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 .
EXAMINER’S NOTE
Examiner has considered the Claims and Drawings dated 11/14/2023 and the Abstract and Specification dated 7/16/2024.
Claim Status
Claim 4 has been amended. Claims 1-9 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. In particular, the abstract has 186 words.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagasaki et al. (US20220011754A1 -hereinafter Sagasaki) in view of Storr (US20190381665A1 -hereinafter Storr).
Regarding Claim 1, Sagasaki teaches a numerical control system, comprising:
a numerical control device that controls an operation of a machine tool, based on a numerical control program; and (see [0042]; Sagasaki: “The numerical control device 1X controls the machine tool 70 and the robot 60 by using NC programs such as G-code programs.”)
a robot control device that controls an operation of a robot, based on a robot command, (see [0041]; Sagasaki: “Thus, in the control system 100A, the numerical control device 1X and the robot 60 are connected to each other via the robot controller 50X, and the numerical control device 1X controls the robot 60 via the robot controller 50X.”)
wherein the numerical control device includes one or more control modules that generate the robot command, based on the numerical control program, (see [0045]; Sagasaki: “The robot controller 50X controls the robot 60 in accordance with the robot program sent from the numerical control device 1X.”)
wherein the control modules each include: (see [0042]; Sagasaki: “The numerical control device 1X”)
a robot command generation unit that generates the robot command, based on the numerical control program; (see [0042]; Sagasaki: “The numerical control device 1X converts the second command of the NC program into a third command, which is a command of a robot program described in a second programming language, and controls the robot 60 by using the third command.”)
wherein the robot control device includes: (see [0045]; Sagasaki: “The robot controller 50X”)
a command-receiving communication interface that receives the connection request and the robot command; (see [0193]; Sagasaki: “the robot controller includes a robot interface (IF) capable of controlling the robot 60 on the basis of command coordinates input by the numerical control device. The numerical control device accesses the robot IF and inputs command coordinates to the robot IF to cause the robot IF to control the robot 60.”)
a robot operation control unit that controls the operation of the robot, based on the robot command; (see [0045]; Sagasaki: “The robot controller 50X controls the robot 60 in accordance with the robot program sent from the numerical control device 1X.”)
However, Sagasaki does not explicitly teach:
a robot connection request unit that generates a connection request to the robot control device; and
a command-transmitting communication interface that transmits the connection request and the robot command to the robot control device,
a robot connection response unit that generates a connection approval for the connection request after the connection request is received by the command-receiving communication interface,
wherein the command-receiving communication interface transmits the connection approval to the command-transmitting communication interface, and
wherein the command-transmitting communication interface starts transmission of the robot command to the command-receiving communication interface after receiving the connection approval.
Storr from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
a robot connection request unit that generates a connection request to the robot control device; and (see Fig. 5a and [0231]; Storr: “At step A001, external command or request generator 1 (e.g. a user and/or users ‘smart’ device or robot pendant) generates a command or request (including any metadata).”)
a command-transmitting communication interface that transmits the connection request and the robot command to the robot control device, (see [0232]; Storr: “At step A002, the command or request (which includes any attached information or metadata) is communicated 8 to the remote server 2 (or Robot Registry).”)
a robot connection response unit that generates a connection approval for the connection request after the connection request is received by the command-receiving communication interface, (see [0237]; Storr: “At step A008, the remote server 2 receives and assesses the results or responses, then generates an assessment determination. (Note: steps A004 to A008 may go through numerous rounds or be repeated e.g. to facilitate further querying or testing following receipt, assessment and determination of prior query or-test results or responses).”)
wherein the command-receiving communication interface transmits the connection approval to the command-transmitting communication interface, and (see [0238]; Storr: “At step A009, if a determination was to approve the commend or request following receipt and assessment of the robot's 6 results or responses, then the remote server 2 communicates 9 the command or request to the robot's 6 receiver/transmitter module 10. The receiver/transmitter module 10 transmits the command or request to the robot's 6 regulating chip 3.”)
wherein the command-transmitting communication interface starts transmission of the robot command to the command-receiving communication interface after receiving the connection approval. (see [0239]; Storr: “At step A010, the regulating chip 3 facilitates the command or request, transmitting to the robot's 6 output 5. which essentially results in the command or request being effected.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Sagasaki to include Storr’s features of a robot connection request unit that generates a connection request to the robot control device; and a command-transmitting communication interface that transmits the connection request and the robot command to the robot control device, a robot connection response unit that generates a connection approval for the connection request after the connection request is received by the command-receiving communication interface, wherein the command-receiving communication interface transmits the connection approval to the command-transmitting communication interface, and wherein the command-transmitting communication interface starts transmission of the robot command to the command-receiving communication interface after receiving the connection approval. Doing so would be increasingly accessible robots and smart devices available to average consumers. (Storr, [0006])
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagasaki in view of Storr in view of Sueda et al. (JPWO2020194752A1 -hereinafter Sueda -Note: As the English Translation attached).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Sagasaki and Storr teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the numerical control system includes two or more of the numerical control devices each communicably connected to the robot control device,
wherein the robot control device further includes a robot connection determination unit that determines any one of a plurality of the numerical control devices as a transmission destination for the connection approval, and
wherein the command-receiving communication interface transmits the connection approval to the transmission destination.
Sueda from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the numerical control system includes two or more of the numerical control devices each communicably connected to the robot control device, (see page 12, paragraph 5; Sueda: “Of the components of FIG. 9, components that achieve the same functions as the numerical control devices 1X and 1Y of the first and second embodiments are designated by the same reference numerals, and redundant description will be omitted”)
wherein the robot control device further includes a robot connection determination unit that determines any one of a plurality of the numerical control devices as a transmission destination for the connection approval, and (see Abstract; Sueda: “In 2X), the manual operation of the robot (60) is permitted by the manual approval / disapproval determination unit (412) for determining whether or not the robot (60) can be manually operated based on the state of the control system, and the manual approval / disapproval determination unit (412).”)
wherein the command-receiving communication interface transmits the connection approval to the transmission destination. (see page 15, paragraph 10; Sueda: “The machine learning device 80 learns an appropriate determination value to be used when determining whether or not manual operation is possible, and the manual approval or disapproval determination unit 412Q uses the determination value learned by the machine learning device 80 to determine whether or not manual operation is possible.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Sagasaki and Storr to include Sueda’s features of wherein the numerical control system includes two or more of the numerical control devices each communicably connected to the robot control device, wherein the robot control device further includes a robot connection determination unit that determines any one of a plurality of the numerical control devices as a transmission destination for the connection approval, and wherein the command-receiving communication interface transmits the connection approval to the transmission destination. Doing so would prevent the robot from interfering with the machine tool and improve the work efficiency. (Sueda, page 15, paragraph 4)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Sagasaki and Storr teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the numerical control device includes two or more of the control modules each communicably connected to the robot control device,
wherein the robot control device further includes a robot connection determination unit that determines any one of the plurality of control modules as a transmission destination for the connection approval, and
wherein the command-receiving communication interface transmits the connection approval to the transmission destination.
Sueda from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the numerical control device includes two or more of the control modules each communicably connected to the robot control device, (see page 12, paragraph 5; Sueda: “Of the components of FIG. 9, components that achieve the same functions as the numerical control devices 1X and 1Y of the first and second embodiments are designated by the same reference numerals, and redundant description will be omitted”)
wherein the robot control device further includes a robot connection determination unit that determines any one of the plurality of control modules as a transmission destination for the connection approval, and (see Abstract; Sueda: “In 2X), the manual operation of the robot (60) is permitted by the manual approval / disapproval determination unit (412) for determining whether or not the robot (60) can be manually operated based on the state of the control system, and the manual approval / disapproval determination unit (412).”)
wherein the command-receiving communication interface transmits the connection approval to the transmission destination. (see page 15, paragraph 10; Sueda: “The machine learning device 80 learns an appropriate determination value to be used when determining whether or not manual operation is possible, and the manual approval or disapproval determination unit 412Q uses the determination value learned by the machine learning device 80 to determine whether or not manual operation is possible.”)
The same motivation to combine Sagasaki, Storr, and Sueda a set forth for Claim 2 equally applies to Claim 3.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagasaki in view of Storr in view of Sueda in view of Liu (WO2011147048A1 -hereinafter Liu -Note: As the English Translation attached).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Sagasaki, Storr, and Sueda teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the robot connection request unit generates the connection request, based on the numerical control program.
Liu from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the robot connection request unit generates the connection request, based on the numerical control program. (see page 22, paragraph 7; Liu: “The CNC unit memory NetWareshell (NetWareSeH) intercepts the user service request of the CNC unit and judges it. If the access is to the numerical control unit, the request is handed over to the industrial control editor of the numerical control unit.” See page 27, paragraph 4: “The numerical control unit is equipped with the pallet or industrial robot for automatic workpiece replacement and the automatic detection and control technology equipment to form a flexible numerical control unit.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Sagasaki, Storr, and Sueda to include Liu’s features of generating the connection request, based on the numerical control program. Doing so would have the flexibility of numerical control program configuration and the cheapness of development. (Liu, page 27, paragraph 4)
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagasaki in view of Storr in view of Sueda in view of Liu in view of Nakano et al. (US20190079500A1 -hereinafter Nakano).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Sagasaki, Storr, Sueda, and Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the robot control device further includes a connection request buffer that stores connection request information associated with the connection request received by the command-receiving communication interface, and
wherein the robot connection determination unit determines the transmission destination, based on the connection request information.
Nakano from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the robot control device further includes a connection request buffer that stores connection request information associated with the connection request received by the command-receiving communication interface, and (see [0094]; Nakano: “The interpreter 162 creates the intermediate code 166 from the NC program 34 previously by a certain degree. Accordingly, a plurality of intermediate codes 166 may be stored in the intermediate code buffer 164. In this embodiment, the interpreter 162 creates a trace for calculating the CNC instruction value 170 and thus may be referred to as a “planner.””)
wherein the robot connection determination unit determines the transmission destination, based on the connection request information. (see [0161]; Nakano: “The CNC instruction value calculating unit 168 of the numerical control program executing unit 160 calculates an instruction value in the current control cycle in accordance with the intermediate code (Step S122).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Sagasaki, Storr, Sueda, and Liu to include Nakano’s features of the robot control device further includes a connection request buffer that stores connection request information associated with the connection request received by the command-receiving communication interface, and the robot connection determination unit determines the transmission destination, based on the connection request information. Doing so would provide an environment for easily executing a plurality of types of programs in cooperation with each other. (Nakano, [0036])
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Sagasaki, Storr, Sueda, Liu, and Nakano teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above, Storr further teaches wherein the connection request information includes identification information for identifying a sender of the connection request, (see [0231]-[0232]; Storr: “At step A001, external command or request generator 1 (e.g. a user and/or users ‘smart’ device or robot pendant) generates a command or request (including any metadata). At step A002, the command or request (which includes any attached information or metadata) is communicated 8 to the remote server 2 (or Robot Registry). At step A003, the remote server 2 receives and assesses the command or request, then generates an assessment determination.”)
The same motivation to combine Sagasaki and Storr a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 6.
Nakano further teaches …and a priority value (see [0109]; Nakano: “FIG. 6 illustrates an example in which a plurality of tasks are set by priorities and the tasks share resources of the processor 102 depending on the priorities.”), and wherein the priority value can be specified based on the numerical control program. (see [0112]; Nakano: “The tasks with high priorities are repeatedly performed for each predetermined control cycle T1. In the processing example illustrated in FIG. 6, the task with a low priority is appropriately performed in a period in which the tasks with high priorities are not performed. That is, for each control cycle, an execution time of the tasks with high priorities is assigned and the task with a low priority is executed in a time other than the execution time of the tasks with high priorities. More specifically, the interpreter 162 of the NC program executing unit 160 may perform a process in a period in which none of the sequence program executing unit 150 and the CNC instruction value calculating unit 168 performs processing.”)
The same motivation to combine Sagasaki, Storr, Sueda, Liu, and Nakano a set forth for Claim 5 equally applies to Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Sagasaki, Storr, Sueda, Liu, and Nakano teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above, Nakoto further teaches wherein the robot connection determination unit determines the transmission destination, based on the priority value (see [0109]; Nakano: “FIG. 6 illustrates an example in which a plurality of tasks are set by priorities and the tasks share resources of the processor 102 depending on the priorities.”), when a plurality of the connection request information is stored in the connection request buffer. (see [0094]; Nakano: “The interpreter 162 creates the intermediate code 166 from the NC program 34 previously by a certain degree. Accordingly, a plurality of intermediate codes 166 may be stored in the intermediate code buffer 164. In this embodiment, the interpreter 162 creates a trace for calculating the CNC instruction value 170 and thus may be referred to as a “planner.””)
The same motivation to combine Sagasaki, Storr, Sueda, Liu, and Nakano a set forth for Claim 5 equally applies to Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Sagasaki, Storr, Sueda, Liu, and Nakano teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above, Liu further teaches when the priority value is not specified in the numerical control program. (see page 21, last paragraph; Liu: “However, the interrupt program has different interrupt priority levels, and the high level interrupt program can interrupt the interrupt program with a low level. The CNC unit software itself is a large multiinterrupt service program that is processed through communication between interrupt service routines. The priority level of each interrupt service routine is closely related to its role and execution time.”)
The same motivation to combine Sagasaki, Storr, Sueda, and Liu a set forth for Claim 4 equally applies to Claim 8.
Nakoto further teaches wherein a predetermined initial value is stored as the priority value in the connection request buffer (see [0094]; Nakano: “The interpreter 162 creates the intermediate code 166 from the NC program 34 previously by a certain degree. Accordingly, a plurality of intermediate codes 166 may be stored in the intermediate code buffer 164. In this embodiment, the interpreter 162 creates a trace for calculating the CNC instruction value 170 and thus may be referred to as a “planner.””),
The same motivation to combine Sagasaki, Storr, Sueda, Liu, and Nakano a set forth for Claim 5 equally applies to Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Sagasaki, Storr, Sueda, Liu, and Nakano teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above, Sueda further teaches wherein the robot connection determination unit determines the transmission destination, based on a predetermined initial value, (see page 15, paragraph 10; Sueda: “The machine learning device 80 learns an appropriate determination value to be used when determining whether or not manual operation is possible, and the manual approval or disapproval determination unit 412Q uses the determination value learned by the machine learning device 80 to determine whether or not manual operation is possible.”)
The same motivation to combine Sagasaki, Storr, Sueda, and Liu a set forth for Claim 2 equally applies to Claim 8.
Liu further teaches when the connection request information does not include the priority value. (see page 21, last paragraph; Liu: “However, the interrupt program has different interrupt priority levels, and the high level interrupt program can interrupt the interrupt program with a low level. The CNC unit software itself is a large multiinterrupt service program that is processed through communication between interrupt service routines. The priority level of each interrupt service routine is closely related to its role and execution time.”)
The same motivation to combine Sagasaki, Storr, Sueda, and Liu a set forth for Claim 4 equally applies to Claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamada (US20100185316A1) discloses a first NC apparatus includes a virtual-axis setting unit that sets a predetermined axis coupled to a second NC apparatus as an axis controlled by itself.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. 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, ROBERT FENNEMA can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/V.N.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights