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 .
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed 5/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 6, and 10-13 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 14 and 15 are newly added. Claims 1 and 3-15 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s argument, see page 5, with respect to the claim element "first input device" not subject to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is fully considered and is persuasive. Accordingly, the 112(f) interpretation for the “first input device” is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, with respect to the cited prior art not teaching the amended subject matter are fully considered but are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Park’s limiting the motion to a single axis is different than the amended subject matter. However, the applicant is arguing a narrower interpretation than what is considered under broad reasonable interpretation (BRI). The limitation, “in response to activation of the first masking input via the second input device, ignoring the all of the plurality of translational inputs and allowing all of the plurality of rotational inputs … ; in response to activation of the second masking input via the second input device, ignoring all of the plurality of rotational inputs and allowing all of the plurality of translational inputs received”, is taught by Park’s teachings of obtaining an input control command for only allowing either rotational inputs or translational inputs about an axis (See at least [0051] and [0066]). The claim does not require that ‘all axes’ of either translational or rotational inputs are ignored or allowed depending on the masking input. Therefore, for example, it is interpreted that an input control command for only allowing translational inputs in the +y direction is a second masking input causing to ignore all rotational control inputs and allow all +y direction control inputs (See at least [0066]). Meanwhile, Gerio is relied upon for resolving Park’s deficiencies of teaching the joystick. Accordingly, a prior art rejection is made in view of Park and Gerio.
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: “second input device” in claims 1 and 4; “programming input device” in claim 7.
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. For example, the “second input device” is a three-position switch according to claim 5 and [0027]. The programming input device is part of the joint according to [0027] and is described as a programming joint 152 in [0044] and illustrated in figs. 4A-4C.
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 14-15 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.
Claims 14-15 recite the limitation "each of the indicators." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what ‘the’ indicators refers to because there is no previous introduction of indicators in the claim or parent claim. For examination purposes, the claims are interpreted as reciting “further comprising indicators, wherein each of the indicators …”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20190217480 A1) in view of Gerio (US 20100145520 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Park teaches
A robotic welding system, comprising: a robotic manipulator configured to manipulate a welding torch; (“As shown in FIG. 1a, a robot including a robot controller according to one embodiment of the present invention may include a control interface 110, rotating disk 120, motor 130, encoder 140, and end effector 150. … Referring to FIG. 1a, a robot according to one embodiment of the present invention may include a plurality of robot arms” See at least [0044-0045]; “The end effector 150 includes a gripper or an electrical structure related thereto. The end effector 150 is not necessarily related to the example above but may be implemented by using other types of devices such as a welding torch, spray gun, or nut runner depending on a given robot task.” See at least [0057])
a first input device, (See at least paragraphs [0007-0011] and [0048-0050] that describe a user performing direct teaching by applying external forces directly to the robot end portion. A rotating disk and position sensor detect rotational and translational inputs from the direct teaching.)
a second input device attached to the robotic manipulator and configured to receive a first masking input and a second masking input; (“a first control interface which is positioned at a first position around the robot end portion and receives a first control input for at least four directions; a second control interface which is positioned at a second position around the robot end portion and receives a second control input for at least four directions; and an encoder which combines the first and second control inputs so as to interpret the combination of the first and second control inputs as a third control input about the robot end portion and provides the robot with a signal according to the third control input. … The signal according to the third control input is a signal instructing a rotational or translational motion corresponding to the third control input, and the robot can exclude an external force not related to the rotational or translational motion corresponding to the third control input among external forces applied to the robot end portion by the signal according to the third control input.” See at least [0005-0006])
and a robot control system, comprising: a processor; and a machine readable storage medium comprising machine readable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (“at least one of the robot controller or the robot stores control input information interpreted by the encoder 180 or control signal information according to the interpreted information to a storage (not shown). When the information is stored in the storage, time-dependent information (for example, motion sequence information) may also be stored, which is used to identify in which order the control input has been received, which amount of angles the rotating disk has rotated in response to the position information of the rotating disk or motor at the time the control input is received, and in which direction a translational motion has been performed. From the identified information, direct teaching may be achieved.” See at least [0061], wherein a controller comprises a processor and machine-readable storage media comprising instructions.; Also see at least [0045-0046] describing a main controller.)
in response to activation of the first masking input via the second input device, ignoring the all of the plurality of translational inputs and allowing all of the plurality of rotational inputs received v(“by inputting a control command for rotational motion through the control interface 110, the user may deliver his or her intention to perform rotation of the robot end portion. In other words, through the rotation control input, operation other than the force to rotate the robot end portion may be set impossible to be performed, but the robot end portion is allowed to be rotated due to the force applied by the user for rotation of the robot end portion. In other words, a motion related to the translation of the robot end portion in the 3-dimensional space is excluded.” See at least [0051]; Examiner Interpretation: Excluding a translational movement is equivalent to ignoring all of the translational inputs.)
in response to activation of the second masking input via the second input device, ignoring all of the plurality of rotational inputs and allowing all of the plurality of translational inputs received (“Referring to FIG. 3a, the encoder may interpret the control input of the first and the second control interfaces as a translational motion command. Such an interpretation is performed when the control input is applied in the same direction about the same axis. For example, as shown in the embodiment of FIG. 3a, if the first and the second control interfaces provide a control input in the +y direction with respect to the same y-axis, the encoder may receive two control inputs in the +y direction and interpret the control inputs as a translational motion command in the +y direction along the y axis. The user may apply two control inputs in the +y direction, and the control interfaces may remove movements other than the motion in the +y direction, receive a force from the user, respond only to the force applied in the +y direction, and make the robot end portion perform a translational motion precisely in the +y direction.” See at least [0066] and fig. 3a; Examiner Interpretation: Removing movements other than the translational motion in the +y direction is equivalent to ignoring all of the rotational inputs and allowing all of the translational inputs in the +y direction.)
Park does not explicitly teach, but Gerio teaches
a first input device, comprising a joystick, attached to the robotic manipulator … rotational inputs received via the joystick; … translational inputs received via the joystick … inputs to the joystick (“In order to render the activity of programming of the robot more intuitive, it has also been proposed to equip the robot with a manual guide device, mounted directly on the movable structure of the robot.” See at least [0007]; “Using the joystick device it is possible to move the TCP of the robot 1 in all the directions of the "Tool" reference system (and following all the rotations). … the joystick has preferentially six degrees of freedom. For example, by exerting a pressure or else a pulling action on the knob of the joystick 32, an advance or a recession of the TPC is obtained; by pressing the knob to the right or to the left, a displacement to the right and to the left, respectively, of the TCP is obtained. Likewise, by pushing the knob down or up, the corresponding movements of the TCP are obtained. The knob can likewise be turned in a clockwise direction and in a counterclockwise direction to obtain movements of rotation of the TCP, or else be inclined to obtain inclinations of the TCP in the desired direction.” See at least [0051-0052])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Park to further include the teachings of Gerio with a reasonable expectation of success to implement the first input device as a joystick because joysticks are “commercially available, at contained costs, and are extremely precise” (See at least [0035]) and to attach the joystick to the robot to “render the activity of programming of the robot more intuitive” (See at least [0007]).
Regarding Claim 3,
Park does not explicitly teach, but Gerio teaches
wherein the first input device comprises a 6-degrees-of-freedom joystick. (“an optical-sensor joystick with six degrees of freedom.” See at least [0035]; “the joystick has preferentially six degrees of freedom.” See at least [0052])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Park to further include the teachings of Gerio with a reasonable expectation of success to implement the first input device as a 6-degrees-of-freedom joystick because the joysticks are “commercially available, at contained costs, and are extremely precise” (See at least [0035]) and are capable of controlling all 6 degrees of freedom of the robot.
Regarding Claim 4,
Park further teaches
wherein the second input device is attached to a joint positioned between the robotic manipulator and the welding torch. (“The rotating disk 120 may be disposed between the robot arm at the end portion and the end effector 150. … the control interface 110 disposed on the rotating disk 120.” See at least [0053] and fig. 1A; Also see at least [0057] describing the end effector as a welding torch.)
