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 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 depends from claim 8, it should instead depend from claim 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-7 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the CNC controller machine" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "The medical instrument" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Dependent claims 4 and 6-7 are rejected for depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuzmin (US Patent No. 20200364173).
In re claim 1, Kuzmin teaches A master interface unit for interfacing a computer numerical control (CNC) machine and a robot (Para [0025]: “FIG. 1 is a diagram of a CNC machine coupled to a collaborative robot via a universal bridge controller according to an embodiment;”), comprising:
a robot communication interface configured to communicatively connect with the robot via a wired robot communication cable, wherein the robot communication interface includes electrical connections for electrically interfacing with the wired robot communication cable (SEE FIG 1, Hardwiring 102b into Robot 106);
a CNC communication interface configured to communicatively connect with the CNC machine via a wired machine communication cable (Para [0031]: “In various embodiments, the UBC 102 may provide for an unlimited number of I/O expansion ports to successfully connect a collaborative robot 106 or other third-party auxiliary equipment to a host machine 104. The UBC 102 may reside outside of the collaborative robot 106 and the host machine 102. By connecting, via connection 102a, and collecting most and/or all the machine 104 sensors to the external UBC 102, it is not restricted by the number of I/O it can process and/or receive. Additionally, the UBC 102 may be connected to the robot 106 through connection 102b via wireless technology and/or hardwired. In various embodiments, hardwiring may be a preferred embodiment for reliability purposes.”);
processor circuitry configured to:
coordinate communication between the robot and the CNC machine by (Para [0028]: “FIG. 4 is a diagram of an embodiment of a universal controller using common codes to communicate with a CNC machine and a collaborative robot.”):
receiving incoming CNC communication signals from the CNC machine via the CNC communication interface (Para [0052]: “As stated above, a CNC machine may output data in a format, such as FANUC, Haas Next Gen, or other protocol, that is not compatible with a collaborative robot.”);
determining a CNC communication protocol based on the received incoming CNC communication signals (Para [0052]: “By coupling the CNC machine to the UBC, the data from the CNC machine is translated into a common set of commands that may then be translated into a format compatible with the collaborative robot.”);
receiving from the robot communication interface incoming robot communication signals having a robot communication protocol;
generating outgoing CNC communication signals based on the received incoming robot communication signals, wherein the generated outgoing CNC communication signals have the determined CNC communication protocol;
sending the generated outgoing CNC communication signals to the CNC machine via the CNC communication interface (Para [0030]: “In various embodiment, the UBC 102 may establish a common GUI language/interface that allows for establishing connections to other machine controllers. The UBC 102 may allow a user to simplify programming instructions when interfacing between any combination of machines with either open and closed source (proprietary) controllers. In some embodiments, the UBC may be able to translate and communicate in multiple network machine languages including TCP/IP, Ethernet, Profinet, MODBUS, G-Code and machine assembly language. Using a common GUI language may allow mapping of each machines I/O to each other through a common and standard interface.”);
generating outgoing robot communication signals based on the received incoming CNC communication signals, wherein the generated outgoing robot communication signals have a robot communication protocol (SEE BELOW); and
send the generated outgoing robot communication signals to the robot via the robot communication interface (Para [0052]: “By coupling the CNC machine to the UBC, the data from the CNC machine is translated into a common set of commands that may then be translated into a format compatible with the collaborative robot.”);
programming the CNC machine by:
receiving the CNC code from the CNC machine via the CNC communication interface;
outputting the received CNC code;
receiving updated CNC code; and
causing the CNC machine to implement the received updated CNC code by sending the updated CNC code to the CNC machine via the CNC communication interface (SEE mappings above, para [0052] and para [0051]: “Referring now to FIG. 3, an embodiment of a method 300 of implementing and using a universal bridge controller (UBC) is provided. At step 302, a user identifies and locates the required digital and analog I/O communication ports on the host machine that control key manufacturing operations. At step 304, a user connects the host machine I/O communications ports from the host machine to the I/O ports of the UBC. At step 306, a user connects the UBC to the collaborative robot using a single, standard communications cable, such as, for example, RJ45, HDMI, or other connection sized to accommodate the necessary amount of I/O links. At step 308, a user connects the UBC to a computer network. At step 310, a user programs the collaborative robot steps (or third-party auxiliary equipment) to automate the operation sequence including the necessary on-off-run-idle-wait synchronize functions. At step 312, a user saves the program to on-board memory cache and network storage drives. At step 314, a user tests the program and adjust as necessary.”).
Method claim 9 and system claim 15 are rejected for the same reasons as unit claim 1 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 2, Kuzmin teaches wherein:
the CNC machine includes a CNC controller (Para [0035]: “In various embodiments, the UBC may establish a common network interface… which may allow for both the controller of the host machine and auxiliary machine to be simultaneously connected to and accessed by a company's information technology (IT) network.”); and
the CNC communication interface communicates with the CNC controller, such that the sent outgoing CNC communication signals are received by the CNC controller (Para [0030]: “In various embodiment, the UBC 102 may establish a common GUI language/interface that allows for establishing connections to other machine controllers. The UBC 102 may allow a user to simplify programming instructions when interfacing between any combination of machines with either open and closed source (proprietary) controllers. In some embodiments, the UBC may be able to translate and communicate in multiple network machine languages including TCP/IP, Ethernet, Profinet, MODBUS, G-Code and machine assembly language. Using a common GUI language may allow mapping of each machines I/O to each other through a common and standard interface.”).
Method claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as unit claim 2 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 3, Kuzmin teaches wherein the updated CNC code is received and executed by the CNC controller machine (Para [0028]: “FIG. 4 is a diagram of an embodiment of a universal controller using common codes to communicate with a CNC machine and a collaborative robot.” and para [0051]: “Referring now to FIG. 3, an embodiment of a method 300 of implementing and using a universal bridge controller (UBC) is provided. At step 302, a user identifies and locates the required digital and analog I/O communication ports on the host machine that control key manufacturing operations. At step 304, a user connects the host machine I/O communications ports from the host machine to the I/O ports of the UBC. At step 306, a user connects the UBC to the collaborative robot using a single, standard communications cable, such as, for example, RJ45, HDMI, or other connection sized to accommodate the necessary amount of I/O links. At step 308, a user connects the UBC to a computer network. At step 310, a user programs the collaborative robot steps (or third-party auxiliary equipment) to automate the operation sequence including the necessary on-off-run-idle-wait synchronize functions. At step 312, a user saves the program to on-board memory cache and network storage drives. At step 314, a user tests the program and adjust as necessary.”).
Method claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as unit claim 3 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 5, Kuzmin teaches further comprising a network interface (Para [0045]: “Depending on the embodiment, interface 206 may be any type of interface suitable for any type of network for which computer system 200 is used. As an example and not by way of limitation, computer system 200 can include (or communicate with) an ad-hoc network, a personal area network (PAN), a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), a metropolitan area network (MAN), or one or more portions of the Internet or a combination of two or more of these.”) configured to communicate CNC code via the internet (SEE DIRECTLY BELOW), wherein:
the processor circuitry is further configured to:
output the received CNC code by sending the received CNC code via the network interface; and
receive the updated CNC code via the network interface (Para [0034]: “In various embodiments, the UBCs may interface to a machine, interoperate the machine's data from various protocols (MODBUS, TCP/IP, ProfiNET, Digital 10), package the data into a standard web-based language, and send it over a network specifically to allow the integrated robots to be decoupled from the work cells.”).
Method claim 13 and system claim 15 are rejected for the same reasons as unit claim 5 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 8, Kuzmin teaches wherein the wired robot communication cable comprises at least one of a barrel connector or a multiconductor cable (Para [0051]: “At step 306, a user connects the UBC to the collaborative robot using a single, standard communications cable, such as, for example, RJ45, HDMI, or other connection sized to accommodate the necessary amount of I/O links.”).
System claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as unit claim 8 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzmin (US Patent No. 20200364173), in view of Park (KR Patent No. 20070005202A).
In re claim 4, Kuzmin teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 stated above but fails to teach wherein the CNC code comprises ladder logic and the CNC controller comprises a programmable logic controller (PLC).
However, Park teaches wherein the CNC code comprises ladder logic and the CNC controller comprises a programmable logic controller (PLC) (Page 7, para [0003]: “The PMC, which is an embodiment of the present invention, includes not only PLC (Program Logic Controller) and CNC functions but also a dedicated motion controller function necessary for various machine control and a Basic Style Programmable Motion Control Language (PMCL) instruction. The advantage is that all the machine functions can be easily implemented in a short time without having to review different types of data.” and page 8, para [0005]: “The function and features of the PMC of the present invention are summarized as follows. ① CNC function that can control 1 ~ 3 axes simultaneously, ② Program function by basic style PMCL instruction, ③ Sequence control function by PLC ladder diagram…”).
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 Kuzmin to incorporate the teachings of Park to provide wherein the CNC code comprises ladder logic and the CNC controller comprises a programmable logic controller (PLC) with the Universal bridge controller for machine language interpretive collaborative robot and machine interface of Kuzmin. Doing so enables the advantage that all the machine functions can be easily implemented in a short time without having to review different types of data, as recognized by Park (Page 7, para [0003]).
Method claim 12 and system claim 16 are rejected for the same reasons as unit claim 4 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 14 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 and by overcoming the 112b rejections set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not expressly teach or render obvious, in the context of the claims taken as a whole:
Regarding claim 6, further comprising a network interface control switch configured to disable and enable the network interface, such that internet access to the master interface unit is disabled when the network interface is disabled by the network interface control switch.
Claim 18 is allowed for the same reasons as claim 6 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Claims 7 and 19 are allowed for depending from allowable base claims.
Regarding claim 14, further comprising: before the programming of the CNC machine using the processor circuitry, enabling the network interface via a network interface control switch configured to disable and enable the network interface, such that internet access to the master interface unit is disabled when the network interface is disabled by the network interface control switch; and after the programming of the CNC machine using the processor circuitry, disabling the network interface via the network interface control switch.
Prior art US Patent No. 20180113439 A1 teaches in para [0037]: “As shown in FIG. 3, the connection unit 151 and the network connection unit 152 may be realized by the same communication protocol such as Ethernet (registered trademark) and may be controlled by switching connection to physical layers (PHY). But fails to teach the objected-to claim limitations.
Prior art US Patent No. 20170315541 A1 teaches in paras [0024]-[0028]: “According to another preferred embodiment, the client device is also responsible for the cyber security of the embedded controller of the CNC machine or industrial robot. The client device preferably provides the following security functions for the attached controller:” “Monitoring of all controller-communication for irregular communication;” “Optional cut-off of the embedded controller against any threatening server-communication.” “As a result, the controller of the CNC machine or industrial robot has no direct connection to the internet which in turn reduces the resources and complexity of the controller. In addition, using a separate/stand-alone client device close to the controller for internet communication of the local automation equipment also satisfies customers' IT policy restrictions.” “According to another preferred embodiment, the client device may also provide a webserver-like interface towards the connected devices (e.g. CNC controller, machine-embedded and external measuring/sensing devices, peripheral devices such as actuators) that disconnects the devices completely from direct network access also in a local area network (LAN). These kind of devices cannot be directly accessed in their local network but will always initiate any LAN communication via the client device towards their communication partner.”). But fails to teach the objected-to claim limitations.
Moreover, modifying the prior art to achieve the claim limitation can only be achieved by hindsight, as no other reference includes these claims limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES EDWARD MUNION whose telephone number is (571)270-0437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/JAMES E MUNION/Examiner, Art Unit 2688 04/15/2026
Prosecution Insights