DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits in response to communications filed by Applicant on March 2nd, 2026. Claims 1 and 3-4 are currently pending and examined below.
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 Amendment
The amendments to the Claims filed on March 2nd, 2026 have been entered. Claim 1 is currently amended and pending, claims 3 and 4 are as previously presented and pending, and claim 2 has been canceled.
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:
Claim 1 – inclusive cuboid set conversion unit, interference determination unit, point group data conversion unit, point group data dividing unit, smallest total volume retrieval unit
Claim 3 – simplified range setting unit, margin setting unit
Claim 4 - point group data dividing unit
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.
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) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11014239 B2 ("Fujii") in view of NPL Genetic Algorithm Wikipedia ("Wikipedia") in further view of US 9550295 B2 ("Shiratsuchi") in further view of US 2017/0352195 A1 ("Grube")
Regarding claim 1, Fujii teaches an interference check device for checking interference between a robot and a surrounding obstacle, the interference check device comprising (Fujii: Column 10 lines 41-54, “FIG. 1 is a hardware block diagram of an interference determination system 10 according to a first embodiment. As shown in the diagram, the interference determination system 10 includes an input unit 12 for inputting information, a computation device 14 for processing information, and an output unit 20 including a robot arm 16 that is controlled based on a computation result and a monitor 18 for displaying a result. Note that the interference determination system 10 needs only be configured so as to determine whether interference between the robot arm 16, which is a control target, and an obstacle will occur based on a result of computation executed in the computation device 14.”):
an inclusive cuboid set conversion unit configured to convert each of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into a three-dimensional model of a set of cuboids (Fujii: Column 12 line 47 – Column 13 line 10, “Note that, in an embodiment, the computation device 14 generates an approximated obstacle model (surrounding object approximated body), which is an obstacle model expressed as a mesh, using a later-described given method utilizing a bounding sphere, a cuboid, a convex hull, and the like, or another known method, in step S11. Also, the computation device 14 generates an approximated robot model (robot data), which is a robot model expressed as a mesh, using a later-described given method utilizing a bounding sphere, a cuboid, a convex hull, and the like, or another known method, in step S12.”, Column 14 lines 20-52, “FIG. 3C is a conceptual diagram illustrating a BY, which is different from the bounding sphere and the first cuboid, that approximates to the same object. The BV shown in FIG. 3C is constituted by line segments that are parallel to axes of a rotated coordinate system (second coordinate system) obtained by rotating the given reference coordinate system by a given angle according to the shape or the like of the object, and is a second cuboid BV that includes the approximation target object.”, Column 18 lines 22-25, “Next, in step S12, a robot model (robot data) that is expressed using second cuboids is created based on a robot model expressed as a mesh or the like that has been input from the input unit 12.”, Column 18 lines 52-67, “FIG. 9 shows an example in which second cuboid robot approximated bodies are generated with respect to six focused parts including parts from the base link BL to the link LS of the robot arm 16.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly see from the cited passages that the robot and obstacle are modeled as a set of cuboids.);
an interference determination unit configured to determine whether or not there is interference between the three-dimensional model of the robot and the three-dimensional model of the surrounding obstacle by simulation of motions of the three-dimensional models of the robot and the surrounding obstacle based on a motion program (Fujii: Figure 10, Column 20 lines 15-25, “First, in step S21, an intermediate posture (intermediate position) of the robot arm 16 is generated based on an initial posture (initial position) corresponding to a first position of the robot arm 16 and a target posture (target position) corresponding to a second position that are input from the input unit.”, Column 20 lines 32-61, “FIGS. 12A to 12D show a method of determining the number of intermediate positions (intermediate postures) to be set in order to appropriately determine whether a given focused part (link 50) will interfere with an obstacle in a course from the initial posture S at the start point to the target posture G at the end point while moving on a given motion path. Note that the motion path from the start point to the end point may be calculated using a known method, and a method of searching a path from the start point to the end point described in JP 2014-073550A, and a method of generating the path in which taught points that were taught to the robot arm 16 by an operator are connected using a known interpolation method can be adopted.”, Column 24 lines 1-10, “Next, in step S23, the first cuboids that constitute the hierarchical structure (tree structure) constituted by the first cuboids generated in step S22 are compared with the first cuboid of the obstacle generated in the pre-processing so as to determine whether or not interference may occur. Here, determining whether or not interference between the robot and the surrounding object may occur refers to determining whether or not the robot will interfere with a surrounding object using estimation in a virtual space using approximated bodies of the robot and the surrounding object.”. As can be seen from the cited passage, the device is configured to simulate the motion of the robot from a stat position to a target position and check for interference using the cuboid models of the robot and obstacles.); and
wherein the inclusive cuboid set conversion unit comprises: a point group data conversion unit configured to convert to respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle based on shape data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle (Fujii: Column 13 lines 11-50, “First, as shown in step S11, an approximated obstacle model is generated using a later-described given method utilizing a bounding sphere, a cuboid, a convex hull, or the like, or another known method, based on an obstacle model expressed as a mesh that is input from the input unit 12. In an embodiment, an obstacle model that constitutes a BVH (Bounding Volume Hierarchy) is generated based on an obstacle model expressed as a mesh.”, Column 18 lines 22-25, “Next, in step S12, a robot model (robot data) that is expressed using second cuboids is created based on a robot model expressed as a mesh or the like that has been input from the input unit 12.”. As can be seen from the cited passages, the interference deice is configure to take object and robot shape data (expressed as a mesh model), and create the cuboids used to represent the objects and robot using this data.);
Fujii, does not teach an input unit configured to receive an input of a number of cuboids in the set of cuboids,
a point group data dividing unit configured to divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of cuboids that is input into the input unit, calculate a total volume of the set of cuboids as an evaluation value for each combination of a plurality of cutting planes that divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of the cuboids,
and recalculate the total volume of the set of cuboids as the evaluation value for each combination of the plurality of cutting planes that are newly generated on the basis of a genetic algorithm;
and a smallest total volume retrieval unit configured to retrieve the plurality of cutting planes that have a smallest total volume of the set of cuboids as the evaluation value evaluation value of the evaluation values for each combination of the plurality of cutting planes in respectively the robot and the surrounding obstacle.
Wikipedia, in the same field of endeavor, teaches recalculate the total volume of the set of cuboids as the evaluation value for each combination of the plurality of cutting planes that are newly generated on the basis of a genetic algorithm (Wikipedia: Methodology Section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the interference check device taught in Fujii with the method of recalculate the total volume of the set of cuboids as the evaluation value for each combination of the plurality of cutting planes that are newly generated on the basis of a genetic algorithm taught in Wikipedia with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would have been obvious to combine. Genetic algorithms are well known to those of ordinary skill in the art and are used commonly to generate new data sets based on previous data sets. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the interference device taught in Fujii with the method of recalculate the total volume of the set of cuboids as the evaluation value for each combination of the plurality of cutting planes that are newly generated on the basis of a genetic algorithm taught in Wikipedia. Furthermore, changing the algorithm in Fujii used to create the cuboid model to a genetic algorithm would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required.
Fujii in view of Wikipedia does not teach an input unit configured to receive an input of a number of cuboids in the set of cuboids,
a point group data dividing unit configured to divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of cuboids that is input into the input unit, calculate a total volume of the set of cuboids as an evaluation value for each combination of a plurality of cutting planes that divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of the cuboids,
and a smallest total volume retrieval unit configured to retrieve the plurality of cutting planes that have a smallest total volume of the set of cuboids as the evaluation value evaluation value of the evaluation values for each combination of the plurality of cutting planes in respectively the robot and the surrounding obstacle.
Shiratsuchi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an input unit configured to receive an input of a number of cuboids in the set of cuboids (Shiratsuchi: Column 7 lines 4-14, “The model-number upper-limit input unit 12 is an interface to which a model upper-limit number 102, which is the upper limit of the number of models, is input. The model upper-limit number 102 is input to the model-number upper limit input unit 12 by the user using a mouse, a keyboard, and the like. The model upper-limit number 102 is the upper limit allowance of the number of models that is allocated to the modeling target. The model upper-limit number 102 is an integral number equal to or larger than one and has no upper limit. The model-number upper-limit input unit 12 transmits the model upper-limit number 102 to the modeling unit 14.”),
a point group data dividing unit configured to divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of cuboids that is input into the input unit, calculate an evaluation value for each combination of a plurality of cutting planes that divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of the cuboids (Shiratsuchi: Column 8 lines 34-53, “The enclosure-volume comparison unit 13 calculates the excess-enclosure volume ratio of the model to the modeling target on the basis of the cuboid size in the modeling instruction 101 and the model information 103. The excess enclosure volume ratio is a value obtained by dividing the volume of the model excessively enclosing the modeling target by the volume of the modeling target. The enclosure volume comparison unit 13 calculates the volume of the modeling target on the basis of the cuboid size in the modeling instruction 101 and calculates the volume of the model on the basis of the model information 103.”, Column 9 line 57 – Column 10 line 9, “The minimum-enclosure-volume-model determination unit 18A selects a model candidate having the smallest modeling excess amount 104 from the extracted model candidates and stores the selected model candidate in the set-model storage unit 19 as the minimum enclosure-volume model 109.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the volume ration is clearly a value used to evaluate the representative cuboids of the robot, and this value is calculated for every cuboid that makes up the model.),
and a smallest total volume retrieval unit configured to retrieve the plurality of cutting planes that have a highest evaluation value of the evaluation values for each combination of the plurality of cutting planes in respectively the robot and the surrounding obstacle (Shiratsuchi: Column 9 line 57 – Column 10 line 9, “The minimum-enclosure-volume-model determination unit 18A selects a model candidate having the smallest modeling excess amount 104 from the extracted model candidates and stores the selected model candidate in the set-model storage unit 19 as the minimum enclosure-volume model 109.”. One of ordinary skill in the art see that, by how the evaluation value is defined in the prior art, having the minimum excess volume amount is equivalent to having a higher evaluation value.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the interference check device taught in Fujii in view of Wikipedia with the methods of receiving a number of cuboids as an input, determining an evaluation value for each group of points divided by the cutting planes, and retrieving the cutting planes that have the highest evaluation value taught in Shiratsuchi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because by reducing the amount of models used and the excess volume of the models (equivalent to reducing the total volume of the models), the computational cost can be reduced (Shiratsuchi: Column 2 lines 22-28, “However, in the conventional technique described above, although determinations of interference between all the models can be avoided, when the models are placed close to each other, the number of models requiring the determination increases. As a result, when detailed modeling is performed by using a spherical body having small calculation cost per unit, large calculation cost may be incurred.”, Column 2 lines 29-34, “Furthermore, when a single kind of primitive is applied to a model, by increasing the number of models from N to N + 1, the excess volume when the target is enclosed may increase. In this case, although there is hardly any change in the excess enclosure of the model, the calculation cost for determinations may increase.”, Column 2 lines 35-40, “Therefore, in order to reduce an enclosure volume while realizing stable calculation cost at all times, not a single model but an enclosure model effective for the shape needs to be selected. When there is an upper limit to the calculation cost, it is necessary to consider whether the total calculation cost does not exceed the upper limit.”).
Fujii in view of Wikipedia in further view of Shiratsuchi does not teach a point group data dividing unit configured to divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of cuboids that is input into the input unit, calculate a total volume of the set of cuboids as an evaluation value for each combination of a plurality of cutting planes that divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of the cuboids,
and a smallest total volume retrieval unit configured to retrieve the plurality of cutting planes that have a smallest total volume of the set of cuboids as the evaluation value evaluation value of the evaluation values for each combination of the plurality of cutting planes in respectively the robot and the surrounding obstacle.
Grube, in the same field of endeavor, teaches Fujii in view of Wikipedia in further view of Shiratsuchi does not teach a point group data dividing unit configured to divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of cuboids that is input into the input unit, calculate a total volume of the set of cuboids as an evaluation value for each combination of a plurality of cutting planes that divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of the cuboids (Grube: Figure 5 first minimum volume bounding box 230 and second minimum volume bounding box 232, Abstract, “An example method is described that includes providing, for display, a three-dimensional (3D) model of a part. The method also includes receiving, via a graphical user interface, data defining a cutting plane. The cutting plane intersects the 3D model of the part and divides the 3D model into a first portion and a second portion. The method further includes determining a first set of minimum-volume bounding boxes that is tangent to the cutting plane and encloses the first portion of the 3D model, and determining a second set of minimum-volume bounding boxes that is tangent to the cutting plane and encloses the second portion of the 3D model. The method also includes providing a preform geometry for the part. The preform geometry includes the first set of minimum-volume bounding boxes and the second set of minimum-volume bounding boxes.”, ¶ 0067, “After a user defines a cutting plane, the computing device may also determine a preform geometry corresponding to the cutting plane. Determining the preform geometry may involve determining a first set of minimum-volume bounding boxes that is tangent to the cutting plane and encloses the first portion and determining a second set of minimum-volume bounding boxes that is tangent to the cutting plane and encloses the second portion of the 3D model 204.”, ¶ 0068, “A minimum-volume bounding box for a point set is a box with the smallest volume within which all the points lie. In the context of a the 3D model of a part, a minimum-volume bounding box is the box with the smallest volume within which all the points of a connected subset of geometry of the 3D model lie, subject to the additional constraint that one side of the box is tangent to the cutting plane. Depending on the number of connected subsets of geometry in the first portion and the second portion, the first set of minimum-volume bounding boxes and the second set of minimum-volume bounding boxes, respectively, may include one or more than one minimum-volume bounding boxes.”, ¶ 0072, “Further, in the illustration depicted in FIG. 4, the total volume of the minimum-volume bounding boxes is 35.511 cubic inches. The computing device may determine the total volume by summing the volume of the first set of minimum-volume bounding boxes and the second set of minimum-volume bounding boxes. Displaying the total volume may allow the user to quickly discern the amount of raw material required to manufacture a preform having the preform geometry.”, ¶ 0077, “The computing device may also determine updated fabrication values corresponding to fabrication of a preform having the updated preform geometry, and display the updated fabrication values in the fabrication window 218. In the illustration depicted in FIG. 6, the block count is three since the preform geometry is made up of three minimum-volume bounding boxes. To fabricate a preform having the preform geometry, a first block of raw material that is the size of the third minimum-volume bounding box may be welded to a second block of raw material that is the size of the fourth minimum-volume bounding box. The combination of the first block and the second block may then be welded to a third block of raw material that is the size of the first minimum-volume bounding box.”, ¶ 0078, “Further, in the illustration depicted in FIG. 6, the total volume is 18.004 cubic inches. The computing device may determine the total volume by summing the volume of the first minimum-volume bounding box, the third minimum-volume bounding box, and the fourth minimum-volume bounding box.”. The cited passages clearly shows that the system is configured place multiple three-dimensional bounding boxes around an object. The system is configured to determine the bounding box with the minimum volume required to fit the object. The bounding boxes are additionally determined using multiple cutting planes of the object. The system is further configured to determine the total volume of all bounding boxes fit to the object.),
and a smallest total volume retrieval unit configured to retrieve the plurality of cutting planes that have a smallest total volume of the set of cuboids as the evaluation value evaluation value of the evaluation values for each combination of the plurality of cutting planes in respectively the robot and the surrounding obstacle (Grube: Abstract, “An example method is described that includes providing, for display, a three-dimensional (3D) model of a part. The method also includes receiving, via a graphical user interface, data defining a cutting plane. The cutting plane intersects the 3D model of the part and divides the 3D model into a first portion and a second portion. The method further includes determining a first set of minimum-volume bounding boxes that is tangent to the cutting plane and encloses the first portion of the 3D model, and determining a second set of minimum-volume bounding boxes that is tangent to the cutting plane and encloses the second portion of the 3D model. The method also includes providing a preform geometry for the part. The preform geometry includes the first set of minimum-volume bounding boxes and the second set of minimum-volume bounding boxes.”, ¶ 0067, “After a user defines a cutting plane, the computing device may also determine a preform geometry corresponding to the cutting plane. Determining the preform geometry may involve determining a first set of minimum-volume bounding boxes that is tangent to the cutting plane and encloses the first portion and determining a second set of minimum-volume bounding boxes that is tangent to the cutting plane and encloses the second portion of the 3D model 204.”, ¶ 0068, “A minimum-volume bounding box for a point set is a box with the smallest volume within which all the points lie. In the context of a the 3D model of a part, a minimum-volume bounding box is the box with the smallest volume within which all the points of a connected subset of geometry of the 3D model lie, subject to the additional constraint that one side of the box is tangent to the cutting plane. Depending on the number of connected subsets of geometry in the first portion and the second portion, the first set of minimum-volume bounding boxes and the second set of minimum-volume bounding boxes, respectively, may include one or more than one minimum-volume bounding boxes.”, ¶ 0072, “Further, in the illustration depicted in FIG. 4, the total volume of the minimum-volume bounding boxes is 35.511 cubic inches. The computing device may determine the total volume by summing the volume of the first set of minimum-volume bounding boxes and the second set of minimum-volume bounding boxes. Displaying the total volume may allow the user to quickly discern the amount of raw material required to manufacture a preform having the preform geometry.”, ¶ 0077, “The computing device may also determine updated fabrication values corresponding to fabrication of a preform having the updated preform geometry, and display the updated fabrication values in the fabrication window 218. In the illustration depicted in FIG. 6, the block count is three since the preform geometry is made up of three minimum-volume bounding boxes. To fabricate a preform having the preform geometry, a first block of raw material that is the size of the third minimum-volume bounding box may be welded to a second block of raw material that is the size of the fourth minimum-volume bounding box. The combination of the first block and the second block may then be welded to a third block of raw material that is the size of the first minimum-volume bounding box.”, ¶ 0078, “Further, in the illustration depicted in FIG. 6, the total volume is 18.004 cubic inches. The computing device may determine the total volume by summing the volume of the first minimum-volume bounding box, the third minimum-volume bounding box, and the fourth minimum-volume bounding box.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that because the bounding box for each cutting plane is the bounding box with the minimum volume, the total volume would be the smallest total volume, as each bounding boxes volume is already at its minimum.).
Fujii in view of Wikipedia in further view of Shiratsuchi teaches an interference check device for checking interference between a robot and a surrounding obstacle, the interference check device comprising: an inclusive cuboid set conversion unit configured to convert each of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into a three-dimensional model of a set of cuboids; an interference determination unit configured to determine whether or not there is interference between the three-dimensional model of the robot and the three-dimensional model of the surrounding obstacle by simulation of motions of the three-dimensional models of the robot and the surrounding obstacle based on a motion program; and an input unit configured to receive an input of a number of cuboids in the set of cuboids, wherein the inclusive cuboid set conversion unit comprises: a point group data conversion unit configured to convert to respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle based on shape data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle; a point group data dividing unit configured to divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of the cuboids that is input into the input unit, calculate an evaluation value for each combination of a plurality of cutting planes that divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of the cuboids, and recalculate the total volume of the set of cuboids as the evaluation value for each combination of the plurality of cutting planes that are newly generated on the basis of a genetic algorithm; and a smallest total volume retrieval unit configured to retrieve the plurality of cutting planes that have a highest evaluation value of the evaluation values for each combination of the plurality of cutting planes in respectively the robot and the surrounding obstacle. Fujii in view of Wikipedia in further view of Shiratsuchi does not teach a point group data dividing unit configured to divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of cuboids that is input into the input unit, calculate a total volume of the set of cuboids as an evaluation value for each combination of a plurality of cutting planes that divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of the cuboids, and a smallest total volume retrieval unit configured to retrieve the plurality of cutting planes that have a smallest total volume of the set of cuboids as the evaluation value evaluation value of the evaluation values for each combination of the plurality of cutting planes in respectively the robot and the surrounding obstacle. Grube teaches a point group data dividing unit configured to divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of cuboids that is input into the input unit, calculate a total volume of the set of cuboids as an evaluation value for each combination of a plurality of cutting planes that divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of the cuboids, and a smallest total volume retrieval unit configured to retrieve the plurality of cutting planes that have a smallest total volume of the set of cuboids as the evaluation value evaluation value of the evaluation values for each combination of the plurality of cutting planes in respectively the robot and the surrounding obstacle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the device taught in Fujii in view of Wikipedia in further view of Shiratsuchi with a point group data dividing unit configured to divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of cuboids that is input into the input unit, calculate a total volume of the set of cuboids as an evaluation value for each combination of a plurality of cutting planes that divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of the cuboids, and a smallest total volume retrieval unit configured to retrieve the plurality of cutting planes that have a smallest total volume of the set of cuboids as the evaluation value evaluation value of the evaluation values for each combination of the plurality of cutting planes in respectively the robot and the surrounding obstacle taught in Grube. Furthermore, the device taught in Fujii in view of Wikipedia in further view of Shiratsuchi is already configured to determine a minimum volume cuboid that is fit to the robot, however the metric used to determine the minimum volume cuboid is the minimum excess volume rather the smallest total volume. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to easily modify the device taught in Fujii in view of Wikipedia in further view of Shiratsuchi with determining the total volume of the set of cuboids and further determining the smallest total volume of the set of cuboids as taught in Grube because the determining the volume of a cuboid and determining the total volume of a set of cuboids would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the device taught in Fujii in view of Wikipedia in further view of Shiratsuchi already determines the volume of the cuboid as a part of determining the excess volume (Shiratsuchi: Column 8 lines 34-53). Additionally, modifying the device such that the smallest total volume is used as the criteria would have required the simple substituting the smallest total volume for the excess volume as the criteria. Such a modification would not have changed or introduced new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of an interference check device for checking interference between a robot and a surrounding obstacle, the interference check device comprising: a point group data dividing unit configured to divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of cuboids that is input into the input unit, calculate a total volume of the set of cuboids as an evaluation value for each combination of a plurality of cutting planes that divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of the cuboids, and a smallest total volume retrieval unit configured to retrieve the plurality of cutting planes that have a smallest total volume of the set of cuboids as the evaluation value evaluation value of the evaluation values for each combination of the plurality of cutting planes in respectively the robot and the surrounding obstacle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the device taught in Fujii in view of Wikipedia in further view of Shiratsuchi with a point group data dividing unit configured to divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of cuboids that is input into the input unit, calculate a total volume of the set of cuboids as an evaluation value for each combination of a plurality of cutting planes that divide the respective point group data of the robot and the surrounding obstacle into the number of the cuboids, and a smallest total volume retrieval unit configured to retrieve the plurality of cutting planes that have a smallest total volume of the set of cuboids as the evaluation value evaluation value of the evaluation values for each combination of the plurality of cutting planes in respectively the robot and the surrounding obstacle taught in Grube with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Fujii in view of Wikipedia in further view of Shiratsuchi in further view of Grube teaches wherein the point group data dividing unit recalculates the evaluation value for each combination of the plurality of cutting planes by a number of repetitions that is set in advance (Wikipedia: Methodology and Limitations sections. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that running a genetic algorithm for a predefined number of repetitions is common and known within the art. Furthermore, it would be well within the technological capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art to run an algorithm for a set number of repetitions.).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11014239 B2 ("Fujii") in view of NPL Genetic Algorithm Wikipedia ("Wikipedia") in further view of US 9550295 B2 ("Shiratsuchi") in further view of US 2017/0352195 A1 ("Grube") in further view of JP H0736519 A ("Yamamoto").
Regarding claim 3, Fujii in view of Wikipedia in further view of Shiratsuchi in further view of Grube teaches wherein the inclusive cuboid set conversion unit comprises: a simplified range setting unit configured to set a range of shape data of the surrounding obstacle to be used in the simulation (Fujii: Figure 5, Column 15 line 47 – Column 16 line 23, “FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating how approximated bodies are hierarchically structured. In the present example, an approximated body in a relatively upper layer is generated so as to include an approximated body in a relatively lower layer, and as a result, the approximated bodies are hierarchically structured. Specifically, FIG. 5 shows an example in which BVH (Bounding Volume Hierarchy) is adopted as the method of generating a tree structure as a hierarchical structure. A case where a mesh model of an object constituted by a table and a vase on the table is approximated by the first cuboid will be described, as an example. FIG. 5(a) shows a first cuboid 11 that approximates to the entirety of the object. FIG. 5(b) shows a case where the object is divided into an upper half focused part and a lower half focused part, and shows an approximated body including an approximated body constituted by a first cuboid 21 that includes the upper half focused part and an approximated body constituted by a first cuboid 22 that includes the lower half focused part. FIG. 5(c) shows a case where the first cuboid 21 is approximated by a first cuboid 31 that includes an upper half focused part of the first cuboid 21 and a first cuboid 32 that includes a lower half focused part, the first cuboid 22 is divided into upper and lower focused parts, and the upper and lower focused parts are respectively approximated by a first cuboid 33 and four first cuboids 34-1 to 34-4. FIG. 5(d) shows an example in which the focused parts in FIG. 5(c) are further subdivided, and are approximated by 16 first cuboid approximated bodies (first cuboids 41 to 46, 47-1 to 47-4, 48-1 to 48-4, and 49-1 to 49-2).”, As can be seen from the cited passage and figure, the device is configured to generate a tree structure in which different ranges of the cuboid shapes used to model the objects are created. For example, at the top of the tree, a cuboid is created that encompasses both object in their entirety. At the lowest level, the objects are broken into several cuboids each.);
a margin setting unit configured to set a margin with respect to the three-dimensional models of the sets of cuboids of the surrounding obstacle (Fujii: Column 13 lines 51-61, “FIGS. 3A to 3D show one example of the BV. For example, FIG. 3A shows a sphere (Bounding Sphere) BV that includes an object having an inclined protruding shape. The bounding sphere can be specified by the position and radius of the sphere. For example, in the present example, interference between bounding spheres can be determined in a short period of time, which is in the order of one nano second. Note that the BV is not limited to a BV that is in contact with an object to be included, and the BV can be generated so as to be larger than the object so as to include the object with a predetermined margin.”).
Fujii in view of Wikipedia in further view of Shiratsuchi in further view of Grube does not teach a margin setting unit configured to set a margin with respect to the three-dimensional models of the sets of cuboids of the robot.
Yamamoto, in the same field of endeavor, teaches inclusive cuboid set conversion unit comprises: a margin setting unit configured to set a margin with respect to the three-dimensional models of the sets of cuboids of the robot (Yamamoto: ¶ 0006, “The dimensions of the models D1 and D2 are enlarged (S4) by the safe distances L obtained from the inputted movement date M1 and M2 by using the relation X, and the near-miss check is performed (S5) by performing the collision check between the size-enlarged models M1' and M2'.”, ¶ 0008, “Here, the direction of expansion of the models M1 and M2 will be described. In FIG. 4 a, the models M 1 and M2 are represented by rectangular parallelepipeds b and a, respectively. In FIG. 4 (a), the rectangular parallelepiped a is enlarged (plane movement calculation) by moving the plane Al,A2,-,A5 outward by the safety length L in the direction of the normal vectors VA1 to VA5 of the plane.”);
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art does not combine the interference check device and the method of setting a margin with respect the three-dimensional models of the sets of cuboids of the robot into a single reference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the interference check device taught in Fujii in view of Wikipedia in further view of Shiratsuchi in further view of Grube with the method of setting a margin with respect the three-dimensional models of the sets of cuboids of the robot taught in Yamamoto. Furthermore, the interference check device taught in Fujii in view of Wikipedia in further view of Shiratsuchi in further view of Grube is already configured to set a margin with respect to the three-dimensional model of the cuboids of the objects, so modifying the device that it performs the same process with the cuboids of the robot as taught in Yamamoto would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of an interference check device configured to set a margin with respect the three-dimensional models of the sets of cuboids of the robot.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine interference check device taught in Fujii in view of Wikipedia in further view of Shiratsuchi in further view of Grube with the method of setting a margin with respect the three-dimensional models of the sets of cuboids of the robot taught in Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah W Stiebritz whose telephone number is (571)272-3414. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7-5 EST.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270-5744. 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.
/N.W.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights