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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 4-5, filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims should distinguish the claim language from the disclosure of Zhang et al. US 201901606078 A1 (“Zhang”), particularly the limitations involving reading lines, where a set load is written, in an operation program and set a load to be displayed by animation. However, in FIG. 7, at block 206, a test robot program/path, e.g., test robot program/path 70, is generated. In one form, the test robot program/path 70 is generated automatically. For example, in some embodiments, program instructions configured for automatically generating test robot program/path 70 may be stored in a computer memory or a non-transitory computer readable storage medium accessible to the computer. A processor of the computer may execute the program instructions to generate test robot program/path 70. Test robot program/path 70 is configured for testing end effector 32/gripper 34 while gripping an object 44, in motion, with the maximum/peak loads within the predefined limits, e.g., as determined and tuned the process of FIGS. 3 and 6 [paragraph 44]. This means that in the disclosure of Zhang, the robot can read lines of instructions for an operation program and set a load based on those instructions. As best can be understood, this reads on the claim language as written. For these reasons, the rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. US 20190160678 A1 (“Zhang”) in view of Neubauer et al. US 20190224848 A1 (“Neubauer”) is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: claim language is awkward to the point of being confusing. Claim 1 reads “read lines, where a load in an animation is written, in the operation program…” in lines 7-8, and “store the set load and the load in the animation during simulation execution in the robot simulation device” in lines 10-11. As the claim is written, there is enough context to avoid indefiniteness, but it would be easy to confuse which load is meant by the language in lines 10-11. The examiner recommends amending the claim language to read “read lines, where an animation load is written,” and refer to the load in the animation as an “animation load” elsewhere in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. US 20190160678 A1 (“Zhang”) in view of Neubauer et al. US 20190224848 A1 (“Neubauer”).
Regarding Claim 1. Zhang teaches a robot simulation device which is executed by an offline programming system and which includes at least one robot in an offline workspace (A system integrator for a robot that identifies the maximum or peak loads (e.g., force and torque/moment) between the gripper and the picked object from an offline robot program simulation [paragraph 21]), the device comprising a processor, which is configured to:
read lines, where a set load is written, in an operation program of the at least one robot and set at least one of an end effector provided in the at least one robot and a related part of the end effector as a load (In FIG. 3, at block 106, mass property data for end effector 32, e.g., gripper 34, is imported into simulator 60. The mass property data includes, for example, weight, center of gravity, and inertia [paragraph 29]. At block 116, the force and torque (or moment) (and in some embodiments momentum) between end effector 32 (e.g., gripper 34) and object 44 are calculated, e.g., based at least in part on the simulated robot motion dynamic property data generated by and recorded from the offline simulation, and based on gravity loading. In some embodiments, momentum is also calculated [paragraph 34]. This would include the weight, and necessarily includes the weight (load) of the end effector. Further, in FIG. 7, at block 206, a test robot program/path, e.g., test robot program/path 70, is generated. In one form, the test robot program/path 70 is generated automatically. For example, in some embodiments, program instructions configured for automatically generating test robot program/path 70 may be stored in a computer memory or a non-transitory computer readable storage medium accessible to the computer. A processor of the computer may execute the program instructions to generate test robot program/path 70. Test robot program/path 70 is configured for testing end effector 32/gripper 34 while gripping an object 44, in motion, with the maximum/peak loads within the predefined limits, e.g., as determined and tuned the process of FIGS. 3 and 6 [paragraph 44], which means that the robot can read lines of instructions for an operation program and set a load based on those instructions),
read lines, where a load in an animation is written, in the operation program and set a load to be exerted on the at least one robot in the simulation device and which is to be displayed by animation (the simulation results may then be used to guide gripper selection and design [paragraph 21]. The test robot program may be configured to test end effector 32 (e.g., gripper 34) and object 44 with the maximum load within the predefined limit, i.e., maximum load or a reduced maximum load (e.g., reduced by use of the tuning described herein) that is within the predefined limit(s). For example, in some embodiments, testing is performed with the same maximum force and torque (and in some embodiments momentum) between end effector 32 and object 44 identified in the offline simulation or identified and reduced through tuning in the offline simulation [paragraph 27]. FIG. 2 shows a simulator at 60, which may display the robot simulation program, either in 2D, 3D, virtual reality or an augmented headset [paragraph 22], meaning an animation of the second load can be displayed),
store the set load and the load in the animation during simulation execution in the robot simulation device (At block 206, a test robot program/path, e.g., test robot program/path 70, is generated. In one form, the test robot program/path 70 is generated automatically. For example, in some embodiments, program instructions configured for automatically generating test robot program/path 70 may be stored in a computer memory or a non-transitory computer readable storage medium accessible to the computer [paragraph 44, FIGS. 3 and 6]).
Zhang does not teach:
The processor is further configured to:
compare a difference between the set load and the load in the animation with a predetermined threshold, and
warn when the difference between the set load and the load in the animation is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold.
However, Neubauer teaches:
The processor is further configured to:
compare a difference between the set load and the load in the animation with a predetermined threshold, and
warn when the difference between the set load and the load in the animation is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold (Process flow then proceeds to block 110 of FIG. 3, wherein the modified production robot program/path 68 is imported into simulator 60 software. The process of blocks 110-130 is repeated until each maximum/peak force and torque (and in some embodiments momentum) is reduced to being within the predefined limits. For example, in a first pass, the maximum/peak load at a particular location along the robot path may exceed the predefined limit and be reduced. After this point the next lowest maximum/peak, e.g., at a different location along the robot path, will be compared to the predefined limits, and if greater than the predefined limits, changes to the production robot program/path parameters will be made, and so on, until the loads (e.g., force, torque and/or in some embodiments, momentum) along the robot path are within the predefined limits [paragraph 40, FIGS. 3-6]. In short, the system for the robot is comparing a predefined load limit with a calculated load force and if the calculated load force exceeds the stored load, changing the robot production program until the loads along the robot path are within predefined limits [paragraph 40]. A warning message can be output via a user interface for machine components whose frequency of entering a collision-prone space can be output to the user [paragraph 25]. This is only one example. Other examples of warning messages are described in paragraph 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Zhang with the processor is further configured to: compare a difference between the set load and the load in the animation with a predetermined threshold, and warn when the difference between the set load and the load in the animation is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold as taught by Neubauer so that the user can receive warnings when a significant difference between the set load and the animation load is large enough to cause a problem.
Regarding Claim 3. ZhAdditionally, in at least one embodiment, where the plausibility criterion has been satisfied when the frequency of the occurrence of at least one machine component exceeds a predefined threshold value, wherein the warning message contains, for each machine component whose frequency exceeds the predefined threshold value, the notification that this machine component has possibly been modeled incorrectly (for example on an excessively large scale or too roughly) [paragraph 23]ang in combination with Neubauer teaches the robot simulation device according to claim 1.
Zhang does not teach:
wherein different warnings depending on the predetermined threshold are output.
However, Neubauer teaches:
wherein different warnings depending on the predetermined threshold are output (Paragraph 39 shows a variety of warnings that can be output to describe different scenarios. For example, a warning message WA is output in a scenario to notify the user that there is a possible error in the machine model. In another example, a proposal for a suitable planner on the basis of the relative volume of the collision-free movement space can also possibly be provided when outputting the warning message WA. In this case, planners with systematic searches are proposed via the warning notification in the case of relatively small volumes, whereas sampling-based planners are recommended in the case of larger volumes [paragraph 40]. In the embodiment just described, the plausibility criterion PK is configured in such a manner that a warning message WA is output when the relative frequency of at least one machine component exceeds a predefined threshold. In this case, the warning message also states which machine components have exceeded the threshold. The user also receives the notification that these machine components could have been modeled on an excessively large scale or too roughly in the machine model [paragraph 44], indicating that warnings can differ depending on how accurate the model is or on what options are available to avoid further issues).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Zhang with wherein different warnings depending on the predetermined threshold are output as taught by Neubauer so that the user can receive different warnings when different issues arise, particularly when different actions need to be taken to avoid further damage to the robot system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON G CAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 7:30am - 4:30pm EST to Friday 7:30pm - 4:30am.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/AARON G CAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656