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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/29/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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: “position data acquisition unit”, “posture tentative designation unit”, “motion program generation unit” and “motion program selection unit”.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to a review of the original specification,
Fig 3, para 0017 cites the corresponding structure of these units as part of the control unit implemented on hardware including CPU (central processing unit), ROM, RAM (random access memory), and CMOS (complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor) memory.
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 § 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20220143829 A1) in view of Kojima (US 20240139946 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches an optimization assistance device that optimizes a motion program of a robot by considering a form of the robot (para 0004 wherein “[0004] A program generation system according to an aspect of the present disclosure includes circuitry configured to: set multiple kinds of candidate postures of a robot”), the device comprising:
a position data acquisition unit configured to acquire a plurality of position data taught along a motion path of the robot used in the motion program of the robot (para 0030-0031, 0034 wherein the programming assistance device generates position data “[0030] In step S11, the acquisition unit 101 acquires teaching data used to generate an operation program”; “The programming assistance device 4 automatically generates an air-cut path 310 connecting to the start point of the work path 301, an air-cut path 311 connecting the work paths 301 and 302, and an air-cut path 312 connecting to the end point of the work path 302”; “[0034] An example of setting the candidate postures will be described with reference to FIG. 6. In the example of FIG. 6, the setting unit 102 sets multiple kinds of candidate positions along one degree of freedom around the Z-axis of a coordinate system set to a tool (e.g., a welding gun) attached to the tip portion 5 of the robot 2”).;
a posture tentative designation unit configured to tentatively designate a plurality of forms that can be taken by the robot for each of the plurality of position data (para 0042 wherein candidate postures are provided for the positions along robot path; “This process is a process of evaluating the operation program while changing the posture of the robot 2 in the retreat area Zr among the two candidate postures and changing the posture of the robot 2 in the approach area Za among the two candidate postures”), and exclude a form that cannot be attained by the robot, from among the plurality of forms tentatively designated (para 0063 wherein “[0063] In the program generation system according to another aspect, the circuitry may be further configured to discard one or more of the multiple kinds of candidate postures in which the robot interferes with another object, and the candidate posture executable by the robot may include at least one of the multiple kinds of candidate postures in which the robot does not interfere with the other object”);
a motion program generation unit configured to generate a plurality of motion programs by combining remaining ones of the forms in each of the plurality of position data (para 0045 wherein “[0045] In step S16, the generation unit 104 selects a candidate path with the shortest operating time as an air-cut path and selects a candidate posture corresponding to the air-cut path, for each air-cut area”); and
a motion program selection unit configured to simulate each of the plurality of motion programs generated, calculate evaluation index values, and select a motion program with the smallest evaluation index value calculated, as an optimal motion program (para 0021, 0041, 0045, 0072 wherein “The programming assistance device 4 may execute simulation to perform the evaluation”; “[0045] In step S16, the generation unit 104 selects a candidate path with the shortest operating time as an air-cut path”; “The estimation unit 103 may execute simulation to estimate the operating time of each candidate path”; “By evaluating the operation program based on so-called simulation, it is possible to appropriately execute the planning of robot control while assuming an actual operation of the robot”).
However, Takahashi fails to explicitly teach position data of coordinate values in an orthogonal coordinate system.
Kojima teaches position data of coordinate values in an orthogonal coordinate system as part of robot arm pose planning (para 0156 wherein “Then, for each of the gripping patterns, the grip planning unit 446 generates gripping information represented by relative coordinates (x, y, z) and a relative pose (roll, pitch, yaw) of the TCP with respect to the workpiece when the workpiece is gripped by the robot hand”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Takahashi’s teachings of plurality of position data along a motion path of the robot to incorporate Kojima’s teachings of coordinate values in an orthogonal coordinate system in order to refine postures according to robot trajectory. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods of using position data as coordinate values to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, modified Takahashi teaches wherein the evaluation index value is a cycle time of the robot (para 0041, 0045 wherein operating time is evaluated during optimization; “[0045] In step S16, the generation unit 104 selects a candidate path with the shortest operating time as an air-cut path and selects a candidate posture corresponding to the air-cut path, for each air-cut area”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Takahashi teaches the evaluation index value (para 0041, 0045 wherein operating time is evaluated during optimization).
However, Takahashi fails to teach the evaluation index value is power consumption of the robot.
Kojima teaches the evaluation index value is power consumption of the robot (para 0091 wherein “[0091] The route cost is not limited to the above operation time. For example, it may be a moment applied to the workpiece when the robot is operated along the route while the workpiece is gripped. A power consumption of the robot when the robot is operated along the route, a route length in a real space or a joint space, and the like may be used”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Takahashi teaches the posture tentative designation unit excludes a form that includes a stroke limit vicinity, a singularity, or an interference with an obstacle, as a form that cannot be attained by the robot (para 0063 wherein “[0063] In the program generation system according to another aspect, the circuitry may be further configured to discard one or more of the multiple kinds of candidate postures in which the robot interferes with another object, and the candidate posture executable by the robot may include at least one of the multiple kinds of candidate postures in which the robot does not interfere with the other object”).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20220143829 A1) and Kojima (US 20240139946 A1) in view of Diankov (US 20210053216 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Takahashi teaches wherein the motion program selection unit excludes a motion program that does not satisfy the evaluation criteria when simulating each of the plurality of motion programs (para 0021, 0041, 0045, 0072 wherein only the path with shortest operation time is selected; “The programming assistance device 4 may execute simulation to perform the evaluation”; “[0045] In step S16, the generation unit 104 selects a candidate path with the shortest operating time as an air-cut path”; “The estimation unit 103 may execute simulation to estimate the operating time of each candidate path”; “By evaluating the operation program based on so-called simulation, it is possible to appropriately execute the planning of robot control while assuming an actual operation of the robot”).
However, Takahashi fails to explicitly teach deleting a motion program that does not complete execution.
Diankov teaches deleting a motion program that does not complete execution (para 0113 wherein the motion plan that does not execute successfully is deleted; “In some embodiments, the robotic system 100 can cancel or delete the base motion plan, record a predetermined status (e.g., an error code) for the corresponding task, or perform a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the robotic system 100 can reinitiate the process by imaging the pickup/task areas (block 702) and/or identifying another item in the pickup area as the target object (block 704) as described above”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Takahashi’s teachings of excluding a motion program that does not satisfy the evaluation criteria to incorporate Diankov’s teachings of deleting a motion program that does not complete execution in order to have the motion program selection unit deletes a motion program that does not complete execution when simulating each of the plurality of motion programs. Doing so would allow the operating system to remove motion data no longer useful from storage and provide more efficient processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAGAR KC whose telephone number is (571)272-7337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5 pm.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
/SAGAR KC/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657