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
This is a nonfinal in response to the RCE filed on 01/22/2026. Claims 1-4, 7, and 9-13 remain pending. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended. Claims 5-6 and 8 have been cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: For claim 9, there should be a semi colon after joints in line 2, and “a working unit” in lines 9-10 should be “the working unit” since the working unit has already been introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 7, 9-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimbara et al (US 5625197 A) in view of Tokutake et al (US 20050283275 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Shimbara and Tokutake respectively)
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Miyazaki teaches a robot system (See at least Shimbara Column 3 lines 8-26 and Figure 1, the surface inspection system is interpreted as a robot system) comprising:
a robot (See at least Shimbara Column 3 lines 39-46) comprising:
…a working unit including a line or area camera (See at least Shimbara Column 2 lines 50-51, Column 3 lines 39-56, and Figure 4, the image pick-up devices are interpreted as an area camera), on a distal end part of the…robot (See at least Shimbara Column 3 lines 39-56, and Figure 1, the image pick-up devices are at the distal end of the robot)…, and configured to work with a workpiece (See at least Shimbara Column 3 lines 39-56, and Figure 1, the image pick-up devices work with a vehicle body/workpiece);
a robot controller configured or programmed to control movement of the…robot…(See at least Shimbara Column 3 line 57-Column 4 line 21 and Figure 1, the robot drive unit is interpreted as the robot controller), and to direct the…robot…to move the working unit relative to the workpiece along a curve along a surface of the workpiece (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 22-57 and Figure 3c, the robot moves the working unit/image pick-up devices relative to the workpiece/vehicle body along the curved surface);
a signal output configured to output a signal based on a relative moving amount of the working unit for each of the relative moving amount of the working unit relative to the workpiece in movement of the workpiece or the working unit (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 22-54, and Column 7 lines 10-25, the pulse generator 24/signal output outputs a pulse signal based on the relative moving amount/scanning interval of the working unit relative to the workpiece/vehicle body), wherein the relative moving amount is based on control points specific to a type of the working unit (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 22-54, Column 6 lines 14-19, and Column 7 lines 1-25, the relative moving amount/scanning interval is based on imaging/control points, which are specific to the image pick-up device)…; and
a work controller configured or programmed to control working of the working unit with the workpiece (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 14-17, the robot control unit is interpreted as the work controller) based on the signal that is output by the signal output to direct the working unit to capture an image for each of the relative moving amount of the working unit (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 22-54, Column 6 lines 14-19, and Column 7 lines 10-25, for each of the relative moving amount/scanning interval of the working unit, the signal output/pulse generator 24 directs the working unit to capture an image), and to direct the working unit to work with the workpiece by a constant moving amount based on the signal that is output by the signal output/received by the robot (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 22-54, Column 6 lines 14-19, and Column 7 lines 10-25, the working unit works with the workpiece for each scanning interval, which is a constant moving amount, based on the signal from the pulse generator 24).
Shimbara fails to explicitly disclose the robot comprises a multi-joint robot arm including a plurality of joints.
However, Tokutake teaches the robot comprises a multi-joint robot arm including a plurality of joints (See at least Tokutake Paragraph 0030 and Figure 1, the plurality of axes are interpreted as the plurality of joints).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Shimbara with Tokutake to have the robot comprises a multi-joint robot arm including a plurality of joints. Robot arms with a plurality of joints are routine and well-understood in the art of robotics, and by having a plurality of joints, as taught by Tokutake, the robot can move along multiple axes (See at least Tokutake Paragraph 0030 and Figure 1), which increases the operability of the robot.
Regarding Claims 2-3, modified Shimbara teaches the signal output outputs the signal, which is output based on the relative moving amount of the working unit (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 22-54, and Column 7 lines 1-25, the pulse generator 24/signal output outputs the signal based on the relative moving amount/scanning interval;)
wherein the signal output outputs a predetermined pulse signal for each of the relative moving amount of the working unit relative to the workpiece (Shimbara Column 4 lines 22-54, and Column 7 lines 1-25, the pulse generator 24/signal output outputs a predetermined/image read-in pulse signal for each relative moving amount/scanning interval).
Modified Shimbara fails to disclose outputting the signal…by using a variable frequency pulse signal for each of the relative moving amount of the working unit relative to the workpiece.
However, Tokutake teaches using a variable frequency pulse signal for each of the relative moving amount of the working unit relative to the workpiece (See at least Tokutake Paragraphs 0018-0021, 0034, and 0059-0062, the moving distance of the manipulator/working unit on the front end corresponds to the number/frequency of pulses)
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 Shimbara with Tokutake to output the signal by using a variable frequency pulse signal. Tokutake teaches that each pulse signal corresponds to a moving distance, and the number/frequency of pulses indicates the total relative moving distance between the working unit and the workpiece (See at least Tokutake Paragraphs 0018-0021, 0034, and 0059-0066). By using a variable frequency pulse signal, as taught by Tokutake, the operator can rapidly and precisely control the relative movement between the working unit and workpiece (See at least Tokutake Paragraphs 0018-0021).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Shimbara teaches the work controller is configured or programmed to control the working of the working unit with the workpiece based on the signal output by the signal output as a trigger (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 14-17, and Column 4 lines 44-54, the signal output by the pulse generator/signal output is a trigger for the working unit/image pick-up devices to image the workpiece ).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Shimbara teaches the signal output outputs, based on relative movements of a plurality of positions of the working unit, a plurality of signals each of which corresponds to one of the plurality of positions of the working unit (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 22-57, Column 7 lines 10-25, and Figures 3c and 6, the pulse generator 24/signal output outputs signals at each scanning interval for the entire surface of the vehicle, which is interpreted as a plurality of signals which correspond to a plurality of positions of the working unit).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Shimbara teaches the signal output outputs the signal, which is output based on the relative moving amount of the working unit, by using a pulse signal for each of the relative moving amount of the working unit relative to the workpiece (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 22-54, and Column 7 lines 1-25, the pulse generator 24/signal output outputs the signal based on the relative moving amount/scanning interval by using the pulse signals from the pulse generators 21 and 22).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Shimbara teaches the signal output comprises a first processor configured to generate the signal (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 37-54 and Figure 2, the signal generator 24 is the signal output, and signal generators have a processor) and the work controller comprises a second processor configured to control working of the working unit (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 14-17 and Figure 1, the robot control unit is the work controller, and control units/controllers have processors).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Shimbara teaches the signal output comprises a first processor configured to generate the signal (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 37-54 and Figure 2, the signal generator 24 is the signal output, and signal generators have a processor) and the robot controller comprises a second processor configured to control the movement of the multi-joint robot arm (See at least Shimbara Column 3 line 57-Column 4 line 21 and Figure 1, the robot drive unit/controller, which is known in the art for having a processor, is used to control the movement of the robot).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimbara in view of Tokutake, and in further view of Sato et al (US 20200101621 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Sato)
Regarding Claim 11, modified Shimbara fails to disclose the signal output outputs a relative position of the working unit relative to the workpiece based on the movement of the workpiece or the working unit.
However, Sato teaches the signal output outputs a relative position of the working unit relative to the workpiece based on the movement of the workpiece or the working unit (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0071-0080, and Figures 10-11, the distance/relative position between the working unit/TCP and workpiece is output based on the movement of the working unit/TCP on the distal end).
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 Shimbara with Sato to output a relative position of the working unit relative to the workpiece based on the movement of the working unit. By outputting a relative position between the working unit and the workpiece as the working unit arranged on the distal end is moved, as taught by Sato, the robot arm is controlled so that the working unit is within a reference range relative to the surface of the workpiece, which would reduce the risk of the working unit colliding with the workpiece while improving the quality of the result of the work (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0071-0080).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9 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 has amended the independent claims to recite that the working unit includes a line or area camera. This limitation is taught by newly added reference Shimbara, which teaches a robot with an area camera, the robot moves relative to the workpiece, which is a vehicle body, a signal output configured to output a signal for each relative moving amount/scanning interval, and a work controller to capture an image for each relative moving amount. Therefore, the claims still stand rejected under 103.
Conclusion
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