory 14, and arranges the robot model 102 and the conveyer model 104 in the virtual space 100. Then, the CPU 12 generates image data of the virtual space 100, and displays it on the display 22 as an image of the virtual space 100 as illustrated in FIG. 3.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Taketo in view of the displaying such as in Atohira in order to improve the operator's interaction/interfacing with the system: " Note that, in order to improve the visibility for the user, the CPU 12 may highlight the robot model 102 determined as the replication subject in step S2 (e.g., change the type or tone of color of the robot model 102, or blink the robot model 102) in the display 22." [Atohira ¶0073].
Regarding Claim 7, Modified Taketo discloses the robot system according to Claim 6.
Furthermore, Takateo discloses the control parameter setting controller (See at least ¶0025-¶0027). However, Modified Taketo does not explicitly disclose the operator selecting a robot.
Nevertheless, Atohira discloses: wherein the (See at least ¶0071 via "Below, a case is described in which the user selects the robot model 102. In this case, the data input section 20 receives the input operation by the user, and sends the input data indicating the selection of the robot model 102 to the CPU 12 via the I/O interface 18. In response to the received input data, the CPU 12 determines the robot model 102 as the replication subject.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Taketo in view of the operator selecting a robot such as in Atohira in order to simulate the desired model(s) with the desired configurations/reference points: "it is possible to easily replicate the component models (e.g., the robot model 102 or the machine tool model 160) of the robot system models 150 or 180 in the virtual space 100 so as to be symmetric with respect to a desired reference (point, axis, or plane)." [Atohira ¶0156].
Regarding Claim 8, Modified Taketo discloses the robot system according to Claim 7.
Furthermore, Takateo discloses the control parameter setting controller (See at least ¶0025-¶0027). However, Modified Taketo does not explicitly disclose the operator selecting a robot.
Nevertheless, Atohira discloses: wherein the (See at least ¶0071 via "Below, a case is described in which the user selects the robot model 102. In this case, the data input section 20 receives the input operation by the user, and sends the input data indicating the selection of the robot model 102 to the CPU 12 via the I/O interface 18. In response to the received input data, the CPU 12 determines the robot model 102 as the replication subject." and ¶0053 via "In response to the received input data, the CPU 12 reads out the robot model 102 and the conveyer model 104 from the pluralities of types of robot models and conveyer models stored in the system memory 14, and arranges the robot model 102 and the conveyer model 104 in the virtual space 100" and ¶0054 via "The system memory 14 stores various virtual robot operation parameters in association with the robot model 102. These virtual robot operation parameters are parameters necessary for simulatively operating the robot model 102 in the virtual space 100 in step S10 described later.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Taketo in view of the parameter being held such as in Atohira in order to simulatively operate the robot(s) and their tool(s): "These second virtual robot operation parameters are parameters necessary for simulatively operating the symmetric robot model 102M in the virtual space 100 in step S10 described later." [Atohira ¶0096] and also "The system memory 14 stores various virtual machine tool operation parameters in association with the machine tool model 160. These virtual machine tool operation parameters are parameters necessary for simulatively operating the machine tool model 160 in the virtual space 100 in the following step S10." [Atohira ¶0113].
Regarding Claim 9, Modified Taketo discloses the robot system according to Claim 1.
Furthermore, Taketo discloses: wherein the safety monitoring parameter setting controller is configured to read out and acquire, from the robot controller, the control parameter (See at least ¶0029 via "When the verification function software is terminated, the copying unit 216 copies the setting parameters used in the verification function software. Then, the copying unit 216 provides the copied setting parameters to the second applying unit 217." *Wherein the copying unit 216 acquires the control/setting parameters.)
However, Taketo does not explicitly disclose the control parameter held in the controller.
Nevertheless, Atohira discloses: the control parameter held in the robot controller (See at least ¶0071 via "Below, a case is described in which the user selects the robot model 102. In this case, the data input section 20 receives the input operation by the user, and sends the input data indicating the selection of the robot model 102 to the CPU 12 via the I/O interface 18. In response to the received input data, the CPU 12 determines the robot model 102 as the replication subject." and ¶0053 via "In response to the received input data, the CPU 12 reads out the robot model 102 and the conveyer model 104 from the pluralities of types of robot models and conveyer models stored in the system memory 14, and arranges the robot model 102 and the conveyer model 104 in the virtual space 100" and ¶0054 via "The system memory 14 stores various virtual robot operation parameters in association with the robot model 102. These virtual robot operation parameters are parameters necessary for simulatively operating the robot model 102 in the virtual space 100 in step S10 described later.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Taketo in view of the parameter being held such as in Atohira in order to simulatively operate the robot(s) and their tool(s): "These second virtual robot operation parameters are parameters necessary for simulatively operating the symmetric robot model 102M in the virtual space 100 in step S10 described later." [Atohira ¶0096] and also "The system memory 14 stores various virtual machine tool operation parameters in association with the machine tool model 160. These virtual machine tool operation parameters are parameters necessary for simulatively operating the machine tool model 160 in the virtual space 100 in the following step S10." [Atohira ¶0113].
Regarding Claim 10, Modified Taketo discloses the robot system according to Claim 1.
Furthermore, Taketo discloses: wherein, when the control parameter (See at least ¶0028 via "In verification mode, the first update unit 215 updates the first safety information regarding the position and speed of the robot 1 in the verification function based on the first safety parameters." and ¶0029 via "When the verification function software is terminated, the copying unit 216 copies the setting parameters used in the verification function software. Then, the copying unit 216 provides the copied setting parameters to the second applying unit 217." *Wherein the copying unit 216 acquires the control/setting parameters. And ¶0032 via "In safety mode, the second update unit 218 updates the second safety information regarding the position and speed of the robot 1 in the safety function software based on the second safety parameter.")
However, Taketo does not explicitly disclose the control parameter held in the controller. Nevertheless, Atohira discloses: the control parameter held in the robot controller (See at least ¶0071 via "Below, a case is described in which the user selects the robot model 102. In this case, the data input section 20 receives the input operation by the user, and sends the input data indicating the selection of the robot model 102 to the CPU 12 via the I/O interface 18. In response to the received input data, the CPU 12 determines the robot model 102 as the replication subject." and ¶0053 via "In response to the received input data, the CPU 12 reads out the robot model 102 and the conveyer model 104 from the pluralities of types of robot models and conveyer models stored in the system memory 14, and arranges the robot model 102 and the conveyer model 104 in the virtual space 100" and ¶0054 via "The system memory 14 stores various virtual robot operation parameters in association with the robot model 102. These virtual robot operation parameters are parameters necessary for simulatively operating the robot model 102 in the virtual space 100 in step S10 described later.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Taketo in view of the parameter being held such as in Atohira in order to simulatively operate the robot(s) and their tool(s): "These second virtual robot operation parameters are parameters necessary for simulatively operating the symmetric robot model 102M in the virtual space 100 in step S10 described later." [Atohira ¶0096] and also "The system memory 14 stores various virtual machine tool operation parameters in association with the machine tool model 160. These virtual machine tool operation parameters are parameters necessary for simulatively operating the machine tool model 160 in the virtual space 100 in the following step S10." [Atohira ¶0113].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA RENEE DOROS whose telephone number is (703)756-1415. The examiner can normally be reached Generally: M-F (8-5) EST.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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.
/K.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights