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 5, 8, and 10 has/have been amended. Claims 1-11 are pending and examined below.
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 limitations are:
a motion simulation execution unit configured to…
a drive sound generation unit configured to…
a sound recording unit configured to…
a relationship extraction unit configured to…
a drive sound simulation unit configured to…
a learning unit that learns…
in claims 1-11.
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 § 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 1-11 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.
Claim limitations
a motion simulation execution unit configured to…
a drive sound generation unit configured to…
a sound recording unit configured to…
a relationship extraction unit configured to…
a drive sound simulation unit configured to…
a learning unit that learns…
invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20060184275 A1 (“Hosokawa”) in view of US 20030083784 A1 (“Nagai”).
As per Claim 1, Hosakawa discloses robot simulation device comprising:
a motion simulation execution unit configured to execute a motion simulation of a robot in accordance with a motion program (¶ 42—“a robot simulation device can teach motions of a robot in similar surroundings”); and
Nagai teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Hosokawa, including namely a drive sound generation unit configured to simulate and generate, based on drive sound data that are acquired by recording a drive sound of an actual robot, a drive sound matching a motion state of the robot in the motion simulation (¶ 2—“a telemanipulating system that presents simulatively generated operating sound of the robot arm to an operator of the robot arm in a form of auditory information”; ¶ 54—“a motor sound is recorded by sampling in advance is employed as sound source”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hosokawa to include the limitations as taught by Nagai to provide a robot-arm telemanipulating system that presents an operator auditory information converted from a part of information on operating status of the robot arm (hereinafter referred to as "telemetry data") transmitted from a distant position from the operator, so that a burden imposed on the operator can be alleviated (Nagai: ¶ 13).
As per Claim 2, Nagai teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Hosokawa, including namely wherein the drive sound data have a structure in which a predetermined parameter relating to the motion state and a drive sound of the robot corresponding to the predetermined parameter are associated with each other (¶ 54—“a motor sound is recorded by sampling in advance is employed as sound source”; ¶ 14—“simulatively generating an operating sound of the robot arm under telemanipulation, capable of variably controlling at least one of key, volume and tone of the operating sound by sound source”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hosokawa to include the limitations as taught by Nagai to provide a robot-arm telemanipulating system that presents an operator auditory information converted from a part of information on operating status of the robot arm (hereinafter referred to as "telemetry data") transmitted from a distant position from the operator, so that a burden imposed on the operator can be alleviated (Nagai: ¶ 13).
As per Claim 3, Nagai teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Hosokawa, including namely a sound recording unit configured to record a drive sound from the actual robot and generates the drive sound data (¶ 54—“a motor sound is recorded by sampling in advance is employed as sound source”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hosokawa to include the limitations as taught by Nagai to provide a robot-arm telemanipulating system that presents an operator auditory information converted from a part of information on operating status of the robot arm (hereinafter referred to as "telemetry data") transmitted from a distant position from the operator, so that a burden imposed on the operator can be alleviated (Nagai: ¶ 13).
As per Claim 4, Nagai teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Hosokawa, including namely wherein the drive sound of the actual robot is a drive sound that is collected while changing at least one of speed, acceleration, a posture, and a wrist load of the actual robot (¶ 49—“the key of the simulated motor sound goes up along a gentle straight slope with the increase of the load in a load range not greater than 13N, while the straight slope of the key of the motor sound becomes steeper in a load range exceeding 13N”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hosokawa to include the limitations as taught by Nagai to provide a robot-arm telemanipulating system that presents an operator auditory information converted from a part of information on operating status of the robot arm (hereinafter referred to as "telemetry data") transmitted from a distant position from the operator, so that a burden imposed on the operator can be alleviated (Nagai: ¶ 13).
As per Claim 5, Nagai teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Hosokawa, including namely wherein
the drive sound generation unit includes:
a relationship extraction unit configured to extract a relationship between the predetermined parameter and a drive sound of the robot, based on the drive sound data (¶ 49—“the key of the simulated motor sound goes up along a gentle straight slope with the increase of the load in a load range not greater than 13N, while the straight slope of the key of the motor sound becomes steeper in a load range exceeding 13N”); and
a drive sound simulation unit configured to simulate, based on the extracted relationship (¶ 49—“the key of the simulated motor sound goes up along a gentle straight slope with the increase of the load in a load range not greater than 13N, while the straight slope of the key of the motor sound becomes steeper in a load range exceeding 13N”),
the drive sound matching the predetermined parameter representing a motion state of the robot in the motion simulation (¶ 49—“the key of the simulated motor sound goes up along a gentle straight slope with the increase of the load in a load range not greater than 13N, while the straight slope of the key of the motor sound becomes steeper in a load range exceeding 13N”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hosokawa to include the limitations as taught by Nagai to provide a robot-arm telemanipulating system that presents an operator auditory information converted from a part of information on operating status of the robot arm (hereinafter referred to as "telemetry data") transmitted from a distant position from the operator, so that a burden imposed on the operator can be alleviated (Nagai: ¶ 13).
As per Claim 6, Nagai teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Hosokawa, including namely wherein the relationship extraction unit includes a learning unit that learns the relationship by machine learning and constructs a learning model representing the relationship (¶ 14—"a sound source for simulatively generating an operating sound of the robot arm under telemanipulation, capable of variably controlling at least one of key, volume and tone of the operating sound by sound source control data input from outside”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hosokawa to include the limitations as taught by Nagai to provide a robot-arm telemanipulating system that presents an operator auditory information converted from a part of information on operating status of the robot arm (hereinafter referred to as "telemetry data") transmitted from a distant position from the operator, so that a burden imposed on the operator can be alleviated (Nagai: ¶ 13).
As per Claim 7, Nagai teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Hosokawa, including namely wherein the learning unit learns and extracts, as the relationship, a relation between the predetermined parameter and sound pressure for each frequency component that is acquired by dividing a characteristic in a frequency domain of a drive sound of the robot into a plurality of frequency components (¶ 58—“a virtual motor sound that will raise its key with an increase of load amount applied to the robot arm is presented to the operator in a form of auditory information”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hosokawa to include the limitations as taught by Nagai to provide a robot-arm telemanipulating system that presents an operator auditory information converted from a part of information on operating status of the robot arm (hereinafter referred to as "telemetry data") transmitted from a distant position from the operator, so that a burden imposed on the operator can be alleviated (Nagai: ¶ 13).
As per Claim 8, Nagai teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Hosokawa, including namely wherein
the robot is a multi-axis robot (Fig. 2),
the drive sound data have a structure in which with respect to each axis constituting the robot, the predetermined parameter and a drive sound of the robot corresponding to the predetermined parameter are associated with each other (¶ 24—“In each of the joints 1C, 1E, 1G, 1H and 1J an individually controlled DC brushless motor, a rotary encoder for detecting rotation of the motor, etc. are incorporated, so that each joint can rotate”; ¶ 53—“without limitation to the motor sound, it is also preferable to simulate a sound that may be generated from moving parts of the robot arm 1, for example to output a simulative squeaking noise of gears or bearings”),
the relationship extraction unit extracts a relationship between the predetermined parameter and a drive sound of the robot with respect to each axis (¶ 15—“a key of the operating sound will be higher with an increase of the load amount applied to the robot arm”), and
the drive sound simulation unit generates, based on the relationship, a drive sound of each axis of the robot matching the predetermined parameter representing the motion state of the robot under the motion simulation and synthesizes the generated drive sound of each axis (¶ 15—"a key of the operating sound will be higher with an increase of the load amount applied to the robot arm”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hosokawa to include the limitations as taught by Nagai to provide a robot-arm telemanipulating system that presents an operator auditory information converted from a part of information on operating status of the robot arm (hereinafter referred to as "telemetry data") transmitted from a distant position from the operator, so that a burden imposed on the operator can be alleviated (Nagai: ¶ 13).
As per Claim 9, Nagai teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Hosokawa, including namely wherein the predetermined parameter includes at least one of torque of a motor, rotational speed of the motor, torque of a speed reducer, and rotational speed of the speed reducer (¶ 46—“Meanwhile, according to this embodiment a motor sound sampled in advance is recorded in the MIDI sampler 17 that is employed as a sound source, so that the telemetry analyzing terminal 15, acting as means for analyzing telemetry data, will analyze the telemetry data related to force or torque applied to the hand portion 1K of the robot arm 1, and output a signal (MIDI message) designating a key of the motor sound corresponding to the telemetry data to the MIDI sampler 17”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hosokawa to include the limitations as taught by Nagai to provide a robot-arm telemanipulating system that presents an operator auditory information converted from a part of information on operating status of the robot arm (hereinafter referred to as "telemetry data") transmitted from a distant position from the operator, so that a burden imposed on the operator can be alleviated (Nagai: ¶ 13).
As per Claim 10, Nagai teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Hosokawa, including namely wherein
the robot is a multi-axis robot (Fig. 2),
the predetermined parameter includes a first predetermined parameter relating to a motor and a second predetermined parameter relating to a speed reducer (¶ 46—“Meanwhile, according to this embodiment a motor sound sampled in advance is recorded in the MIDI sampler 17 that is employed as a sound source, so that the telemetry analyzing terminal 15, acting as means for analyzing telemetry data, will analyze the telemetry data related to force or torque applied to the hand portion 1K of the robot arm 1, and output a signal (MIDI message) designating a key of the motor sound corresponding to the telemetry data to the MIDI sampler 17”),
the drive sound data have a structure in which with respect to each axis constituting the robot, the first predetermined parameter and a drive sound of the motor alone corresponding to the first predetermined parameter are associated with each other and the second predetermined parameter and a drive sound of the speed reducer alone corresponding to the second predetermined parameter are also associated with each other (¶ 24—“In each of the joints 1C, 1E, 1G, 1H and 1J an individually controlled DC brushless motor, a rotary encoder for detecting rotation of the motor, etc. are incorporated, so that each joint can rotate”; ¶ 53—“without limitation to the motor sound, it is also preferable to simulate a sound that may be generated from moving parts of the robot arm 1, for example to output a simulative squeaking noise of gears or bearings”),
the relationship extraction unit extracts a first relationship between the first predetermined parameter and a drive sound of the motor alone and also extracts a second relationship between the second predetermined parameter and a drive sound of the speed reducer alone (¶ 15—“a key of the operating sound will be higher with an increase of the load amount applied to the robot arm”), and
the drive sound simulation unit generates, based on the first relationship and the second relationship, a drive sound of the motor alone and a drive sound of the speed reducer alone corresponding to the first predetermined parameter and the second predetermined parameter representing the motion state of the robot under the motion simulation, respectively and synthesizes the generated drive sound of the motor alone and drive sound of the speed reducer alone with respect to each axis (¶ 15—"a key of the operating sound will be higher with an increase of the load amount applied to the robot arm”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hosokawa to include the limitations as taught by Nagai to provide a robot-arm telemanipulating system that presents an operator auditory information converted from a part of information on operating status of the robot arm (hereinafter referred to as "telemetry data") transmitted from a distant position from the operator, so that a burden imposed on the operator can be alleviated (Nagai: ¶ 13)
As per Claim 11, Nagai teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Hosokawa, including namely wherein the first predetermined parameter includes at least one of torque and rotational speed of the motor, and the second predetermined parameter includes at least one of torque and rotational speed of the speed reducer (¶ 46—“Meanwhile, according to this embodiment a motor sound sampled in advance is recorded in the MIDI sampler 17 that is employed as a sound source, so that the telemetry analyzing terminal 15, acting as means for analyzing telemetry data, will analyze the telemetry data related to force or torque applied to the hand portion 1K of the robot arm 1, and output a signal (MIDI message) designating a key of the motor sound corresponding to the telemetry data to the MIDI sampler 17”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hosokawa to include the limitations as taught by Nagai to provide a robot-arm telemanipulating system that presents an operator auditory information converted from a part of information on operating status of the robot arm (hereinafter referred to as "telemetry data") transmitted from a distant position from the operator, so that a burden imposed on the operator can be alleviated (Nagai: ¶ 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BASIL T JOS whose telephone number is (571)270-5915. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 8:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/Basil T. Jos/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658