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 11/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 7, 10, and 12 are amended. Claims 14-17 are newly added. Claims 7-17 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 7/15/2025.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, with respect to Hollmann not teaching the amended features of claims 7 and 12 are fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner agrees that Hollmann teaches a remote access mode that does not use a “confirming key.” However, Hollmann does teach the confirming key being used for the set-up mode. Accordingly, a new rejection is provided with a modified interpretation of Hollmann wherein the remote access mode is not relied upon. Accordingly, Hollmann does not teach “the set-up process movement top speed is not reduced compared to the automatic process movement top speed, or is reduced to a lesser degree than the set-up transfer movement top speed compared to the automatic transfer movement top speed, whereby the robot is controlled to move at a slower speed during the transfer movement in the set-up operation while the consent switch is activated.” However, Nihei in combination with Hollmann teaches the alternative claim limitation corresponding to the error response. Therefore, a new rejection is provided in view of Hollmann (US 20130218334 A1) and Nihei (US 20100191372 A1). Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, with respect to the rejection of claim 10 is fully considered but is unpersuasive. The applicant argues a narrower interpretation of the claim that does not work using Hollmann’s teaching of the “remote access” mode because the confirming key is not monitored, however, claim 10 does not require depressing a consent switch. Claim 10 recites broader language than what is argued, “a consent to be effected by the person is not present.” However, this argument is moot in view of the modified claim rejection in view of Hollmann (US 20130218334 A1), Nihei (US 20100191372 A1), and Krause (US 20020045970 A1) that does not rely on the “remote access” mode in Hollmann.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for controlling the robot” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Paragraph [0053] of the specification describes the structure: “A system and/or means in the sense of the present invention may be designed in terms of hardware and/or software, in particular having at least one processing unit, in particular a digital processing unit, in particular a microprocessor unit (CPU), graphics card (GPU) or the like, which is preferably connected to a storage and/or bus system in terms of data or signals, and/or having one or more programs or program modules.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 15 and 17 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.
Claims 15 and 17 recite “the transfer movement comprises moving a tool or an end effector of the robot into a process space.” It is unclear whether “a process space” in claims 15 and 17 is the same process space claimed in respective parent claims 7 and 12. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as being the same process space and the examiner suggests an amendment such as: “the transfer movement comprises moving a tool or an end effector of the robot into [[a]] the process space.”
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) 7, 9, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollmann (US 20130218334 A1) in view of Nihei (US 20100191372 A1).
Regarding Claim 7,
Hollmann teaches
A method for carrying out a robot application (“The present invention concerns a process and a device to control a robot,” See at least [0001]) that includes at least one process movement and at least one transfer movement of the robot, (Also see at least fig. 1 (annotated figure provided below) and corresponding description provided in [0025-0026]; Examiner Interpretation: The first and last movements as indicated by the annotated dashed arrows in the drawing below are interpreted as transfer movements of the robot while the intermediate movement as indicated by the annotated solid arrow in the drawing below is interpreted as a process movement. This is similar to the instant application’s description in fig. 1 and paragraph [0060] wherein the transfer movements are the initial and final movements between points P1 and P2 in the robot application and the process movement is the intermediate movement between points P2 through P6.)
PNG
media_image1.png
568
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the method comprising: controlling the robot to carry out the transfer movement in a set-up operation, wherein the robot speed reaches a set-up transfer movement top speed; wherein the set-up operation is performed while a consent switch is depressed by a user: controlling the robot to carry out the process movement in the set-up operation, wherein the robot speed reaches a set-up process movement top speed; (“set-up operating mode "SET-UP" (right column of FIG. 1) monitors in lieu of protective monitoring whether a confirming key of a hand operating device is pushed. If the confirming key is pushed, as indicated in FIG. 1 by a solid key of the hand operating device, shown here schematically, then the robot can be moved manually at reduced speed v<v.sub.max (third row "OPERATION" of FIG. 1).” See at least [0024] and fig 1 (provided above); Examiner Interpretation: The speeds are illustrated for both the transfer movement and process movement in the set-up mode in the box labeled 4 in fig. 1.)
controlling the robot to carry out the transfer movement in an automatic operation, wherein the robot speed reaches an automatic transfer movement top speed; and controlling the robot to carry out the process movement in the automatic operation, wherein the robot speed reaches an automatic process movement top speed; (“Full operating speed is defined here with the normal definition, specifically the speed with which the robot follows the operating program in the automatic operating mode, specifically on a pre-specified course.” See at least [0015] and fig. 1 (provided above); Also see at least [0023]; Examiner Interpretation: Full operating speed is the top speed in the automatic operation for both the transfer movement and process movement as illustrated in the box labeled 4 in fig. 1.)
Hollmann does not explicitly teach, but Nihei teaches
wherein at least one of: (“a monitoring device 2b may be employed, which is configured to stop robot 2 when the speed of the component of robot 2 in cooperative task area 5 exceeds a predetermined maximum speed.” See at least [0052]; “Due to the production system according to the embodiment of the invention, operator 1 and robot 2 may simultaneously and cooperatively perform a task in cooperative task area 5. Therefore, for example, robot 2 can convey parts and/or a jig, required for the task of operator 1, to a place where operator 1 may reach. Further, for example, operator 1 may use robot 2 as a jig.” See at least [0055]; Examiner Interpretation: The stop is the triggered error response. The robot task area 4 (see at least [0048] and figs. 2A-2B) is interpreted as a process space. The cooperative task area is outside of the robot task area (process space). Movement within the cooperative task area is interpreted as transfer movement in a set-up operation.)
wherein the upper set-up transfer movement speed threshold may be exceeded within the process space while the robot is being controlled to carry out the process movement in the set-up operation. (“the maximum movement speed of the component of robot 2 in area 5 is limited to lower than the maximum movement speed in robot task area 4. In other words, the maximum movement speed is not limited in robot task area 4.” See at least [0048])
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 Hollmann to further include the teachings of Nihei with a reasonable expectation of success “provide a production system in which a human and a robot can simultaneously perform a task in the same area (or can perform a cooperative task) while ensuring the human's safety.” (See at least [0011])
Regarding Claim 9,
Hollmann further teaches
further comprising: at least one of observing or evaluating the robot application during the set-up operation by at least one person that is present, at least temporarily, in at least one of a working region of the robot, a cell of the robot, or a space within reach of the robot; (“In the set-up operating mode, which is specifically intended to teach the robot how to pose, the robot may be operated manually even though the protective cover is open in order to provide the user with a better view of the working range during the teaching activity.” See at least [0004])
and at least one of temporarily stopping the robot application or modifying the robot application by the at least one person. (“set-up operating mode "SET-UP" (right column of FIG. 1) monitors in lieu of protective monitoring whether a confirming key of a hand operating device is pushed. If the confirming key is pushed, as indicated in FIG. 1 by a solid key of the hand operating device, shown here schematically, then the robot can be moved manually at reduced speed v<v.sub.max (third row "OPERATION" of FIG. 1).” See at least [0024])
Regarding Claim 12,
Hollmann teaches
A system for carrying out a robot application (“The present invention concerns a process and a device to control a robot,” See at least [0001]) that includes at least one process movement and at least one transfer movement of the robot, (Also see at least fig. 1 (annotated figure provided below) and corresponding description provided in [0025-0026]; Examiner Interpretation: The first and last movements as indicated by the annotated dashed arrows in the drawing below are interpreted as transfer movements of the robot while the intermediate movement as indicated by the annotated solid arrow in the drawing below is interpreted as a process movement. This is similar to the instant application’s description in fig. 1 and paragraph [0060] wherein the transfer movements are the initial and final movements between points P1 and P2 in the robot application and the process movement is the intermediate movement between points P2 through P6.)
