DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “…comprising the steps of; …” on Page 2, Line 12 of the claims sheet. Since “comprising the steps of” is not a complete thought, but rather a continuation of a collection of thoughts, Examiner recommends rewriting the claim to replace the semicolon with a colon such that the claim recites, “… comprising the steps of: …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of “A program for causing a computer to execute respective steps of the robot control method according to claim 6” encompasses software per se. See MPEP §2106.03.11 (“Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: ... products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations)”. Claim 7 has no such structural recitations which are required to embody patent eligible subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirahata et al. (JP 2005-00105 A; hereinafter “Shirahata” with references to the translation provided in attached file) in view of Cho Chang Nho et al. (KR 2017-0044987 A; hereinafter “Cho” with references to the translation provided in attached file).
Regarding claim 1, Shirahata teaches a robot device (“robot 1” in Fig. 1) comprising:
a robot configured to convey a to-be-conveyed object contained in a container and the container together (“The present invention includes a robot that transports a transported object placed in a container” [0010]. Thus, the robot transports, i.e., conveys, a transported, i.e., to-be-conveyed, object placed in a container. “…a robot hand (hereinafter simply referred to as “hand”) 2 that holds the container 3 is attached to the tip of the arm” [0014]. Since the robot holds the container, the container holding the object is transported with the object.); and
a control device configured to control the robot (“The robot 1 is connected to a robot control device 5 and its operation is controlled by the robot control device 5” [0014].), wherein:
a posture of the container is controlled by the robot so as to correspond to a direction of a combined acceleration vector of robot acceleration, which is applied to the to-be-conveyed object or the container by the robot, and gravitational acceleration acting on the to-be-conveyed object (“The acceleration vector corresponding to the gravity Mg is represented by the gravity acceleration vector Kg. On the other hand, during acceleration / deceleration (accelerating or decelerating; hereinafter the same), inertial force is applied thereto. FIG. 2 shows this state. As shown in FIG. 2, the inertia force has the magnitude of the product of the vector a representing acceleration and the mass M, and the direction is opposite to that of the vector a. This inertial force is represented by -Ma, and the acceleration corresponding to this inertial force is represented by an inertial acceleration vector Ka. A force obtained by combining the gravity Mg and the inertial force -Ma is represented by Mh, and an acceleration corresponding to the combined force is represented by a combined acceleration vector Kh” [0019]. “Therefore, in the present invention, the posture of the container 3 is changed so as to follow the change in the direction of the combined acceleration vector Kh to prevent the conveyed object from spilling out of the container 3…. The robot 1 is controlled so as to incline and coincide with the direction of the resultant acceleration vector Kh at that time (the direction in which the resultant force Mh acts)” [0022]. Thus, the posture of the container 3 is controlled by the robot 1 corresponding to the direction of combined acceleration Kh which is a resulting combination of the inertial force counteracting acceleration on the to-be-conveyed object in the container and the gravitational force acting on the object and container.)…
However, Shirahata does not explicitly teach …the robot is controlled so that an upper limit for a robot jerk, which is a rate of change of the robot acceleration, is limited to a predetermined value.
Cho, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …the robot is controlled so that an upper limit for a robot jerk, which is a rate of change of the robot acceleration, is limited to a predetermined value (“In addition, the present invention can generate trajectories of target positions, speeds, accelerations, and jerks for each section by limiting the trajectories of acceleration and jerks below the acceleration threshold and jerk threshold values input by the user” [0039]. Thus, the robot jerk is limited by a threshold, i.e., predetermined, value. The threshold is an upper limit for the robot jerk.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the motion trajectories as taught by Shirahata to include the jerk limits on the robot trajectory as taught by Cho with a reasonable expectation for success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because limiting the jerk and acceleration consequently limits excess vibrations in sections of the motion path where changes in the acceleration occurs (Cho, [0039]) which prevents additional and unintended vibration forces from acting on the container holding a liquid or powder and mitigates the risk of spills.
Regarding claim 2, Shirahata as modified by Cho (references made to Cho) teaches the robot device according to claim 1,
wherein an acceleration upper limit value is set for the robot acceleration (“In addition, the present invention can generate trajectories of target positions, speeds, accelerations, and jerks for each section by limiting the trajectories of acceleration and jerks below the acceleration threshold and jerk threshold values input by the user” [0039]. Thus, similar to the jerk, there is an acceleration threshold, i.e., upper limit, value that is set for robot acceleration trajectories.), and
when the robot acceleration is equal to or more than the acceleration upper limit value, the jerk is set to zero (“Additionally, since there is no change in acceleration in the above constant velocity section, the acceleration trajectory and jerk trajectory can be calculated as 0” [0084]. Thus, at its maximum value, i.e., upper limit value, the acceleration would remain constant at that limit and the jerk trajectory would be zero. See also Fig. 4 and 5 wherein the peak of the acceleration at its upper limit correlates directly to the point in time where the jerk is valued at 0. The same can be seen for the lower limit.).
Regarding claim 3, Shirahata as modified by Cho (references made to Shirahata) teaches the robot device according to claim 1,
wherein when the posture of the container is controlled by the robot so as to correspond to the direction of the combined acceleration vector (See [0022] which discloses that the posture of the container which is a function of the robotic control corresponds to the direction of the combined acceleration Kh.),
However, Shirahata as modified by Cho does not explicitly teach …the posture is controlled with a center of gravity of the to-be-conveyed object contained in the container as a center.
With regard to the center of gravity being a center of the posture control, Newton’s second law determines a total force on a system which is equivalent to the total mass of the system multiplied by the acceleration of the center of mass, i.e., center of gravity. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if the total, i.e., combined, force Mh acts on the object contained in the container, and such force corresponds to a combined acceleration Kh, then the posture of the container and the object, which corresponds to the direction of Kh, would be controlled at its center of gravity which the forces and accelerations act upon.
Regarding claim 4, Shirahata as modified by Cho (references made to Cho) teaches the robot device according to claim 1,
wherein the predetermined value to which the upper limit for the robot jerk is limited is set according to a response characteristic corresponding to at least either an instructed value for the robot acceleration or an instructed value for a velocity (“At this time, the trajectory generator may receive acceleration threshold values and jerk threshold values in the acceleration section and the deceleration section as user input, or may input acceleration threshold values and jerk threshold values stored in a database or the like. Here, the acceleration threshold value and the jerk threshold value can be stored as values derived in advance by experiment or simulation” [0049]. “In addition, the trajectory generator can calculate a velocity trajectory in the acceleration section using a velocity calculation formula obtained by differentiating mathematical expression 1, calculate an acceleration trajectory in the acceleration section using an acceleration calculation formula obtained by differentiating the velocity calculation formula, and calculate a jerk trajectory in the acceleration section using a jerk calculation formula obtained by differentiating the acceleration calculation formula” [0056]. Additionally, Equation 3 shows that Limit is dependent on a velocity and acceleration limit. Thus, the upper limit of the robot jerk may be limited according to an instructed value for acceleration or velocity.).
Regarding claim 5, Shirahata as modified by Cho (references made to Cho) teaches the robot device according to claim 4,
wherein the predetermined value to which the upper limit for the robot jerk is limited is 10 to 200 m/s3 (“At this time, the maximum jerk in the acceleration section and the deceleration section can be limited to within 50000 (mm/s/s/s), which is the jerk threshold value” [0129]. Thus, the threshold value, i.e., the upper limit, for the robot jerk is 50,000 mm/s3 which is equivalent to 50 m/s3, resulting in an upper limit which resides between 10 and 200 m/s3.).
Regarding claim 6, Shirahata teaches a robot control method (Steps for a teaching program which controls robotic conveyance are provided in [0033-0040].) for controlling a robot configured to convey a to-be-conveyed object contained in a container and the container together (“The present invention includes a robot that transports a transported object placed in a container” [0010]. Thus, the robot transports, i.e., conveys, a transported, i.e., to-be-conveyed, object placed in a container. “…a robot hand (hereinafter simply referred to as “hand”) 2 that holds the container 3 is attached to the tip of the arm” [0014]. Since the robot holds the container, the container holding the object is transported with the object.), the robot control method comprising steps of;
controlling a posture of the container by the robot so as to correspond to a direction of a combined acceleration vector of robot acceleration applied to the to-be-conveyed object or the container by the robot and gravitational acceleration acting on the to-be-conveyed object (“The acceleration vector corresponding to the gravity Mg is represented by the gravity acceleration vector Kg. On the other hand, during acceleration / deceleration (accelerating or decelerating; hereinafter the same), inertial force is applied thereto. FIG. 2 shows this state. As shown in FIG. 2, the inertia force has the magnitude of the product of the vector a representing acceleration and the mass M, and the direction is opposite to that of the vector a. This inertial force is represented by -Ma, and the acceleration corresponding to this inertial force is represented by an inertial acceleration vector Ka. A force obtained by combining the gravity Mg and the inertial force -Ma is represented by Mh, and an acceleration corresponding to the combined force is represented by a combined acceleration vector Kh” [0019]. “Therefore, in the present invention, the posture of the container 3 is changed so as to follow the change in the direction of the combined acceleration vector Kh to prevent the conveyed object from spilling out of the container 3…. The robot 1 is controlled so as to incline and coincide with the direction of the resultant acceleration vector Kh at that time (the direction in which the resultant force Mh acts)” [0022]. Thus, the posture of the container 3 is controlled by the robot 1 corresponding to the direction of combined acceleration Kh which is a resulting combination of the inertial force counteracting acceleration on the to-be-conveyed object in the container and the gravitational force acting on the object and container.)…
However, Shirahata does not explicitly teach … controlling the robot so that an upper limit for a robot jerk, which is a rate of change of the robot acceleration, is limited to a predetermined value.
Cho, in the same field of endeavor, teaches … controlling the robot so that an upper limit for a robot jerk, which is a rate of change of the robot acceleration, is limited to a predetermined value (“In addition, the present invention can generate trajectories of target positions, speeds, accelerations, and jerks for each section by limiting the trajectories of acceleration and jerks below the acceleration threshold and jerk threshold values input by the user” [0039]. Thus, the robot jerk is limited by a threshold, i.e., predetermined, value. The threshold is an upper limit for the robot jerk.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the motion trajectories as taught by Shirahata to include the jerk limits on the robot trajectory as taught by Cho with a reasonable expectation for success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because limiting the jerk and acceleration consequently limits excess vibrations in sections of the motion path where changes in the acceleration occurs (Cho, [0039]) which prevents additional and unintended vibration forces from acting on the container holding a liquid or powder and mitigates the risk of spills.
Regarding claim 7, Shirahata as modified by Cho (references to Shirahata) teaches a program for causing a computer to execute respective steps of the robot control method according to claim 6 (“The processor 51 executes the teaching program stored in the memory 52 and outputs a movement command to the servo control means 55” [0030]. “From this state, a line having a teaching program (a line instructing conveyance from the conveyance start position to the conveyance end position) is read in the robot control device 5, and the operation from the current position to the end point described in the program execution line is performed” [0032]. Thus, a teaching program which executes the control steps for conveying the container via the robot is read from memory and executed by a processor, i.e., a computer.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ryan et al. (US 2020/0180151 A1), Hosek et al. (US 2018/0233397 A1), and Aparicio Ojea et al. (US 2024/0198526 A1) each teach manipulator devices which limit the jerk in the system.
Singh et al. (US 2021/0260758 A1) and Sugiyama (US 7822508 B2) each provide systems with a primary goal to limit undesired dropping of carried objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY L MOLNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-2276. The examiner can normally be reached 8 A.M. to 3 P.M. EST Monday-Friday.
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, Jonathan (Wade) Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/S.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656