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 1-14 have been presented for examination.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “prediction unit”, “motion control unit” and “step prediction unit” in claims 1-2 and 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.
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.
The claimed structures for the “prediction unit”, “motion control unit” and “step prediction unit” are interpreted as a CPU/MPU or the like which executes a program stored on a RAM or the like as stated in paragraph 0059.
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 and 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki1 JP2019217557 in view of Franzius et al [Franzius] PGPUB 2010/0286827.
Referring to claim 1, Matsuzaki teaches the device comprising:
a prediction unit that predicts, based on an action executed by an operation unit and step information capable of identifying a work step, a next action to be executed in a next step by the operation unit in accordance with a remote operation [50 Fig. 2, 0033-0034, 0041-0042].
a motion control unit that controls the operation unit so as 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.
Matsuzaki further teaches that the robot includes a manipulator and can grasp workpieces and tools [0002]. While Matsuzaki 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 device 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 7, Matsuzaki teaches that when communication is interrupted or abnormal, the slave controller takes over operation (i.e. is not controlled by master controller) [0044].
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-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 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 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 and Franzius as applied to claims 1-2, 4 and 7-14 above, and further in view of Zhang et al [Zhang] 2018/0183891.
Referring to claim 3, while Matsuzaki and Franzius teach the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to determine a probability of the prediction. In fact, 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-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, what Zhang teaches is 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 and Franzius as applied to claims 1-2, 4 and 7-14 above, and further in view of Thackston et al [Thackston] PGPUB 2020/0101614.
Referring to claim 5, while the Matsuzaki-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-Franzius combination because it would allow the robot to better operate according to a user’s operation style as taught by Thackston [0002].
Conclusion
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 1/24/26
1 Cited by applicant, translation provided by examiner