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 1-24 remain pending. Claim 5 has been amended.
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, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galloway et al (US 20190176332 A1) in view of Hirose et al (US 20200398447 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Galloway and Hirose respectively)
Regarding Claim 1, Galloway teaches a method for providing active support for industrial robots (See at least Galloway Paragraph 0011), said method comprising:
determining that a robot at a facility has experienced an issue needing resolution (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0024-0025, the controller monitors predetermined conditions of the robot, which is interpreted as determining that the robot has experienced an issue needing resolution);
identifying one or more diagnostic files needed for diagnosing the issue (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0025, 0029, and 0033-0034, the dynamic data is interpreted as diagnostic files needed for diagnosing the issue);
transferring the diagnostic files, by a data collection device located at the facility, from a controller of the robot to the data collection device (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0026, 0034, and Figure 1, the first data collection device extracts/transfers the dynamic data/diagnostic files from the controller);
uploading the diagnostic files by the data collection device to a cloud-based diagnostic system located remotely from the facility (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0030, and 0037-0038, the dynamic data/diagnostic files are uploaded to a second data collection device/cloud-based diagnostic system located remotely from the facility/building);
…
determining a diagnosis of the issue based on the diagnostic files (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0038-0040, a diagnosis of the issue is determined based on the dynamic data/diagnostic files); and
resolving the issue based on the diagnosis (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0041-0042, the issue is resolved by initiating a maintenance action).
Galloway fails to disclose notifying a robot operator at the facility and a support team located remotely from the facility, by the diagnostic system, that the diagnostic files are available.
However, Hirose teaches notifying a robot operator at the facility and a support team located remotely from the facility, by the diagnostic system, that the diagnostic files are available (See at least Hirose Paragraphs 0040, 0078-0080, 0082-0085, 0088, and Figures 1, 4, and 7, displaying the measurement results indicating a malfunction on the display unit 14 and the remote computer 5 is interpreted as notifying a robot operator at the facility and a support team located remotely that the diagnostic files are available).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Galloway with Hirose to notify the robot operator and the support team that the diagnostic files are available. This modification, as taught by Hirose, would allow both the robot operator and the support team to see the diagnostic files indicating a malfunction, and the support team can confirm the malfunction (See at least Hirose Paragraphs 0078-0080, 0082-0085, 0088, and Figure 7), thus, increasing the awareness of both the operator and the support team and the redundancy of the system.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Galloway teaches the diagnostic files include one or more of log files with history data, debug files, backup files, software program and configuration files, and files containing data about the robot at a moment when the issue occurred (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0024-0025, 0029, and 0033-0034, the dynamic data that is collected based on the predetermined condition is interpreted as data about the robot at a moment when the issue occurred).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Galloway teaches the issue needing resolution includes a fault or error in hardware or software of the controller, a robot collision alert, or a problem with any mechanical or electrical component or subsystem of the robot (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0029, 0040, and 0042, the issue includes problems with mechanical components of the robot such as the bearings).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galloway in view of Hirose, and in further view of Couvignou (US 20210323156 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Couvignou)
Regarding Claim 2, modified Galloway fails to disclose determining that the robot has experienced an issue is performed by the robot operator, who then notifies the support team of the issue.
However, Couvignou teaches determining that the robot has experienced an issue is performed by the robot operator (See at least Couvignou Paragraph 0106, the unskilled robot operator identifies the issue), who then notifies the support team of the issue (See at least Couvignou Paragraphs 0104, 0106, and 0119, the skilled technician in a remote location, which is interpreted as the support team, is notified of the issue).
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 Galloway with Couvignou to notify the support team of the issue. This modification, as taught by Couvignou, would allow the support team to resolve the issue when the issue is determined by an unskilled robot operator (See at least Couvignou Paragraphs 0104, and 0106), thus, improving the safety and efficiency of the system.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Galloway fails to disclose resolving the issue based on the diagnosis includes the robot operator or a service technician performing an action on the robot or the controller.
However, Couvignou teaches resolving the issue based on the diagnosis includes the robot operator or a service technician performing an action on the robot or the controller (See at least Couvignou Paragraphs 0103- 0106, the skilled technician performs an action on the robot based on the diagnosis).
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 Galloway with Couvignou to resolve the issue by having a service technician perform an action on the robot. This modification, as taught by Couvignou, would fix defective robots (See at least Couvignou Paragraphs 0103- 0106), thus, improving the safety and efficiency of the system.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galloway in view of Hirose, and in further view of Hvass et al (US 20210237269 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Hvass)
Regarding Claim 3, modified Galloway teaches determining that the robot has experienced an issue is performed by the controller of the robot (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0024-0025, the controller monitors predetermined conditions of the robot, which is interpreted as determining that the robot has experienced an issue).
Modified Galloway fails to disclose the controller of the robot… notifies the data collection device of an alarm or error code.
However, Hvass teaches the controller of the robot… notifies the data collection device of an alarm or error code (See at least Hvass Paragraphs 0038 and 0044, the robotic system, which includes the robotic controller, notifies the communication intervention system, which is interpreted as a data collection device, of an error code).
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 Galloway with Hvass have the robot controller notify the data collection device of an error code. This modification, as taught by Hvass, would allow the data collection device to classify the error based on the error code and generate a user interface based on the type of error, and display the user interface to the user (See at least Hvass Paragraph 0044), thus, allowing a user to resolve the error.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galloway in view of Hirose, and in further view of Yamaguchi et al (US 20250196318 A1) and Ghanime (US 6591296 B1) (Hereinafter referred to as Yamaguchi and Ghanime respectively)
Regarding Claim 4, modified Galloway fails to disclose determining that the robot has experienced an issue is performed by the support team, who then communicates information about the issue to…the data collection device.
However, Yamaguchi teaches determining that the robot has experienced an issue is performed by the support team (See at least Yamaguchi Paragraphs 0179, and 0219, the remote operator, which is interpreted as the support team, determines an anomaly/issue with the robot), who then communicates information about the issue to…the data collection device (See at least Yamaguchi Paragraphs 0086, 0179, and 0219, the anomaly/issue is communicated to the management server, which is interpreted as a data collection device).
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 Galloway with Yamaguchi to communicate the issue to the data collection device. This modification, as taught by Yamaguchi, would allow the system to analyze the cause of the issue/anomaly and select a safe control mode (See at least Yamaguchi Paragraphs 0219-0220), thus, improving the safety of the robot.
Modified Galloway fails to disclose the support team communicates information about the issue to…the robot operator.
However, modified Galloway does teach that the robot operator is located at the facility (See claim 1 rejection), and Ghanime does teach the support team communicates information about the issue to onsite personnel (See at least Ghanime Column 4 line 28-Column 5 line 6, the remote operator, which is interpreted as the support team, communicates the issue to the onsite personnel).
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 Galloway with Ghanime to communicate the issue to a robot operator located at the facility. This modification, as taught by Ghanime, would allow the robot operator located onsite to diagnose the error and fix the machinery (See at least Ghanime Column 4 line 58-Column 5 line 6), thus, improving the safety and efficiency of the system.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galloway in view of Hirose, and in further view of Roux et al (US 20230324898 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Roux)
Regarding Claim 5, modified Galloway teaches identifying one or more diagnostic files is performed by the controller of the robot or the data collection device (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0024-0025, and 0033-0034, the controller identifies and collects the diagnostic files/dynamic data).
Modified Galloway fails to disclose the diagnostic files are identified… based on an alarm or error code.
However, Roux teaches the diagnostic files are identified… based on an alarm or error code (See at least Roux Paragraphs 0029, 0037, 0045-0047, and 0093-0095, the diagnostic files/data is extracted/identified based on an error signal/code in the fault report).
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 Galloway with Roux to identify the diagnostic files based on an error code. This modification, as taught by Roux, would allow the system to extract the appropriate data segment/diagnostic files needed to diagnose the fault reason and generate a problem description information (See at least Roux Paragraphs 0029, and 0037), which would improve the diagnosis process.
Regarding Claim 16, Galloway teaches a method for providing active support for industrial robots (See at least Galloway Paragraph 0011), said method comprising:
determining by a controller of a robot that the robot has experienced an issue needing resolution (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0024-0025, the controller monitors predetermined conditions of the robot, which is interpreted as determining that the robot has experienced an issue needing resolution);
identifying diagnostic files needed for diagnosing the issue (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0025, 0029, and 0033-0034, the dynamic data is interpreted as diagnostic files needed for diagnosing the issue);
transferring one or more diagnostic files, by a data collection device co-located at a facility with the robot, from the controller of the robot to the data collection device (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0026, 0034, and Figure 1, the first data collection device extracts/transfers the dynamic data/diagnostic files from the controller), where the diagnostic files needed for diagnosing the issue are identified by the controller or the data collection device (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0024-0025, and 0033-0034, the controller identifies and collects the diagnostic files/dynamic data);
uploading the diagnostic files by the data collection device to a cloud-based diagnostic system located remotely from the facility (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0030, and 0037-0038, the dynamic data/diagnostic files are uploaded to a second data collection device/cloud-based diagnostic system located remotely from the facility/building);
…
determining a diagnosis of the issue based on the diagnostic files (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0038-0040, a diagnosis of the issue is determined based on the dynamic data/diagnostic files); and
resolving the issue based on the diagnosis (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0041-0042, the issue is resolved by initiating a maintenance action).
Galloway fails to disclose notifying a robot operator at the facility and a support team located remotely from the facility, by the diagnostic system, that the diagnostic files are available.
However, Hirose teaches notifying a robot operator at the facility and a support team located remotely from the facility, by the diagnostic system, that the diagnostic files are available (See at least Hirose Paragraphs 0040, 0078-0080, 0082-0085, 0088, and Figures 1, 4, and 7, displaying the measurement results indicating a malfunction on the display unit 14 and the remote computer 5 is interpreted as notifying a robot operator at the facility and a support team located remotely that the diagnostic files are available).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Galloway with Hirose to notify the robot operator and the support team that the diagnostic files are available. This modification, as taught by Hirose, would allow both the robot operator and the support team to see the diagnostic files indicating a malfunction, and the support team can confirm the malfunction (See at least Hirose Paragraphs 0078-0080, 0082-0085, 0088, and Figure 7), thus, increasing the awareness of both the operator and the support team and the redundancy of the system.
Modified Galloway fails to disclose the diagnostic files are identified… based on an alarm code identifying the issue.
However, Roux teaches the diagnostic files are identified… based on an alarm code identifying the issue (See at least Roux Paragraphs 0029, 0037, 0045-0047, and 0093-0095, the diagnostic files/data is extracted/identified based on an error signal, which is interpreted as an alarm code, identifying the issue in the fault report).
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 Galloway with Roux to identify the diagnostic files based on an alarm code identifying the issue. This modification, as taught by Roux, would allow the system to extract the appropriate data segment/diagnostic files needed to diagnose the fault reason and generate a problem description information (See at least Roux Paragraphs 0029, and 0037), which would improve the diagnosis process.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galloway in view of Hirose, and in further view of Tsubota et al (US 20180373852 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Tsubota)
Regarding Claim 6, modified Galloway fails to disclose identifying one or more diagnostic files is performed by the support team.
However, Tsubota teaches identifying one or more diagnostic files is performed by the support team (See at least Tsubota Paragraphs 0052 and 0054, the remote operator, which is interpreted as the support team, requests specific sensor information and failure function information, which is interpreted as identifying diagnostic files).
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 Galloway with Tsubota to have the support team identify one or more diagnostic files. This modification, as taught by Tsubota, would all the support team that is located remotely to access the diagnostic files (See at least Tsubota Paragraphs 0052 and 0054), which would improve the awareness of the support team.
Claims 7, 14, 18-19, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galloway in view of Hirose, and in further view of Rosenberg (US 10335962 B1) (Hereinafter referred to as Rosenberg)
Regarding Claim 7, modified Galloway fails to disclose determining a diagnosis of the issue is performed by the diagnostic system by comparing the diagnostic files to files stored in a knowledge base of prior robot issues and diagnoses.
However, Rosenberg teaches determining a diagnosis of the issue is performed by the diagnostic system by comparing the diagnostic files to files stored in a knowledge base of prior robot issues and diagnoses (See at least Rosenberg Column 14 lines 30-49, and Column 18 lines 25-38, diagnosis is performed by comparing the diagnosis files/fault information to information/files in a database with past anomalies and diagnoses).
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 Galloway with Rosenberg to determine a diagnosis by comparing the diagnostic files to files stored in a knowledge base. This modification, as taught by Rosenberg, would allow the system to rapidly analyze present discrepancies in real-time in light of past patterns (See at least Rosenberg Column 14 lines 30-49, and Column 18 lines 25-38), which would increase the efficiency of the diagnosis process.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Galloway teaches the controller of the robot and the data collection device are computing devices having a processor and memory (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0022 and 0026, the first collection data device is a logical disk incorporated in the memory of the controller, which includes a processor and memory), and the diagnostic system includes a computing device,…diagnostic software (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0011 and 0030, the diagnostic system/second collection device is a network server, which is interpreted as a computing device, and includes second level analyzation/diagnostic software)…
Modified Galloway fails to disclose the diagnostic system includes a database, and a user interface.
However, Rosenberg teaches the diagnostic system includes a database, and a user interface (See at least Rosenberg Column 14 lines 30-49, Column 18 lines 25-38, Column 23 lines 15-36, Column 24 lines 20-38, Column 26 lines 31-42, and Figure 9, the diagnostic system includes a database and a user interface).
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 Galloway with Rosenberg to have the diagnostic system include a database and a user interface. This modification, as taught by Rosenberg, would allow a user to view information regarding the diagnosis and fault status of the robot (at least Rosenberg Column 24 lines 20-38), and rapidly analyze present discrepancies in real-time in light of past patterns by using the database (See at least Rosenberg Column 14 lines 30-49, and Column 18 lines 25-38), which would increase the efficiency of the diagnosis process and increase the user awareness.
Regarding Claim 18, Galloway teaches a system for providing active support for industrial robots (See at least Galloway Paragraph 0011), said system comprising:
a plurality of robots and controllers operating at a facility (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0021-0022, and Figure 1, there are a plurality of robots at the facility, each with a controller);
a data collection device, having a processor and memory, located at the facility and in communication with the controllers (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0022 and 0026, the first collection data device is a logical disk incorporated in the memory of the controller, which includes a processor and memory, and is in communication with the controller); and
a diagnostic system, having a processor and memory,…diagnostic software…, located remotely from the facility and accessible via Internet connection (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0011 and 0030, the diagnostic system/second collection device is a network server, which is interpreted to include a processor and memory, includes second level analyzation/diagnostic software, and is located remotely and accessible via the network/internet connection),
wherein, when an issue with a particular one of the robots is identified, one or more diagnostic files are identified as being needed to diagnose the issue (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0024-0025, 0029, and 0033-0034, the controller monitors predetermined conditions of the robot, which is interpreted as identifying an issue, and the dynamic data is interpreted as diagnostic files needed for diagnosing the issue), the diagnostic files are automatically transferred from the controller of the particular robot to the data collection device (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0026, 0034, and Figure 1, the first data collection device extracts/transfers the dynamic data/diagnostic files from the controller) and uploaded by the data collection device to the diagnostic system (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0030, and 0037-0038, the dynamic data/diagnostic files are uploaded to the second data collection device/diagnostic system), a diagnosis of the issue is determined based on the diagnostic files (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0038-0040, a diagnosis of the issue is determined based on the dynamic data/diagnostic files), and the issue is resolved based on the diagnosis (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0041-0042, the issue is resolved by initiating a maintenance action).
Galloway fails to disclose a robot operator at the facility and a support team located remotely from the facility are notified by the diagnostic system that the diagnostic files are available.
However, Hirose teaches a robot operator at the facility and a support team located remotely from the facility are notified by the diagnostic system that the diagnostic files are available (See at least Hirose Paragraphs 0040, 0078-0080, 0082-0085, 0088, and Figures 1, 4, and 7, displaying the measurement results indicating a malfunction on the display unit 14 and the remote computer 5 is interpreted as notifying a robot operator at the facility and a support team located remotely that the diagnostic files are available).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Galloway with Hirose to notify the robot operator and the support team that the diagnostic files are available. This modification, as taught by Hirose, would allow both the robot operator and the support team to see the diagnostic files indicating a malfunction, and the support team can confirm the malfunction (See at least Hirose Paragraphs 0078-0080, 0082-0085, 0088, and Figure 7), thus, increasing the awareness of both the operator and the support team and the redundancy of the system.
Modified Galloway fails to disclose the diagnostic system includes a database, and a user interface.
However, Rosenberg teaches the diagnostic system includes a database, and a user interface (See at least Rosenberg Column 14 lines 30-49, Column 18 lines 25-38, Column 23 lines 15-36, Column 24 lines 20-38, Column 26 lines 31-42, and Figure 9, the diagnostic system includes a database and a user interface).
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 Galloway with Rosenberg to have the diagnostic system include a database and a user interface. This modification, as taught by Rosenberg, would allow a user to view information regarding the diagnosis and fault status of the robot (at least Rosenberg Column 24 lines 20-38), and rapidly analyze present discrepancies in real-time in light of past patterns by using the database (See at least Rosenberg Column 14 lines 30-49, and Column 18 lines 25-38), which would increase the efficiency of the diagnosis process and increase the user awareness.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Galloway teaches the diagnostic files include one or more of log files with history data, debug files, backup files, software program and configuration files, and files containing data about the robot at a moment when the issue occurred (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0024-0025, 0029, and 0033-0034, the dynamic data that is collected based on the predetermined condition is interpreted as data about the robot at a moment when the issue occurred).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Galloway fails to disclose the diagnosis of the issue is determined by the diagnostic system by comparing the diagnostic files to files stored in a knowledge base of prior robot issues and diagnoses, or by the support team or the robot operator.
However, Rosenberg teaches the diagnosis of the issue is determined by the diagnostic system by comparing the diagnostic files to files stored in a knowledge base of prior robot issues and diagnoses (See at least Rosenberg Column 14 lines 30-49, and Column 18 lines 25-38, diagnosis is performed by comparing the diagnosis files/fault information to information/files in a database with past anomalies and diagnoses).
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 Galloway with Rosenberg to determine a diagnosis by comparing the diagnostic files to files stored in a knowledge base. This modification, as taught by Rosenberg, would allow the system to rapidly analyze present discrepancies in real-time in light of past patterns (See at least Rosenberg Column 14 lines 30-49, and Column 18 lines 25-38), which would increase the efficiency of the diagnosis process.
Regarding Claim 24, modified Galloway teaches the issue includes a fault or error in hardware or software of the controller of the particular robot, a robot collision alert, or a problem with any mechanical or electrical component or subsystem of the robot (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0029, 0040, and 0042, the issue includes problems with mechanical components of the robot such as the bearings).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galloway in view of Hirose, and in further view of Jinandra et al (US 20250121496 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Jinandra)
Regarding Claim 8, modified Galloway fails to disclose determining a diagnosis of the issue is performed by the support team.
However, Jinandra teaches determining a diagnosis of the issue is performed by the support team (See at least Jinandra Paragraphs 0142 and 0146, the remote operator, which is interpreted as the support team, diagnoses the issue).
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 Galloway with Jinandra to have the remote support team diagnose the issue. This modification, as taught by Jinandra, would allow the support team to remotely diagnose and remedy the issue outside the robot workspace, thus, generating shorter downtimes (See at least Jinandra Paragraph 0142), which would increase the efficiency of the robot.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Galloway fails to disclose resolving the issue based on the diagnosis includes the support team electronically sending one or more of software files, configuration files and command instructions to the controller of the robot.
However, Jinandra teaches resolving the issue based on the diagnosis includes the support team electronically sending one or more of software files, configuration files and command instructions to the controller of the robot (See at least Jinandra Paragraphs 0140, 0142-0143, and 0146, the remote operator, which is interpreted as the support team, resolves the issue by sending command instructions to the controller of the robot).
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 Galloway with Jinandra to resolve the issue by the support team electronically sending command instructions to the controller of the robot. This modification, as taught by Jinandra, would allow the support team to remotely remedy the issue outside the robot workspace, thus, generating shorter downtimes (See at least Jinandra Paragraph 0142), which would increase the efficiency of the robot.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galloway in view of Hirose, and in further view of Sun et al (US 20220024038 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Sun)
Regarding Claim 9, modified Galloway fails to disclose determining a diagnosis of the issue is performed by the robot operator.
However, Sun teaches determining a diagnosis of the issue is performed by the robot operator (See at least Sun Paragraphs 0034 and 0064-0066, the user/robot operator identifies the failure source, which is interpreted as determining a diagnosis).
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 Galloway with Sun to have the robot operator determine a diagnosis of the issue. This modification, as taught by Sun, would allow the user/operator to identify the failure source and take appropriate action (See at least Sun Paragraph 0066), which would increase the safety of the system.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galloway in view of Hirose, and in further view of Asenjo et al (US 20140336795 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Asenjo)
Regarding Claim 15, modified Galloway teaches the robot is one of a plurality of robots operating at the facility (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0021 and Figure 1, there are a plurality of robots at the facility).
Modified Galloway fails to disclose other data collection devices at other facilities also communicate with the diagnostic system.
However, Asenjo teaches other data collection devices at other facilities also communicate with the diagnostic system (See at least Asenjo Paragraphs 0009, 0045-0046, and Figure 1, the diagnostic system receives data from a plurality of industrial facilities via the cloud gateways/data collection devices).
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 Galloway with Asenjo to have the diagnostic system communicate with other data collection devices at other facilities. This modification, as taught by Asenjo, would allow for aggregation, collation, collective big data analysis, and enterprise-level reporting without the need to establish a private network between the facilities (See at least Asenjo Paragraph 0045) and allow the diagnostic system to monitor the health and/or performance of respective automation systems or their associated industrial devices multiple industrial facilities that make up an enterprise (See at least Asenjo Paragraph 0046).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galloway in view of Hirose and Roux, and in further view of Rosenberg and Jinandra
Regarding Claim 17, modified Galloway fails to disclose determining a diagnosis of the issue is performed by the diagnostic system by comparing the diagnostic files to files stored in a knowledge base of prior robot issues and diagnoses.
However, Rosenberg teaches determining a diagnosis of the issue is performed by the diagnostic system by comparing the diagnostic files to files stored in a knowledge base of prior robot issues and diagnoses (See at least Rosenberg Column 14 lines 30-49, and Column 18 lines 25-38, diagnosis is performed by comparing the diagnosis files/fault information to information/files in a database with past anomalies and diagnoses).
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 Galloway with Rosenberg to determine a diagnosis by comparing the diagnostic files to files stored in a knowledge base. This modification, as taught by Rosenberg, would allow the system to rapidly analyze present discrepancies in real-time in light of past patterns (See at least Rosenberg Column 14 lines 30-49, and Column 18 lines 25-38), which would increase the efficiency of the diagnosis process.
Modified Galloway fails to disclose resolving the issue based on the diagnosis includes the support team electronically sending one or more of software files, configuration files and command instructions to the controller of the robot.
However, Jinandra teaches resolving the issue based on the diagnosis includes the support team electronically sending one or more of software files, configuration files and command instructions to the controller of the robot (See at least Jinandra Paragraphs 0140, 0142-0143, and 0146, the remote operator, which is interpreted as the support team, resolves the issue by sending command instructions to the controller of the robot).
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 Galloway with Jinandra to resolve the issue by the support team electronically sending command instructions to the controller of the robot. This modification, as taught by Jinandra, would allow the support team to remotely remedy the issue outside the robot workspace, thus, generating shorter downtimes (See at least Jinandra Paragraph 0142), which would increase the efficiency of the robot.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galloway in view of Hirose and Rosenberg, and in further view of Hvass
Regarding Claim 20, modified Galloway teaches the issue with the particular robot is identified by the robot operator who then notifies the support team of the issue, or by the controller of the particular robot (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0024-0025, the controller monitors predetermined conditions of the robot, which is interpreted as determining that the robot has experienced an issue)…, or by the support team who then communicates information about the issue to both the robot operator and the data collection device.
Modified Galloway fails to disclose the controller of the robot… notifies the data collection device of an alarm or error code.
However, Hvass teaches the controller of the robot… notifies the data collection device of an alarm or error code (See at least Hvass Paragraphs 0038 and 0044, the robotic system, which includes the robotic controller, notifies the communication intervention system, which is interpreted as a data collection device, of an error code).
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 Galloway with Hvass have the robot controller notify the data collection device of an error code. This modification, as taught by Hvass, would allow the data collection device to classify the error based on the error code and generate a user interface based on the type of error, and display the user interface to the user (See at least Hvass Paragraph 0044), thus, allowing a user to resolve the error.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galloway in view of Hirose and Rosenberg, and in further view of Roux
Regarding Claim 21, modified Galloway teaches the one or more diagnostic files are identified by the controller of the particular robot, by the data collection device, or by the support team, (See at least Galloway Paragraphs 0024-0025, and 0033-0034, the controller identifies and collects the diagnostic files/dynamic data).
Modified Galloway fails to disclose the diagnostic files are identified… based an alarm or error code.
However, Roux teaches the diagnostic files are identified… based an alarm or error code (See at least Roux Paragraphs 0029, 0037, 0045-0047, and 0093-0095, the diagnostic files/data is extracted/identified based on an error signal/code in the fault report).
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 Galloway with Roux to identify the diagnostic files based on an error code. This modification, as taught by Roux, would allow the system to extract the appropriate data segment/diagnostic files needed to diagnose the fault reason and generate a problem description information (See at least Roux Paragraphs 0029, and 0037), which would improve the diagnosis process
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galloway in view of Hirose and Rosenberg, and in further view of Couvignou
Regarding Claim 23, modified Galloway fails to disclose the issue is resolved by the robot operator or a service technician performing an action on the particular robot or the controller of the particular robot, or by the support team electronically sending one or more of software files, configuration files and command instructions to the controller of the particular robot.
However, Couvignou teaches the issue is resolved by the robot operator or a service technician performing an action on the particular robot (See at least Couvignou Paragraphs 0103- 0106, the skilled technician performs an action on the robot based on the diagnosis).
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 Galloway with Couvignou to resolve the issue by having a service technician perform an action on the robot. This modification, as taught by Couvignou, would fix defective robots (See at least Couvignou Paragraphs 0103- 0106), thus, improving the safety and efficiency of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, on Pages 8-9 of the remarks, that the prior art of Hirose fails to disclose “notifying a robot operator at the facility and a support team located remotely from the facility, by the diagnostic system, that the diagnostic files are available”. Applicant states that the diagnostic system is located remotely from the robot facility, and the diagnostic system notifies the robot operator at the robot facility and a support team remote from the facility that the diagnostic files are available. According to Applicant, Hirose does not teach or suggest any such communication path from a remote diagnostic system back to the robot facility. Applicant further states that the malfunction detection device 1 of Hirose is located at the manufacturing facility and not a remote place. Thus, Hirose does not disclose a diagnostic system located remotely from the robot facility notifying a robot operator at the facility and a support team located remotely from the facility that the diagnostic files are available.
However, Examiner disagrees. The teachings in Hirose are used to modify the teachings in Galloway. Galloway teaches a remote diagnostic system in Paragraph 0030. The cited portions of Hirose were used to teach that notifying a robot operator at the facility and a support team located remotely from the facility that the diagnostic files are available is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, Hirose does teach that the malfunction detection device 1, which corresponds to the diagnostic system, is located remotely as stated in Paragraph 0131.
PNG
media_image1.png
132
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The remote diagnostic system communicates from the remote place using a communication line. Therefore, both Galloway and Hirose teach a remote diagnostic system. Hirose teaches, in Paragraphs 0078-0080, 0082-0085, and 0088, that the remote diagnostic system notifies a robot operator at the facility and a support team located remotely from the facility that the diagnostic files are available by using a display and sounds. For these reasons, the claims still stand rejected under 103.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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