Regarding Claim 10,
Park further teaches
wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to: in response to a single actuation of the second input device, instruct the processor to generate a command in the robotic welding procedure; (“when an input is applied to one of the control interfaces, a motion may be set in such a way to be performed along the remaining one axis (x-axis in the case of the present embodiment) which does not provide a motion due to the current user setting. For example, if an input is received in the −y axis direction only through the first control interface but no input is received through the second control interface, it may be interpreted as a translational motion in the −x axis. Similarly, if an input is received in the +y axis only through the first control interface but no input is received through the second control interface, it may be interpreted as a translational motion in the +x axis. If the aforementioned interpretation is extended, the case where an input is received only through the first control interface and the case where an input is received only through the second control interface may be set to be controlled separately and differently.” See at least [0070]; “Referring to FIG. 6, the control interface may include at least two switches 610 and buttons 620, 630 for manipulation of the end effector. … Also, when the end effector is not a gripper, for example, in the case of a welding torch, the button 620 may provide an input for combustion operation of the welding torch.” See at least [0082-0084]; Examiner Interpretation: When the end effector is a welding torch as described in [0057], the set motion in a particular axis in response to only one actuation of either the first or second control interface as described in [0070] generates a command in the robotic welding procedure. A different interpretation is that a single actuation of button 620 provides a combustion command in the robotic welding procedure as described in [0084].)
and in response to a double actuation of the second input device, activate the first masking input or the second masking input. (“Referring to FIG. 3a, the encoder may interpret the control input of the first and the second control interfaces as a translational motion command. Such an interpretation is performed when the control input is applied in the same direction about the same axis. For example, as shown in the embodiment of FIG. 3a, if the first and the second control interfaces provide a control input in the +y direction with respect to the same y-axis, the encoder may receive two control inputs in the +y direction and interpret the control inputs as a translational motion command in the +y direction along the y axis. The user may apply two control inputs in the +y direction, and the control interfaces may remove movements other than the motion in the +y direction, receive a force from the user, respond only to the force applied in the +y direction, and make the robot end portion perform a translational motion precisely in the +y direction.” See at least [0066] and fig. 3a; Examiner Interpretation: Control input into both a first and second control interface is interpreted as a double actuation of the second input device.)
Regarding Claim 11,
Park further teaches
wherein the second masking input comprises a rotation masking input, and the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to limit rotation of the robotic manipulator while the rotation masking input is active. (“The user may apply two control inputs in the +y direction, and the control interfaces may remove movements other than the motion in the +y direction, receive a force from the user, respond only to the force applied in the +y direction, and make the robot end portion perform a translational motion precisely in the +y direction.” See at least [0066]; Examiner Interpretation: Limiting the robot to only translational motion limits rotation because rotation movements are set to be excluded/impossible.)
Regarding Claim 12,
Park further teaches
wherein the first masking input comprises a translation masking input, and the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to limit translation of the robotic manipulator with respect to a predetermined point on the robotic manipulator while the translation masking input is active. (“Moreover, by inputting a control command for rotational motion through the control interface 110, the user may deliver his or her intention to perform rotation of the robot end portion. In other words, through the rotation control input, operation other than the force to rotate the robot end portion may be set impossible to be performed, but the robot end portion is allowed to be rotated due to the force applied by the user for rotation of the robot end portion. In other words, a motion related to the translation of the robot end portion in the 3-dimensional space is excluded.” See at least [0051], wherein all translation is limited.; Also see at least [0066] for limiting translation to only 1 axis and at least [0092] for limiting translation to two axes of motion.)
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20190217480 A1) in view of Gerio (US 20100145520 A1) and Yasuyuki (US 5212433 A).
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Park does not explicitly teach, but Yasuyuki teaches
wherein the second input device comprises a three-position switch. (“the deadman switch provided on the teaching control device, while teaching behaviour patterns to the robot through the teaching control device. The robot emergency stop circuit features a deadman switch which comprises a 3-position contact switch.” See at least col. 2, lines 31-35)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Park to further include the teachings of Yasuyuki with a reasonable expectation of success to implement a three-position switch with the second input device to improve safety of the operator during robot teaching. (See at least col. 2, lines 20-60)
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Park does not explicitly teach, but Yasuyuki teaches
wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to control the robotic manipulator in a free drive mode while the three-position switch is actuated to a middle position. (“The robot emergency stop circuit features a deadman switch which comprises a 3-position contact switch designed to cause the robot to operate according to instructions given through the teaching control device as long as the pressure applied by a finger remains within a specified range, and to bring the robot to an emergency stop when the finger pressure becomes lower or higher than the specified range. … because the deadman switch consists of a 3-position contact switch, the operator must consciously adjust the teaching control device so that the contact point of the switch is kept at the middle of the 3-position contact during the teaching procedure.” See at least col. 2, lines 33-52, wherein causing the robot to operate according to instructions, as opposed to the emergency stop, is the free drive mode.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Park to further include the teachings of Yasuyuki with a reasonable expectation of success to implement a three-position switch with the second input device to improve safety of the operator during robot teaching. (See at least col. 2, lines 20-60)
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20190217480 A1) in view of Gerio (US 20100145520 A1), Yasuyuki (US 5212433 A), and Nobuhiro (US 20060212167 A1).
Regarding Claim 6,
Park further teaches
wherein the second input device is configured to activate the first masking input or the second masking input by a double actuation (“Referring to FIG. 3a, the encoder may interpret the control input of the first and the second control interfaces as a translational motion command. Such an interpretation is performed when the control input is applied in the same direction about the same axis. For example, as shown in the embodiment of FIG. 3a, if the first and the second control interfaces provide a control input in the +y direction with respect to the same y-axis, the encoder may receive two control inputs in the +y direction and interpret the control inputs as a translational motion command in the +y direction along the y axis. The user may apply two control inputs in the +y direction, and the control interfaces may remove movements other than the motion in the +y direction, receive a force from the user, respond only to the force applied in the +y direction, and make the robot end portion perform a translational motion precisely in the +y direction.” See at least [0066] and fig. 3a; Examiner Interpretation: Control input into both a first and second control interface is interpreted as a double actuation of the second input device.)
Modified Park does not explicitly teach, but Nobuhiro teaches
a double actuation of the three-position switch. (“Under normal condition the enabling device 100 outputs an enabling signal from the first and second circuits C11 and C12 to, for example, a safety relay module 120 of the mechanical apparatus when at least one of right-handed deadman switch 101a and left-handed deadman switch 101b assumes the ON-state by being depressed to the second position. Only when the safety relay module 120 receives inputs of the enabling signal from the first and second circuits C11 and C12 both, the safety relay module 120 enables the teaching signal thereby allowing the operator to teach the mechanical apparatus.” See at least [0010], wherein actuating both deadman switches is equivalent to a double actuation of the three-position switch.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Park to further include the teachings of Nobuhiro with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety of the operator by preventing the operator from accidentally resuming a stopped robot operation by implementing two three-position switches. (See at least [0008-0010])
Regarding Claim 7,
Park further teaches
wherein the joint further comprises a programming input device configured to instruct the processor to generate a command in a robotic welding procedure. (See at least paragraphs [0007-0011] and [0048-0050] that describe a user performing direct teaching by applying external forces directly to the robot end portion. A rotating disk and position sensor detect rotational and translational inputs from the direct teaching. These components that receive/sense the applied external forces to teach the robot are equivalent to the programming input device because they are equivalent to the programming joint described in the instant application ([0044] of the instant application) that is attached to the robot manipulator and/or torch to enable the operator to guide the robotic manipulator. See at least [0057] of Park for the welding.)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20190217480 A1) in view of Gerio (US 20100145520 A1), Yasuyuki (US 5212433 A), and Bird-Radolovic (US 20090187277 A1).
Regarding Claim 9,
Modified Park does not explicitly teach, but Yasuyuki teaches
wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to control the robotic manipulator to lock all joints of the robotic manipulator (“if the operator's finger applies more pressure to the switch, the robot 5 is brought to an emergency stop. Specifically, the deadman switch DM1 consists of or includes a 3-position contact switch able to detect a state wherein no finger pressure is applied, a state wherein a pressure within a specified range is applied, and a state wherein a pressure exceeding the specified range is applied.” See at least col. 3, lines 36-45)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Park to further include the teachings of Yasuyuki with a reasonable expectation of success to implement a three-position switch with the second input device to improve safety of the operator during robot teaching. (See at least col. 2, lines 20-60)
Yasuyuki does not explicitly teach, but Bird-Radolovic teaches
lock all joints of the robotic manipulator into a current position (“The manipulator has a plurality of arms that are movable relative each other about a plurality of axes. The movements of the axes are driven by motors mounted on each axis. Each motor is provided with a mechanical brake to lock the robot position when it is not moving.” See at least [0002]; “The control system includes a safety unit adapted to generate at least one stop signal for stopping the robot upon occurrence of a safety event and the brakes are adapted to mechanically brake the motors upon receiving the stop signal from the safety unit. … A key feature of an industrial robot is the ability to disable the possibility to move the mechanical structure, in a safe way, when certain critical safety events occur. This might include an operator pushing an emergency stop button or releasing an enabling device during teaching.” See at least [0004-0005])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Park and Bird-Radolovic to further include the teachings of Jonsson with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety and efficiency of an emergency stop. (See at least [0005] and [0010])
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20190217480 A1) in view of Gerio (US 20100145520 A1) and Haruna (US 20230292000 A1).
Regarding Claim 13,
Modified Park does not explicitly teach, but Haruna teaches
further comprising indicators for each translational dimension and each rotational dimension that can be controlled via the first input device, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to control the indicators based on the inputs that are ignored. (“a limitation unit to set a movable range of the real machine on a basis of limitation information from the operator; … and a video display unit to display a real machine video and a movable information video, the real machine video being a video of the real machine, the movable information video being a video of the movable range corresponding to the real machine.” See at least [0007]; “The movable information video S7a, which is generated by the video model generation unit 14, is a video of the movable range S3. In a case of FIG. 6(a), the movable information video S7a, which is a video of the movable range S3 in the same direction as the x-axis direction, is displayed on upper and lower sides of the real machine video S8a.” See at least [0080]; Also see at least [0120-0127] which describes displaying a video of a movable range as rotated about the Z-axis.; Examiner Interpretation: The videos are the indicators of ranges corresponding to translational dimensions and rotational dimensions in which the robot can move based on the movement direction limitations specified by the operator.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Park to further include the teachings of Haruna with a reasonable expectation of success to “improve work efficiency as compared with conventional ones by setting a movable range of a real machine and presenting the set movable range to an operator.” See at least [0008])
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20190217480 A1) in view of Gerio (US 20100145520 A1) and Riedel (US 20190054629 A1).
Regarding Claim 14,
Modified Park does not explicitly teach, but Riedel teaches
wherein each of the indicators is positioned on or adjacent the joystick. (“The hand control lever can here take the form of a joystick, … By arranging the indicator segments around the hand control lever, the possible deflection directions of the hand control lever can be identified with information and be accordingly associated by the user.” See at least [0019])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Park to further include the teachings of Riedel with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a more user-friendly and intuitive input device. (See at least [0006], [0013], and [0047])
Regarding Claim 15,
Modified Park does not explicitly teach, but Riedel teaches
wherein each of the indicators is positioned on or adjacent the joystick according to a direction of the translational dimension or the rotational dimension in which the robotic manipulator moves when the joystick is manipulated in the direction of the indicator. (“A 6D joystick can specify a movement of the manipulator in six degrees of freedom (for example with respect to three translational and three rotational degrees of freedom of movement).” See at least [0010]; “The hand control lever can here take the form of a joystick, … By arranging the indicator segments around the hand control lever, the possible deflection directions of the hand control lever can be identified with information and be accordingly associated by the user.” See at least [0019]; “an indicator segment can be actuated such that the operator associates the corresponding deflection direction of the hand control lever with the coordinate axis direction of the manipulator.” See at least [0025])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Park to further include the teachings of Riedel with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a more user-friendly and intuitive input device. (See at least [0006], [0013], and [0047])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karston G Evans whose telephone number is (571)272-8480. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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 at (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.
/KARSTON G. EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights