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 .
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 have been presented for examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki1 in view of Hosomi et al [Hosomi] PGPUB 2022/0314449 and further in view of Franzius2.
Referring to claim 1, Matsuzaki teaches the device comprising:
A CPU [slave controller 50/processor 52; 0041] configured to:
predict a next action to be executed in a next step by an operation unit, wherein the next action is predicted based on an action executed by the operation unit and step information that identifies a work step associated with a remote operation [50 Fig. 2, 0033-0034, 0041-0044].
control the operation unit to assist in the remote operation of the operation unit, based on a relationship between the predicted next action, and operation information about the remote operation [70 Figs. 1-2, 0044].
In summary, Matsuzaki teaches a user remotely controlling a robot via master controller and allowing the master to communicate with a slave controller of the robot. If communication between the master controller and the slave controller is abnormal, the slave controller can predict and control the robot according to the current command and predicted subsequent operations. It is explicitly taught that the slave device is controlled “according to the command value, and based on the history of the command values received from the master controller (30) in the past, based on the history of the command value received from the master controller (30)” [0041]. The examiner understands this as determining subsequent actions to be performed based on a current command. The slave controller is interpreted as comprising both the prediction and motion control units.
While Matsuzaki teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not taught to predict an object to be operated in a relationship between the operation unit and a plurality of objects. Hosomi teaches predicting which object a user is intending to interact with by factoring hand position/location with respect to the robot [Figs. 11 and 14; 0140, 0160]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Hosomi into Matsuzaki because doing so would provide the capability of Matsuzaki to further operate when multiple objects are present for interaction and allow the system to predict which object Matsuzaki intends to interact with during communication abnormalities.
Matsuzaki further teaches that the robot includes a manipulator and can grasp workpieces and tools [0002]. While the Matsuzaki-Hosomi combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to further control the manipulation of the robot according to an object to be operated by the robot. Franzius teaches that robots with object manipulators can adapt their behavior based on the object it is interacting with [0002]. It would have been obvious to try including the teachings of Franzius into the Matsuzaki-Hosomi combination because doing so would allow Matsuzaki to adapt to account for a necessary “gripping force, gripping direction”, or account for “weight, fragility, rigidity, stiffness” of the object as explicitly taught by Franzius [0002].
Referring to claim 2, Matsuzaki teaches the robot including a manipulator for performing operations on behalf of the user which includes grasping workpieces and tools [0024] while also predicting operation when communication is abnormal or interrupted [0041-0042 and 0044]. While it is not explicitly taught, it is interpreted that the operation predictions from Matsuzaki would allow for all types of operations to be predicted and performed, even in the event of a communication fault. Therefore, it is interpreted that Matsuzaki would allow anticipating the grasping of a workpiece or tool (predicts the action and the object) and the control thereof based on the prediction as described above in claim 1. Predicting the action and object would be executed by same slave controller/CPU as the prediction and motion control units as indicated above for claim 1. Thus, the same slave controller/CPU is also interpreted as the claimed step prediction unit.
Referring to claim 4, Matsuzaki teaches controlling operation based on a prediction, a prediction is not necessarily guaranteed correct. If it were then it would not be a prediction. Assume that in the event that communication is temporarily interrupted and the slave controller operates in accordance with a prediction. If communication is restored, and a user is operating the robot in a manner different then the predicted operation, it is believed, or is at least obvious, that the robot would change operation (i.e., change track) to that of the user’s actions since the prediction would be incorrect.
Referring to claim 8, Matsuzaki teaches that when communication is not interrupted or abnormal, that the slave controller will not assist in predicting next actions to be performed. Rather, the slave controller will simply control the robot based on instructions received by the master controller [0028-0029].
Referring to claim 9, the Matsuzaki-Hosomi-Franzius combination teaches predicting operations while also determining how to manipulate objects as shown above. Therefore, when manipulating an object wherein a prediction was required due to abnormal communications [Matsuzaki: 0044], it is interpreted that the Matsuzaki-Franzius combination would still use an appropriate gripping force and/or gripping orientation based on the recognized object [Franzius:0002] associated with the predicted next steps.
Referring to claim 10, Matsuzaki teaches predicting subsequent actions based on historical commands that themselves are based on the received command values [0041].
Referring to claim 11, Franzius teaches when manipulating an object, identifying a relationship with regards to how forceful to grip or the orientation to grip the object [0002].
Referring to claims 12, this is rejected substantially as presented above with respect to claim 1. Matsuzaki, Hosomi and Franzius teach the device and therefore teach the system performing the same. Furthermore, Matsuzaki further teaches a master controller [30 Fig. 2] for remotely operating the operation unit (i.e., robot) [0001-0003]. Slave controller (50) or CPU (52) is interpreted as the claimed information processing device [Fig. 2].
Referring to claim 13, Matsuzaki teaches that the slave controller (50) can be integrated with the slave device (i.e., robot) [0019].
Referring to claim 14, this is rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove. Matsuzaki, Hosomi and Franzius teach the device and system as found in claims 1 and 12 and therefore teach the method performing the same
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki, Hosomi and Franzius as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 8 and 10-14 above, and further in view of Zhang3.
Referring to claim 3, while Matsuzaki, Hosomi and Franzius teach the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to determine a probability of the prediction. Hosomi does teach determining the probability of which object to grasp [Figs. 11, 13 and 0160]. All Matsuzaki suggests is that the device can look at command history [0041]. Zhang teaches predicting next actions while factoring historical actions and further includes determining probabilities of what those next actions will be [0037, 0042-0043]. Making predictions implies that many different outcomes are possible. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Zhang into the Matsuzaki-Hosomi-Franzius combination because Zhang further teaches how to best decide which next actions to take by identifying which actions have the highest probability and which have the lowest [0037, 0075]. While the examiner concedes that Zhang is not directed to the probabilities of a manipulator for a robot, Hosomi is directed to that while Zhang teaches the general concept of predicting which of a plurality of next actions is most probable and selecting that option because doing such should lead to increased predicted operation success.
Referring to claim 6, selecting the action with the highest probability is determined as tracking that next action based on the satisfied automation condition (i.e., does this action have the highest probability).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki, Hosomi and Franzius as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 8 and 10-14 above, and further in view of Thackston4.
Referring to claim 5, while the Matsuzaki-Hosomi-Franzius combination teaches controlling the movement of the robot [Matsuzaki: 0011-0012] and the gripping force/gripping orientation of the robot [Franzius: 0002], it is not further taught that the speed of the robot can also be controlled remotely. Thackston teaches a robot that includes a manipulator whose speed can be controlled remotely [0025, 0042]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Thackston into the Matsuzaki-Hosomi-Franzius combination because it would allow the robot to better operate according to a user’s operation style as taught by Thackston [0002].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki, Hosomi and Franzius as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 8 and 10-14 above, and further in view of Tobergte et al [Tobergte] PGPUB 2022/0378523.
Referring to claim 7, while Matsuzaki, Hosomi and Franzius teach the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to stop operation of the operation unit if an invalidation condition is detected. Tobergte teaches a robotic arm like that taught in the Matsuzaki-Hosomi-Franzius combination and further is able to detect operation failure based on a detected velocity error of one of the joints [abstract, 0055, 0060]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Tobergte into the Matsuzaki-Hosomi-Franzius combination to prevent operation of the robotic arm if an operational error is detected because doing so would prevent the robot from causing damage as suggested by Tobergte [0042].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 4/30/26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It should be noted that previous claim 9 (now incorporated into the independent claims) was written broadly enough to where prediction of the object was not necessary. The claims as currently amended clarify that prediction of the object is now required. The rejections have been updated to address this new requirement.
Art Cited but Not Relied Upon
PGPUBS 2024/0293931, 2024/0051143, 2023/0286159 and 2023/0226698 all teach predicting which of a plurality of objects to interact with. These references are ineligible as prior art due to their later filing/priority dates.
PGPUB 2021/0178581 to Yamamoto teaches estimating which object to grasp but doing so is based on written text provided by the user [Abstract and 0097], not based on a relationship between an operation unit and the plurality of objects.
Conclusion
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 MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
7/9/26
1 Cited in the previous office action.
2 Cited in the previous office action.
3 Cited in the previous office action.
4 Cited in the previous office action.
Prosecution Insights