PNG
media_image1.png
568
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the system comprising: means for controlling the robot to carry out the transfer movement in a set-up operation, wherein the robot speed reaches a set-up transfer movement top speed; wherein the set-up operation is performed while a consent switch is depressed by a user; means for controlling the robot to carry out the process movement in the set-up operation, wherein the robot speed reaches a set-up process movement top speed; (“set-up operating mode "SET-UP" (right column of FIG. 1) monitors in lieu of protective monitoring whether a confirming key of a hand operating device is pushed. If the confirming key is pushed, as indicated in FIG. 1 by a solid key of the hand operating device, shown here schematically, then the robot can be moved manually at reduced speed v<v.sub.max (third row "OPERATION" of FIG. 1).” See at least [0024] and fig 1 (provided above); Examiner Interpretation: The speeds are illustrated for both the transfer movement and process movement in the set-up mode in the box labeled 4 in fig. 1.)
means for controlling the robot to carry out the transfer movement in an automatic operation, wherein the robot speed reaches an automatic transfer movement top speed; and means for controlling the robot to carry out the process movement in the automatic operation, wherein the robot speed reaches an automatic process movement top speed; (“Full operating speed is defined here with the normal definition, specifically the speed with which the robot follows the operating program in the automatic operating mode, specifically on a pre-specified course.” See at least [0015] and fig. 1 (provided above); Also see at least [0023]; Examiner Interpretation: Full operating speed is the top speed in the automatic operation for both the transfer movement and process movement as illustrated in the box labeled 4 in fig. 1.)
Hollmann does not explicitly teach, but Nihei teaches
wherein at least one of: (“a monitoring device 2b may be employed, which is configured to stop robot 2 when the speed of the component of robot 2 in cooperative task area 5 exceeds a predetermined maximum speed.” See at least [0052]; “Due to the production system according to the embodiment of the invention, operator 1 and robot 2 may simultaneously and cooperatively perform a task in cooperative task area 5. Therefore, for example, robot 2 can convey parts and/or a jig, required for the task of operator 1, to a place where operator 1 may reach. Further, for example, operator 1 may use robot 2 as a jig.” See at least [0055]; Examiner Interpretation: The stop is the triggered error response. The robot task area 4 (see at least [0048] and figs. 2A-2B) is interpreted as a process space. The cooperative task area is outside of the robot task area (process space). Movement within the cooperative task area is interpreted as transfer movement in a set-up operation.)
wherein the upper set-up transfer movement speed threshold may be exceeded within the process space while the robot is being controlled to carry out the process movement in the set-up operation. (“the maximum movement speed of the component of robot 2 in area 5 is limited to lower than the maximum movement speed in robot task area 4. In other words, the maximum movement speed is not limited in robot task area 4.” See at least [0048])
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 Hollmann to further include the teachings of Nihei with a reasonable expectation of success “provide a production system in which a human and a robot can simultaneously perform a task in the same area (or can perform a cooperative task) while ensuring the human's safety.” (See at least [0011])
Regarding Claim 13,
Modified Hollmann teaches
the method of claim 7. (See the prior art rejection of claim 7 above.)
Hollmann further teaches
A computer program product having program code stored on a non-transitory, computer-readable medium, the program code configured to, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to carry out the method (“claim 11 describes a computer program product, specifically a storage medium or a machine readable carrier, on which a program to carry out the process of the invention is stored. The subsidiary claims describe advantageous embodiments.” See at least [0007]; “A control device for a robot … characterized by having the control to operate the process embodied in accordance with claim 1. … A computer programming product with a program stored thereon that executes a process in accordance with claim 1, when it operates in a control device in accordance with claim 10.” See at least claims 10 and 11)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollmann (US 20130218334 A1) in view of Nihei (US 20100191372 A1) and Yamada (US 20220258350 A1).
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Hollmann does not explicitly teach, but Yamada teaches
further comprising: triggering an error response in response to the robot exceeding a limit of the process space while the robot is being controlled to carry out the process movement in the set-up operation. (“the speed monitoring using the second upper limit value V2 is performed while the user moves the robot 100 in the manual operation mode and, when the speed of the robot 100 exceeds the second upper limit value V2, the robot 100 is stopped.” See at least [0043])
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 Hollmann to further include the teachings of Yamada with a reasonable expectation of success to implement Yamada’s stopping response when the top speed is exceeded during the set-up operation of the process movement as taught by Hollmann to improve safety of the robot system and to follow international safety standards (ISO 10218) for industrial robots. (See at least [0032] of Yamada)
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollmann (US 20130218334 A1) in view of Nihei (US 20100191372 A1) and Krause (US 20020045970 A1).
Regarding Claim 10,
Hollmann teaches
A method for carrying out a robot application (“The present invention concerns a process and a device to control a robot,” See at least [0001]) that includes at least one process movement and at least one transfer movement of the robot, (Also see at least fig. 1 (annotated figure provided below) and corresponding description provided in [0025-0026]; Examiner Interpretation: The first and last movements as indicated by the annotated dashed arrows in the drawing below are interpreted as transfer movements of the robot while the intermediate movement as indicated by the annotated solid arrow in the drawing below is interpreted as a process movement. This is similar to the instant application’s description in fig. 1 and paragraph [0060] wherein the transfer movements are the initial and final movements between points P1 and P2 in the robot application and the process movement is the intermediate movement between points P2 through P6.)
PNG
media_image1.png
568
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the method comprising: controlling the robot to carry out the transfer movement in a set-up operation, wherein the robot speed reaches a set-up transfer movement top speed; controlling the robot to carry out the process movement in the set-up operation, wherein the robot speed reaches a set-up process movement top speed; (“set-up operating mode "SET-UP" (right column of FIG. 1) monitors in lieu of protective monitoring whether a confirming key of a hand operating device is pushed. If the confirming key is pushed, as indicated in FIG. 1 by a solid key of the hand operating device, shown here schematically, then the robot can be moved manually at reduced speed v<v.sub.max (third row "OPERATION" of FIG. 1).” See at least [0024] and fig 1 (provided above); Examiner Interpretation: The speeds are illustrated for both the transfer movement and process movement in the set-up mode in the box labeled 4 in fig. 1.)
controlling the robot to carry out the transfer movement in an automatic operation, wherein the robot speed reaches an automatic transfer movement top speed; controlling the robot to carry out the process movement in the automatic operation, wherein the robot speed reaches an automatic process movement top speed; (“Full operating speed is defined here with the normal definition, specifically the speed with which the robot follows the operating program in the automatic operating mode, specifically on a pre-specified course.” See at least [0015] and fig. 1 (provided above); Also see at least [0023]; Examiner Interpretation: Full operating speed is the top speed in the automatic operation for both the transfer movement and process movement as illustrated in the box labeled 4 in fig. 1.)
at least one of observing or evaluating the robot application during the set-up operation by at least one person that is present, at least temporarily, in at least one of a working region of the robot, a cell of the robot, or a space within reach of the robot; (“In the set-up operating mode, which is specifically intended to teach the robot how to pose, the robot may be operated manually even though the protective cover is open in order to provide the user with a better view of the working range during the teaching activity.” See at least [0004])
at least one of temporarily stopping the robot application or modifying the robot application by the at least one person; (“set-up operating mode "SET-UP" (right column of FIG. 1) monitors in lieu of protective monitoring whether a confirming key of a hand operating device is pushed. If the confirming key is pushed, as indicated in FIG. 1 by a solid key of the hand operating device, shown here schematically, then the robot can be moved manually at reduced speed v<v.sub.max (third row "OPERATION" of FIG. 1).” See at least [0024])
Hollmann does not explicitly teach, but Nihei teaches
wherein at least one of: (“a monitoring device 2b may be employed, which is configured to stop robot 2 when the speed of the component of robot 2 in cooperative task area 5 exceeds a predetermined maximum speed.” See at least [0052]; “Due to the production system according to the embodiment of the invention, operator 1 and robot 2 may simultaneously and cooperatively perform a task in cooperative task area 5. Therefore, for example, robot 2 can convey parts and/or a jig, required for the task of operator 1, to a place where operator 1 may reach. Further, for example, operator 1 may use robot 2 as a jig.” See at least [0055]; Examiner Interpretation: The stop is the triggered error response. The robot task area 4 (see at least [0048] and figs. 2A-2B) is interpreted as a process space. The cooperative task area is outside of the robot task area (process space). Movement within the cooperative task area is interpreted as transfer movement in a set-up operation.)
wherein the upper set-up transfer movement speed threshold may be exceeded within the process space while the robot is being controlled to carry out the process movement in the set-up operation; (“the maximum movement speed of the component of robot 2 in area 5 is limited to lower than the maximum movement speed in robot task area 4. In other words, the maximum movement speed is not limited in robot task area 4.” See at least [0048])
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 Hollmann to further include the teachings of Nihei with a reasonable expectation of success “provide a production system in which a human and a robot can simultaneously perform a task in the same area (or can perform a cooperative task) while ensuring the human's safety.” (See at least [0011])
Nihei also does not explicitly teach, but Krause teaches
further comprising triggering an error response in response to at least one of: a consent to be effected by the person is not present while the robot is being controlled to carry out the … movement in the set-up operation. (“The emergency stop switch 508 is electrically connected to the emergency stop switch 502 and the deadman switch 504 on the teach pendant 112. … When operation for depressing the deadman switch 504 is stopped, or when any of the emergency stop switches 502, 508 is depressed while the deadman switch 502 is depressed, power to the servoamplifier is forcibly interrupted.” See at least [0035])
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 Hollmann and Nihei to further include the teachings of Krause with a reasonable expectation of success to “secure the safety of an operator.” ([0033]; Also see at least [0035])
Regarding Claim 11,
Hollmann further teaches
wherein the consent to be effected by the person comprises actuating a consent switch. (“a confirming key of a hand operating device is pushed. If the confirming key is pushed, as indicated in FIG. 1 by a solid key of the hand operating device, shown here schematically, then the robot can be moved manually at reduced speed v<v.sub.max (third row "OPERATION" of FIG. 1).” See at least [0024])
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollmann (US 20130218334 A1) in view of Nihei (US 20100191372 A1) and Anfindsen (US 20040193321 A1).
Regarding Claims 14 and 16,
Modified Hollmann does not explicitly teach, but Anfindsen teaches
wherein: a robot tool is deactivated, or the gripper of the robot is empty, during the transfer movement; (“The definition of the robot tool comprises a definition of the tool center point (TCP) and for example a list of available brush types with associated paint color. Typically, a brush type consists of paint flow and airflow parameters. … One or several brush types can be defined as "process off", typically meaning that the paint flow is zero. The configuration data for the robot path includes a transport zone and a paint zone. A transport zone is the size of an arch combining two line segments of the path when the process is "off".” See at least [0044])
and the robot handles or processes at least one workpiece during the process movement. (“painting an object, going from waypoint to waypoint,” See at least [0024]; “A paint zone is the size of an arch combining two line segments when the process is "on".” See at least [0044], wherein the line segments in a paint zone are a process movement.)
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 Hollmann to further include the teachings of Anfindsen with a reasonable expectation of success to improve robot teaching for processing an object. (See at least [0001] and [0009])
Regarding Claims 15 and 17,
Hollmann further teaches
wherein: the transfer movement comprises moving a tool or an end effector of the robot into a process space; (See at least fig. 1 (annotated figure provided below) wherein the TCP (see at least [0012]), interpreted as having a tool, is moved into a process space (indicated by the annotated solid arrow) via a transfer movement (indicated by the annotated dashed arrow).)
PNG
media_image1.png
568
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Hollmann does not explicitly teach, but Anfindsen teaches
and the process movement comprises handling or processing at least one workpiece in the process space. (“painting an object, going from waypoint to waypoint,” See at least [0024]; “A paint zone is the size of a n arch combining two line segments when the process is "on".” See at least [0044], wherein the paint zone is the process space.)
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 Hollmann to further include the teachings of Anfindsen with a reasonable expectation of success to improve robot teaching for processing an object. (See at least [0001] and [0009])
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.
/KARSTON G. EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights