DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received 19 May 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-13 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugaya (US Pub. No. 2019/0221037) in view of Matsunami (US Pub. No. 2017/0120449).
As per Claim 1, Sugaya discloses a programming device (Figs. 1-2; ¶34-37), comprising:
at least one memory (105) (Fig. 2; ¶36, 48-49); and
at least one processor (101) coupled to the at least one memory (105) (Fig. 2; ¶36, 49) and configured to:
determine whether a virtual arm (as per 107) simulated or emulated by a computer (A) enters a warning range (as per 113a) being wider than a singularity range (as per 113) (Figs. 3-4, 8, 9A-C; ¶38-43, 50, 64, 101-118); and
determine whether to stop a simulation (as per S12 via S10) based on a path (as per “the analysis unit 106 executes an analysis process on the robot operation described by the robot control data (the robot program or the teaching point data)” in ¶59; as per “the robotic system operates along a certain trajectory in general” in ¶64; as per “The robotic system 1001 or the robot controller 1200 can receive the optimized robot control data or trajectory data from the simulator system” in ¶145) of the virtual arm (as per 107) up to a tentative teaching point (as per “The data of the simulation object is described in a configuration file in a format of a robot program, of teach point data” in ¶56) when the virtual arm (as per 107) enters the singularity range (as per 113) or the warning range (as per 113a) (Figs. 4, 6C, 8, 9A-C, 11-13; ¶55-64, 79-80, 101-146).
Sugaya does not expressly disclose wherein the tentative teaching point indicates a destination for the virtual arm.
Matsunami discloses a robot system which includes a manipulator (1), computer (D1), and a display device (D2) (Fig. 4; ¶37). In operation, the operator uses the computer (D1) to input the distal end command indicating a final target position and a final target attitude of the distal end (5) of the manipulator (1) while viewing the simulation image of the display device (D2) (Figs. 4-5; ¶43). The computer (D1) generates trajectory data indicating a trajectory from the current position and the current attitude to the final target position and the final target attitude with respect to the distal end (5) of the manipulator (1) (¶43). In this way, the distal end (5) of the manipulator (1) can be moved to the desired target position (¶39). Like Sugaya, Matsunami is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Sugaya and Matsunami, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Matsunami to the system of Sugaya since doing so would enhance the system by generating trajectory data in view of a desired target position. Applying the teachings of Matsunami to the system of Sugaya would result in a system that operates “wherein the tentative teaching point indicates a destination for the virtual arm” in that the system of Sugaya would be adapted to operate in view of a trajectory including a desired target position as per Matsunami.
As per Claim 2, the combination of Sugaya and Matsunami teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Sugaya further discloses wherein the at least one processor (101) is further configured to:
cause display (B) to display notification (as per “the display manner of the warning event” in ¶113), when the virtual arm (as per 107) enters the warning range (as per 113a) (Figs. 5A-B, 8, 9A-C, 11-12; ¶63-64, 68, 71, 101-140).
As per Claim 3, the combination of Sugaya and Matsunami teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Sugaya further discloses wherein the at least one processor (101) is further configured to: stop the simulation (as per S12 via S10), when the virtual arm (as per 107) enters the warning range (as per 113a) (Figs. 8, 9A-C, 11-12; ¶101-140).
As per Claim 4, the combination of Sugaya and Matsunami teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Sugaya further discloses wherein the at least one processor (101) is further configured to: set the warning range (as per 113a) based on an instruction input (as per 109) to change settings for the warning range (as per 113a) (Figs. 9A-C; ¶58, 111-117).
As per Claim 5, the combination of Sugaya and Matsunami teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Sugaya further discloses wherein the at least one processor (101) is further configured to: determine whether the virtual arm (as per 107) exits a second movable range (as per 113a) being narrower than a first movable range (as per joint positions outside of yellow bands 113a) representing an actual movable range an arm (as per “3D model reproducing the system” in ¶43) (Figs. 6C, 8, 9A-C, 11-12; ¶79-80, 101-140).
As per Claim 6, the combination of Sugaya and Matsunami teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 5. Sugaya further discloses wherein the at least one processor (101) is further configured to: cause a display (102) to display notification (as per “a display manner distinguishable from other events is used t in a display control accompanying with the change of the display manner of the warning events specified by the singular point determination 401” in ¶108; as per “A part or a robotic system causing interference (collision) or the like may be highlighted (by changing display color, brightness, density and others) on the 3D model display area 107” in ¶134; as per “the control procedure in FIG. 12 searches a frame in which an event changes from all frames, and if a corresponding frame exists, updates the display of the 3D model display area 107 to display the frame concerned and stops at the display concerned” in ¶135), when the virtual arm (as per 107) exits (as per movement from 113a to 113) the second movable range (as per 113a) (Figs. 6C, 8, 9A-C, 11-12; ¶79-80, 101-140).
As per Claim 7, the combination of Sugaya and Matsunami teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 5. Sugaya further discloses wherein the at least one processor (101) is further configured to:
stop the simulation (as per S12 via S10), when the virtual arm (as per 107) exits (as per movement from 113a to 113) the second movable range (as per 113a) (Figs. 6C, 8, 9A-C, 11-12; ¶79-80, 101-140).
As per Claim 8, the combination of Sugaya and Matsunami teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 5. Sugaya further discloses wherein the at least one processor (101) is further configured to: set the second movable range (as per 113a) based on an instruction input (as per 109) to change settings for the second movable range (as per 113a) (Figs. 9A-C; ¶58, 111-117).
As per Claim 9, Sugaya discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (105; as per ¶147) storing therein a program (as per “control program” in ¶48) which, when executed by at least one processor (101) (Fig. 2; ¶36, 48-49, 147), causes the at least one processor (101) to perform a method (Fig. 12) comprising:
determining whether a virtual arm (as per 107) simulated or emulated by a computer (A) enters a warning range (as per 113a) being wider than a singularity range (as per 113) (Figs. 3-4, 8, 9A-C; ¶38-43, 50, 64, 101-118); and
determining whether to stop a simulation (as per S12 via S10) based on a path (as per “the analysis unit 106 executes an analysis process on the robot operation described by the robot control data (the robot program or the teaching point data)” in ¶59; as per “the robotic system operates along a certain trajectory in general” in ¶64; as per “The robotic system 1001 or the robot controller 1200 can receive the optimized robot control data or trajectory data from the simulator system” in ¶145) of the virtual arm (as per 107) up to a tentative teaching point (as per “The data of the simulation object is described in a configuration file in a format of a robot program, of teach point data” in ¶56) when the virtual arm (as per 107) enters the singularity range (as per 113) or the warning range (as per 113a).
Sugaya does not expressly disclose wherein the tentative teaching point indicates a destination for the virtual arm.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Matsunami.
Therefore, from these teachings of Sugaya and Matsunami, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Matsunami to the system of Sugaya since doing so would enhance the system by generating trajectory data in view of a desired target position. Applying the teachings of Matsunami to the system of Sugaya would result in a system that operates “wherein the tentative teaching point indicates a destination for the virtual arm” in that the system of Sugaya would be adapted to operate in view of a trajectory including a desired target position as per Matsunami.
As per Claim 10, the combination of Sugaya and Matsunami teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Sugaya further discloses wherein the at least one processor (101) is further configured to:
simulate a moving path (as per joint positions for each Time in Fig. 6C) in which the virtual arm (as per 107) enters the warning range (113a), when the virtual arm (as per 107) fails to reach the tentative teaching point (as per “The data of the simulation object is described in a configuration file in a format of a robot program, of teach point data” in ¶56) unless the virtual arm (as per 107) enters the warning range (113a) (Figs. 6C, 8, 9A-C, 11-12; ¶56, 79-80, 101-140).
As per Claim 11, the combination of Sugaya and Matsunami teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Sugaya further discloses wherein the at least one memory (105) stores model information (as per “data of a simulation object is inputted … The data of the simulation includes a 3D model of the robotic system to be verified” in ¶56) on each model of the virtual arm (as per 107) (Fig. 4; ¶55-63).
As per Claim 12, the combination of Sugaya and Matsunami teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Sugaya further discloses wherein the model information (as per “data of a simulation object is inputted … The data of the simulation includes a 3D model of the robotic system to be verified” in ¶56) includes:
information including a size (as per “The simulator of this sort operates a 3D model prepared based on … sizes” in ¶2), shape (as per “The simulator of this sort operates a 3D model prepared based on a structure” in ¶2), movable range (as per joint positions in Fig. 6C) and singularity range (as per 113) of each model (as per “data of a simulation object is inputted … The data of the simulation includes a 3D model of the robotic system to be verified” in ¶56); and
setting information including settings for a virtual movable range (as per joint positions in Fig. 6C) and warning range (as per 113a), and
the at least one processor (101) is further configured to:
determine whether to stop the simulation (as per S12 via S10) based on the setting information (Figs. 6C, 8, 9A-C, 11-12; ¶2, 56, 79-80, 101-140).
As per Claim 13, the combination of Sugaya and Matsunami teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Sugaya further discloses wherein the at least one processor (101) is further configured to:
cause a display (B) to display an image with which an operator sets the model information (as per “data of a simulation object is inputted … The data of the simulation includes a 3D model of the robotic system to be verified” in ¶56) and to accept an input to the image performed by the operator (Fig. 1-2, 4; ¶33-37, 55-63).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 May 2026 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained because “Sugaya fails to disclose the combinations of limitations recited in amended claims 1 and 9, including ‘whether to stop a simulation based on a path of the virtual arm up to a tentative teaching point that indicates a destination for the virtual arm when the virtual arm enters the singularity range or the warning range’” (page 5 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of Sugaya in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 102 are not maintained. However, the amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 102, Applicant argues (page 7 of Amendment):
Sugaya determines whether a frame including a change of an event exists, and updates the display on the 3D model display area 107 to correspond to the frame and stops the moving image display when such a frame exists. In this manner, Sugaya provides a user interface that enables a user to readily and intuitively judge the presence of the warning event. The user conducts the verification works or the editing works of the robot control data based upon displaying provided on the user interface. In other words, in Sugaya, the user is responsible for determining whether a simulation is stopped.
However, consistent with the citations in the rejections, Sugaya discloses a computer (A) that includes an analysis unit (106) (Figs. 1-2; ¶34-36), the analysis unit (106) unit performing functions including analysis of an event of an operation of the 3D model of the robotic system, analyzing operation parameters and specifying a warning event related to operation of the 3D model of the robotic system (Fig. 2; ¶50). The event detected by the analysis unit (106) includes determination of a singular point (401) (Figs. 9A-C; ¶101-118). Using this same hardware and software configurations (¶119), Sugaya describes operations in which the analysis unit (106) of the computer (A) operates to display animation of the 3D model of the robotic system and stop (as per S12 via S210) the animation at that the position of the detected event (Fig. 12; ¶119, 133-139). In this way, operation of the analysis unit (106) of the computer (A) facilitates a user’s understanding of the warning event (¶140).
As such, Applicant’s assertion that “in Sugaya, the user is responsible for determining whether a simulation is stopped” is inconsistent with expressly disclosed and cited teachings of Sugaya describing operation of the analysis unit (106) of the computer (A). Accordingly, Applicant’s argument involves an improper interpretation of the cited references. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained because “Sugaya fails to teach or suggest the limitations of amended claim 1, including to ‘determine whether to stop a simulation based on a path of the virtual arm up to a tentative teaching point that indicates a destination for the virtual arm when the virtual arm enters the singularity range or the warning range’” (page 7 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of Sugaya in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 102 are not maintained. However, the amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Eickhorst (US Pub. No. 2012/0029700), One (US Pub. No. 2013/0345868), Negishi (US Pub. No. 2015/0045954), Shikina (US Pub. No. 2017/0266809), and Sato (US Pub. No. 2020/0101592) disclose robot control systems.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights