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 1/7/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 16-19 are amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, with respect to the prior art not teaching the amended subject matter have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of da Silva (US 20210347041 A1) in view of Ganguly (US 20240025035 A1).
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 8, and 19 recite “determine whether the target operation satisfies a predetermined operation condition … simulating a virtual motion of a graphic object corresponding to the robot in response to the predetermined operation condition being satisfied.” The original disclosure does not describe the amended feature of simulating in response to the predetermined operation condition being satisfied. Paragraph [0059] recites: “The robot operation management device 100 may perform the simulation of the graphic object corresponding to the robot in response to the user's simulation request.” However, a user simulation request is not the same as the target operation satisfying a predetermined operation condition. Accordingly, the amended claims include new matter. Claims 2-7, 9-18, and 20 are also rejected because they do not resolve the deficiencies of claims 1, 8, and 19.
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, 7-8, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over da Silva (US 20210347041 A1) in view of Ganguly (US 20240025035 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
da Silva teaches
A device for managing an operation of a robot, the device comprising: (“In order to determine the feed-forward control inputs that cause the control system to operate the robot with a coordinated motion, a computing system may perform simulations to identify a feasible set or sets of control parameters that achieve a certain desired motion or a predetermined goal.” See at least [0033]; “As shown in FIG. 1, the robotic device 100 includes processor(s) 102, data storage 104, program instructions 106, controller 108, sensor(s) 110, power source(s) 112, mechanical components 114, electrical components 116, and communication link(s) 118.” See at least [0044])
a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions; (“computer-readable program instructions 106 that are stored in the data storage 104 … The data storage 104 may exist as various types of storage media, such as a memory.” See at least [0045-0046])
a communication device configured to be in communication with a control server; (“the robotic device 100 may also include communication link(s) 118 configured to send and/or receive information.” See at least [0056]; “The computing system may then provide the selected set of control parameters to the robot. The control system may receive the control parameters as feed-forward control inputs, which in turn modifies the robot's behavior to execute the motion corresponding to the selected set of control parameters. In some implementations, the robot includes a network interface that can receive the control parameters wirelessly. In some cases, the computing system may determine a set of feed-forward control parameters using operations of the present application. These control parameters are then transmitted wirelessly to the robot's network interface to modify its behavior and cause it to execute a coordinated motion corresponding to those control parameters.” See at least [0039-0040]; Examiner Interpretation: The control system that receives the control parameters is a control server.)
and at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the instructions, to cause the at least one processor to: (“Processor(s) 102 may operate as one or more general-purpose processors or special purpose processors (e.g., digital signal processors, application specific integrated circuits, etc.). The processor(s) 102 can be configured to execute computer-readable program instructions 106 that are stored in the data storage 104 and are executable to provide the operations of the robotic device 100 described herein.” See at least [0045])
set a driving time of at least one module included in a target operation among a plurality of operations classified based on driving of the at least one module included in the robot; (“At step 904, the computing device operates the model with multiple sets of control parameters to simulate respective motions of the robot. … The computing device may simulate the motion of the robot in accordance with certain sets of control parameters. The sets of control parameters may be feed-forward control inputs that are provided to the robot's control system, which in turn causes the control system to operate the robot's actuators to execute a transient motion. … In some instances, the set of control parameters includes a number of subsets of control parameters that each corresponds to particular portions of the robot, such as a particular leg or a robot's manipulator arm. … The set of control parameters may indicate a starting state for each portion of the robot, an ending state for each portion of the robot, and a duration of the motion between the starting and ending state.” See at least [0114-0117]; “a set of control parameters may include multiple durations of motion, each corresponding to a particular joint or actuator.” See at least [0133]; Examiner Interpretation: The duration of motion is a set driving time. The Robot components such as joints and actuators are the modules. Each set of control parameters is an operation.)
set a driving option of the at least one module whose driving time is set; (“The computing device may determine certain aspects of the simulated motion to determine one or more metrics. For example, the angles of each joint and the forces exerted by each actuator over the course of the motion may be stored for use in step 906.” See at least [0118]; Examiner Interpretation: The angles and forces are driving options.)
verify the target operation by simulating a virtual motion of a (“At step 906, the computing device determines a score for each of the simulated motions. The score may be a numerical value that represents the extent to which the simulated motion accomplishes a predetermined goal. The score may also be weighed against any violation of the robot's constraints in addition to the extent to which the simulated motion accomplished the predetermined goal.” See at least [0120]; “At step 908, the computing device selects a particular set of control parameters that correspond to a particular score from among the determined scores.” See at least [0125])
and transmit the verified target operation to the control server via the communication device such that the verified target operation is applied to the robot. (“Operations of FIG. 9 and FIG. 11 may be fully performed by a single computing device, or may be distributed across multiple computing devices. The computing system may communicate with a control system of a robot by transmitting to the control system feed-forward control inputs, among other information or data.” See at least [0107]; “At step 910, the computing device modifies the behavior of a robot based on the selected set of control parameters. In some implementations, the computing device provides the selected set of control parameters as feed-forward control inputs to the robot. The feed-forward inputs received at the robot may then cause the robot's control system to perform a coordinated motion corresponding to the selected set of control parameters.” See at least [0131])
da Silva does not explicitly teach, but Ganguly teaches
determine whether the target operation satisfies a predetermined operation condition; verify the target operation by simulating a virtual motion of a graphic object corresponding to the robot in response to the predetermined operation condition being satisfied and a simulation being based on the set driving time and the set driving option; (“receiving a user specification of a task to be performed by the physical robot, executing a simulation of the task being performed by a virtual robot representing the physical robot in a virtual robotic operating environment at the first level of physical simulation fidelity, determining that the task succeeded at the first level of physical simulation fidelity, in response to the determining, enabling one or more of the disabled simulation features, and performing a rerun of the simulation of the task with the one or more of the disabled simulation features enabled. For example, the method can perform the rerun of the simulation with the one or more disabled simulation features enabled on a per-component basis.” See at least [0007], wherein the task succeeding at the first level of physical simulation fidelity is equivalent to the predetermined operation condition being satisfied.; “FIG. 3 is an example of user interface 350 of a system for performing robotics simulations using multiple levels of fidelity (e.g., the system 100 in FIG. 1). … The user interface 350 can further include a view of virtual operating environment 330, e.g., a simulation generated by a robotic simulator.” See at least [0052] and fig. 3 (provided below) illustrating simulating a graphic object corresponding to the robot.)
PNG
media_image1.png
540
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 da Silva to further include the teachings of Ganguly with a reasonable expectation of success to “intelligently distribute computational resources according to desired levels of fidelity in different areas of the simulation, thereby improving the overall efficiency of the simulation.” (See at least [0015])
Regarding Claim 2,
da Silva further teaches
wherein the instructions cause the at least one processor to: set, based on a case where a different operation from the target operation is added to an operation list containing the target operation, a driving time of at least one module included in the different operation; and set a driving option of the at least one module included in the different operation. (See at least fig. 10 (provided below) and corresponding description in [0132-0136]; Examiner Interpretation: The different sets of control parameters are different operations, each having a set driving time (duration) and driving option (angles/forces). The set of control parameters with the better score is interpreted as the target operation.)
PNG
media_image2.png
478
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3,
da Silva further teaches
wherein the instructions cause the at least one processor to provide, based on a case where there are a plurality of execution commands for applying a different operation from the target operation to the robot, information on an operation corresponding to each of the plurality of execution commands. (See at least fig. 10 (provided below) and corresponding description in [0132-0136]; “the computing device may determine respective scores for set 1010 and set 1020 based on the constraints and a predetermined goal in a similar manner to that described in step 906.” See at least [0135]; Examiner Interpretation: The different sets of control parameters are different operations, each having a plurality of execution commands as illustrated by the start and end states of the joint and actuator. The score is the provided information. The set of control parameters with the better score is interpreted as the target operation.)
PNG
media_image2.png
478
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7,
da Silva further teaches
wherein the instructions cause the at least one processor to transmit an execution command to the control server such that the target operation transmitted to the control server is applied to the robot based on a fourth input of a user. (“the computing system may receive an input from a user indicating that the user wants the robotic device to perform a particular gait in a given direction. The computing system may process the input, and may cause the systems of the robotic device to perform the requested gait. … the robotic device 200 may receive input from a user via a joystick or similar type of interface. The computing system may be configured to receive data indicative of the amount of force, the duration of force applied to the joystick, and other possible information, from a joystick interface. Similarly, the robotic device 200 may receive inputs and communicate with a user via other types of interface, such as a mobile device or a microphone. Regardless, the computing system of the robotic device 200 may be configured to process the various types of inputs that the robotic device 200 may receive.” See at least [0077-0078]; “At step 910, the computing device modifies the behavior of a robot based on the selected set of control parameters. In some implementations, the computing device provides the selected set of control parameters as feed-forward control inputs to the robot. The feed-forward inputs received at the robot may then cause the robot's control system to perform a coordinated motion corresponding to the selected set of control parameters.” See at least [0131])
Regarding Claim 8,
da Silva teaches
A system for managing an operation of a robot, the system comprising: (“The system may include a means for providing a model of a robot. The model may be configured to determine simulated motions of the robot based on sets of control parameters. … the system may include a means for modifying a behavior of the robot based on the selected set of control parameters to perform the coordinated exertion of forces by the actuators of the robot.” See at least [0006])
a robot operation management device; (“As shown in FIG. 1, the robotic device 100 includes processor(s) 102, data storage 104, program instructions 106, controller 108, sensor(s) 110, power source(s) 112, mechanical components 114, electrical components 116, and communication link(s) 118.” See at least [0044])
a control server; and the robot configured to receive a command from the control server; (“The computing system may then provide the selected set of control parameters to the robot. The control system may receive the control parameters as feed-forward control inputs, which in turn modifies the robot's behavior to execute the motion corresponding to the selected set of control parameters. In some implementations, the robot includes a network interface that can receive the control parameters wirelessly. In some cases, the computing system may determine a set of feed-forward control parameters using operations of the present application. These control parameters are then transmitted wirelessly to the robot's network interface to modify its behavior and cause it to execute a coordinated motion corresponding to those control parameters.” See at least [0039-0040]; Examiner Interpretation: The control system that receives the control parameters is a control server.)
wherein the robot operation management device is configured to: set a driving time of at least one module included in a target operation among a plurality of operations classified based on driving of at least one module included in the robot; (“At step 904, the computing device operates the model with multiple sets of control parameters to simulate respective motions of the robot. … The computing device may simulate the motion of the robot in accordance with certain sets of control parameters. The sets of control parameters may be feed-forward control inputs that are provided to the robot's control system, which in turn causes the control system to operate the robot's actuators to execute a transient motion. … In some instances, the set of control parameters includes a number of subsets of control parameters that each corresponds to particular portions of the robot, such as a particular leg or a robot's manipulator arm. … The set of control parameters may indicate a starting state for each portion of the robot, an ending state for each portion of the robot, and a duration of the motion between the starting and ending state.” See at least [0114-0117]; “a set of control parameters may include multiple durations of motion, each corresponding to a particular joint or actuator.” See at least [0133]; Examiner Interpretation: The duration of motion is a set driving time. The Robot components such as joints and actuators are the modules. Each set of control parameters is a operation.)
set a driving option of the at least one module whose driving time is set; (“The computing device may determine certain aspects of the simulated motion to determine one or more metrics. For example, the angles of each joint and the forces exerted by each actuator over the course of the motion may be stored for use in step 906.” See at least [0118]; Examiner Interpretation: The angles and forces are driving options.)
verify the target operation by simulating a virtual motion of a (“At step 906, the computing device determines a score for each of the simulated motions. The score may be a numerical value that represents the extent to which the simulated motion accomplishes a predetermined goal. The score may also be weighed against any violation of the robot's constraints in addition to the extent to which the simulated motion accomplished the predetermined goal.” See at least [0120]; “At step 908, the computing device selects a particular set of control parameters that correspond to a particular score from among the determined scores.” See at least [0125])
and transmit the verified target operation to the control server such that the verified target operation is applied to the robot; and wherein the control server is configured to transmit an execution command to the robot based on the verified target operation received from the robot operation management device. (“Operations of FIG. 9 and FIG. 11 may be fully performed by a single computing device, or may be distributed across multiple computing devices. The computing system may communicate with a control system of a robot by transmitting to the control system feed-forward control inputs, among other information or data.” See at least [0107]; “At step 910, the computing device modifies the behavior of a robot based on the selected set of control parameters. In some implementations, the computing device provides the selected set of control parameters as feed-forward control inputs to the robot. The feed-forward inputs received at the robot may then cause the robot's control system to perform a coordinated motion corresponding to the selected set of control parameters.” See at least [0131]; Also see at least [0039-0040].)
da Silva does not explicitly teach, but Ganguly teaches
determine whether the target operation satisfies a predetermined operation condition; verify the target operation by simulating a virtual motion of a graphic object corresponding to the robot in response to the predetermined operation condition being satisfied and a simulation being based on the set driving time and the set driving option; (“receiving a user specification of a task to be performed by the physical robot, executing a simulation of the task being performed by a virtual robot representing the physical robot in a virtual robotic operating environment at the first level of physical simulation fidelity, determining that the task succeeded at the first level of physical simulation fidelity, in response to the determining, enabling one or more of the disabled simulation features, and performing a rerun of the simulation of the task with the one or more of the disabled simulation features enabled. For example, the method can perform the rerun of the simulation with the one or more disabled simulation features enabled on a per-component basis.” See at least [0007], wherein the task succeeding at the first level of physical simulation fidelity is equivalent to the predetermined operation condition being satisfied.; “FIG. 3 is an example of user interface 350 of a system for performing robotics simulations using multiple levels of fidelity (e.g., the system 100 in FIG. 1). … The user interface 350 can further include a view of virtual operating environment 330, e.g., a simulation generated by a robotic simulator.” See at least [0052] and fig. 3 (provided below) illustrating simulating a graphic object corresponding to the robot.)
PNG
media_image1.png
540
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 da Silva to further include the teachings of Ganguly with a reasonable expectation of success to “intelligently distribute computational resources according to desired levels of fidelity in different areas of the simulation, thereby improving the overall efficiency of the simulation.” (See at least [0015])
Regarding Claim 16,
da Silva further teaches
wherein the robot is configured to: obtain information on the at least one module included in the target operation related to the execution command received from the control server. (“a computing system may store a model of the robot. … The model may include information about the robot that affects the kinematic motion of the robot, such as the weight, size, and shape of various components, among other information. … referring to the object-throwing example above, the computing system may store the positions of various components of the robot over time during the motion, forces exerted by the actuators during the motion, torques produced by certain portions of the robot during the motion, and the position of the object during and after the motion” See at least [0034-0035])
Regarding Claim 19,
da Silva teaches
A method for managing an operation of a robot, the method comprising: (“The present application discloses implementations that relate to determining a coordinated motion for a robot.” See at least [0003])
setting, by a robot operation management device, a driving time of at least one module included in a target operation among a plurality of operations classified based on driving of the at least one module included in the robot; (“At step 904, the computing device operates the model with multiple sets of control parameters to simulate respective motions of the robot. … The computing device may simulate the motion of the robot in accordance with certain sets of control parameters. The sets of control parameters may be feed-forward control inputs that are provided to the robot's control system, which in turn causes the control system to operate the robot's actuators to execute a transient motion. … In some instances, the set of control parameters includes a number of subsets of control parameters that each corresponds to particular portions of the robot, such as a particular leg or a robot's manipulator arm. … The set of control parameters may indicate a starting state for each portion of the robot, an ending state for each portion of the robot, and a duration of the motion between the starting and ending state.” See at least [0114-0117]; “a set of control parameters may include multiple durations of motion, each corresponding to a particular joint or actuator.” See at least [0133]; Examiner Interpretation: The duration of motion is a set driving time. The Robot components such as joints and actuators are the modules. Each set of control parameters is a operation.)
setting, by the robot operation management device, a driving option of the at least one module whose driving time is set; (“The computing device may determine certain aspects of the simulated motion to determine one or more metrics. For example, the angles of each joint and the forces exerted by each actuator over the course of the motion may be stored for use in step 906.” See at least [0118]; Examiner Interpretation: The angles and forces are driving options.)
verifying, by the robot operation management device, the target operation by simulating a virtual motion of a (“At step 906, the computing device determines a score for each of the simulated motions. The score may be a numerical value that represents the extent to which the simulated motion accomplishes a predetermined goal. The score may also be weighed against any violation of the robot's constraints in addition to the extent to which the simulated motion accomplished the predetermined goal.” See at least [0120]; “At step 908, the computing device selects a particular set of control parameters that correspond to a particular score from among the determined scores.” See at least [0125])
transmitting, by the robot operation management device, the verified target operation to a control server such that the verified target operation is applied to the robot; and transmitting, by the control server, an execution command to the robot based on the verified target operation received from the robot operation management device. (“Operations of FIG. 9 and FIG. 11 may be fully performed by a single computing device, or may be distributed across multiple computing devices. The computing system may communicate with a control system of a robot by transmitting to the control system feed-forward control inputs, among other information or data.” See at least [0107]; “At step 910, the computing device modifies the behavior of a robot based on the selected set of control parameters. In some implementations, the computing device provides the selected set of control parameters as feed-forward control inputs to the robot. The feed-forward inputs received at the robot may then cause the robot's control system to perform a coordinated motion corresponding to the selected set of control parameters.” See at least [0131]; Also see at least [0039-0040].)
da Silva does not explicitly teach, but Ganguly teaches
determining whether the target operation satisfies a predetermined operation condition; verifying, by the robot operation management device, the target operation by simulating a virtual motion of a graphic object corresponding to the robot in response to the predetermined operation condition being satisfied and a simulation being based on the set driving time and the set driving option; (“receiving a user specification of a task to be performed by the physical robot, executing a simulation of the task being performed by a virtual robot representing the physical robot in a virtual robotic operating environment at the first level of physical simulation fidelity, determining that the task succeeded at the first level of physical simulation fidelity, in response to the determining, enabling one or more of the disabled simulation features, and performing a rerun of the simulation of the task with the one or more of the disabled simulation features enabled. For example, the method can perform the rerun of the simulation with the one or more disabled simulation features enabled on a per-component basis.” See at least [0007], wherein the task succeeding at the first level of physical simulation fidelity is equivalent to the predetermined operation condition being satisfied.; “FIG. 3 is an example of user interface 350 of a system for performing robotics simulations using multiple levels of fidelity (e.g., the system 100 in FIG. 1). … The user interface 350 can further include a view of virtual operating environment 330, e.g., a simulation generated by a robotic simulator.” See at least [0052] and fig. 3 (provided below) illustrating simulating a graphic object corresponding to the robot.)
PNG
media_image1.png
540
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 da Silva to further include the teachings of Ganguly with a reasonable expectation of success to “intelligently distribute computational resources according to desired levels of fidelity in different areas of the simulation, thereby improving the overall efficiency of the simulation.” (See at least [0015])
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over da Silva (US 20210347041 A1) in view of Ganguly (US 20240025035 A1) and Mcgregor (US 20210138651 A1).
Regarding Claim 4,
da Silva further teaches
wherein the instructions cause the at least one processor to: obtain raw data of the target operation based on a first input of a user; (“the robotic device 200 may receive input from a user via a joystick or similar type of interface. The computing system may be configured to receive data indicative of the amount of force, the duration of force applied to the joystick, and other possible information, from a joystick interface.” See at least [0078]; Examiner Interpretation: The data received from the joystick is raw data. The data indicative of the duration of force is a first element and the data indicative of the amount of force is a second element.)
da Silva does not explicitly teach, but Mcgregor teaches
reflect, based on a case where a (“the designer may modify the robot control program 106 to bring the simulated operation into closer alignment with desired operation and perform subsequent simulations until the expected robot operation is deemed acceptable. The tested robot control program 106 can then be downloaded to the physical robot.” See at least [0029]; “This simulation technique can be used to test and debug control programs without putting field equipment and machinery at risk, to test modifications to machine operations and estimate how such modifications affect certain key performance indicators or financial metrics, or to perform other types of analytics.” See at least [0061])
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 da Silva to further include the teachings of Mcgregor with a reasonable expectation of success to facilitate user modification and testing such that the robot operates as desired (See at least [0029]) without putting field equipment and machinery at risk. (See at least [0061])
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over da Silva (US 20210347041 A1) in view of Ganguly (US 20240025035 A1), Seki (US 5051676 A), and Toshimitsu (US 20190091853 A1).
Regarding Claim 5,
da Silva further teaches
verify whether (“In some cases, the computing device may determine that at least one of the determined scores is adequate and/or accomplishes the goal to a sufficient extent without possibly causing damage by exceeding any of the robot's constraints. In these cases, the computing device may proceed to step 1210.” See at least [0150]; “At step 1212, the computing device modifies a behavior of the robot based on the selected set of control parameters, similarly to the modification operation in step 910. Modifying the behavior of the robot in step 910 and/or step 1212 may involve setting the selected set of control parameters to the robot” See at least [0154]; “The computing system may communicate with a control system of a robot by transmitting to the control system feed-forward control inputs, among other information or data.” See at least [0107])
da Silva does not explicitly teach, but Seki teaches
wherein the instructions cause the at least one processor to: verify whether raw data of the target operation meets a data standard ; (“the CPU compares each of the target moving positions with a corresponding one of the movable range data stored in the main memory 3, to check whether or not the target moving position falls outside the movable range, and stores the check result (step S10).” See at least col. 4, lines 37-42)
a case where the raw data meets the data standard; (“The aforementioned program edition and program check/renewal process is repeatedly carried out until the error message is not displayed. As a result, the edit program for robot operation, free from error, is created.” See at least col. 5, lines 11-15)
and provide a predetermined alarm to the user based on a case where the raw data does not meet the data standard. (“During the checking process for a certain block of the edited program, if the presence of a format error is determined at the step S6, or if position data, which falls outside an associated movable range, being stated in the program is determined at the step S11, the CPU 1 causes the graphic display unit 5 to display an error message indicating the block number of the same block and the content of edition error (format error or defective position data) on its screen, and drives the printer 8 so that a similar error message is printed out (step S13).” See at least col. 4, lines 49-58)
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 da Silva to further include the teachings of Seki with a reasonable expectation of success to facilitate program editing and to ensure the robot program is within constraints prior to actual operation. (See at least col. 1, lines 25-57)
Seki also does not explicitly teach, but Toshimitsu teaches
a data standard based on a second input of a user (“the user sets a rotation prohibition range which is the range for prohibiting the rotation of the joint J4 or a rotation permission range which is the range for permitting the rotation of the joint J4 in the robot control device 30 by the operation program. In the following, as an example, a case where the user sets (specifies) the rotation prohibition range in the robot control device 30 by the operation program will be described.” See at least [0078]; “In this example, the user can set (designate) one or more rotation prohibition ranges indicated by the command C in the robot control device 30 by writing a command C illustrated in FIG. 8 in the operation program.” See at least [0080])
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 da Silva and Seki to further include the teachings of Toshimitsu with a reasonable expectation of success to suppress interference between the robot and an object. (See at least the Abstract)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over da Silva (US 20210347041 A1) in view of Ganguly (US 20240025035 A1) in view of Yoshida (US 20220314432 A1).
Regarding Claim 6,
Da Silva does not explicitly teach, but Yoshida teaches
wherein the instructions cause the at least one processor to: receive, based on a third input of a user, an alternative operation corresponding to the target operation and stored at a time point closest to a time point when the third input is received among operations stored in the control server from the control server via the communication device; and replace the target operation with the alternative operation. (“When the task is determined to be impossible, a request for a task that substitutes for the task (hereinafter, referred to as alternative task) and data on an object for which the task has been determined to be impossible are transmitted to the terminal 9. An alternative task designated by the user is received from the terminal 9. The designated alternative task is added to the data.” See at least [0084]; “when a task is determined to be impossible, a task list indicating a plurality of alternative tasks related to a request for an alternative task may be generated, a request for an alternative task that substitutes for a task, data related to the object, and the task list may be transmitted to the terminal 9, the task list transmitted from the transmitter-receiver 319 to the terminal 9 may be displayed on the terminal 9 together with data on the object, and one alternative task designated in the task list may be received from the terminal 9, based on a label of an object and a factor of task impossible. This allows operability and efficiency related to user selection of an alternative task to be improved in setting the alternative task for the task impossible object.” See at least [0104]; “when a task related to an object is determined to be impossible, the user can transmit information that enables the task, makes the task executable, and add the information to the object. This allows, for example, operability and processing efficiency related to the moving object 2 to be improved according to the information processing system 1.” See at least [0106]; Examiner Interpretation: Setting the alternative task in response to the most recent user input/transmitted information designating the alternative operation is equivalent to storing an alternative operation at a time point closest to a time point when the third input is received.)
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 da Silva to further include the teachings of Yoshida with a reasonable expectation of success to improve operability and efficiency of the robot control. (See at least [0104-0106])
Claim(s) 9-11, 14-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over da Silva (US 20210347041 A1) in view of Ganguly (US 20240025035 A1), Seraji (US 5430643 A), and Xiong (US 10913155 B2).
Regarding Claim 9,
da Silva does not explicitly teach, but Seraji teaches
wherein: the control server is configured to: perform safety validation for the at least one module mounted on the robot based on the reception of the verified target operation from the robot operation management device; (“The IRIS also allows the user to simulate the robot workspace graphically and plan the task sequence.” See at least col. 10, line 17-18; “The VME-based real-time robot control system receives commands from the IRIS to move the actual arm. … Some of its features include … safety checking to avoid hitting physical joint limits and collision with the floor.” See at least col. 16, lines 7-45)
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 da Silva to further include the teachings of Seraji with a reasonable expectation of success “to avoid hitting physical joint limits and collision” and therefore improve safety of the robot. (See at least col. 16, lines 7-45)
Seraji also does not explicitly teach, but Xiong teaches
and process the execution command by referring to a waiting queue based on reception of the execution command for applying the target operation to the robot; and wherein the robot is configured to apply the target operation to the at least one module in response to the processed execution command. (“Referring to FIG. 2, in one embodiment, a method for controlling a robot joint includes the following steps: Step S201: Receiving a motion command. In the embodiment, to control a robot to perform all the required actions, motion commands corresponding to different actions need to be sent to the robot. The motion commands include information representing different actions, for example, stepping forward, stepping backward, standing still, etc. By analyzing the motion commands, the actions corresponding to the motion commands can be obtained. In one embodiment, the step S201 includes: establishing a motion command queue and adding the received motion command in the command queue. The command queue comprising a plurality of motion commands that are arranged in order of priority, … Step S205: Executing the motion command to control the one or more joint servos to operate.” See at least col. 2, line 56 through col. 4, line 25)
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 da Silva and Seraji to further include the teachings of Xiong with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the motion flexibility of the robot. (See at least col. 4, lines 17-25)
Regarding Claim 10,
da Silva does not explicitly teach, but Seraji teaches
wherein, based on a case where the received target operation is applied to the at least one module included in the robot, the safety validation comprises validation of a position of the module, validation of a velocity of the module, validation of a torque of the module, or validation of an acceleration of the module. (“The IRIS also allows the user to simulate the robot workspace graphically and plan the task sequence.” See at least col. 10, line 17-18; “The VME-based real-time robot control system receives commands from the IRIS to move the actual arm. … Some of its features include … safety checking to avoid hitting physical joint limits and collision with the floor.” See at least col. 16, lines 7-45; Examiner Interpretation: safety checking to avoid hitting physical joint limits and collision with the floor is equivalent to validation of a position of the module.)
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 da Silva to further include the teachings of Seraji with a reasonable expectation of success “to avoid hitting physical joint limits and collision” and therefore improve safety of the robot. (See at least col. 16, lines 7-45)
Regarding Claim 11,
da Silva does not explicitly teach, but Seraji teaches
wherein the control server is configured to: … obtain a threshold value related to the safety validation based on a case where the received target operation uses the drive system; and perform the safety validation by comparing the obtained threshold value with the driving option included in the received target operation. (“The VME-based real-time robot control system receives commands from the IRIS to move the actual arm. … Some of its features include … safety checking to avoid hitting physical joint limits and collision with the floor.” See at least col. 16, lines 7-45; “(ii) Joint Limit Avoidance: The joints of any robot have rotational limitations that can typically be expressed as .alpha..sub.j .ltoreq..theta..sub.j .ltoreq..beta..sub.j, where .alpha..sub.j and .beta..sub.j are the lower and upper joint limits. One of the applications of redundancy is to resolve the hand motion among the joints such that their limits are not violated. The joint limit equality constraint is treated within the configuration control framework in a similar manner to the obstacle avoidance constraint in Section 5.2. The user can select the joint limits and command hand motion, and examine the robot performance. Since inequality constraints are treated as equality conditions for redundancy resolution, for some joint angles the augmented Jacobian can be singular and the problem may not have a solution.” See at least col. 15, lines 8-21; Examiner Interpretation: The joint limits are threshold values and the comparison is performed by the inequality constraints.)
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 da Silva to further include the teachings of Seraji with a reasonable expectation of success “to avoid hitting physical joint limits and collision” and therefore improve safety of the robot. (See at least col. 16, lines 7-45)
Seraji also does not explicitly teach, but Xiong teaches
determine whether the received target operation uses a drive system including a servo motor related to the driving of the at least one module; (“Step S202: Determining one or more joint servos that are needed to execute the motion command. By analyzing the motion commands, the actions corresponding to the motion commands and the required joint servo(s) can be determined. The joint servos are thus able to drive corresponding joints to move. By controlling the joint servos to drive the corresponding joints, actions corresponding to the motion commands can be achieved.” See at least col. 3, lines 43-50)
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 da Silva and Seraji to further include the teachings of Xiong with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the motion flexibility of the robot. (See at least col. 4, lines 17-25)
Regarding Claim 14,
da Silva does not explicitly teach, but Xiong teaches
wherein the control server is configured to: insert the execution command into the waiting queue based on a case where an operation of a preceding execution command preceding the execution command is being applied to the robot; and process the execution command inserted first among a plurality of the execution commands inserted into the waiting queue based on a case where the preceding execution command is ended. (“Step S206: Returning the motion command back to the command queue, or deleting the motion command. In the embodiment, when the one or more joint servos are in an occupied state and the received motion command has a priority lower than a priority of a command that is being executed to control the one or more joint servos, the one or more joint servos need to continue to operate according to the currently executed command, and the received motion command will be sent back to the command queue. After execution of the current command is completed, the returned motion command will be executed.” See at least col. 4, line 58 through col. 5, line 1)
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 da Silva to further include the teachings of Xiong with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the motion flexibility of the robot. (See at least col. 4, lines 17-25)
Regarding Claim 15,
da Silva does not explicitly teach, but Xiong teaches
wherein the control server is configured to process the execution command based on a case where the robot is in an execution standby state. (“Step S205: Executing the motion command to control the one or more joint servos to operate. In the embodiment, when the one or more joint servos are not in an occupied state, the one or more joint servos will operate as controlled by the execution of the motion command.” See at least col. 4, lines 13-17)
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 da Silva to further include the teachings of Xiong with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the motion flexibility of the robot. (See at least col. 4, lines 17-25)
Regarding Claim 20,
da Silva does not explicitly teach, but Seraji teaches
further comprising: performing, by the control server, safety validation for the at least one module mounted on the robot based on the reception of the verified target operation from the robot operation management device; (“The IRIS also allows the user to simulate the robot workspace graphically and plan the task sequence.” See at least col. 10, line 17-18; “The VME-based real-time robot control system receives commands from the IRIS to move the actual arm. … Some of its features include … safety checking to avoid hitting physical joint limits and collision with the floor.” See at least col. 16, lines 7-45)
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 da Silva to further include the teachings of Seraji with a reasonable expectation of success “to avoid hitting physical joint limits and collision” and therefore improve safety of the robot. (See at least col. 16, lines 7-45)
Seraji also does not explicitly teach, but Xiong teaches
processing, by the control server, the execution command by referring to a waiting queue based on reception of the execution command for applying the target operation to the robot; and applying, by the robot, the target operation to the at least one module in response to the processed execution command. (“Referring to FIG. 2, in one embodiment, a method for controlling a robot joint includes the following steps: Step S201: Receiving a motion command. In the embodiment, to control a robot to perform all the required actions, motion commands corresponding to different actions need to be sent to the robot. The motion commands include information representing different actions, for example, stepping forward, stepping backward, standing still, etc. By analyzing the motion commands, the actions corresponding to the motion commands can be obtained. In one embodiment, the step S201 includes: establishing a motion command queue and adding the received motion command in the command queue. The command queue comprising a plurality of motion commands that are arranged in order of priority, … Step S205: Executing the motion command to control the one or more joint servos to operate.” See at least col. 2, line 56 through col. 4, line 25)
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 da Silva and Seraji to further include the teachings of Xiong with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the motion flexibility of the robot. (See at least col. 4, lines 17-25)
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over da Silva (US 20210347041 A1) in view of Ganguly (US 20240025035 A1), Seraji (US 5430643 A), Xiong (US 10913155 B2), and Seki (US 5051676 A).
Regarding Claim 12,
da Silva does not explicitly teach, but Seki teaches
wherein the control server is configured to transmit an alarm provision command to the robot operation management device such that the robot operation management device provides a predetermined alarm to a user based on a case where at least one of the driving options included in the received target operation is greater than the obtained threshold value. (“During the checking process for a certain block of the edited program, if the presence of a format error is determined at the step S6, or if position data, which falls outside an associated movable range, being stated in the program is determined at the step S11, the CPU 1 causes the graphic display unit 5 to display an error message indicating the block number of the same block and the content of edition error (format error or defective position data) on its screen, and drives the printer 8 so that a similar error message is printed out (step S13).” See at least col. 4, lines 49-58)
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 da Silva to further include the teachings of Seki with a reasonable expectation of success to facilitate program editing and to ensure the robot program is within constraints prior to actual operation. (See at least col. 1, lines 25-57)
Regarding Claim 13,
da Silva does not explicitly teach, but Seki teaches
wherein the control server is configured to store the target operation in storage of the control server based on a case where the safety validation for the at least one module mounted on the robot is passed. (“the CPU compares each of the target moving positions with a corresponding one of the movable range data stored in the main memory 3, to check whether or not the target moving position falls outside the movable range, and stores the check result (step S10). If it is determined at step S11 that all of the target moving positions fall within the movable ranges, respectively, the CPU performs renewal of the program (step S12). Whereupon, the CPU returns to the step S3, so as to execute the aforesaid checking process for a second block of the robot program. The same process is also executed for a third block and subsequent blocks.” See at least col. 4, lines 37-48; “the program may be stored in the main memory or in an external memory only when the preparation of the edit program free from error is completed.” See at least col. 5, lines 32-35)
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 da Silva to further include the teachings of Seki with a reasonable expectation of success to facilitate program editing and to ensure the robot program is within constraints prior to actual operation. (See at least col. 1, lines 25-57)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The relevant prior art does not disclose the process of setting a second time point subsequent to a first time point for obtaining the information on the at least one module included in the target operation, setting the at least one module to be in a standby mode from the first time point to the second time point, and applying the target operation to the at least one module from the second time point as disclosed by the applicant.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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.
/K.G.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights