DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination received 5 January 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-13 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Sugaya (US Pub. No. 2019/0221037).
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 warning range (as per 113a) (Figs. 4, 6C, 8, 9A-C, 11-13; ¶55-64, 79-80, 101-146).
As per Claim 2, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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)
As per Claim 10, 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, 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, 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, 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 5 December 2025 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that the objection to Claim 6 should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 5 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive. Therefore, this objection is not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained because (page 5-6 of Amendment):
Sugaya fails to disclose the combinations of limitations recited in amended claims 1 and 9. For example, according to FIG. 12 and paragraphs [0133] and [0139] of Sugaya, the information processing apparatus of Sugaya appears to execute steps S10 and S12 below:
S10: Search the frame corresponding to the change of the event to be searched
S12: Stop the animation (moving image) display while keeping this frame as a still image display, if the change of the event to be searched is searched in Step S10.
[0133] FIG. 12 illustrates a control of searching a change of an event while displaying an operation of the 3D model of the robotic system on the 3D model display area 107 in animation (moving image) and of stopping the animation at that position (stops motion or displays a still image).
[0139] Meanwhile, if the frame corresponding to the change of the event to be searched is searched in Step S10, a transition is made from Step S 10 to Step S11. In Step S11, the display of the 3D model display area 107 is updated by using not the "next frame" set in Step S 8 but the searched frame generating the change of the event. Then, the animation (moving image) display is stopped while keeping this frame as a still image display in Step S 12.
…
… as described above, Sugaya is silent about the decision made by the information processing apparatus whether to stop an animation. At most, Sugaya appears to merely describe: the searching step S10 to search the frame corresponding to the change of the event; and the stopping step S12 to stop the animation (moving image) display while keeping this frame as a still image display, depending on the search results in S10).
As a preliminary matter, no rejection involves an assertion that the paragraphs 133 and 139 recite all limitations in the claim language at issue. Accordingly, Applicant’s assertions are not clearly relevant to the rejections in that no rejection limits the teachings of Sugaya to teachings as per paragraphs 133 and 139. Further, as set forth above and in accordance with the citations in the rejection, the cited reference discloses all limitations in the claim language at issue.
In this way, Applicant’s assertion that “Sugaya is silent about the decision made by the information processing apparatus whether to stop an animation” relies on an improperly narrow interpretation of Sugaya that does not correspond to the teachings of Sugaya identified in the rejections.
Further, Applicant’s assertion that “Sugaya appears to merely describe: the searching step S10 to search the frame corresponding to the change of the event; and the stopping step S12 to stop the animation (moving image) display while keeping this frame as a still image display, depending on the search results in S10)” similarly relies on an improperly narrow interpretation of Sugaya that does not correspond to the teachings of Sugaya identified in the rejections.
In this way, Applicant’s assertions regarding the teachings of the cited reference are not well-founded. 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 (page 6-7 of Amendment):
… amended claim 1 is clearly distinguished from Sugaya in the features as shown below:
the processor in claim 1 is configured to determine whether to stop a simulation based on a path of the virtual arm up to a tentative teaching point when the virtual arm enters the singularity range or the warning range
Sugaya at most appears to describe the searching step to search the frame corresponding to the change of the event and the stopping step to stop the animation (moving image) display while keeping this frame as a still image display, depending on the search results
In view of the above … claim 1 is patentable over Sugaya since Sugaya does not teach or suggest each and every feature of claim 1. Claim 9, which is amended similarly to claim 1, is also patentable over Sugaya. Furthermore, claims 2-8 and claims 10-13 are patentable over Sugaya at least for each being depending on claim 1.
However, as discussed above, Applicant’s assertion regarding what “Sugaya at most appears to describe” relies on an improperly narrow interpretation of Sugaya that does not correspond to the teachings of Sugaya identified in the rejections. In this way, Applicant’s assertions regarding the teachings of the cited reference are not well-founded. 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 (page 7 of Amendment):
Since Sugaya does not describe all the elements of the independent claims, either explicitly or inherently, an anticipation rejection cannot be maintained. Thus, … that the independent claims are allowable. … the dependent claims are allowable at least by virtue of their dependence on the independent claims, and for the additional features recited.
However, as discussed above, Applicant’s assertion that “Sugaya does not describe all elements of the independent claims” relies on an improperly narrow interpretation of Sugaya that does not correspond to the teachings of Sugaya identified in the rejections. In this way, Applicant’s assertions regarding the teachings of the cited reference are not well-founded. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
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), Matsunami (US Pub. No. 2017/0120449), Shikina (US Pub. No. 2017/0266809), and Sato (US Pub. No. 2020/0101592) disclose robot control systems.
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