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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-8 remain pending. Claims 1, 3, and 5-8 have been amended. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 states “in the decelerating, the moving speed of the robot arm is decelerated to the third speed”. However, claim 1 states that the robot is decelerated to a first speed. It is unclear which speed the robot is decelerated to when performing the deceleration. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 lacks antecedent basis for the phrase “the moving speed” in line 5, “the robot arm” in line 5, “the speed limit” in line 6, and “the safety input signal” in line 8. It is unclear what these terms are referring to.
Furthermore, it is unclear if “a moving speed of a robot arm” in line 9 is referring to the moving speed and the robot arm recited earlier in the claim, or if this is a different moving speed and different robot arm. It is unclear if “a speed limit” in line 11 is referring to the speed limit recited earlier in the claim, or if it is a different speed limit. It is unclear if “a predetermined condition” in line 11, and “a safety input signal” in lines 12-13 are referring to the predetermined condition and safety input signal recited earlier in the claim, or if this is a different predetermined condition and different safety input signal.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al (US 20180093378 A1) in view of Morioka et al (US 20190070730 A1) and Wang et al (US 20230256606 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Yamamoto, Morioka, and Wang respectively)
Regarding Claims 1 and 7-8, Yamamoto teaches a control method for controlling a robot system including a robot arm (See at least Yamamoto Paragraphs 0007-0014 and Figures 1-2),
a robot system (See at least Yamamoto Paragraphs 0007-0014) comprising: a robot arm (See at least Yamamoto Paragraph 0033 and Figure 1);
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a process by a processor so as to perform the steps of (See at least Yamamoto Paragraph 0116, the computer, which includes a processor, executes a program stored in the storage medium):
a processor configured to control an operation of the robot arm (See at least Yamamoto Paragraphs 0007 and 0033, the controller/processor controls the robot), and forcibly stop the operation of the robot arm when a speed monitoring function of the robot arm is enabled and a moving speed of the robot arm exceeds a speed limit (See at least Yamamoto Paragraphs 0008-0009, 0045-0046, 0049, and 0054-0055, the power cutoff unit, which is part of the controller/processor, stops the robot when the speed monitoring/speed comparison function is enabled and the speed of the robot exceeds the predetermined reference speed/set speed limit), the control method for causing the processor to execute a process, the control method comprising executing on the processor the steps of:
detecting the moving speed of the robot arm (See at least Yamamoto Paragraphs 0008-0012, 0040 and 0054, the controller detects the moving speed using the speed detection part);
decelerating the moving speed of the robot arm to a first speed that is less than the speed limit when a predetermined condition including that the moving speed exceeds the speed limit is satisfied in a case in which a safety input signal that enables the speed limit from a safety input device is received (See at least Yamamoto Paragraphs 0062-0066, and 0090-0091, the robot slows down/decelerates to less than the speed limit when the safety input signal to enable the speed regulation is received and the speed exceeds the limit); and
enabling the speed monitoring function when a switching time elapses after receiving the safety input signal (See at least Yamamoto Paragraphs 0085-0091, the speed monitoring/comparison function is enabled after a delay, which is interpreted as a switching time elapses).
Yamamoto fails to disclose after execution of the decelerating, accelerating the moving speed to a second speed that is less than the speed limit and faster than the first speed when the speed monitoring function of the robot arm is enabled.
However, Morioka teaches after execution of the decelerating, accelerating the moving speed to a second speed that is less than the speed limit and faster than the first speed when the speed monitoring function of the robot arm is enabled (See at least Morioka Paragraphs 0031, 0033, 0036-0037, and Figure 3, the robot is stopped/decelerated in S7, the process goes back to S1 from S8 when the task is not completed, and the robot is operated at a second speed that is lower than the collaborative operating speed/speed limit and faster than the first speed when the robot was stopped, when the speed monitoring function is enabled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Yamamoto with Morioka to accelerate the moving speed to a second speed that is less than the speed limit and faster than the first speed when the speed monitoring function of the robot arm is enabled after execution of the decelerating. This modification, as taught by Morioka, would allow the robot to complete a task while ensuring safety by operating at a speed lower than the speed limit after the robot was stopped due to contact (See at least Morioka Paragraphs 0031, 0033, 0036-0037, and Figure 3), which would increase the efficiency of the robot while maintaining safety.
Modified Yamamoto fails to disclose after execution of the decelerating, accelerating the moving speed to a speed before decelerating to the first speed when the speed monitoring function of the robot arm is not enabled.
However, Wang teaches after execution of the decelerating, accelerating the moving speed to a speed before decelerating to the first speed when the speed monitoring function of the robot arm is not enabled (See at least Wang Paragraphs 0004-0005, 0046, and 0074, the robot is stopped/decelerated, and resumes to a high motion speed when there is no human in the present zone, which is interpreted as accelerating the moving speed to a speed before decelerating to the first speed when the speed monitoring function of the robot arm is not enabled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Yamamoto with Wang to accelerate the moving speed to a speed before decelerating to the first speed when the speed monitoring function of the robot arm is not enabled after execution of the decelerating. This modification, as taught by Wang, would improve the efficiency of the robot by allowing the robot to autonomously resume to a high motion speed after stopping/decelerating when the speed monitoring function is not enabled (See at least Wang Paragraphs 0004-0005, 0046, and 0074).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Yamamoto fails to explicitly disclose the first speed is zero.
However, Morioka teaches the first speed is zero (See at least Morioka Paragraph 0036, the robot is stopped/decelerated to zero).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Yamamoto with Morioka to have the first speed be zero. This modification, as taught by Morioka, would sufficiently ensure safety when contact with a human occurs (See at least Morioka Paragraph 0036).
Regarding Claims 5-6, modified Yamamoto teaches wherein the processor is further configured to perform:
a first mode in which the moving speed is limited to less than the speed limit (See at least Yamamoto Paragraph 0054 and 0062-0064, enabling the speed regulation unit to limit the speed is interpreted as the first mode); and
a second mode in which the moving speed is not controlled to less than the speed limit (See at least Yamamoto Paragraph 0056 and 0062-0064, disabling the speed regulation unit is interpreted as the second mode),
the control method further includes:
receiving a designation as to which of the first mode and the second mode is to be set (See at least Yamamoto Paragraphs 0054-0056, the designation of the mode is received according to the detection of the person), and
the predetermined condition is satisfied when the moving speed exceeds the speed limit and the first mode is set in the case in which the safety input signal is received (See at least Yamamoto Paragraphs 0062-0066, and 0090-0091, the robot slows down/decelerates to less than the speed limit when the safety input signal to enable the speed regulation is received and the speed exceeds the limit in the first mode),
wherein the processor is configured to satisfy a standard related to functional safety (See at least Yamamoto Paragraphs 0006 and 0045-0046, the power cutoff unit/processor is configured to satisfy speed and force limits, which are standards related to safety).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view Morioka and Wang, and in further view of of Bonin (US 20180356815 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Bonin)
Regarding Claim 4, Yamamoto fails to disclose receiving, before execution of the decelerating, a designation of a third speed that is less than the speed limit, wherein
in the decelerating, the moving speed of the robot arm is decelerated to the third speed.
However, Bonin teaches receiving, before execution of the decelerating, a designation of a third speed that is less than the speed limit (See at least Bonin Paragraph 0033, the first velocity limit/third speed is received/set by the manufacturer, which occurs before decelerating and is less than the maximum permissible velocity/speed limit), wherein
in the decelerating, the moving speed of the robot arm is decelerated to the third speed (See at least Bonin Paragraphs 0011-0012, the robot is decelerated to the first velocity limit/third speed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Yamamoto with Bonin to decelerate the moving speed of the robot arm to the third speed, which is designated before deceleration. Bonin teaches setting the speed that the robot is decelerated to, which is a fraction of the maximum permissible speed/speed limit (See at least Bonin Paragraphs 0011-0012 and 0033). This modification would give an operator greater control over the robot by allowing the speed at which the robot decelerates to to be set, thus, making the system more desirable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7-8 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. Applicant argues that the prior art of Yamamoto and Wang does not disclose “features relating to acceleration occurring while the speed monitoring function remains enabled”. However, this newly claimed feature is taught by Morioka. Morioka teaches decelerating a robot to a stop. Then, in order to complete the task, the robot is accelerated to a speed less than the speed limit while the speed monitoring function remains enabled. Therefore, the claims still stand rejected under 103.
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 ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm 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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657